TITLE: Tulio vs Buhangin A.C. No.

7110

COMPLAINANT: RESPONDENT: Date: April 20, 2016

Arthur Tulio Atty. Gregory Buhangin
Ponente: Peralata, J.:

RULE 15.03- A LAWYER SHALL NOT REPRESENT CONFLICTING INTEREST

DOCTRINE: EXCEPT BY WRITTEN CONSENT OF ALL CONCERNED GIVEN AFTER A FULL
DISCLOSURE OF THE FACTS

FACTS:

Tulio sought the services of Buhangin to survey a land before the latter was a lawyer. The
survey was for the estate left by the mother of Tulio. When Buhangin became a lawyer, Tulio
sought his legal services concerning the property owned by his mother that was allegedly
transferred to third persons.
By virtue of Tulio’s agreement with his siblings, Buhangin prepared and notarised a Deed of
Waiver of Rights which was signed by all of his siblings in his favor. Afterwards, Tulio
engaged the services of Buhangin to represent him in the filing of a case for specific
performance and damages against the heirs of Palacsil (the third persons to whom the
property was transferred to). They parties to such case agreed to a settlement wherein Tulio
shall exclusively pay the defendants.
However, with Tulio surprised, Buhangin represented his siblings and filed a complaint
against Tulio over legal matters which he had entrusted to him. A civil case was filed a
against Tulio by Buhangin for recission of the deed of waiver of rights which he himself
prepared and notarised. Tulio further alleged that Buhangin made misrepresentation in the
complaint since he knew that his siblings already waived the rights in favour of him. Hence,
Tulio immediately filed a motion to disqualify for his unethical conduct.
However, Buhangin already filed a motion to withdraw as counsel. He stated in his motion
that he wanted to withdraw because of conflict of interest.
Because of these, Tulio filed a disbarment case against Buhangin.
In his defense, he alleged that he was actually representing the estate of Angeline Tulio, and
the representation was neither direct nor personal to complainant herein. Hence, there was
no conflict of interest when he represented the heirs in the recession case because Buhangin
was merely protecting the rights of the other heirs.
In his position paper, Tulio pointed out 1) the motion to withdraw filed by Buhangin, and
2)he submitted the correspondences made and prepared by Buhangin prior to the
institution of Civil case for specific performance which was addressed to Patacsil. Thus, he
maintained that Buhangin violated the lawyer’s oath, and CPR when he acted against Tulio in
the case for recission.
The IBP-CBD found Buhangin guilty for conflict of interest.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the act of representing the other heirs of Angeline Tulio against
complainant amounted to a violation of the lawyer’s oath and CPR because there was
conflict of interest
HELD:

1. The court ruled in affirmative. Canon 15 provides that a lawyer shall observe candor,
fairness, and loyalty in all his dealings and transactions with his clients, and Rule 15.03
states that a lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by written consent of
all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts. Further Canon 17 states that a
lawyer owes fideilty to the cause of his client and shall be mindful of the trust and
confidence reposed in him. The relationship between a lawyer and his client should
ideally be imbued with the highest level of trust and confidence. This is the standard of
confidentiality that must prevail to promote a full disclosure of the clients most
confidential information to his or her lawyer for an unhampered exchange of information
between them. The lawyer is duty bound to observe candor, fairness and loyalty in all
dealings and transactions with the client. To be held accountable under this rule, it is
enough that the opposing parties in one case, one of whom would lose the suit, are
present clients and the nature or conditions of the lawyers respective retainers with each
of them would affect the performance of the duty of undivided fidelity to both clients.
Jurisprudence has provided 3 tests in determining whether a violation of the above rules is
present in a given case:
1. one test is whether a lawyer is duty bound to fight for an issue or claim in behalf of
one client and at the same time, to oppose that claim for the other client.
2. Another test of inconsistency of interest is whether the acceptance of a new relation
would prevent the full discharge of the lawyers duty of undivided fidelity and loyalty
to the client or invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or double dealing in the
performance of that duty.
3. Another test, whether the lawyer would be called upon in the new relation use
against a former client to use against a former client any confidential information
acquired through their connection or previous employment
4.
On the basis of the attendant facts of the case, there was find substantial evidence to support
Atty. Buhangin’s violation of the above rules, as established by the following circumstances
on record:
First, he already admitted the conflict of interest in the motion to withdraw

Second, there was attorney-client relationship with complainant as evidenced by the

demand letters which Buhangin prepared specifically for him

Third, Buhangin failed to satisfactorily show any circumstance where he was

 actually representing the heirs of Tulio and not the complainant directly and
personally.

The Court also took note that the case for rescission and specific performance involved the
same subject property. This is also the same property for the deed of waiver of rights.
Clearly these acts runs counter and in conflict with the subsequent rescission case because
he took an inconsistent position against complainant whom he has defended and protected
as a client in the past. The Court noted that even if the inconsistency is remote or merely
probably or even if he acted in good faith and with no intention to represent conflicting
interests, it is still a violation of the conflict of interest rule.

SUSPENSION 6 months.