EN BANC Atty. Era was re$uired to file his Comment.

After
A.C. No. 6664 July 16, 2013 several e0tensions, Atty. Era finally filed his Comment
FERDINAND A. SAMSON, Complainant, vs. on April 88, - in the %*C. He lle!e" #$# #$e
ATTY. EDGARDO O. ERA, Respondent. l%ye&'(l)e*# &el#)o*+$) e*"e" %$e* S-+o*
*" $)+ !&ou e*#e&e" )*#o #$e (o-&o-)+e
+e##le-e*#.
The complainant and his relatives were among the
investors who fell prey to the pyramiding scam
The case was referred to I* for investigation, report
perpetrated by ICS Corporation led by Emilia Sison
and recommendation.
and several others. They engaged the services of
Atty. Era to represent and assist him and his relatives
IB Re(o--e*"#)o*/ the Investigating
in the prosecution of criminal case against Sison and
Commissioner found Atty. Era guilty of misconduct for
her group.
representing conflicting interests, failing to serve his
client with competence and diligence and champion
ursuant to the engagement, Atty. Era prepared the
the latter7s cause with wholehearted fidelity, care and
demand letter demanding the return or refund of the
devotion 9 +u+e*"e" &o- #$e &(#)(e o l% o&
money sub!ect of their complaints. "e also prepared
6 -o*#$+
the complaint#affidavit that Samson signed and swore
to and subse$uently presented to the %ffice of the
IB Bo&" o Goe&*o&+/ adopted and approved the
City rosecutor of &ue'on City (%C&C). After the
I* recommendation with modification that Atty. Era
preliminary investigation, the %C&C formally
be +u+e*"e" &o- #$e &(#)(e o l% o& 2
charged Sison and the others with several counts of
ye&+.
estafa in the Regional Trial Court, *ranch + (RTC),
in &ue'on City.
I++ue/
:hether or not Atty. Era violated the Code of
In April -/, Atty. Era called a meeting with Samson
rofessional Responsibility on conflict of interests.
and his relatives to discuss the possibility of an
amicable settlement with Sison and her cohorts. "e
Rul)*!.
told Samson and the others that undergoing a trial of
YES. The Supreme Court affirmed the findings of the
the cases would !ust be a waste of time, money and
I*.
effort for them, and that they could settle the cases
with Sison and her group, with him guaranteeing the
The lawyer#client relationship did not terminate when
turnover to them of a certain property located in
the parties entered into a compromise settlement, for
Antipolo City belonging to ICS Corporation in
the fact remained that he still needed to oversee the
e0change for their desistance. They acceded and
implementation of the settlement as well as to
e0ecuted the affidavit of desistance he prepared, and
proceed with the criminal cases until they were
in turn they received a deed of assignment covering
dismissed or otherwise concluded by the trial court. It
land registered under Transfer Certificate of Title 1o.
is also relevant to indicate that the e0ecution of a
R#2234 e0ecuted by Sison in behalf of ICS
compromise settlement in the criminal cases did not
Corporation.
ipso facto cause the termination of the cases not only
because the approval of the compromise by the trial
After an amicable settlement and several
court was still re$uired, but also because the
negotiations with Sison and her cohorts, Atty. Era
compromise would have applied only to the civil
e0pressed that he already accomplished his
aspect, and e0cluded the criminal aspect pursuant to
professional responsibility towards Samson. They
Article -/2 of the Civil Code.
also later found out that they could not li$uidate the
property sub!ect to the amicable settlement. 5uring
Rule 1.03, C*o* 1 o #$e Co"e o &oe++)o*l
the hearings in the RTC, Atty. Era did not anymore
Re+o*+))l)#y provides that; <A lawyer shall not
appear for Samson and his group. They found out
represent conflicting interests e0cept by written
that Atty. Era had already been entering his
consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure
appearance as the counsel for Sison in her other
of the facts.< Atty. Era thus owed to Samson and his
criminal cases involving the same pyramiding scam.
group entire devotion to their genuine interest, and
warm 'eal in the maintenance and defense of their
%n 6anuary -, -4, Samson e0ecuted an affidavit
rights. "e was e0pected to e0ert his best efforts and
alleging the foregoing antecedents and prayed for
ability to preserve the clients7 cause, for the
Atty. Era7s disbarment on the ground of his violation
unwavering loyalty displayed to his clients li=ewise
of the trust, confidence and respect reposed in him
served the ends of !ustice.
as their counsel.
Contrary to Atty. Era7s ill#conceived attempt to e0plain
his disloyalty to Samson and his group, the
termination of the attorney#client relationship does
not !ustify a lawyer to represent an interest adverse to
or in conflict with that of the former client. The spirit
behind this rule is that the client7s confidence once
given should not be stripped by the mere e0piration
of the professional employment. Even after the
severance of the relation, a lawyer should not do
anything that will in!uriously affect his former client in
any matter in which the lawyer previously
represented the client. 1or should the lawyer disclose
or use any of the client7s confidences ac$uired in the
previous relation. In this regard, Canon 83 of the
Code of rofessional Responsibility e0pressly
declares that; <A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of
his client and he shall be mindful of the trust and
confidence reposed in him.<
3&" / a client has a legal right to have the lawyer
safeguard the client7s confidential information
4#$ / conflicts rules help ensure that lawyers will not
e0ploit clients, such as by inducing a client to
ma=e a gift to the lawyer
#$ / some conflict#of#interest rules protect interests
of the legal system in obtaining ade$uate
presentations to tribunals.
Re+o*/ the rule is grounded in the fiduciary
obligation of loyalty. The nature of their
relationship is, therefore, one of trust and
confidence of the highest degree.

The lawyer7s highest and most un$uestioned duty is

to protect the client at all ha'ards and costs even to
himself. The protection given to the client is perpetual
and does not cease with the termination of the
litigation, nor is it affected by the client7s ceasing to
employ the attorney and retaining another, or by any
other change of relation between them. It even
survives the death of the client.

In the absence of the e0press consent from Samson

and his group after full disclosure to them of the
conflict of interest, therefore, the most ethical thing
for Atty. Era to have done was either to outrightly
decline representing and entering his appearance as
counsel for Sison, or to advice Sison to engage
another lawyer for herself. >nfortunately, he did
neither, and should now suffer the proper sanction.

HEREFORE, the Court ?I15S and

R%1%>1CES Atty. E5@AR5% %. ERA guilty of
violating Rule 84./ of Canon 84, and Canon 83 of
the Code of rofessional Responsibility and
S5SENDS $)- &o- #$e &(#)(e o l% o& #%o
ye&+ effective upon his receipt of this decision, with
a warning that his commission of a similar offense will
be dealt with more severely.

NOTES/
&o$))#)o* !)*+# (o*l)(# o )*#e&e+# &e+#+ o* 
&#)o*le+, &e*"e&e" + ollo%+/

1+# / the law see=s to assure clients that their

lawyers will represent them with undivided
loyalty

2*" / the prohibition against conflicts of interest

see=s to enhance the effectiveness of legal
representation