Abragan vs. Rodriguez

A lawyer violates Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility when he represents conflicting interests in cases arising from the same civil action, even if the parties in the later case are not the identical parties in the earlier case, unless he secures the written consent of all concerned after full disclosure of the facts. The prohibition applies because lawyers owe undivided allegiance to their clients, and the duty to represent a client with undivided fidelity forbids the subsequent acceptance of employment from others in matters adversely affecting any interest of the client with respect to which confidence has been reposed.

The complainants were members of the Cagayan de Oro Landless Residents Association, Inc., a group of poor landless claimants of Cagayan de Oro City. In 1986, they hired the respondent lawyer to represent them in a forcible entry case before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities of Cagayan de Oro City, Branch 3, docketed as Civil Case No. 11204. The case involved parcels of land that the association and its members had long possessed and sought to own. The respondent successfully handled the case, which was eventually won, and a writ of execution was issued. The respondent also handled related cases before the Supreme Court and a pending quieting of title case filed by the National Housing Authority (NHA).

The complainants, members of the Cagayan de Oro Landless Residents Association, Inc., hired the respondent lawyer in 1986 to represent them in Civil Case No. 11204, a forcible entry case with a petition for a writ of preliminary injunction and damages, filed before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities of Cagayan de Oro City, Branch 3. The case was against Ricardo Dacaluz and others. After the case was finally won and a writ of execution was issued, the respondent continued to represent the complainants.

The complainants later decided to sever their client-lawyer relationship with the respondent when he allegedly disturbed the association by surreptitiously selling some rights to other persons without their consent. The National Bureau of Investigation of Cagayan de Oro City was reportedly investigating the respondent's alleged involvement in the illegal and unauthorized apportionment, assignment, and sale of parcels of land subject of Civil Case No. 11204.

On August 2, 1991, the complainants filed an indirect contempt charge under Civil Case No. 11204 against Sheriff Fernando Loncion and others, engaging the services of Atty. Loreto O. Salva, Sr., an alleged former law student of the respondent. However, the respondent represented and actively took up the defense of Fernando Loncion and others in the indirect contempt case, much to the dismay, damage, and prejudice of the complainants. The complainants alleged that their counsel, Atty. Salva, later withdrew the indirect contempt case upon the suggestion of the respondent and instead filed a motion for the issuance of an alias writ of execution.

On January 12, 1993, the respondent, without consulting the complainants, filed in behalf of the plaintiffs in Civil Case No. 11204 a motion to withdraw plaintiffs' exhibits. The complainants also alleged that the respondent represented Erlinda Abragan, one of the petitioners, in later proceedings in Civil Case No. 11204 wherein the apportionment of parcels of land was submitted to a commissioner, and that Abragan was later dispossessed of her rights by the respondent's maneuver. The respondent eventually fenced an area of about 10,200 square meters within Lot No. 1982, the subject matter of Civil Case No. 11204, without the consent of the complainants, and openly and publicly proclaimed his possession and ownership thereof.

In his Comment, the respondent denied the accusations. He explained that the withdrawal of the exhibits, having been approved by the trial court, was not illegal. He admitted that he fenced an area of about 8,000 square meters after the association had awarded the same as attorney's fees in Civil Case No. 11204, which was supposed to be ten percent of the 22 hectares of Lot No. 1982, but the association and its members were able to take actual possession of only twelve hectares. He claimed that his rights of possession and ownership depended upon the outcome of Civil Case No. 93-573 for reconveyance of title.

• Conflict of Interest: Petitioners argued that the respondent violated Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility when he represented the defendants in the indirect contempt case after having previously represented the petitioners in the same Civil Case No. 11204, thereby transferring allegiance to the adverse parties.
• Illegal Sale of Rights: Petitioners alleged that the respondent surreptitiously sold, assigned, and apportioned parcels of land subject of Civil Case No. 11204 to other persons without their consent, depriving them of their vested rights to possess and eventually own the land.
• Withdrawal of Exhibits: Petitioners argued that the respondent filed a motion to withdraw plaintiffs' exhibits on January 12, 1993 without consulting them, which was illegal and unethical.
• Fencing of Land: Petitioners alleged that the respondent fenced an area of about 10,200 square meters within Lot No. 1982 without their consent and publicly proclaimed his possession and ownership thereof.

• Denial of Accusations: Respondent flatly denied the accusations of petitioners, asserting that the withdrawal of the exhibits, having been approved by the trial court, was not "illegal, obnoxious, undesirable and highly immoral."
• Attorney's Fees: Respondent admitted that he fenced an area of about 8,000 square meters after the association had awarded the same as attorney's fees in Civil Case No. 11204, which was supposed to be ten percent of the 22 hectares of Lot No. 1982, but the association and its members were able to take actual possession of only twelve hectares.
• Pending Case: Respondent argued that his rights of possession and ownership of the fenced area depended upon the outcome of Civil Case No. 93-573 for reconveyance of title, and that the charges were unwarranted, false, and fabricated without any proof whatsoever.

• Conflict of Interest: Whether the respondent violated Rule 15.03 of Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility by representing conflicting interests when he took up the defense of the adverse parties in the indirect contempt case arising from the same Civil Case No. 11204.
• Sufficiency of Evidence for Other Allegations: Whether the petitioners' bare allegations regarding the respondent's sale of rights, inducement of the withdrawal of the indirect contempt case, and fencing of the land were sufficient to justify the imposition of a penalty.

• Conflict of Interest: Yes. The respondent violated Rule 15.03 of Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which provides that "a lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by written consent of all concerned given after full disclosure of the facts." The petitioners were the same complainants in the indirect contempt case and in the complaint for forcible entry in Civil Case No. 11204, and the respondent should have evaluated the situation first before agreeing to be counsel for the defendants in the indirect contempt proceedings.
• Sufficiency of Evidence for Other Allegations: No. The petitioners did not proffer any proof tending to show that the respondent had sold to other persons several rights over the land in question, or that he had induced the former counsel for petitioners to withdraw the indirect contempt case. Neither did the IBP find anything wrong as regards the 8,000 square meters awarded to the respondent as payment for his legal services. Petitioners' bare assertions, without any proof to back them up, would not justify the imposition of a penalty on respondent.

• Conflict of Interest: The Court explained that a lawyer represents conflicting interests when, in behalf of one client, it is his duty to contend for that which duty to another client requires him to oppose. The obligation to represent the client with undivided fidelity and not to divulge his secrets or confidence forbids also the subsequent acceptance of retainers or employment from others in matters adversely affecting any interest of the client with respect to which confidence has been reposed. In this case, the petitioners were the same complainants in the indirect contempt case and in the complaint for forcible entry in Civil Case No. 11204. The respondent should have evaluated the situation first before agreeing to be counsel for the defendants in the indirect contempt proceedings. Attorneys owe undivided allegiance to their clients and should at all times weigh their actions, especially in their dealings with the latter and the public at large. They must conduct themselves beyond reproach at all times. The Court will not tolerate any departure from the "straight and narrow" path demanded by the ethics of the legal profession. The Court cited Hilado vs. David, which advised lawyers to be like Caesar's wife — to be pure and to appear to be so. Because of his divided allegiance, the respondent eroded, rather than enhanced, the public perception of the legal profession. His divided loyalty constitutes malpractice for which he may be suspended, following Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court.
• Sufficiency of Evidence for Other Allegations: The Court agreed with Commissioner Navarro's conclusion that apart from their allegations in their various pleadings, the petitioners did not proffer any proof tending to show that the respondent had sold to other persons several rights over the land in question, or that he had induced the former counsel for petitioners, Atty. Salva Jr., to withdraw the indirect contempt case that they had filed. Neither did the IBP find anything wrong as regards the 8,000 square meters awarded to the respondent as payment for his legal services. Petitioners' bare assertions, without any proof to back them up, would not justify the imposition of a penalty on the respondent. However, the Court found that the respondent falls short of the integrity and good moral character required from all lawyers, as they are expected to uphold the dignity of the legal profession at all times.

• Conflict of Interest (Rule 15.03, Code of Professional Responsibility) — A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by written consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts. A lawyer represents conflicting interests when, in behalf of one client, it is his duty to contend for that which duty to another client requires him to oppose. The obligation to represent the client with undivided fidelity and not to divulge his secrets or confidence forbids also the subsequent acceptance of retainers or employment from others in matters adversely affecting any interest of the client with respect to which confidence has been reposed. In this case, the respondent violated this rule when he represented the defendants in the indirect contempt case after having previously represented the complainants in the same Civil Case No. 11204.
• Caesar's Wife Principle — Lawyers, like Caesar's wife, must not only keep inviolate the client's confidence but also avoid the appearance of treachery and double-dealing. This stern rule is designed not alone to prevent the dishonest practitioner from fraudulent conduct, but as well as to protect the honest lawyer from unfounded suspicion of unprofessional practice. It is founded on principles of public policy and good taste. The Court applied this principle in finding that the respondent's divided allegiance eroded the public perception of the legal profession.

• "A lawyer represents conflicting interests when, in behalf of one client, it is his duty to contend for that which duty to another client requires him to oppose." — This passage from Buted v. Hernando defines the test for determining when a lawyer represents conflicting interests and was the controlling rule applied to the respondent's conduct.
• "The obligation to represent the client with undivided fidelity and not to divulge his secrets or confidence forbids also the subsequent acceptance of retainers or employment from others in matters adversely affecting any interest of the client with respect to which confidence has been reposed." — This passage articulates the basis for the prohibition against subsequent representation of adverse parties in matters affecting a former client's interests.
• "With these thoughts in mind, it behooves attorneys, like Caesar's wife, not only to keep inviolate the client's confidence, but also to avoid the appearance of treachery and double-dealing. Only thus can litigants be encouraged to entrust their secrets to their attorneys which is of paramount importance in the administration of justice." — This passage from Hilado v. David establishes the standard of conduct expected of lawyers, requiring them to avoid even the appearance of impropriety.

• Buted vs. Hernando, 203 SCRA 1 (1991) — Controlling precedent cited for the definition of conflicting interests and the prohibition against subsequent acceptance of employment from others in matters adversely affecting a client's interests. The Court relied on this case in finding the respondent liable for violation of Rule 15.03.
• Hilado vs. David, 84 Phil. 571 (1949) — Cited for the "Caesar's wife" principle, which requires lawyers to be pure and to appear to be so, avoiding the appearance of treachery and double-dealing. The Court applied this principle in assessing the respondent's conduct.
• Marcelo vs. Javier Sr., 214 SCRA 1 (1992) — Cited for the proposition that lawyers are expected to uphold the dignity of the legal profession at all times and that the bar must maintain a high standard of legal proficiency as well as of honesty and fair dealings.
• Fernandez vs. Grecia, 223 SCRA 425 (1993) — Cited for the same proposition regarding the high standards expected of lawyers.

• Rule 15.03, Canon 15, Code of Professional Responsibility — Provides that a lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by written consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts. The respondent was found guilty of violating this rule when he represented the defendants in the indirect contempt case after having previously represented the complainants in the same Civil Case No. 11204.
• Section 27, Rule 138, Rules of Court — Provides for the disbarment or suspension of attorneys by the Supreme Court for deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in office, grossly immoral conduct, conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, violation of the oath required before admission to practice, or willful disobedience in appearing as attorney for a party without authority. The Court cited this provision as the basis for suspending the respondent for his divided loyalty constituting malpractice.

Melo, Sandoval-Gutierrez, and Carpio, JJ., concurred. Vitug, J., was abroad on official business.