Bautista vs. Barrios

An attorney who drafts a deed of partition upon the joint request of the parties may not thereafter appear as counsel for one party against another in litigation involving that deed; at most, if he may appear for one client, he must represent the party seeking to enforce the partition as drafter. A lawyer who raises matters acquired in the professional engagement to the disadvantage of a client violates the client’s confidence and commits malpractice warranting corrective measures.

Rufina Bautista and her siblings were heirs of Maria Bautista, who died intestate in 1952 and whose conjugal properties with Federico Rovero were the subject of an extrajudicial partition. Atty. Benjamin O. Barrios was the lawyer who prepared the partition deed. The present case is an administrative complaint for malpractice against Barrios arising from his professional engagement in that partition and his subsequent conduct in litigation over the deed.

In August 1955, Rufina Bautista engaged the services of Atty. Benjamin O. Barrios to draft an extrajudicial partition between Rufina Bautista and her brother and sisters on one side and Federico Rovero on the other. The deed distributed the conjugal properties of Rovero and his deceased wife Maria Bautista, who was a sister of the Bautistas and who died intestate in 1952. Barrios prepared the deed, and it was accordingly signed.

In September of the same year, because Rovero refused to comply with the terms of the deed, Rufina Bautista sued him in Civil Case No. K-689 before the Capiz Court of First Instance to deliver the properties awarded to her in the extrajudicial partition. She asked Barrios to represent her, but he refused, and she was compelled to engage the services of Atty. Artemio S. Arrieta. Thereafter, Barrios appeared for Federico Rovero and opposed Rufina Bautista’s demand.

In an attempt to clear himself, Barrios declared that it was not Rufina Bautista who had solicited his services in the preparation of the deed of partition, but Federico Rovero. This defense did not prevail against Rufina Bautista’s contrary assertions because Barrios himself, in his answer to the complaint in this Court, admitted that he had prepared the deed “upon the joint request of Federico Rovero, Rufina Bautista and Fransisco Bautista.” The circumstance that, after Rovero refused to comply with the terms of the deed, Rufina Bautista went to Barrios to ask him to enforce it by filing a complaint against Rovero — which Barrios admitted she did — strongly corroborated her testimony that she had engaged his services to draft the partition.

When Rufina Bautista asked Barrios to file the complaint, he refused. He did not tell her that he had been engaged by Rovero to draft the partition; he merely told her she had no case and that she was reluctant “to take up a lost cause.” The Solicitor General found against respondent on this issue of fact, and the Court agreed. In the litigation against Rovero, Barrios asserted in Rovero’s behalf that the deed did not contain all the terms of the agreement and was subject to certain modifications, and he alleged that the undisclosed modifications were known to Rufina Bautista at the time of execution of the partition.

• Malpractice: Rufina Bautista complained that Atty. Barrios committed malpractice in that, having drafted a deed of partition at her request and as her attorney, he refused to appear for her and instead appeared as counsel for the other party to the deed and opposed her rights thereunder.
• Refusal to Enforce the Partition: She alleged that after she sought to enforce the deed, Barrios refused to represent her, compelling her to engage another attorney.

• No Engagement by Complainant: Atty. Barrios declared that it was not Rufina Bautista who had solicited his services in the preparation of the deed of partition, but Federico Rovero.
• No Professional Duty: He claimed that he contracted no professional duties towards the Bautistas because he had not represented them before any “body, commission or Court.”
• Defense of Rovero: In defending Rovero, he asserted that the deed did not contain all the terms of the agreement and was subject to certain modifications, and that the undisclosed modifications were known to Rufina Bautista at the time of execution.

• Attorney-Client Relationship: Whether Atty. Barrios was engaged by Rufina Bautista to draft the extrajudicial partition, thereby creating a professional relationship with her.
• Conflict of Interest: Whether Atty. Barrios committed malpractice by refusing to represent Rufina Bautista and thereafter appearing as counsel for Federico Rovero against her in litigation involving the partition he drafted.
• Breach of Confidence: Whether Atty. Barrios violated Rufina Bautista’s confidence by raising, in behalf of Rovero, the alleged undisclosed modifications known to her at the time of execution.
• Penalty: Whether suspension from the practice of law is the proper corrective measure.

• Attorney-Client Relationship: Yes. Barrios’s own answer admitted that he prepared the deed upon the joint request of Federico Rovero, Rufina Bautista, and Fransisco Bautista; this admission, together with his admitted refusal to file the enforcement complaint after Bautista sought his help, established the engagement.
• Conflict of Interest: Yes. Even assuming joint employment, it was doubtful whether he could appear for one against the other; at most, he should have appeared for the party seeking to enforce the partition as drafter, not for Rovero who sought to avoid it.
• Breach of Confidence: Yes. In defending Rovero, he raised issues that obviously violated Rufina Bautista’s confidence by alleging that the undisclosed modifications were known to her at execution.
• Penalty: Yes. Suspension for two years from finality was imposed in accordance with the Solicitor General’s recommendation.

• Attorney-Client Relationship: The defense of Atty. Barrios cannot prevail against Rufina Bautista’s contrary assertions because he himself, in his answer to the complaint in this Court, admitted that he had prepared the deed “upon the joint request of Federico Rovero, Rufina Bautista and Fransisco Bautista.” Furthermore, the circumstance that upon Rovero’s refusal to comply with the terms of the deed, Rufina Bautista went to ask Barrios to enforce it — which he admitted — strongly corroborated her testimony that she had actually engaged his services to draft the partition. When she asked him to file the complaint, he refused, and he did not tell her that he had been engaged by Rovero to draft the partition; he merely told her she had no case and that she was reluctant “to take up a lost cause.” The Solicitor General found against respondent on this issue of fact, and the Court agreed.
• Conflict of Interest: Even supposing that, as claimed by Atty. Barrios, he was employed by both Rovero and the Bautista brothers to draft the partition, it was doubtful whether he could appear for one as against the other in a subsequent litigation. At most, if he could appear for one client, it should be for him who seeks to enforce the partition as drafter. Yet he appeared for Rovero, who sought to avoid compliance with it, asserting that it did not contain all the terms of the agreement, that it was subject to certain modifications, etc. The inconsistent positions taken by respondent, coupled with some flimsy arguments he advanced, did not favorably impress the Court with his alleged good faith.
• Breach of Confidence: Moreover, in his defense of Rovero, he raised issues which obviously violated Rufina Bautista’s confidence, because he alleged — in behalf of Rovero — that the undisclosed modifications were known to Rufina Bautista at the time of execution of the partition.
• Penalty: Corrective measures are called for, and, in accordance with the Solicitor General’s recommendation, Atty. Barrios is hereby suspended from the practice of his profession for a period of two years from the time this becomes final.

• Attorney-client relationship and conflict of interest — A lawyer who drafts a deed of partition upon the joint request of the parties may not thereafter represent one party against another in litigation involving that deed. Even if joint employment is assumed, if he may appear for one client, he must represent the party seeking to enforce the partition as drafter, not the party seeking to avoid compliance. The Court applied this because Barrios drafted the partition upon joint request, then appeared for Rovero against Rufina Bautista.
• Duty of confidentiality — A lawyer may not raise matters acquired in the course of his professional engagement to the disadvantage of a client. The Court found that Barrios violated Rufina Bautista’s confidence when, in defending Rovero, he alleged that the undisclosed modifications were known to her at the time of execution.
• Malpractice and corrective measures — An attorney’s inconsistent positions and flimsy arguments, coupled with breach of professional duty, warrant corrective measures. The Court suspended Barrios for two years from finality.
• Judicial admission — A party’s admission in his answer may be taken against him. Barrios’s answer admitted that he prepared the deed upon the joint request of Rovero, Rufina Bautista, and Fransisco Bautista, which defeated his claim that only Rovero solicited him.

• "Rufina Bautista complains that Atty. Barrios committed malpractice in that having drafted a deed of partition at her request, and as her attorney, he afterwards suit to enforce it, refused to appear for her, and what is worse, he appeared instead as counsel for the other to the deed of partition and opposed her rights thereunder." — This passage states the complaint’s core malpractice allegation and frames the professional-duty issue decided by the Court.
• "Furthermore, even supposing that, as claimed by Atty. Barrios, he was employed by both Rovero and the Bautista brothers to draft the partition, it is doubtful whether he could appear for one as against the other in a subsequent litigation. At most, if he could appear for one client, it should be for him who seeks to enforce the partition as drafter." — This is the Court’s ratio on conflict of interest, holding that a drafter of a joint partition deed should not represent one party against another and, at most, should represent the party seeking to enforce the deed.
• "Moreover, in his defense of Rovero, he raised issues which obviously violated Rufina's confidence, because he alleged — in behalf of Rovero — that the undisclosed modifications were known to Rufina at the time of execution of the partition." — This states the Court’s confidentiality rationale, finding that Barrios used information from the professional engagement against Rufina Bautista.
• "Corrective measures are called for, and, in accordance with the Solicitor General's recommendation, Atty. Barrios is hereby suspended from the practice of his profession for a period of two years from the time this becomes final." — This is the dispositive portion, imposing the two-year suspension.

Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, Regala, and Makalintal, JJ., concurred. Concepcion, J., took no part.