Samala vs. Valencia

A lawyer may not represent conflicting interests, and the termination of the attorney-client relationship provides no justification for representing an interest adverse to or in conflict with that of a former client. The proscription applies whether the opposing parties are present clients in the same action or in an unrelated action, and it is enough that the opposing parties are present clients and the nature or conditions of the lawyer's respective retainers would affect the performance of the duty of undivided fidelity to both clients.

Complainant Clarita J. Samala filed a disbarment complaint against respondent Atty. Luciano D. Valencia, a practicing lawyer who had entered into a retainer agreement with Editha Valdez, one of the parties in the underlying property disputes. The controversy centered on a property in Marikina City involving Valdez, Joseph J. Alba, Jr., and several tenants, including Teresita Lagmay, who later became respondent's second wife. The case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for investigation, report, and recommendation pursuant to the Court's Resolution of October 24, 2001.

Complainant Clarita J. Samala filed a disbarment complaint against respondent Atty. Luciano D. Valencia on May 2, 2001, on four grounds: (a) serving on two separate occasions as counsel for contending parties; (b) knowingly misleading the court by submitting false documentary evidence; (c) initiating numerous cases in exchange for nonpayment of rental fees; and (d) having a reputation of being immoral by siring illegitimate children.

The conflict of interest charge arose from respondent's representation in several related cases involving a property in Marikina City. In Civil Case No. 95-105-MK, filed in the RTC, Branch 272, Marikina City, entitled "Leonora M. Aville vs. Editha Valdez" for nonpayment of rentals, respondent, while being the counsel for defendant Valdez, also acted as counsel for the tenants Lagmay, Valencia, Bustamante, and Bayuga by filing an Explanation and Compliance before the RTC. In Civil Case No. 98-6804 filed in the MTC, Branch 75, Marikina City, entitled "Editha S. Valdez and Joseph J. Alba, Jr. vs. Salve Bustamante and her husband" for ejectment, respondent represented Valdez against Bustamante, one of the tenants in the property. The defendants appealed to the RTC, Branch 272, docketed as SCA Case No. 99-341-MK, and Presiding Judge Reuben P. dela Cruz warned respondent to refrain from repeating the act of being counsel of record of both parties in Civil Case No. 95-105-MK.

Thereafter, in Civil Case No. 2000-657-MK, filed in the RTC, Branch 273, Marikina City, entitled "Editha S. Valdez vs. Joseph J. Alba, Jr. and Register of Deeds of Marikina City," respondent, as counsel for Valdez, filed a Complaint for Rescission of Contract with Damages and Cancellation of Transfer Certificate of Title No. 275500 against Alba, respondent's former client in Civil Case No. 98-6804 and SCA Case No. 99-341-MK. At the hearing of November 14, 2003, respondent admitted that in Civil Case No. 95-105-MK, he was the lawyer for Lagmay but not for Bustamante and Bayuga, albeit he filed the Explanation and Compliance for and in behalf of the tenants. He also admitted that he represented Valdez in Civil Case No. 98-6804 and SCA Case No. 99-341-MK against Bustamante and her husband but denied being the counsel for Alba, claiming that Valdez told him to include Alba as the two were the owners of the property and it was only Valdez who signed the complaint for ejectment. Respondent averred that he already severed his representation for Alba when the latter charged respondent with estafa, which led to the filing of Civil Case No. 2000-657-MK against Alba.

On the charge of submitting false documentary evidence, complainant alleged that in Civil Case No. 00-7137 filed before MTC, Branch 75 for ejectment, respondent submitted TCT No. 273020 as evidence of Valdez's ownership despite the fact that a new TCT No. 275500 was already issued in the name of Alba on February 2, 1995. Respondent filed Civil Case No. 00-7137 on November 27, 2000 and presented TCT No. 273020 as evidence of Valdez's ownership. Respondent averred that when the Answer was filed in the said case, that was the time he came to know that the title was already in the name of Alba, and when the court dismissed the complaint, he did not do anything anymore. However, the record showed that Civil Case No. 2000-657-MK for rescission of contract and cancellation of TCT No. 275500 was also filed on November 27, 2000, before RTC, Branch 273, thus belying respondent's averment that he came to know of Alba's title only in 2002.

On the charge of initiating numerous cases, complainant alleged that respondent filed Civil Case No. 2000-657-MK at the RTC, Branch 272; Civil Case No. 00-7137 at the MTC, Branch 75; and I.S. Nos. 00-4439 and 01-036162 both entitled "Valencia vs. Samala" for estafa and grave coercion, respectively, before the Marikina City Prosecutor. Complainant claimed that the two criminal cases were filed in retaliation for the cases she filed against Lagmay docketed as I.S. No. 00-4306 for estafa and I.S. No. 00-4318 against Alvin Valencia, son of respondent, for trespass to dwelling. Valdez had entered into a retainer agreement with respondent, and as payment for his services, he was allowed to occupy the property for free and utilize the same as his office.

On the charge of immorality, respondent admitted during the hearing that he sired three children by Teresita Lagmay who were all over 20 years of age, while his first wife was still alive. He also admitted that he has eight children by his first wife, the youngest of whom is over 20 years of age, and after his wife died in 1997, he married Lagmay in 1998. Respondent further admitted that Lagmay was staying in one of the apartments being claimed by complainant, but he did not consider his affair with Lagmay as a relationship and did not consider her as his second family. He reasoned that he was not staying with Lagmay because he has two houses, one in Muntinlupa and another in Marikina.

• Conflict of Interest: Complainant alleged that respondent served on two separate occasions as counsel for contending parties, specifically representing both Valdez and the tenants in Civil Case No. 95-105-MK, and later representing Valdez against Alba, his former client in related cases.
• False Documentary Evidence: Complainant alleged that respondent knowingly misled the court by submitting TCT No. 273020 as evidence of Valdez's ownership in Civil Case No. 00-7137 despite the fact that a new TCT No. 275500 was already issued in the name of Alba on February 2, 1995.
• Vexatious Litigation: Complainant alleged that respondent initiated numerous cases in exchange for nonpayment of rental fees, including Civil Case No. 2000-657-MK, Civil Case No. 00-7137, and I.S. Nos. 00-4439 and 01-036162, which were filed in retaliation for the cases she filed against Lagmay and Alvin Valencia.
• Immorality: Complainant alleged that respondent had a reputation of being immoral by siring illegitimate children with Teresita Lagmay while his first wife was still alive.

• Conflict of Interest: Respondent admitted that he was the lawyer for Lagmay in Civil Case No. 95-105-MK but denied being the counsel for Bustamante and Bayuga, albeit he filed the Explanation and Compliance for and in behalf of the tenants. He admitted representing Valdez in Civil Case No. 98-6804 and SCA Case No. 99-341-MK against Bustamante but denied being the counsel for Alba, claiming that Valdez told him to include Alba as the two were the owners of the property and it was only Valdez who signed the complaint for ejectment. He averred that he already severed his representation for Alba when the latter charged respondent with estafa.
• False Documentary Evidence: Respondent averred that when the Answer was filed in Civil Case No. 00-7137, that was the time he came to know that the title was already in the name of Alba, and that Valdez did not tell him the truth and things were revealed to him only when the case for rescission was filed in 2002.
• Vexatious Litigation: Respondent argued that he filed the criminal cases to protect his client's rights against complainant who filed I.S. No. 00-4306 for estafa against Lagmay and I.S. No. 00-4318 against Alvin Valencia for trespass to dwelling.
• Immorality: Respondent admitted siring three children by Lagmay while his first wife was still alive but did not consider his affair with Lagmay as a relationship and did not consider her as his second family, reasoning that he was not staying with Lagmay because he has two houses, one in Muntinlupa and another in Marikina.

• Conflict of Interest: Whether respondent violated Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility by representing conflicting interests when he acted as counsel for both Valdez and Alba in one case and later represented Valdez against Alba in another case.
• False Documentary Evidence: Whether respondent violated Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility by submitting TCT No. 273020 as evidence of Valdez's ownership despite knowing that a new TCT No. 275500 was already issued in the name of Alba.
• Vexatious Litigation: Whether respondent should be held administratively liable for initiating numerous cases in exchange for nonpayment of rental fees.
• Immorality: Whether respondent should be held liable for immorality for siring illegitimate children with Teresita Lagmay while his first wife was still alive.

• Conflict of Interest: Yes. Respondent's representation of Valdez and Alba against Bustamante and her husband in one case, and Valdez against Alba in another case, is a clear case of conflict of interests which merits a corresponding sanction. The termination of the attorney-client relationship provides no justification for a lawyer to represent an interest adverse to or in conflict with that of the former client.
• False Documentary Evidence: Yes. Respondent failed to comply with Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which provides that a lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court; nor shall he mislead, or allow the Court to be misled by any artifice. What is decisive is respondent's intent in trying to mislead the court by presenting TCT No. 273020 despite the fact that said title was already cancelled and a new one was already issued in the name of Alba.
• Vexatious Litigation: No. The charge is without sufficient basis. The act of respondent of filing the cases to protect the interest of his client, on one hand, and his own interest, on the other, cannot be made the basis of an administrative charge unless it can be clearly shown that the same was being done to abuse judicial processes to commit injustice.
• Immorality: Yes. Respondent is liable for being immoral by siring illegitimate children. The admissions made by respondent are more than enough to hold him liable on the charge of immorality, and it is of no moment that respondent eventually married Lagmay after the death of his first wife.

• Conflict of Interest: Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of the 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. A lawyer may not, without being guilty of professional misconduct, act as counsel for a person whose interest conflicts with that of his present or former client. The stern rule is founded on the principles of public policy and good taste, and springs from the relation of attorney and client which is one of trust and confidence. One of the tests of inconsistency of interests is whether the acceptance of a new relation would prevent the full discharge of the lawyer's duty of undivided fidelity and loyalty to the client or invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or double-dealing in the performance of that duty. The bare attorney-client relationship with a client precludes an attorney from accepting professional employment from the client's adversary either in the same case or in a different but related action. The Court cited Nombrado vs. Hernandez for the proposition that the termination of the relation of attorney and client provides no justification for a lawyer to represent an interest adverse to or in conflict with that of the former client. Respondent's averment that his relationship with Alba has long been severed is unavailing because termination of the attorney-client relationship precludes an attorney from representing a new client whose interest is adverse to his former client. The fact that respondent filed a case entitled "Valdez and Alba vs. Bustamante and her husband" is a clear indication that respondent was protecting the interests of both Valdez and Alba. Respondent cannot just claim that the lawyer-client relationship between him and Alba has long been severed without observing Section 26, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court wherein the written consent of his client is required. Citing Gonzales vs. Cabucana, Jr., the Court held that the proscription against representation of conflicting interests applies to a situation where the opposing parties are present clients in the same action or in an unrelated action, and it is enough that the opposing parties in one case are present clients and the nature or conditions of the lawyer's respective retainers with each of them would affect the performance of the duty of undivided fidelity to both clients. Respondent is also bound to comply with Canon 21 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which states that a lawyer shall preserve the confidences and secrets of his client even after the attorney-client relation is terminated. Respondent may have withdrawn his representation in Civil Case No. 95-105-MK upon being warned by the court, but the same will not exculpate him from the charge of representing conflicting interests in his representation in Civil Case No. 2000-657-MK.

• False Documentary Evidence: The record showed that Civil Case No. 2000-657-MK for rescission of contract and cancellation of TCT No. 275500 was also filed on November 27, 2000, before RTC, Branch 273, Marikina City, thus belying the averment of respondent that he came to know of Alba's title only in 2002 when the case for rescission was filed. Hence, respondent cannot feign ignorance of the fact that the title he submitted was already cancelled in lieu of a new title issued in the name of Alba in 1995. It matters not that the trial court was not misled by respondent's submission of TCT No. 273020, as shown by its decision dismissing the complaint for ejectment. What is decisive is respondent's intent in trying to mislead the court by presenting TCT No. 273020 despite the fact that said title was already cancelled and a new one was already issued in the name of Alba. Citing Young vs. Batuegas, the Court held that a lawyer must be a disciple of truth, and as an officer of the court, his high vocation is to correctly inform the court upon the law and the facts of the case and to aid it in doing justice and arriving at correct conclusion. While a lawyer has the solemn duty to defend his client's rights and is expected to display the utmost zeal in defense of his client's cause, his conduct must never be at the expense of truth.

• Vexatious Litigation: The act of respondent of filing the cases to protect the interest of his client, on one hand, and his own interest, on the other, cannot be made the basis of an administrative charge unless it can be clearly shown that the same was being done to abuse judicial processes to commit injustice. The filing of an administrative case against respondent for protecting the interest of his client and his own right would be putting a burden on a practicing lawyer who is obligated to defend and prosecute the right of his client.

• Immorality: Under Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. For purposes of disciplining a lawyer, immoral conduct has been defined as that "conduct which is willful, flagrant, or shameless, and which shows a moral indifference to the opinion of respectable members of the community." The admissions made by respondent are more than enough to hold him liable on the charge of immorality. During the hearing, respondent did not show any remorse and even justified his transgression by saying that he does not have any relationship with Lagmay and despite the fact that he sired three children by the latter, he does not consider them as his second family. It is of no moment that respondent eventually married Lagmay after the death of his first wife; the fact still remains that respondent did not live up to the exacting standard of morality and decorum required of the legal profession. That respondent subsequently married Lagmay in 1998 after the death of his wife and that this is his first infraction as regards immorality serve to mitigate his liability.

• Prohibition Against Representation of Conflicting Interests — A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by written consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts. The proscription applies to a situation where the opposing parties are present clients in the same action or in an unrelated action, and it is enough that the opposing parties in one case are present clients and the nature or conditions of the lawyer's respective retainers with each of them would affect the performance of the duty of undivided fidelity to both clients. The termination of the attorney-client relationship provides no justification for a lawyer to represent an interest adverse to or in conflict with that of the former client, because the client's confidence once reposed cannot be divested by the expiration of the professional employment.

• Duty to Preserve Client Confidences — Under Canon 21 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, a lawyer shall preserve the confidences and secrets of his client even after the attorney-client relation is terminated. The reason for the prohibition is found in the relation of attorney and client, which is one of trust and confidence of the highest degree; a lawyer becomes familiar with all the facts connected with his client's case, and such knowledge must be considered sacred and guarded with care.

• Lawyer as Disciple of Truth — A lawyer must be a disciple of truth, having sworn upon admission to the Bar that he will "do no falsehood nor consent to the doing of any in court" and shall "conduct himself as a lawyer according to the best of his knowledge and discretion with all good fidelity as well to the courts as to his clients." The courts are entitled to expect only complete honesty from lawyers appearing and pleading before them, and while a lawyer has the solemn duty to defend his client's rights with utmost zeal, his conduct must never be at the expense of truth.

• Definition of Immoral Conduct for Lawyer Discipline — For purposes of disciplining a lawyer, immoral conduct has been defined as that "conduct which is willful, flagrant, or shameless, and which shows a moral indifference to the opinion of respectable members of the community." A lawyer who sires illegitimate children while his first wife is still alive fails to live up to the exacting standard of morality and decorum required of the legal profession, and subsequent marriage to the mother of his illegitimate children after the death of his first wife does not erase the prior immorality.

• "A lawyer may not, without being guilty of professional misconduct, act as counsel for a person whose interest conflicts with that of his present or former client." — This passage states the core rule on conflict of interest that formed the basis of respondent's liability for representing both Valdez and Alba in related cases.

• "The proscription against representation of conflicting interests applies to a situation where the opposing parties are present clients in the same action or in an unrelated action. It is of no moment that the lawyer would not be called upon to contend for one client that which the lawyer has to oppose for the other client, or that there would be no occasion to use the confidential information acquired from one to the disadvantage of the other as the two actions are wholly unrelated. 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 lawyer's respective retainers with each of them would affect the performance of the duty of undivided fidelity to both clients." — This is the canonical formulation of the test for conflict of interest, quoted from Gonzales v. Cabucana, Jr., and applied to respondent's representation of both Valdez and Alba.

• "What is decisive in this case is respondent's intent in trying to mislead the court by presenting TCT No. 273020 despite the fact that said title was already cancelled and a new one, TCT No. 275500, was already issued in the name of Alba." — This passage establishes that the intent to mislead, not the actual effect on the court, is the decisive factor in determining liability for submitting false documentary evidence.

• "It is of no moment that respondent eventually married Lagmay after the death of his first wife. The fact still remains that respondent did not live up to the exacting standard of morality and decorum required of the legal profession." — This passage clarifies that subsequent marriage to the mother of his illegitimate children does not erase the prior immorality committed while his first wife was still alive.

• Nombrado vs. Hernandez, 135 Phil. 5 (1968) — Controlling precedent for the rule that the termination of the attorney-client relationship provides no justification for a lawyer to represent an interest adverse to or in conflict with that of the former client, because the client's confidence once reposed cannot be divested by the expiration of the professional employment.

• Gonzales vs. Cabucana, Jr., A.C. No. 6836, January 23, 2006, 479 SCRA 320 — Cited for the canonical formulation of the proscription against representation of conflicting interests, which applies where the opposing parties are present clients in the same action or in an unrelated action.

• Quiambao vs. Bamba, A.C. No. 6708, August 25, 2005, 468 SCRA 1 — Cited in Gonzales for the proposition that the proscription against conflicting interests applies regardless of whether the lawyer would be called upon to contend for one client that which the lawyer has to oppose for the other client.

• Young vs. Batuegas, 451 Phil. 155 (2003) — Cited for the principle that a lawyer must be a disciple of truth and that the courts are entitled to expect only complete honesty from lawyers appearing and pleading before them.

• Hilado vs. David, 84 Phil. 569 (1949) — Cited for the principle that the rule against conflicting interests springs from the relation of attorney and client which is one of trust and confidence, and that lawyers are expected to avoid the appearance of treachery and double-dealing.

• Santos, Sr. vs. Beltran, 463 Phil. 372 (2003) — Cited for the test of inconsistency of interests: whether the acceptance of a new relation would prevent the full discharge of the lawyer's duty of undivided fidelity and loyalty to the client or invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or double-dealing.

• Rau Sheng Mao vs. Velasco, 459 Phil. 440 (2003) — Cited for the definition of immoral conduct for purposes of disciplining a lawyer as "conduct which is willful, flagrant, or shameless, and which shows a moral indifference to the opinion of respectable members of the community."

• 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. Applied to respondent's representation of both Valdez and Alba in one case and Valdez against Alba in another case.

• Canon 21, Code of Professional Responsibility — Provides that a lawyer shall preserve the confidences and secrets of his client even after the attorney-client relation is terminated. Applied to respondent's subsequent representation of Valdez against his former client Alba.

• Canon 10, Code of Professional Responsibility — Provides that a lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court; nor shall he mislead, or allow the Court to be misled by any artifice. Applied to respondent's submission of the cancelled TCT No. 273020 as evidence of Valdez's ownership.

• Canon 1, Rule 1.01, Code of Professional Responsibility — Provides that a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. Applied to respondent's siring of illegitimate children while his first wife was still alive.

• Section 26, Rule 138, Rules of Court — Requires the written consent of the client for the severance of the attorney-client relationship. Cited to show that respondent cannot just claim that the lawyer-client relationship between him and Alba has long been severed without observing this requirement.

Puno, C.J., Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio, Corona, Carpio-Morales, Callejo, Sr., Azcuna, Tinga, Chico-Nazario, Garcia, and Velasco, Jr., JJ., concurred.