Canon 11

Baculi vs Battung
Searesvs Gonzales-Alzate
In Re: SC Resolution dated 28 April 2003
Canon 15
Northwesatern University vs Arquillo
Gonzales vs Cabucana
Perez vs dela Torre
Samala vs. Valencia
Aninon vs Sabitsana

CANON 11
AC No. 8920, September 28, 2011
Judge Rene B. BACULI vs. Atty. Melchor A. BATTUNG
Brion, J.
FACTS:
Judge Baculi claimed that on July 24, 2008, during the hearing on the motion for reconsideration of
Civil Case No. 2502, the respondent was shouting while arguing his motion. Judge Baculi advised him to
tone down his voice but instead, the respondent shouted at the top of his voice. When warned that he
would be cited for direct contempt, the respondent shouted, Then cite me! Judge Baculi cited him for
direct contempt and imposed a fine of P100.00. The respondent then left. While other cases were being
heard, the respondent re-entered the courtroom and shouted, Judge, I will file gross ignorance against
you! I am not afraid of you! Judge Baculi ordered the sheriff to escort the respondent out of the courtroom
and cited him for direct contempt of court for the second time. After his hearings, Judge Baculi went out
and saw the respondent at the hall of the courthouse, apparently waiting for him. The respondent again
shouted in a threatening tone, Judge, I will file gross ignorance against you! I am not afraid of you! He
kept on shouting, I am not afraid of you! and challenged the judge to a fight. Staff and lawyers escorted
him out of the building. Judge Baculi also learned that after the respondent left the courtroom, he
continued shouting and punched a table at the Office of the Clerk of Court. Commissioner De la Rama
recommended that the respondent be suspended from the practice of law for six (6) months. On October
9, 2010, the IBP Board of Governors passed a Resolution adopting and approving the Report and
Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner, with the modification that the respondent be
reprimanded.
ISSUE: W/N Atty. Battung is guilty of violating Rule 11.03, Canon 11 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
RULING: Atty. Melchor A. Battung is found GUILTY of violating Rule 11.03, Canon 11 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility,
for which he is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one (1) year effective upon the finality of
this Decision. He
is STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of a similar offense shall be dealt with more severely.
RATIO DECIDENDI:
The Supreme Court sustained the IBPs finding that the respondent violated Rule 11.03, Canon 11 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility. Atty. Battung disrespected Judge Baculi by shouting at him inside the
courtroom during court proceedings in the presence of litigants and their counsels, and court
personnel. The respondent even came back to harass Judge Baculi. This behavior, in front of many
witnesses, cannot be allowed. We note that the respondent continued to threaten Judge Baculi and acted
in a manner that clearly showed disrespect for his position even after the latter had cited him for
contempt. In fact, after initially leaving the court, the respondent returned to the courtroom and disrupted
the ongoing proceedings. These actions were not only against the person, the position and the stature of
Judge Baculi, but against the court as well whose proceedings were openly and flagrantly disrupted, and
brought to disrepute by the respondent.
Litigants and counsels, particularly the latter because of their position and avowed duty to the
courts, cannot be allowed to publicly ridicule, demean and disrespect a judge, and the court that he
represents. The Code of Professional Responsibility provides:
Canon 11 - A lawyer shall observe and maintain the respect due the courts
and to judicial officers and should insist on similar conduct by others.
Rule 11.03 - A lawyer shall abstain from scandalous, offensive or menacing
language or behavior before the Courts.
A lawyer who insults a judge inside a courtroom completely disregards the latters role, stature and
position in our justice system. When the respondent publicly berated and brazenly threatened Judge
Baculi that he would file a case for gross ignorance of the law against the latter, the respondent effectively

acted in a manner tending to erode the public confidence in Judge Baculis competence and in his ability to
decide cases. Incompetence is a matter that, even if true, must be handled with sensitivity in the manner
provided under the Rules of Court; an objecting or complaining lawyer cannot act in a manner that puts
the courts in a bad light and bring the justice system into disrepute.

Robert Victor Seares, Jr., vs. Atty. Saniata Liwliwa V. Gonzales-Alzate

AC No. 9058. November 14, 2012.
Facts:
||| Seares, Jr. alleges that Atty. Gonzales-Alzate was his legal counsel when he ran for the position of
Municipal Mayor of Dolores, Abra in the May 2007 elections; that after he lost by a 50-vote margin to Albert
Z. Guzman, she filed in his behalf a "Petition of Protest Ad Cautelam" in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in
Bangued, Abra; that the petition was dismissed for being "fatally defective;" that several months later, she
insisted on filing a "Petition of Protest" in the RTC, but the petition was also dismissed on the ground that it
was already time-barred, and on the further ground of forum shopping because the certification against
forum shopping was false; that the RTC declared her as "professionally negligent;" that he again ran for
Municipal Mayor of Dolores, Abra in the May 2010 elections, and won; that he later learned that his political
opponents retained her as their counsel; that with him barely two months in office, one Carlito Turqueza
charged him with abuse of authority, oppression and grave misconduct in the Sangguniang Panlalawigan
of Abra; that she represented Turqueza as counsel; and that she intentionally made false and hurtful
statements in the memorandum she prepared in that administrative case in order to attack him.
Seares, Jr. asserts that Atty. Gonzales-Alzate thereby violated Canon 15, Canon 17 and Canon 18 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility for negligently handling his election protest, for prosecuting him,
her former client, and for uttering false and hurtful allegations against him. Hence, he prays that she
should be disbarred.
Issues:
1. WON Atty. Alzate is guilty of professional negligence and incompetence (Canon 17 & 18)
2. WON she violated the prohibition against representing conflicting interest (Canon 15)

Held:
1. No. For administrative liability under Canon 18 to attach, the negligent act of the attorney should be
gross and inexcusable as to lead to a result that was highly prejudicial to the client's
interest. Accordingly, the Court has imposed administrative sanctions on a grossly negligent
attorney for unreasonable failure to file a required pleading, or for unreasonable failure to file an
appeal, especially when the failure occurred after the attorney moved for several extensions to file
the pleading and offered several excuses for his nonfeasance. The Court has found the attendance
of inexcusable negligence when an attorney resorts to a wrong remedy, or belatedly files an
appeal, or inordinately delays the filing of a complaint, or fails to attend scheduled court
hearings. Gross misconduct on the part of an attorney is determined from the circumstances of the
case, the nature of the act done and the motive that induced the attorney to commit the act.
2. No. Atty. Gonzales-Alzate's legal representation of Turqueza neither resulted in her betrayal of the
fidelity and loyalty she owed to Seares, Jr. as his former attorney, nor invited the suspicion of
unfaithfulness or double dealing while she was performing her duties as an attorney. Representing
conflicting interests would occur only where the attorney's new engagement would require her to
use against a former client any confidential information gained from the previous professional
relation. The prohibition did not cover a situation where the subject matter of the present
engagement was totally unrelated to the previous engagement of the attorney. To constitute the
violation, the attorney should be shown to intentionally use against the former client the
confidential information acquired by her during the previous employment. But a mere allegation of
professional misconduct would not suffice to establish the charge, because accusation was not
synonymous with guilt. Moreover, the prohibition against representing conflicting interests further
necessitated identity of the parties or interests involved in the previous and present engagements.
But such identity was not true here.
3. We find that the administrative complaint against Atty. Gonzales-Alzate was nothing but an attempt
to vex, harass and humiliate her as well as to get even with her for representing Turqueza against
Seares, Jr. Such an ill-motivated bid to disbar Atty. Gonzales-Alzate trifles with the Court's esteem
for the members of the Bar who form one of the solid pillars of Justice in our land. We cannot
tolerate it because attorneys are officers of the Court who are placed under our supervision and
control due to the law imposing upon them peculiar duties, responsibilities and liabilities. We exist
in a symbiotic environment with them where their duty to defend the courts is reciprocated by our

shielding them from vindictive individuals who are deterred by nothing just to strip them of their
privilege to practice law.
Penalty: Admonition and Stern warning that a repetition shall be dealt with more severely.

In Re: SC Resolution dated 28 April 2003 in GR Nos. 145817 and 145822

AC No. 6332; April 17, 2012
Facts:
Atty. Magdaleno M. Pea filed an Urgent Motion to Inhibit and to Resolve Respondents Urgent Omnibus
Motion dated 30 January 2003 (the subject Motion to Inhibit) in two consolidated petitions involving
respondent that were pending before the Court. This motion is directed against the then ponente of the
consolidated petitions, Justice Antonio T. Carpio. He alleged in his motion that he received from the counsel
of petitioners, Atty. Manuel Singson that they had been able to secure an order from the court suspending
the redemption period and the consolidation of ownership over the Urban Bank (Atty. Singsons client)
properties sold during execution sale which period was already expired as far as Atty. Penas knowledge.
In an effort to hide his discomfort, respondent teased Atty. Singson about bribing
the ponente to get such an order as he has a new Mercedes Benz. Much to his surprise, Atty.
Singson did not even bother to deny and in fact explained that they obviously had to exert extra effort
because they could not afford to lose the properties involved. Since private respondent himself had not
received a copy of the order that Atty. Singson was talking about, he asked Atty. Singson to fax him the
advance copy that they had received. The faxed advance copy that Atty. Singson provided him bore
the fax number and name of Atty. Singsons law office. He also alleged that He is CERTAIN that the
ponente has a special interest in this case. Recently, he also found out that the ponente made a
special request to bring this case along with him when he transferred from the Third Division to the First
Division concluding that considered with all the foregoing circumstance, ineluctably demonstrates that a
major anomaly has occurred.
While private respondent Atty. Pena was waiting for petitioners to respond to his motion, two
documents anonymously which indicates that that the members of the Division had agreed that
petitioners Motion for Clarification and Urgent Motion to Resolve were merely NOTED and NOT
GRANTED contrary to what was stated in the 13 November 2002 Resolution imputing that the 13
November 2002 Resolution (at least the version that was released to the parties) a falsified
document because it makes it appear that a Resolution was issued by the First Division granting
petitioners Motion for Clarification when in fact no such Resolution exists. The real Resolution
arrived at by the First Division which can be gleaned from the Agenda merely NOTED said
motion. In support of his claims to inhibit the ponente, Atty. Pea attached to the subject Motion to
Inhibit two copies of the official Agenda for 13 November 2002 of the First Division of this
Court, which he claimed to have anonymously received through the mail. He also attached a copy of the
Courts internal Resolution regarding the transfer of the case from the Third Division to the First Division,
upon the request of Justice Carpio, to establish the latters alleged special interest in the case. (both
documents not open to the public)
During investigation, he was asked how he was able to get a copy of the two attached documents, both
internal resolutions, which he kept on reiterating that it was sent anonymously. He had also secured a copy
of the recommendation of the Office of the Bar Confidant which was also confidential. Moreover, it was
found out that the copy he had was not a copy of the members of the first division. Justice Carpio and
Justice Azcuna denied that Annex B is their copy of pp. 61 and 62 of the agenda, Justice Carpio also said
that per verification, Annex B is not Justice Santiagos copy. Thus, Justice Carpio added that Annex B
does not belong to any of the Justices of the First Division. It was also pointed out that each of the
Justices have their respective copies of the agenda and make their own notations thereon. The
official actions of the Court are contained in the duly approved minutes and resolutions of the
Court.
[ To cut the story short: Atty. Pena imputed in his motion that Justice Carpio was bribed in granting
Petitioners Motion for Clarifacation based on internal documents of the court sent to him anonymously
of which the court found hard to believe because he has done this already several times with other
justices/ponentes. R espondent led the court to believe that what he submitted was a faithful reproduction
of the ponentes Agenda, just to support the subject Motion to Inhibit. The original of the purported copy
was later found to have been inexistent in the courts records. ]
Issues:
1. Whether or not Atty. Pena made gratuitous allegations and imputations against members of the
court
2. WON he can be held administratively liable for submitting allegedly falsified documents
consisting of internal documents of the court.
Held:

1. Yes, in violation of Canon 11, respondent Pea is administratively liable for making gratuitous
imputations of bribery and wrongdoing against a member of the Court, as seen in the text of the
subject Motion to Inhibit, his statements during the 03 March 2003 Executive Session, and his
unrelenting obstinacy in hurling effectively the same imputations in his subsequent pleadings. In
moving for the inhibition of a Member of the Court in the manner he adopted, respondent Pea, as
a lawyer, contravened the ethical standards of the legal profession.
As officers of the court, lawyers are duty-bound to observe and maintain the respect due to the
courts and judicial officer. They are to abstain from offensive or menacing language or behavior
before the court and must refrain from attributing to a judge motives that are not supported by the
record or have no materiality to the case. A lawyers language should be forceful but dignified,
emphatic but respectful as befitting an advocate and in keeping with the dignity of the legal
profession.
2. Yes. If indeed lawyers were sent official judicial records that are confidential in nature and not easily
accessible, the ethical recourse for them would be to make a candid and immediate disclosure of
the matter to the court concerned for proper investigation, and not as proof to further the merits
of their case. In fact, respondent himself acknowledged that reporting the leaked out documents
was a duty he owed to the Court [ more so in this case, since the documents were sent anonymously
and through dubious circumstances. Respondent Pea is sanctioned for knowingly using
confidential and internal court records and documents, which he suspiciously obtained in bolstering
his case. His unbridled access to internal court documents has not been properly explained. The
cavalier explanation of respondent Pea that this Courts confidential documents would simply find
themselves conveniently falling into respondents lap through registered mail and that the
envelopes containing them could no longer be traced is unworthy of belief. This gives the Court
reason to infer that laws and its own internal rules have been violated over and over again by some
court personnel, whom respondent Pea now aids and abets by feigning ignorance of how the
internal documents could have reached him.
Penalty: Disbarment

CANON 15
Northwestern University vs Arquillo, AC 6632, August 2, 2005
FACTS:
Ben A. Nicolas, in behalf of Northwestern University, filed a letter-complaint to the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines allegedly reporting that Atty. Macario Arquillo had engaged in conflicting interest by acting as
counsel for both complainant and respondent in the very same consolidated case filed to the National
Labor Relations Commission. Respondent claims that there is no conflict-of-interests as all parties are said
to be on the same side.
For failing to appear in scheduled hearings, Atty. Arquillo is deemed to have waived his right to participate
in the proceedings.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondent is guilty of violating the conflict-of-interests rule under the Code of
Professional Responsibility.

HELD:
Yes. The Court held that Atty. Arquillo is guilty of violating the conflict-of-interests rule under the Code of
Professional Responsibility. Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility requires lawyers to observe
candor, fairness and loyalty in all their dealings and transactions with their clients. Therefore, a lawyer may
not represent conflicting interests without the written consent of all parties involved, after disclosure of the
facts. The Court did not agree with Arquillos justification of his acts for he should have known that in
representing opposing parties, there would be an obvious conflict of interest, regardless of his belief that
both parties are on the same side.
Atty. Macario Arquillo was found guilty of misconduct and was hereby suspended from the practice of law
for a period of one year.

GONZALES VS. CABUCANA

On January 8, 2004, Gonzales filed a petition before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP)
alleging that: she was the complainant in a case for sum of money and damages filed before the Municipal
Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) of Santiago City, docketed as Civil Case No. 1-567 where she was represented
by the law firm CABUCANA, CABUCANA, DE GUZMAN AND CABUCANA LAW OFFICE, with Atty. Edmar
Cabucana handling the case and herein respondent as an associate/partner; on February 26, 2001, a
decision was rendered in the civil case ordering the losing party to pay Gonzales the amount of P17,310.00
with interest and P6,000.00 as attorneys fees; Sheriff Romeo Gatcheco, failed to fully implement the writ
of execution issued in connection with the judgment which prompted Gonzales to file a complaint against
the said sheriff with this Court; in September 2003, Sheriff Gatcheco and his wife went to the house of
Gonzales; they harassed Gonzales and asked her to execute an affidavit of desistance regarding her
complaint before this Court; Gonzales thereafter filed against the Gatchecos criminal cases for trespass,
grave threats, grave oral defamation, simple coercion and unjust vexation; notwithstanding the pendency
of Civil Case No. 1-567, where respondents law firm was still representing Gonzales, herein respondent
represented the Gatchecos in the cases filed by Gonzales against the said spouses; respondent should be
disbarred from the practice of law since respondents acceptance of the cases of the Gatchecos violates
the lawyer-client relationship between complainant and respondents law firm and renders respondent
liable under the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) particularly Rules 10.01,1 13.01,2 15.02,3
15.03,4 21.015 and 21.02.
ISSUE: Whether or not respondent is guilty of violating Rule 15.03 of Canon 15 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
HELD:
We find respondent guilty of violating Rule 15.03 of Canon 15 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility,
to
wit:
Rule 15.03 A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interest except by written consent of all concerned
given after a full disclosure of the facts.
It is well-settled that a lawyer is barred from representing conflicting interests except by written
consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts.24 Such prohibition is founded on
principles of public policy and good taste as the nature of the lawyer-client relations is one of trust and
confidence of the highest degree.25 Lawyers are expected not only to keep inviolate the clients
confidence, but also to avoid the appearance of treachery and double-dealing for only then can litigants be
encouraged to entrust their secrets to their lawyers, which is of paramount importance in the
administration of justice.
The claim of respondent that there is no conflict of interests in this case, as the civil case handled
by their law firm where Gonzales is the complainant and the criminal cases filed by Gonzales against the
Gatcheco spouses are not related, has no merit. The representation of opposing clients in said cases,
though unrelated, constitutes conflict of interests or, at the very least, invites suspicion of double-dealing
which
this
Court
cannot
allow.30
Respondent further argued that it was his brother who represented Gonzales in the civil case and not him,
thus, there could be no conflict of interests. We do not agree. As respondent admitted, it was their law firm
which represented Gonzales in the civil case. Such being the case, the rule against representing conflicting
interests applies.

Nestor Perez vs Atty. Danilo dela Torre, AC 6160, March 30, 2006
Facts:
In a complaint dated July 30, 2003, Nestor Perez charged respondent Atty. Danilo de la Torre with
misconduct or conduct unbecoming of a lawyer for representing conflicting interests.
Perez alleged that he is the barangay captain of Binanuaanan, Calabanga, Camarines Sur; that in
December 2001, several suspects for murder and kidnapping for ransom, were apprehended and jailed by
the police authorities. Dela Torre went to the municipal building of Calabanga where the suspects were
being detained and made representations that he could secure their freedom if they sign the prepared
extrajudicial confessions. It was unknown to the two accused, respondent was representing the heirs of the
murder victim; that on the strength of the extrajudicial confessions, cases were filed against them. Dela
Torre denied the accusations against him. He explained that while being detained at the Calabanga
Municipal Police Jail, one of the accused sought his assistance in drafting an extrajudicial confession. The
complaint was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and
recommendation.2 On August 16, 2005, the Investigating Commissioner submitted his report
recommending that Atty. Danilo de la Torre be suspended for one (1) year from the practice of the legal
profession for violation of Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Issue:
Whether or not Dela Torre is guilty of violationg 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Ruling:
In administrative proceedings, the complainant has the burden of proving, by substantial evidence, the
allegations in his complaint. Perez was able to prove by substantial evidence his charge against Atty. de la
Torre. The respondent admitted that his services as a lawyer were retained by both the suspects. Perez was
able to show that at the time that Atty. de la Torre was representing the said two accused, he was also
representing the interest of the victims family. This was declared by the victims daughter, Vicky de
Chavez, who testified before Branch 63 of the Regional Trial Court of Camarines Sur that her family
retained the services of Atty. Dela Torre to prosecute the case against her fathers killers. She even
admitted that she was present when Atty. de la Torre met with and advised Avila and Ilo on one occasion.
This is proof that the respondent consciously offered his services to Avila and Ilo despite the fact that he
was already representing the family of the victim
Under Rule 15.03 of the 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. Respondent is
therefore duty bound to refrain from representing two parties having conflicting interests in a controversy.
By doing precisely the foregoing, and without any proof that Dela Torre secured the written consent of both
parties after explaining to them the existing conflict of interest, respondent should be sanctioned.
Thus, the Court found Dela Torre guilty of violation of Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
for representing conflicting interests. He is suspended for three years from the practice of law, effective
upon his receipt of the decision. He is warned that a repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with
more severely.

CANONS 1, 10 and 15
Clarita J. SAMALA vs. Atty. Luciano D. VALENCIA
Austria- Martinez, J.
AC No. 5439, January 22, 2007
FACTS:
Clarita Samala filed a complaint against Atty. Valencia for Disbarment on the following 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 Commissioner found respondent guilty of violating Canons 15 and 21 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility and recommended the penalty of suspension for 6 months.
The IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the report and recommendation of Commissioner Reyes
but increased the penalty of suspension from 6 months to 1 year.
ISSUES:
Canon 1: W/N Atty. Valencia violated Canon 1, Rule 1.01 by engaging in immoral conduct by
siring illegitimate children.
Canon 10: W/N Atty. Valencia is guilty of violating Canon 10 which provides that a lawyers shall not
do
any falsehood nor consent to the doing of any in court.
Canon 15: W/N Atty. Valencia is guilty of representing conflicting interests.
RULING: Atty. Valencia is GUILTY of misconduct and violation of 10 and 1 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. He is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for three (3) years.
HELD:

Canon 1: ON SIRING ILLEGITIMATE CHILDREN

During the hearing, Atty. Valencia admitted that he sired three children by Teresita Lagmay who are
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. However, he does not consider his affair
with Lagmay as a relationship and does not consider the latter 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. In this case, the admissions made by respondent are more than enough to hold him liable
on the charge of immorality. 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. Under Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility, a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
deceitful conduct. It may be difficult to specify the degree of moral delinquency that may qualify an
act as immoral, yet, 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.
Canon 10: ON KNOWINGLY
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE

MISLEADING

THE

COURT

BY

SUBMITTING

FALSE

Samala alleges that in Civil Case No. 00-7137 filed before MTC, Branch 75 for ejectment, Atty.
Valencia 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.
Records reveal that respondent filed Civil Case No. 00-7137 on November 27, 2000 and presented
TCT No. 273020 as evidence of Valdez's ownership of the subject property. During the hearing
before Commissioner Raval, respondent avers that when the Answer was filed in the said case, that
was the time that he came to know that the title was already in the name of Alba; so that when the
court dismissed the complaint, he did not do anything anymore. further avers that Valdez did not

tell him the truth and things were revealed to him only when the case for rescission was filed in
2002.
Upon examination of the record, it was noted that Civil Case No. 2000-657-MK for rescission of
contract and cancellation of TCT No. 275500 was also filed on November 27, 2000,[35] 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. It was revealed during the hearing before
Commissioner Raval that Civil Case Nos. 00-7137 and 2000-657-MK were filed on the same date,
although in different courts and at different times.
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 yet, as proof of the latter's
ownership.
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 mislead by any artifice. It matters not that the trial court was
not misled by respondent's submission of TCT No. 273020 in the name of Valdez, as shown by its
decision dated January 8, 2002 dismissing the complaint for ejectment. 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.
Canon 15: ON SERVING AS COUNSEL FOR CONTENDING PARTIES
Cases and acts represented by Atty. Valencia as counsel:

Civil Case No. 95-105-MK (RTC Branch 272 Marikina)- Leonora M. Aville v. Editha Valdez for
nonpayment of rentals (as Valdezs counsel)
Filing of an Explanation and Compliance before the RTC for tenants Lagmay, Valencia,
Bustamante and Bayuga (representing Lagmay, et al.)
Civil Case No. 98-6804 (MTC Branch 75 Marikina City)- Editha S. Valdez and Joseph J. Alba,
Jr. v. Salve Bustamante and her husband for ejectment, respondent (represented Valdez
against Bustamante one of the tenants in the property subject of the controversy)
Civil Case No. 2000-657-MK (RTC, Branch 273 Marikina) - Editha S. Valdez v. Joseph J. Alba,
Jr. and Register of Deeds of Marikina City, (as counsel for Valdez) filed a Complaint for
Rescission of Contract with Damages and Cancellation of Transfer Certificate of Title No.
275500 against Alba, Atty. Valencia's former client in Civil Case No. 98-6804 and SCA Case
No. 99-341-MK.

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. Records further reveal that at the
hearing of November 14, 2003, respondent admitted that in Civil Case No. 95-105-MK, he was the
lawyer for Lagmay (one of the tenants) but not for Bustamante and Bayuga albeit he filed the
Explanation and Compliance for and in behalf of the tenants. Respondent 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 although the case is entitled Valdez and
Alba v. Bustamante and her husband, because 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. But, while
claiming that respondent did not represent Alba, respondent, however, avers that he already
severed his representation for Alba when the latter charged respondent with estafa. Thus, the filing
of Civil Case No. 2000-657-MK against Alba.
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. He may not
also undertake to discharge conflicting duties any more than he may represent antagonistic
interests. One of the tests of inconsistency of interests 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.
In this case, respondents averment that his relationship with Alba has long been severed by the act
of the latter of not turning over the proceeds collected in Civil Case No. 98-6804, in connivance with
the complainant, is unavailing. Termination of the attorney-client relationship precludes an attorney
from representing a new client whose interest is adverse to his former client. Alba may not be his
original client but the fact that he filed a case entitled Valdez and Alba v. Bustamante and her
husband, is a clear indication that respondent is protecting the interests of both Valdez and Alba in
the said case. 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.
From the foregoing, it is evident that respondents 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 from this
Court. 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. Respondent is reminded to
be more cautious in accepting professional employments, to refrain from all appearances and acts
of impropriety including circumstances indicating conflict of interests, and to behave at all times
with circumspection and dedication befitting a member of the Bar, especially observing candor,
fairness and loyalty in all transactions with his clients.

ANINON VS. SABITSANA

FACTS:
In her complaint, Josefina M. Anion (complainant) related that she previously engaged the legal
services of Atty. Sabitsana in the preparation and execution in her favor of a Deed of Sale over a parcel of
land owned by her late common-law husband, Brigido Caneja, Jr. Atty. Sabitsana allegedly violated her
confidence when he subsequently filed a civil case against her for the annulment of the Deed of Sale in
behalf of Zenaida L. Caete, the legal wife of Brigido Caneja, Jr. The complainant accused Atty. Sabitsana of
using the confidential information he obtained from her in filing the civil case.
Atty. Sabitsana admitted having advised the complainant in the preparation and execution of the
Deed of Sale. However, he denied having received any confidential information. Atty. Sabitsana asserted
that the present disbarment complaint was instigated by one Atty. Gabino Velasquez, Jr., the notary of the
disbarment complaint who lost a court case against him (Atty. Sabitsana) and had instigated the complaint
for this reason.
ISSUE: The issue in this case is whether Atty. Sabitsana is guilty of misconduct for representing conflicting
interests.
HELD:
After a careful study of the records, we agree with the findings and recommendations of the IBP
Commissioner and the IBP Board of Governors.
The relationship between a lawyer and his/her 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/her lawyer for an unhampered exchange of information
between them. Needless to state, a client can only entrust confidential information to his/her lawyer based
on an expectation from the lawyer of utmost secrecy and discretion; the lawyer, for his part, is duty-bound
to observe candor, fairness and loyalty in all dealings and transactions with the client.6 Part of the lawyers
duty in this regard is to avoid representing conflicting interests, a matter covered by Rule 15.03, Canon 15
of the Code of Professional Responsibility quoted below:
Rule 15.03. -A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by written consent of all concerned
given after a full disclosure of the facts.