Simon D. Paz vs. Atty. Pepito A.

Sanchez

Facts

This is a disbarment complaint filed by Simon D. Paz against Atty. Pepito A. Sanchez for
representing conflicting interests and violation of lawyer's oath.
Petitioner:
In 1995, Paz and his partners engaged the services of Sanchez
1) to assist them with the purchase of several parcel of land for tenant-farmers
2) to defend them on the property agains the claim of a certain "Lizares"
In 2000, after Sanchez's termination of services from Paz and his partners, he filed a complaint
before the DAR Board ("DARAB") in behalf of Dizon for annulment of a transfer certificate title
(TCT) under the name of Paz and his partners. Paz explained that such property was purchased
with the assistance of Sanchez therefore rendering a conflict of interest.
Paz also filed "malicious machination" because Sanchez used the old address of Paz to serve the
summons enabling their default.
In 2003, despite the knowledge of Paz's pending petition for review in the DARAB case, Sanchez
filed a civil case against Paz and Sycamore for annulment of another TCT.
Paz pointed out that Sanchez should be punished for forum shopping and preparing for false
certificate of non-forum shopping because Sanchez failed to disclose Paz's pending petition before
DARAB. Violation of Lawyer's Oath is also complained because of "malice and full knowledge of
the real facts,"mSanchez filed groundless and false suit against Paz.
Respondent:
Sanchez has been representing Dizon and the tenant-farmers since 1978. He also represented
the tenant-farmers from Lizares and since Paz and his partners are buyers of the tenant-farmers
properties, they were impleaded as defendants in the Lizares case.
On the DARAB case, Sanchez admitted that Paz expressed his interest in Dizon's properties. The
complaint was filed in 1997 and not after his service was terminated. He felt compelled to do so
because he felt responsible as he was the one who lent to Paz the title of Dizon enabling them to
transfer the title to their names.
For the address, he put the last known address of Paz in 1997 which in the statement in 2000, it
was stated that the summons and notices were served and received. But Paz and his partners
ignored them.
As per the Sycamore case, Sanchez felt compelled as well when he discovered that the same title
was transferred from Paz to Sycamore. So unless such transfer between Paz and Sycamore is
nullified, the Register of Deeds cannot execute the DARAB case decision.

IBP Recommendation:
Guilty of prohibition against conflict of interests. One year suspension.

Court's Ruling
The court finds insufficient evidence to hold respondent liable for forum shopping and for filing
groundless suits. However, the court finds respondent liable for violation of the prohibition on
representing conflicting interests.
On non-forum shopping, the court ruled that although both cases are related because Dizon's
property is involved, the reliefs prayed for are different. Forum shopping takes place when litigants
files multiple suits involving the same parties to secure favorable judgment but it does not follow
that mere filing of several cases based on the same incident constitutes forum shopping.
On violation of lawyer's oath, the court notes that the cases are still pending before DARAB and
RTC therefore does not have any basis for ruling if there is a violation.
On conflicting interests, the court notes that the respondent did not specifically deny that he
represented conflicting interests.
Rule 15.03: "A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by written consent of
all concerned given after full disclosure of facts."
By respondent's own admission, when he filed the DARAB case on Dizon's behalf, both Paz and
Dizon were respondent's clients at that time - as Paz's counsel on the Lizares case and
representing Dizon before the cancellation of lis pendens involving Dizon's property, which
cancellation was needed for Paz to purchase the Dizon property. In filing the DARAB case on
Dizon's behalf, respondent was duty bound to assail Sanchez's title over Dizon's property, which
Sanchez had purchased from Dizon. Clearly a conflict of interest.
In representing both, respondent's undivided fidelity and loyalty to his clients was placed under a
cloud of doubt.
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. He learns from his client the weak points of the action as
well as the strong ones. Such knowledge must be considered sacred and guarded with
care. No opportunity must be given him to take advantage of the client's secrets. A lawyer
must have the fullest confidence of his client. For if the confidence is abused, the
profession will suffer by the loss thereof.