[A.C. No. 6740. February 26, 2014.

SENIOR MARKETING CORPORATION, represented by JAMES VINCENT

C. NAVARETTE, complainant, vs. ATTY. AQUILINO P.
BOLINAS, respondent.

Facts:

Complainant Senior Marketing Corporation filed a complaint for disbarment against Atty.
Aquilino Bolinas (Atty. Bolinas),alleging from 1995 to 2002 he engaged the services of Atty.
Bolinas to handle collection cases and other legal services and paid him. Atty. Bolinas entered
his appearance as counsel for complainant in a case that the latter filed against Dante
Almacen for extrajudicial foreclosure of real estate; that complainant also conferred with
Atty. Bolinas regarding the cases to be filed against their erring sales representatives
and turned over to him pertinent documents material to their prosecution.Since the
engagement of Atty. Bolinas as their counsel from 1995 to 2002, he had access to the
documents related to the cases he handled; that due to business reversal and financial
constraints, complainant terminated his services as retainer; that his termination irked him and
in obvious vindictiveness, he accepted cases filed against complainant by its employees; and
that Atty. Bolinas' act of accepting the cases and in representing complainant's employees in a
case filed against complainant without its consent violated his oath of office.

In his comment, Atty. Bolinas denied conferring with complainant's representative, James
Navarette, but admitted talking to its previous managers on the possibility of filing complaints
against its erring sales representatives. Atty. Bolinas also denied having access to all
documents related to cases he had handled as he was only furnished photocopies of
documents on certain accounts which he used as basis for sending letters and filing appropriate
legal actions. Atty. Bolinas, however, admitted handling the cases of complainant's employees
and that he accepted the cases more than one (1) year after their retainship was terminated by
complainant. aSCDcH
In its Report and Recommendation, dated June 4, 2007, the Investigating Commissioner found
Atty. Bolinas guilty of violating the Code of Professional Responsibility by representing
conflicting interests and recommended that he be suspended from the practice of law for
six (6) months.

Issue
Whether or not the respondent violated Canon 21, Canon 15 Rule 15.01 and Rule 15.03?

Canon 21 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides:

Canon 21. A lawyer shall preserve the confidence and secrets of his client
even after the attorney-client relationship is terminated.
Also, Canon 15 of the same code explicitly states:
Rule 15.01 A lawyer, in conferring with a prospective client, shall ascertain
as soon as practicable whether the matter would involve a conflict with another
client or is own interest, and if so, shall forthwith inform the prospective client.
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.
Ruling:
Yes, Atty. Bolinas clearly violated the prohibition against representing conflicting interests when
he accepted the cases filed against complainant by its employees notwithstanding the fact that
he was previously the retained counsel of the complainant and that the latter consulted him on
the possibility of filing complaints against its erring employees and had access to documents
material to their prosecution. The explanation of Atty. Bolinas that he accepted the case of
complainant's employees one year after his termination does not excuse him. The termination of
the attorney-client relationship does not justify a lawyer to represent an interest adverse to or in
conflict with that of the former client except where there is an express consent from the former
client. Respondent Atty. Aquilino P. Bolinas is found GUILTY of violation of Rules 15.01 and
15.03 of Canon 15 and Canon 21 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, and is
hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of SIX (6) MONTHS effective from
receipt of this Resolution, with a warning that a similar infraction in the future shall be dealt with
more severely.