RONALDO PACANA complainant vs ATTY MARICAL PASCUAL-LOPEZ

Supreme Court
July 24, 2009
A.C. No. 8243

FACTS:
- January 2002, complainant was the Operations Director of Multitel Communications
Corporation (MCC). MCC is an affiliate company of Multitel International Holdings
Corporation (Multitel).
- July 2002, MCC changed its name to Precedent Communications Corporation
(Precedent)
- Complainant sought the advice of respondent who also happened to be a member of the
Couples for Christ, a religious organization where complainant and his wife were also
active members because Multilitel was besieged with letters because oif a failed
investment scheme.
- From then on, respondent and complainant communicated consistently and gave legal
advice to complainant. In sum, complainant avers that lawyer-client relationship was
already established but no formal document was executed.
- January 2003, a retainer agreement was proposed by the respondent but was not signed
by the complainant because respondent asked for P100,000 as acceptance fee and a 15%
contingency fee upon collection of the overpay made by Multitel to Beneforn, a telecom
company based in Finland.
- Complainant was then surprised when he received a letter from respondent asking for the
return and immediate settlement of the funds invested by respondent’s clients in Multitel.
- When complainant confronted respondent about the demand letter, the respondent
explained that she sent the letters so that her clients know that she was doing something
for them and assured the complainant that there is nothing to worry about. Respondent
also told complainant that she can work with various government offices in order to clear
her name.
- While in the US, complainant received messages from respondent warning him not to
return to the Philippines because Multitel’s president was arrested.
- When complainant went back to the Philippines, respondent called him and told her that
he has been cleared by the NBI and BID.
- Respondent said that she accumulated a total of 12,500,000 as attorney’s fees but said she
was willing to give her the 2,000,000 as appreciation for his help. Complainant accepted
but respondent failed to fulfill her promise.
- April 2004, complainant noticed that respondent was evading him. Dismayed, with the
actions of respondent, complainant wrote a formal letter to respondent asking for a full
accounting of all the money, documents and properties given to her but respondent failed
to give a full and clear report the matter.
- Complainant then decided to file an affidavit complaint against respondent before the
Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, seeking the
disbarment of the respondent.
- On her reply, respondent denied being the lawyer of Precedent and maintained that no
formal engagement was executed between her and the complainant.
ISSUE: W/N respondent violated Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of the code of professional
responsibility which provides:
“A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by written
consent of all concerned given after full disclosure of the facts.”

HELD: YES

RESONING:
- The prohibition is founded on principles of public policy, good taste and more
importantly upon necessity.
- Respondent must have known that her act of constantly and actively communicating with
complainant, who, at that time, was confronted with difficulties by the demands from
investors of Multititel, eventually led lawyer-client relationship
- Respondent also trie to argue that there was no contract between her and the complainant.
But documentary formalism is not an essential element in the employment of an attorney;
the contract may be express or implied.
- In Hornilla vs Atty Salunat, the concept of “conflict of interest is when a lawyer
represents inconsistent interests of two or more opposing parties.” In short, if he argues
for one client, this argument will be opposed by him when he argues for the other client.
- WHEREFORE, respondent Attorney Maricel Pascual-Lopez is hereby DISBARRED for
representing conflicting interests and for engaging in unlawful, dishonest and deceitful
conduct in violation of her Lawyer’s oath and the code of Professional Responsibility.