DARIA O. DAGING vs. ATTY. RIZ TINGALON L.

DAVIS
A.C. No. 9395 November 12, 2014

DARIA O. DAGING, Complainant vs. ATTY. RIZ TINGALON L. DAVIS, Respondent.

This administrative complaint for disbarment arose from an Affidavit Complaint1 filed by Daria O. Daging
(complainant) before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), Benguet Chapter,2 against Atty. Riz
Tingalon L. Davis (respondent).

Complainant was the owner and operator of Nashville Country Music Lounge. She leased it from Benjie
Pinlac (Pinlac).

Meanwhile, complainant received a Retainer Proposal from Davis & Sabling Law Office signed by
respondent and his partner Atty. Amos Saganib Sabling (Atty. Sabling) and eventually resulted in the
signing by the complainant.

Complainant was delinquent in paying the monthly rentals, Pinlac terminated the lease. Together with
Novie Balageo (Balageo) and respondent, Pinlac went to complainant's music bar, inventoried all the
equipment therein, and informed her that Balageo would take over the operation of the bar. Complainant
averred that subsequently respondent acted as business partner of Balageo in operating the bar under
her business name, which they later renamed Amarillo Music Bar.

Complainant alleged that she filed an ejectment case against Pinlac and Balageo before the Municipal
Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Branch 1, Baguio City. At that time, Davis & Sabling Law Office was still her
counsel as their Retainer Agreement remained subsisting and in force. However, respondent appeared
as counsel for Balageo in that ejectment case
In his Comment, respondent denied participation in the takeover or acting as a business partner of
Balageo in the operation of the bar. He asserted that Balageo is the sole proprietress of the
establishment. He insisted that it was Atty. Sabling, his partner, who initiated the proposal and was in fact
the one who was able to convince complainant to accept the law office as her retainer. Respondent
maintained that he never obtained any knowledge or information regarding the business of complainant
who used to consult only Atty. Sabling. Respondent admitted though having represented Balageo in the
ejectment case, but denied that he took advantage of the Retainer Agreement between complainant and
Davis and Sabling Law Office.

The Investigating Commissioner rendered a Report and Recommendation finding respondent guilty of
betrayal of his client's trust and for misuse of information obtained from his client to the disadvantage of
the latter and to the advantage of another person. He recommended that respondent be suspended from
the practice o flaw for a period of one year.

Issue: WON respondent violated the Canon upon appearing as lawyer in the ejectment case?

Held:
Based on the established facts, it is indubitable that respondent transgressed Rule 15.03 of Canon 15 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility. It provides:

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.

"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 prohibition against representing conflicting
interests is absolute and the rule applies even if the lawyer has acted in good faith and with no intention
to represent conflicting interests. In Quiambao v. Atty. Bamba, this Court emphasized that lawyers are
expected not only to keep inviolate the client's 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.

Respondent argues that while complainant is a client of Davis & Sabling Law office, her case is actually
handled only by his partner Atty. Sabling. He was not privy to any transaction between Atty. Sabling and
complainant and has no knowledge of any information or legal matter complainant entrusted or confided
to his law partner. He thus inveigles that he could not have taken advantage of information obtained by
his law firm by virtue of the Retainer Agreement. We are not impressed.

In Hilado v. David, reiterated in Gonzales v. Atty. Cabucana, Jr.,this Court held that a lawyer who takes
up the cause of the adversary of the party who has engaged the services of his law firm brings the law
profession into public disrepute and suspicion and undermines the integrity of justice. Thus, respondent's
argument that he never took advantage of any information acquired by his law firm in the course of its
professional dealings with the complainant, even assuming it to be true, is of no moment. Undeniably
aware of the fact that complainant is a client of his law firm, respondent should have immediately
informed both the complainant and Balageo that he, as well as the other members of his law firm, cannot
represent any of them in their legal tussle; otherwise, they would be representing conflicting interests and
violate the Code of Professional Responsibility. Indeed, respondent could have simply advised both
complainant and Balageo to instead engage the services of another lawyer.
ANGLO vs. VALENCIA
Facts:
Complainant alleged that he availed the services of the law firm Valencia Ciocon Dabao Valencia
De La Paz Dionela Pandan Rubica Law Office(law firm), of which Attys. Valencia, Ciocon, Dabao,
Uy-Valencia, De La Paz, Dionela, Pandan, Jr., and Rubica were partners, for two (2) consolidated
labor cases where he was impleaded as respondent. Atty. Dionela, a partner of the law firm, was
assigned to represent complainant. On September 18, 2009, a criminal case for qualified theft
was filed against complainant and his wife by FEVE Farms Agricultural Corporation (FEVE Farms)
acting through a certain Michael Villacorta (Villacorta). Villacorta, however, was represented by the
law firm, the same law office which handled complainant’s labor cases. Aggrieved, complainant filed
this disbarment case against respondents, alleging that they violated Rule 15.03, Canon 15 and
Canon 21 of the CPR. Respondents admitted that they indeed operated under the name Valencia
Ciocon Dabao Valencia De La Paz Dionela Pandan Rubica Law Office, but explained that their
association is not a formal partnership, but one that is subject to certain "arrangements." According
to them, each lawyer contributes a fixed amount every month for the maintenance of the entire
office; and expenses for cases, such as transportation, copying, printing, mailing, and the like are
shouldered by each lawyer separately, allowing each lawyer to fix and receive his own
professional fees exclusively.

As such, the lawyers do not discuss their clientele with the other lawyers and associates, unless they
agree that a case be handled collaboratively. Respondents claim that this has been the practice of
the law firm since its inception. They averred that complainant’s labor cases were solely and
exclusively handled by Atty. Dionela and not by the entire law firm. Moreover, respondents asserted
that the qualified theft case filed by FEVE Farms was handled by Atty. Peñalosa, a new associate
who had no knowledge of complainant’s labor cases, as he started working for the firm after the
termination thereof.

IBP Commissioner found respondents to have violated the rule on conflict of interest and
recommended that they be reprimandedtherefor, with the exception of Atty. Dabao, who had died on
January 17, 2010. The IBP found that complainant was indeed represented in the labor cases by the
respondents acting together as a law firm and not solely by Atty. Dionela. Consequently, there was a
conflict of interest in this case, as respondents, through Atty. Peñalosa, having been retained by
FEVE Farms, created a connection that would injure complainant in the qualified theft case.
Moreover, the termination of attorney-client relation provides no justification for a lawyer to represent
an interest adverse to or in conflict with that of the former client.

Issue:
Whether or not respondents are guilty of representing conflicting interests in violation of the pertinent
provisions of the CPR.

Held:
Yes. There is conflict of interest when a lawyer represents inconsistent interests of two or more
opposing partiesThe test is "whether or not in behalf of one client, it is the lawyer’s duty to fight for
an issue or claim, but it is his duty to oppose it for the other client. In brief, if he argues for one client,
this argument will be opposed by him when he argues for the other client." This rule covers not only
cases in which confidential communications have been confided, but also those in which no
confidence has been bestowed or will be used. Also, there is conflict of interests if the acceptance of
the new retainer will require the attorney to perform an act which will injuriously affect his first client
in any matter in which he represents him and also whether he will be called upon in his new relation
to use against his first client any knowledge acquired through their connection. Another test of the
inconsistency of interests is whether the acceptance of a new relation will prevent an attorney from
the full discharge of his duty of undivided fidelity and loyalty to his client or invite suspicion of
unfaithfulness or double dealing in the performance thereof.
As such, a lawyer is prohibited from representing new clients whose interests oppose those of a
former client in any manner, whether or not they are parties in the same action or on totally unrelated
cases. The prohibition is founded on the principles of public policy and good taste; the termination of
attorney-client relation provides no justification for a lawyer to represent an interest adverse to or in
conflict with that of the former client. The client's confidence once reposed should not be divested by
mere expiration of professional employment.

REBECCA MARIE UY
YUPANGCO-NAKPIL,
Complainant,
- versus -
ATTY. ROBERTO L. UY,
Respondent.

A.C. No. 9115

SEP 17, 2014

Facts:
Rebecca is the natural niece and adopted daughter of the late Dra. Pacita Uy. She was adjudged
as the sole and exclusive legal heir of Pacita by virtue of an Order2 dated August 10, 1999 issued
by the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 34. Pacita was a stockholder in several
corporations primarily engaged in acquiring, developing, and leasing real properties (one of these
companies is Uy Realty Company, Inc [URCI]). Rebecca, through her attorney-in fact, Bella,
averred that respondent, continuously failed and refused to comply with the court order declaring
her as the successor-in-interest to all of Pacita’s properties, as well as her requests for the
accounting and delivery of the dividends and other proceeds or benefits coming from Pacita’s
stockholdings in the corporations. She added that respondent mortgaged a commercial despite an
existing Trust Agreement wherein respondent, in his capacity as President of URCI, already
recognized her to be the true and beneficial owner of the same.

Issue:
Whether or not respondent should be held administratively liable for violating Rule 1.01, Canon
1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility

Held:
Respondent Atty. Roberto L. Uy is found GUILTY of violating Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility.

Ratio Decidendi:
The Court finds that respondent committed some form of misconduct by, as admitted,
mortgaging the subject property, notwithstanding the apparent dispute over the same. Regardless
of the merits of his own claim, respondent should have exhibited prudent restraint becoming of a
legal exemplar. He should not have exposed himself even to the slightest risk of committing a
property violation nor any action which would endanger the Bar's reputation. Verily, members of
the Bar are expected at all times to uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession and
refrain from any act or omission which might lessen the trust and confidence reposed by the
public in the fidelity, honesty, and integrity of the legal profession. 26 By no insignificant
measure, respondent blemished not only his integrity as a member of the Bar, but also that of the
legal profession. In other words, his conduct fell short of the exacting standards expected of him
as a guardian of law and justice.