DONALD DEE, petitioner, vs.

COURT OF APPEALS and AMELITO MUTUC,

respondents.
176 SCRA 651, G.R. No. 77439
Regalado,
August 24, 1989

Doctrine:
Generally, an attorney is prohibited from representing parties with contending
position unless with their consent.—Even assuming that the imputed conflict of
interests obtained, private respondent’s role therein was not ethically or legally
indefensible. Generally, an attorney is prohibited from representing parties with
contending positions. However, at a certain stage of the controversy before it reaches
the court, a lawyer may represent conflicting interests with the consent of the parties.
A common representation may work to the advantage of said parties since a mutual
lawyer, with honest motivations and impartially cognizant of the parties’ disparate
positions, may well be better situated to work out an acceptable settlement of their
differences, being free of partisan inclinations and acting with the cooperation and
confidence of said parties.
A lawyer is entitled to have and receive the just and reasonable compensation for
services rendered.—A lawyer is entitled to have and receive the just and reasonable
compensation for services rendered at the special instance and request of his client
and as long as he is honestly and in good faith trying to serve and represent the
interests of his client, the latter is bound to pay his just fees.
Facts:
1. The Court of Appeals rendered a decision that the legal counsel’s services, Atty.
Mutuc, are on a professional and not on gratis et amore, thus ordering the petitioner to
pay the balance of Php 50,000.00;
2. Dewey Dee, his father and a cousin, seeks the assistance of the private counsel.
Sometime in January 1981, due to Devey Dee’s indebtedness to Ceasar’s Palace, a
gambling casino located in Los Angeles, California they are also afraid since rumor
said that the said casino is related to a mafia. Atty. Mutuc approved to look into the
matter and his services were contracted for Php 100,000.00.
3. The lawyer called Ceasar’s Palace several times, and flew to Las Vegas where he
found out that the debt was really for Ramon Sy, and Dewey Dee merely signed the
chits amounting to $1,000,000.00.
4. The lawyer informed the father, Mr. Donald Dee, of his findings whereafter he
made an arrangement with the President of the Cesar’s Palace, and made Ramon Sy
acknowledge the responsibility of paying the debt instead of his client.
5. Then after delivering the services, Atty. Mutuc demanded the full payment of his
services, but the client refused and claimed that they are family friend which caused
the service to be rendered, and the initial payment was a pocket money.
6. Atty. Mutuc then filed a case to collect, he won and then the AC have decided
differently which was later changed after a motion of reconsideration.

Issue: Whether Atty. Mutuc can render services for two contrary party.

Ruling:

Yes, on this case considering the conduct of Atty. Mutuc, he was able to serve the
interest of both of his clients.

Under Canon 15 - A lawyer shall observe candor, fairness and loyalty in all his
dealings and transactions with his clients. Thus, regularly a legal counsel are
prohibited to serve two contracting parties, to ensure that the strength and weakness of
the case of both parties will be protected.

On this case Donald Dee seek the assistance of Atty. Mutuc due to indebtedness to
Ceasar’s Palace, the legal counsel was able to prove that Ramon Sy was the real
debtor and not his client, which is not a conflict of interest to Cesar’s Palace and to
that of Donald Dee in trying to save his son.

Wherefore, Atty. Mutuc acting in good faith and in accordance to the interest of his
clients did not violate Canon 15, petitioner on this case should pay the legal counsel,
the May 9, 1986 decision is hereby affirmed with cost against petitioner.