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.

OROA! "#. A. v. A##$. RA%O&

A.'. (o. )*+0! &epte,ber 11! 013

A'#&/ The respondent acted as a collaborating counsel with Atty. Ely

Azarraga, J.r. in representing Maricar, Karen, and the other heirs of late
Antonio L. Orola !eirs of Antonio" in the settle#ent of the estate of 
Trinidad Laserna$Orola. The !eirs of Antonio, together with the !eirs of 
Trinidad, who were the co#plainants in the disbar#ent case, #o%ed for
the re#o%al of E#ilio Orola, the ad%erse party, as the ad#inistrator of 
Trinidad&s estate. 'ubse(uently, respondent appeared as a collaborating
counsel for E#ilio, the opposing party, in the sa#e case. )ue to this,
co#plainants
co#plainants filed a disbar#ent
disbar#ent co#plaint
co#plaint before
before the *ntegrated
*ntegrated +ar of 
the hilippines *+" on the ground that the respondent %iolated the
prohibition against representing conflicting interests under -ule /.01 of 
the 2ode of rofessional -esponsibility.
-esponsibility.
-espondent contended that he ne%er appeared as counsel for the
co#plainants. !e #erely represented Maricar te#porarily at the latter&s
re(uest due to the una%ailability of Atty. Azarraga and his ser%ice was
free of charge. !e also contended that he consulted Maricar before he
undertoo3 to represent E#ilio in the sa#e case and that no infor#ation
was disclosed to hi# by Maricar or Atty. Azarraga at any instance.
&&"/ 4hether or not respondent is guilty of representing conflicting
interests in %iolation of -ule /.01 of the 2ode.
2"/ The
The -ule
-ule /.01
/.01 of the
the 2ode
2ode of rof
rofes
essi
sion
onal
al -espo
-espons
nsib
ibil
ilit
ity
y
pro%ides that5
 -ule /.01 $ A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests e6cept by
written consent of all concerned gi%en after a full disclosure of the facts.
The abo%e$cited rule is clear and une(ui%ocal that a lawyer is
prohibited fro# representing new clients whose interests oppose that of 
a for#er client in any #anner, whether they are parties in the sa#e
action or on totally unrelated cases.
Three tests were pro%ided in the !ornilla %. 'alunat ruling in
deter#ining whether or not there is conflict of interests5 7whether or not
in behalf of one client, it is the lawyer8s duty to fight for an issue or
clai#, but it is his duty to oppose it for the other client. *n brief, if he
argues for one client, this argu#ent will be opposed by hi# when he
argues for the other client.9
'econd, there is conflict of interests if the acceptance of the new
retainer will re(uire the attorney to perfor# an act which will in:uriously
affect his first client in any #atter in which he represents hi# and also
whether he will be called upon in his new relation to use against his first
client any 3nowledge ac(uired through their connection.

Lastly, whether the acceptance of a new relation will pre%ent an

attorney fro# the full discharge of his duty of undi%ided fidelity and
loyalty to his client or in%ite suspicion of unfaithfulness or double dealing
in the perfor#ance thereof.

*n the instant case, records re%eal that respondent was the

collaborating counsel not only for Maricar as clai#ed by hi#, but for all
the !eirs of Antonio. The !eirs of Trinidad and the
!eirs of Antonio succeeded in re#o%ing E#ilio as ad#inistrator for
ha%ing co##itted acts pre:udicial to their interests. !owe%er, the
respondent clearly %iolated the prohibition against representing
conflicting interests when he proceeded to represent E#ilio for the
purpose of see3ing his reinstate#ent as ad#inistrator in the sa#e case.