ANIÑON v SABITSANA, JR.

DOCTRINE:

 The relationship between a lawyer and his/her client should ideally be imbued with the
highest level of trust and confidence in order to promote a full disclosure of the client's
most confidential information to his/her lawyer for an unhampered exchange of
information between them. The lawyer, therefore, is duty-bound to observe candor,
fairness and loyalty in all dealings and transactions with the client. Part of the lawyer's duty
in this regard is to avoid representing conflicting interests, a matter covered by Rule 15.03,
Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
 "The proscription against representation of conflicting interests applies to a situation where
the opposing parties are present clients in the same action or in an unrelated action."
Jurisprudence has provided three tests in determining whether a violation of the above rule
is present in a given case:
1. Whether a lawyer is duty-bound to fight for an issue or claim in behalf of one client and,
at the same time, to oppose that claim for the other client.
2. Whether the acceptance of a new relation would prevent the full discharge of the
lawyer's duty of undivided fidelity and loyalty to the client or invite suspicion of
unfaithfulness or double-dealing in the performance of that duty.
3. Whether the lawyer would be called upon in the new relation to use against a former
client any confidential information acquired through their connection or previous
employment.
 The essence of due process is simply the opportunity to be informed of the charge against
oneself and to be heard or, as applied to administrative proceedings, the opportunity to
explain one's side or the opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling
complained of. These opportunities were all afforded to respondent lawyer, as shown by
the above circumstances.
 Disciplinary proceedings against lawyers are sui generis. In the exercise of its disciplinary
powers, the Court merely calls upon a member of the Bar to account for his actuations as an
officer of the Court with the end in view of preserving the purity of the legal profession. We
likewise aim to ensure the proper and honest administration of justice by purging the
profession of members who, by their misconduct, have proven themselves no longer worthy
to be entrusted with the duties and responsibilities of an attorney.

FACTS:

 This is a disbarment complaint filed by Aninon against respondent Atty. Sabitsana,

charging the latter of:
o Violation of the lawyer’s duty to preserve confidential information received
form his client; and
o Violation of the prohibition on representing conflicting interests.
 Complainant contends that she previously engaged the legal services of herein
respondent lawyer over a Deed of Sale over a parcel of land, and the latter allegedly
violated her confidence when he subsequently filed a civil case against her for the
annulment of the Deed of Sale using confidential information he obtained from her.
 Respondent lawyer admitted having advised complainant in the preparation and
executing of the Deed of Sale. However, he denied having received any confidential
information and asserted that the disbarment complaint was initiated by another
lawyer who lost a case against him.
 IBP Investigating Commissioner:
o Report – found respondent lawyer administratively liable for representing
conflicting interests.
o Recommendation - suspension of 1year from the practice of law.
 IBP Board of Governors adopt and approve the report and recommendation of the
IBP Commissioner
 ISSUE: W/N respondent lawyer is guilty of misconduct for representing conflicting interests?

RULING: The Court agrees with the findings and recommendations of the IBP Commissioner
and Board of Governors.

The relationship between a lawyer and his/her client should ideally be imbued with the
highest level of trust and confidence in order to promote a full disclosure of the client's
most confidential information to his/her lawyer for an unhampered exchange of
information between them. The lawyer, therefore, is duty-bound to observe candor,
fairness and loyalty in all dealings and transactions with the client. Part of the lawyer's duty
in this regard is to avoid representing conflicting interests, a matter covered by Rule 15.03,
Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

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.

"The proscription against representation of conflicting interests applies to a situation

where the opposing parties are present clients in the same action or in an unrelated action."
Jurisprudence has provided three tests in determining whether a violation of the above rule
is present in a given case:

4. Whether a lawyer is duty-bound to fight for an issue or claim in behalf of one client and,
at the same time, to oppose that claim for the other client.
5. Whether the acceptance of a new relation would prevent the full discharge of the
lawyer's duty of undivided fidelity and loyalty to the client or invite suspicion of
unfaithfulness or double-dealing in the performance of that duty.
6. Whether the lawyer would be called upon in the new relation to use against a former
client any confidential information acquired through their connection or previous
employment.

Based on the above mentioned facts of the case, the Court finds substantial evidence to
support respondent lawyer’s violation of the said rule. The Court further ruled that even if
Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of the CPR provides an exception to the prohibition, the Court cannot
apply such exemption in this cases due to respondent lawyer’s failure to obtain the written
consents of his 2 clients. Moreover, respondent lawyer did not make a full disclosure of facts
to the complainant and to his other client before he accepted the annulment of the Deed of
Sale. Hence, the Court finds respondent lawyer guilty of misconduct for representing
conflicting interest and agrees with the penalty of suspension for 1year from the practice of
law.

With regards to violation of respondent lawyer’s right to due process, the Court held
that the essence of due process is simply the opportunity to be informed of the charge
against oneself and to be heard or, as applied to administrative proceedings, the
opportunity to explain one's side or the opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the action
or ruling complained of. These opportunities were all afforded to respondent lawyer, as
shown by the above circumstances.

All told, disciplinary proceedings against lawyers are sui generis. In the exercise of its
disciplinary powers, the Court merely calls upon a member of the Bar to account for his
actuations as an officer of the Court with the end in view of preserving the purity of the
legal profession. We likewise aim to ensure the proper and honest administration of justice
by purging the profession of members who, by their misconduct, have proven themselves
no longer worthy to be entrusted with the duties and responsibilities of an attorney.

HELD: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court resolves to ADOPT the findings and
recommendations of the Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.
Atty. Clemencio C. Sabitsana, Jr. is found GUILTY of misconduct for representing conflicting
interests in violation of Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He is
hereby SUSPENDED for one (1) year from the practice of law. Atty. Sabitsana is DIRECTED to
inform the Court of the date of his receipt of this Decision so that we can determine the
reckoning point when his suspension shall take effect.