Earl M.

Tabasuares

Orola vs. Atty. Ramos A.C. No. 9860, September 11, 2013 (CONFLICT
OF INTEREST)
1.) During one of the hearings of the settlement of the estate of the late
Trinidad, her children (heirs) were represented by Atty. Ramos.
Emilio (husband of Trinidad) was initially appointed as administrator
of Trinidad’s estate who was then represented by Atty. Brotarlo.
The children (heirs) of Trinidad succeeded in removing Emilio as
administrator. Thereafter, Atty. Ramos filed an Entry of Appearance
as collaborating counsel for Emilio. Likewise, he consulted Maricar
(one of the heirs) of Trinidad and obtained her permission to
represent Emilio.
Question: Is Atty. Ramos guilty of representing conflicting interest in
violation of Rule of the Code?
Answer: Yes. There is conflict of interest when a lawyer represents
inconsistent interest of two or more opposing parties. Rule 15.03
generally provides that a lawyer shall not represent conflicting
interest. However, if a written consent of all concerned is given after
full disclosure, a lawyer may, upon withdrawal, represent the
opposing party.
In this case, Atty. Ramos merely obtained the consent of Maricar but
failed to obtain the consent of the other heirs.
Hence, Atty. Ramos represented conflicting interest in violation of
15.03.
Yupangco-Nakpil vs. Atty. Uy, A.C. No. 9115 September 17, 2014
(WITHDRAWAL OF COMPLAINT)
2.) Rebecca was adjudged as the sole and exclusive legal heir of the late
Pacita whereby she inherited stockholdings among several
corporations previously owned by Pacita.
Thereafter, Rebecca filed a complaint against Atty. Uy (President of
URCI) for his continuous refusal to comply with the court order
declaring her as the successor in interest of Pacita’s properties; as
well as her request for accounting and delivery and proceeds or
benefits coming from Pacita’s stockholdings.
Later on, Rebecca filed a Motion to Withdraw the Complaint, for the
reason that “the facts surrounding the same arouse out of a
misunderstanding and misapprehension o the real facts surrounding
their dispute.”
However, she subsequently filed a Manifestation with Leave of Court
to File a Motion for Intervention, praying the investigation of the
charges against respondent continue in order to weed out erring
members of the legal profession.

Question: Does the withdrawal of the Complaint serve as a bar for

the further consideration and investigation of the administrative case
against Atty. Uy?

Answer: No, such withdrawal of a Complaint does not serve as a bar

for further consideration and investigation of administrative case.
Section 5, Rule 139- B of the Rules of Court provides that “No
investigation shall be interrupted or terminated by reason of
desistance, settlement, compromise, restitution, withdrawal of the
charges, or failure of the complaint to prosecute the same.”