Sta. Maria vs.

Tuazon

FACTS:

This is a petition for the disbarment of Atty. Eduardo M. Tuason, instituted by Emilio Sta. Maria.

Sometime in June 1955, Atty. Tuason represented the partnership of Sta. Maria, Guanzon and
Chincuanco in a collection case against Enriqueta de Hidalgo, involving a promissory note of
P50,000.00. Defendant Hidalgo in this case was declared in default and was ordered to pay. By
virtue of a writ of execution, the provincial sheriff of Pampanga was able to obtain the amount of
P22,930.64.

Respondent Tuason got the whole amount from the sheriff and applied it in the following manner
: P10,000 attorney’s fees, P1,648 supposed expenses of litigation which he claimed to have
advanced during the prosecution and the balance of P11,282.64 to Fausto Chincuanco, his
uncle.

Despite demands from Sta. Maria to turn over the money to him or to the sheriff, respondent
failed to comply and contempt proceedings were instituted against Tuason. The matter was
referred to the Office of the Solicitor General who made the findings and recommendation that:
respondent Tuason was not in connivance with his uncle Chincuanco in depriving petitioner of
his lawful share in the liquidation of partnership assets, however, the collection of P10,000 as
attorney’s fees after the case was terminated after one brief hearing is unreasonable. There was
also no evidence presented to show that Tuason actually spent P1,648 for the expenses.

The Sol. Gen. recommended that instead of a more severe penalty which he would otherwise
deserve, respondent be reprimanded for professional indiscretion, with a warning that a more
severe penalty be imposed for the repetition of the same of similar acts.

ISSUE : Whether respondent committed acts that would merit his disbarment.

RULING:

NO. After an overall consideration of the facts and circumstances surrounding the case. The Court
finds that the findings and conclusions of the Solicitor General are supported by the evidence on
record. The fact that the respondent placed his private and personal interest over and above that
of his clients constitutes a breach of the lawyer’s oath, to say the least. Call it professional
indiscretion or any other name, but the cold fact remains that the act is not conducive to the
health growth of the legal profession.

CANON 15 - A LAWYER SHALL OBSERVE CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND LOYALTY IN ALL

HIS DEALINGS AND TRANSACTIONS WITH HIS CLIENTS.

Respondent is hereby admonished that a repetition of similar acts will merit more drastic action.
 Alcala vs. De Vera

FACTS

Complainants charge Atty. Honesto de Vera with gross negligence and malpractice: for having
maliciously and deliberately omitted to notify them of the decision in civil case 2478 resulting in
the deprivation of their right to appeal from the adverse judgment rendered against them; and
for respondent's indifference, disloyalty, and lack of interest in petitioners' cause resulting to
their damage and prejudice.

The trial court rendered judgment rescinding the contract of sale, on April 19, 1963, respondent
Atty. De Vera received a copy of the decision, but he failed to inform his clients of the judgment
against them. On July 17, 1963, a sheriff came to the complainants' house to serve a writ of
execution issued in said case. Caught by surprise, Jose Alcala immediately wrote to the trial
court and inquired about the status of the case. The Deputy Clerk of Court informed Alcala that
the case was decided on April 17, 1963, that the respondent-attorney received a copy of the
decision on April 19, 1963, and that since no appeal was taken, a writ of execution was issued
by the trial court on motion of the plaintiff Semenchuk.

ISSUE

Whether or not the respondent should be disbarred.

RULING

Respondent GUILTY only of simple negligence and as a result of this, SEVERELY CENSURE.
The Court affirmed with the Solicitor General. "True it is that petitioners do not appear to have
suffered any material or pecuniary damaged by the failure of respondent Atty. De Vera to notify
them of the decision in the Civil Case. It is no less true, however, that in failing to inform his
clients, the petitioners, of the decision in the said civil case, respondent failed to exercise
'such skill, care, and diligence as men of the legal profession commonly possess and
exercise in such matters of professional employment' . The relationship of lawyer-client
being one of confidence, there is ever-present the need for the client's adequately and fully
informed and should not be left in the dark as to the mode and manner in which his interests are
being defended.

Although respondent's negligence does not warrant disbarment or suspension under the
circumstances of the case, nonetheless it cannot escape a rebuke from us as we hereby rebuke
and censure him, considering that his failure to notify his clients of the decision in question
manifests a lack of total dedication or devotion to their interest expected of him under his
lawyer's oath and the Canons of Professional Ethics. Respondent's inaction merits a severe
censure from the Court.
Principle

As stated in the very early case of In Re MacDougall: "The disbarment of an attorney is not
intended as a punishment but is rather intended to protect the administration of justice by
requiring that those who exercise this important function shall be competent, honorable, and
reliable: men in whom courts and clients may repose confidence. This purpose should be borne
in mind in the exercise of disbarment, and the power should be exercised with that caution
which the serious consequences of the action involved.
 People vs Cawili

Facts: The accused in this case was charged with rape sentenced to reclusion perpetua based
on the allegations made by the complaint made by a 13 year old girl,Elizabeth de Jesus. The
respondent herein, Roberto Cawili was instantly recognized by the complainant as the room
was well lit and since the respondent was a “compadre” of her parents. The accused appealed
on the ground of constitutional presumption of innocence ha yet to overcome and sought refuge
in the defense of his alibi. The case at bar involves issues of constitutional rights, penal laws
and several issues regarding the crime, however it is also to be noted that there is failure on the
counsel of the appellant's, (Atty.Hospicio Zapata) end to mention the defense that was offered
by his client.
It is understandable why, as he had contradictory statements which would not serve as
beneficial for his case. The corroborated testimony was then put into question not only for the
matter of this case but also as to the effect of such dealing in the legal profession. However
upon invoking the said defense of alibi of the accused the counsel failed to submit the brief for
defense of the accused, as he (the accused) was also in an indigent position. The counsel failed
to submit the said brief due to the expenses of the case, he recognized for such but he revered
that he was not called to spend on behalf of the accused in his opinion.

Issue: Whether or not the counsel and member of the Philippine Bar should be held liable for
his failure to submit his brief on the reglementary period in the fulfilment of his obligation to his
client and to the court

Ruling: Yes.It cannot be denied that the failure of counsel to submit the brief within the
reglementary period is an offense that entails disciplinary action. The recital of the
circumstances on which counsel would seek to reduce its gravity do not call for exculpation. He
could have sought the permission to file a mimeographed brief, or, at the very least, he could
have informed us of the difficulties attendant on defending his client. For him to blithely assume
that a mere reading of the record would suffice to discharge an obligation not only to his client
but to this Court is to betray a degree of irresponsibility. It is not in keeping, even, with the
minimal standards expected of membership in the bar to be so lacking in elementary courtesy
that this Court was not even informed of his inability to comply with what was incumbent on him.
His conduct was therefore inexcusable, although the explanation he tendered and the difficulties
under which he worked would, to a certain degree, invite less than full punishment . With this,
|||

the accused is reprimanded for his failure to submit his brief within the reglementary
period and was admonished to be much more careful in the fulfilment of his obligation to
his client pursuant to Canon 15, Rule 15.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
 In Re: Hamilton

Facts:
These are disbarment proceedings, instituted against Atty. L. Porter Hamilton, for several counts
of professional misconduct. One of this relates to the conduct of Atty. Hamilton in the civil case
no. 1344 in the Court of First Instance of Cebu, entitled Luciano Andrada vs. Isabelo Alburo.
Atty. Hamilton counseled the opposing person of which is the defendant of the said case, whilst
he had accepted and prepared all papers in the case matter from the plaintiff, Luciano Andrada,
establishing the confidential relationship of attorney and client to the plaintiff.

(Not related to Canon 15 anymore). He had also maliciously and willfully kept and denied that
he had received the said documents from the plaintiff. Another misconduct case of Atty.
Hamilton was that he had proposed an employment via letter to S.L. Joseph, owner of S.L.
Joseph Lumber Yard, with a salary of Php 1,200.00 annually, with a threat to compel the
addressee to accept his proposition of employment.

Issue:
Whether or not, Atty. Hamilton failed to provide undivided allegiance to his prospective client, as
established with Mr. Luciano Andrada?

Held:
YES. According to Rule 15.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, “A lawyer, in
conferring with a prospective client, shall ascertain as soon as practicable whether the
matter would involve a conflict with another client or his own interest, and if so, shall
forthwith inform the prospective client.” In this case, Atty. Hamilton did not at least obtain his
client’s consent of becoming counsel of the opposing team. His appearance as counsel for the
defendant, made a conflict of interest in the representation of the case.
 Lim vs. Villarosa

FACTS:

- Humberto C. Lim Jr. in behalf of Penta Resorts Corporation (PRC) and Attorney-in-Fact
of Lumot A. Jalandoni filed a complaint for disbarment against respondent.
- Lumot A. Jalandoni, Chairman/President of PRC was sued in a Civil Case. He engaged
the legal services of respondent who formally entered his appearance as counsel for
Jalandoni
- Respondent as a consequence of said Attorney-Client relationship was given utmost
trust and confidence as said counsel, hence delicate and confidential matters involving
all the personal circumstances of his client were entrusted to the respondent. The latter
was provided with all the necessary information on legal matters affecting the
corporation (PRC)
- However, respondent, without due notice, surprisingly filed a Motion to withdraw as
counsel, one day before a supposed scheduled hearing. Said Motion to Withdraw as
Counsel will conclusively show that no copy was furnished to Lumot A. Jalandoni,
neither does it bear her conformity.
- The effects of the untimely and unauthorized withdrawal by respondent caused
irreparable damage and injury to Lumot A. Jalandoni, in which his client suddenly
suffered unexpected defeat.
- The grounds alleged by respondent for his withdrawal as counsel of Jalandoni was that
he is the retained counsel of Dennis G. Jalbuena and that it was Dennis G. Jalbuena
who recommended him to be the counsel of Jalandoni. It is worthy to note that from the
start, respondent already knew that Dennis G. Jalbuena is the son-in-law of Lumot A.
Jalandoni being married to her eldest daughter, Carmen J. Jalbuena.
- It was noted that (21) days prior to respondent’s filing of his Motion to Withdraw as
Counsel of Jalandoni, respondent entered his appearance through a letter expressly
stating that effective said date he was appearing as counsel for both Dennis G. Jalbuena
and Carmen J. Jalbuena in the Estafa case filed by the corporation (PRC) against them.
- There is no dispute that respondent was able to acquire vast resources of confidential
and delicate information on the facts and circumstances of PRC when Lumot A.
Jalandoni was his client in her civil case, which such knowledge and information was
acquired by virtue of lawyer-client relationship between respondent and his clients. Using
the said classified information which should have been closely guarded, respondent did
then and there, willfully, unlawfully, feloniously conspired and confabulated with the Sps.
Dennis and Carmen J. Jalbuena
- Were it not for said fiduciary relation between client and lawyer, respondent will not be in
a position to furnish his conspirator spouses with confidential information on Lumot A.
Jalandoni and PRC.

ISSUE:

- WON Respondent violated the code of professional responsibility.

Held:

- Yes, canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility highlights the need for candor,
fairness and loyalty in all the dealings of lawyers with their clients. Rule 15.03 of the
CPR provides that “A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by
written consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts.”
- There are conflicting interests if the acceptance of the new retainer will require the
attorney to do anything 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.
- An attorney owes to his client undivided allegiance. After being retained and
receiving the confidences of the client, he cannot, without the free and intelligent consent
of his client, act both for his client and for one whose interest is adverse to, or conflicting
with that of his client in the same general matter. The prohibition stands even if the
adverse interest is very slight; neither is it material that the intention and motive of the
attorney may have been honest.
- Therefore, respondent Atty. Nicanor V. Villarosa is found guilty of violating the Code of
Professional Responsibility and is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one (1)
year
 Pacana Jr. vs. Pascual-Lopez

Facts:

- Complainant filed a disbarment case against respondent lawyer.

- Complainant was the Operations Director for Multitel Communications Corporation
(MCC). MCC then changed its name to Precedent Communications Corporation
- According to complainant, in mid-2002, Multitel received demand letters from its
members and investors because of the failure of its investment schemes.
- Complainant sought the advice of respondent who also happened to be a member of the
Couples for Christ, a religious organization where complainant and his wife were also
active members. From then on, complainant and respondent constantly communicated,
with the former disclosing all his involvement and interests with Multitel. Respondent
gave legal advice to complainant and even helped him prepare standard quitclaims for
creditors. In sum, complainant avers that a lawyer-client relationship was established
between him and respondent although no formal document was executed by them at
that time. A Retainer Agreement was proposed by respondent, complainant however,
did not sign the said agreement as complainant found the proposed fees to be not within
his means. Hence, the retainer agreement remained unsigned.
- Respondent also asked money from complainant allegedly for safekeeping to be used
only for his case whenever necessary.
- When complainant went to the United States (US), he received several messages from
respondent sent through electronic mail (e-mail) and short messaging system (SMS, or
text messages) warning him not to return to the Philippines because Rosario Baladjay,
president of Multitel, was arrested and that complainant may later on be implicated in
Multitel’s failed investment system. Respondent even said that ten (10) arrest warrants
and a hold departure order had been issued against him.
- After a few weeks, complainant was surprised to receive a demand letter from
respondent asking for the return and immediate settlement of the funds invested by
respondent’s clients in Multitel. When complainant asked the respondent about the
demand letter, the latter explained that she had to send it so that her clients, the
defrauded investors of Multitel, would know that she was doing something for them and
assured complainant that there was nothing to worry about.
- Respondent also denied being the lawyer for complainant. She maintained that no
formal engagement was executed between her and complainant. She claimed that she
merely helped complainant by providing him with legal advice and assistance because
she personally knew him, since they both belonged to the same religious organization
- Respondent insisted that she represented the group of investors of Multitel and that she
merely mediated in the settlement of the claims her clients had against the complainant.

ISSUE:

● WON Respondent violated the code of professional responsibility.

Held:

● Yes, respondent is guilty of violating canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Rule 15.03 of the CPR provides that “A lawyer shall not represent conflicting
interests except by written consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of
the facts.”
● Respondent must have known that her act of constantly and actively communicating with
complainant, who, at that time, was with demands from investors of Multitel, eventually
led to the establishment of a lawyer-client relationship. Respondent cannot shield herself
from the inevitable consequences of her actions by simply saying that the assistance she
rendered to complainant was only in the form of "friendly accommodations”.
● The absence of a written contract will not preclude the finding that there was a
professional relationship between the parties. Documentary formalism is not an essential
element in the employment of an attorney; the contract may be express or implied. To
establish the relation, it is sufficient that the advice and assistance of an attorney is
sought and received in any matter pertinent to his profession
● Given the situation, the most decent and ethical thing which respondent should
have done was either to advise complainant to engage the services of another
lawyer since she was already representing the opposing parties, or to desist from
acting as representative of Multitel investors and stand as counsel for
complainant. She cannot be permitted to do both because that would amount to
double-dealing and violate our ethical rules on conflict of interest.
● Respondent Attorney Maricel Pascual-Lopez is hereby DISBARRED
 Artuzuela vs. Maderazo
FACTS:
Allan Echavia had a car accident and the car he was driving was owned by Japanese
national Hirometsi Kiyami but registered in his brother-in-laws name, Villapez. The car rammed
into a small carinderia owned by herein complainant. This resulted in complainant’s carinderia to
cease operation resulting to financial dislocation, incurred debts and stopped sending her two
children to college. The services of herein respondent was sought by complainant to file a
damage suit against Echavia, Villapez, and Sia but the case was dismissed. Complainant later
on filed a verified complaint for disbarment against respondent alleging that he grossly
neglected his duties as a lawyer and failed to represent her interests. This is because although
all parties were present for the pre-trial conference, respondent asked for postponement and
withdrew as counsel without complainant’s consent. Respondent also prepared Echavia’s
answer to the amended complaint while counsel to complainant to which he denied all of the
allegations.

ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent Atty. Maderazo had a direct hand in the preparation of
Echavia’s answer to the amended complaint which is inimical to complainant’s interests

RULING:
To be guilty of representing conflicting interests, a counsel-of-record of one party need
not also be counsel-of-record of the adverse party. It is enough that the counsel of one party had
a hand in the preparation of the pleading of the other party, claiming adverse and conflicting
interests with that of his original client. To require that he also be counsel-of-record of the
adverse party would punish only the most obvious form of deceit and reward, with impunity, the
highest form of disloyalty.
 Abragan vs. Rodriguez
FACTS:
A petition was filed praying for the disbarment of Atty. Maximo G. Rodriguez because of alleged illegal
and unethical acts. Sometime in 1986, petitioners hired respondent counsel to represent them in a case
docketed as Civil Case No. 11204. After the case was won, the judge issued a Writ of Execution.

Petitioners then severed their client-lawyer relationship after respondent counsel sold some rights without
petitioners’ consent. It was also stated that the NBI is presently undertaking investigation on illegal
activities of Atty. Maximo Rodriguez pertaining to his express involvement in the illegal and unauthorized
apportionment, assignment and sale of parcels of land subject to the Case No. 11204, where he
represented the poor landless claimants of Cagayan de Oro City, which include petitioners in this case.

Thereafter, petitioners filed an indirect contempt charge under Civil Case No. 11204 against Sheriff
Loncion et al., engaging the services of Atty. LORETO O. SALVA, SR., an alleged former student of law of
Atty. Maximo Rodriguez. Much to the dismay, damage and prejudice of the herein petitioners, respondent
lawyer, Atty. Maximo Rodriguez, (in the Indirect Contempt Case under the same Civil Case No. 11204,)
REPRESENTED and actively took up the defense of FERNANDO LONCION et al.

To make matters worse, respondent Atty. Rodriguez eventually fenced an area consisting of about 10,200
square meters within Lot No. 1982[,] the subject matter in Civil Case No. 11204 without the consent of the
herein petitioners. He even openly and publicly proclaimed his possession and ownership thereof, which
fact is again and also under NBI investigation.

ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent counsel violated Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

HELD:
Yes. The court agrees with the findings and the recommendation of the IBP Board of Governors. At the
outset, petitioners did not proffer any proof tending to show that respondent had sold to other persons
several rights over the land in question; and that he had induced the former counsel for petitioners, Atty.
Salva Jr., to withdraw the indirect contempt case that they had filed. Neither did the IBP find anything
wrong as regards the 8,000 square meters awarded to respondent as payment for his legal services.
However, respondent falls short of the integrity and good moral character required from all lawyers.

The trust and confidence clients’ repose in them require a high standard and appreciation of the
latter's duty to the former, the legal profession, the courts and the public. To this end, lawyers
should refrain from doing anything that might tend to lessen the confidence of the public in the
fidelity, honesty and integrity of their profession.

In the present case, respondent clearly violated Rule 15.03 of Canon 15 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, which provides that "a lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by
written consent of all concerned given after full disclosure of the facts." Petitioners were the same
complainants in the indirect contempt case and in the Complaint for forcible entry in Civil Case No. 11204.
Respondent counsel should have evaluated the situation first before agreeing to be counsel for the
defendants in the indirect contempt proceedings. Attorneys owe undivided allegiance to their clients, and
should at all times weigh their actions, especially in their dealings with the latter and the public at large.
They must conduct themselves beyond reproach at all times.
WHEREFORE, Maximo G. Rodriguez is found guilty of violating Rule 15.03 of Canon 15 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility and is hereby SUSPENDED for six (6) months from the practice of law.
 Rabanal vs. Tugade
(Spouses Rabanal v. Tugade, A.C. No. 1372, [June 27, 2002])
[A.C. No. 1372. June 27, 2002.]

Complainants: SPOUSES LIRIO U. RABANAL AND CAYETANO D. RABANAL

Respondent: ATTY. FAUSTINO F. TUGADE

Facts: The complainant spouses Rabanal and Cayetano filed an administrative case against
the respondent Atty. Tugade.

The complainant Rabanal had a criminal case and was found guilty of homicide. The
complainants terminated the service of their previous counsel and engaged in the services of
the respondent Atty. Tugade for the prosecution of the appeal. The respondent was given an
extension totalling 60 days but still failed to file the appellant's brief which caused the appeal to
be dismissed. The petitioner filed for a motion for consideration but it was denied. The petitioner
Cayetano served 5 years before being released on conditional pardon.

The complainants alleged that they already paid for the respondent's attorney's fees and a
separate amount for the preparation of the appellant's brief.

The respondent commented that he didn't want to accept the case because he was busy, but
ended up signing the appellant's brief to be filed in the case because the complainant was his
kababayan. The respondent further contends that he was not the counsel of the complainant
Cayetano Rabanal prior to the filing of a motion for reconsideration before the CA, and he
couldn't be held responsible for the dismissal of the complainant's appeal for failure of counsel
to file the appellant's brief.

Issue: Whether or not the respondent Atty. Tugade established a lawyer-client with the
complainants and is therefore responsible for the dismissal

Held: Yes. The respondent Atty. Faustino F. Tugade is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for
six (6) months effective upon finality hereof with WARNING that a repetition of the same
negligent act charged in this complaint will be dealt with even more severely.

The absence of a written contract does not preclude a finding that there was a
professional relationship which merits attorney's fees for professional services rendered.
A written contract is not an essential element in the employment of an attorney; the contract
may be express or implied. To establish the relation, it is sufficient that the advice and
assistance of an attorney is sought and received in any matter pertinent to his profession.

Cayetano consulted respondent Tugade in his professional capacity in order to obtain advice
concerning his appeal. Respondent agreed, as shown by his acceptance of the payment to him,
his receipt of the TSNs of the case, and the fact that he signed the appellant's brief. His claim
that he merely accepted payment but that he asked another lawyer to prepare the brief is an
obvious subterfuge.

The aforementioned reasons establish that there was a lawyer-client relationship between the
respondent and complainant. Under Canon 15, a lawyer shall observe candor, fairness, and
loyalty in all his dealings and transactions with his clients.The lawyer owes it to his clients
to exercise his utmost learning and ability in maintaining causes. The records clearly show that
respondent Atty. Faustino F. Tugade was remiss in the performance of his duties as counsel of
complainant Cayetano Rabanal.

Specifically under Rule 15.08, "A lawyer who is engaged in another profession or
occupation concurrently with the practice of law shall make clear to his client whether he
is acting as a lawyer or in another capacity", the respondent should've also done more to
avoid confusions regarding the professional engagement during the time the complainants
relied on him as their counsel. In this case, he denied the existence of the lawyer-client
relationship, and acted in a personal capacity as "kababayan" but the Court held that it was
immaterial. It is the voluntary permission and acquiescence in such consultation that
professional employment is regarded as established.

Indeed, a lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client. He should be mindful of the trust and
confidence reposed in him, remembering always that his actions or omissions are binding on his
clients. In this case, the failure of respondent to file the appellant's brief resulted in the dismissal
of the appeal. As a consequence, the decision in the trial court finding the complainant guilty of
homicide became final and executory and he was sentenced to ten years of imprisonment. A
failure to file the brief for his client certainly constitutes inexcusable negligence on his part.

He was given by the Court of Appeals an extension of time totalling 60 days within which to file
the appellant's brief, but he failed to file the same. The Court held that he violated the Code of
Professional Responsibility which provides:

RULE 12.03. — A lawyer shall not, after obtaining extensions of time to file pleadings,
memoranda or briefs, let the period lapse without submitting the same or offering an explanation
for his failure to do so.

RULE 18.03. — A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in
connection therewith shall render him liable.
 Pormento Sr. vs. Pontevedra

Facts:

In August 1999, the Elesio C. Pormento, Sr. charged Atty. Elias A. Pontevedra with malpractice
and misconduct, praying that on the basis of the facts alleged therein, respondent be disbarred.
Initially, the respondent was the counsel of the petitioner in the case at bar, however a rift fell
between the parties upon the petitioner’s allegation that the respondent deliberately failed to
inform him of the dismissal of his counterclaim in Civil Case No. 1648 filed with the Regional
Trial Court of Bacolod City, despite receipt of the order of dismissal by the trial court. As a result
of which, the petitioner was deprived of his right to appeal said order. To this the complainant
asserts that he only came to know of the existence of the trial court's order when the adverse
party in the said case extrajudicially foreclosed the mortgage executed over the parcel of land
which is the subject matter of the suit. Thereafter, the complainant then sought for the services
of another counsel for the civil case and for other legal purposes.

Subsequently, on a separate case the complainant claims that in 1967, he bought a parcel of
land located at Escalante, Negros Occidental. The Deed of Declaration of Heirship and Sale of
said land was prepared and notarized by respondent. Since there was another person who
claims ownership of the property, complainant alleges that he heeded respondent's advice to
build a small house on the property and to allow his (complainant's) nephew and his family to
occupy the house in order for complainant to establish his possession of the said property.
Subsequently, complainant's nephew refused to vacate the property prompting the former to file
an ejectment case with the Municipal Trial Court of Escalante, Negros Occidental, docketed as
Civil Case No. 528 in which the respondent acted as the counsel of complainant's nephew.

To this the complainant contends that such is violative of Canon 15 Rule 15.03 which provides
that 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."

Furthermore by appearing as a counsel of a previous client, the complainant also contends that
it is also violative of Canon 21 as it provides that: A lawyer shall not, to the disadvantage of
his client, use information acquired in the course of employment, nor shall he use the
same to his own advantage or that of a third person, unless the client with full knowledge
of the circumstances consents thereto. With this the complainant contends for the
disbarment of the respondent.
Issue: Whether or not the respondent is guilty of representing conflicting interests
violative of Canon 15 Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional responsibility.

Ruling:
The court finds the petition to be of merit however avers that the evidence and investigation
does not warrant the disbarment of the respondent. Atty. Elias A. Pontevedra is found GUILTY
of representing conflicting interests and is hereby FINED in the amount of Ten Thousand
(P10,000.00) Pesos. He is WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt
with more severely. .Respondent is further reminded to be more cautious in accepting
professional employments, to refrain from all appearances and acts of impropriety including
circumstances indicating conflict of interests, and to behave at all times with circumspection and
dedication befitting a member of the Bar, especially observing candor, fairness and loyalty in all
transactions with his clients. |||.