Filipinas O. Celedonio V. Atty. Jaime F. Estrabillo

                FILIPINAS O. CELEDONIO v. ATTY. JAIME F. ESTRABILLO

                AC No. 10553, July 5, 2017, THIRD DIVISION (Tijam, J.)

Part of the lawyer's duty is to avoid representing, conflicting interests. Jurisprudence is to the effect that a lawyer's act which invites suspicion of unfaithfulness or double-dealing in the performance of his duty already evinces inconsistency of interests. In broad terms, lawyers are deemed to represent conflicting interests when, in behalf of one client, it is their duty to contend for that which duty to another client requires them to oppose.

Atty. Estrabillo was Mah’s counsel in a criminal case of Estafa filed by Mah against Filipinas’ husband, the latter being accused of embezzling money from Mah’s company.

In the process of negotiating, Atty. Estrabillo advised Filipinas and her husband to execute a deed of sale over their house and lot which will be used as a collateral for the settlement of the case. Being the only one who shoulders the family expenses, Filipinas decided to sell the subject house and lot.  However, she received summons from the court regarding a complaint for specific performance with prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction and TRO filed by Spouses Mah. Filipinas found out that Atty. Estrabillo requested the Register of Deeds (RD) of Pampanga to register and annotate the said deed of sale on the title.

The hearing for the application for issuance of a TRO was already scheduled. When Filipinas went back to Atty. Estrabillo for this matter, the latter offered to and indeed prepared a Motion for Extension of Time and Urgent Motion to Postpone for Filipinas. Filipinas alleged that it was Atty Estrabillo's secretary upon his instruction, who drafted the said motions and that she was required to pay the corresponding fees. In view of the said motion for postponement, Filipinas did not appear in the hearing. However, that the said hearing still proceeded. Atty. Estrabillo even appeared therein and manifested that he filed a notice of lis pendens and adverse claim with the RD of Pampanga. Filipinas also found out that Atty. Estrabillo filed a Motion to Declare Defendants in Default in the said case. A decision was rendered in the said case in favor of Estrabillo’s client, Mah.  Realizing that Atty. Estrabillo employed deceit and was double-dealing with her and her husband, Filipinas filed the instant administrative complaint.

Atty. Estrabillo denied the accusations. Despite admitting that he told Filipinas that he would help her out in negotiating with his client, he averred that he never compromised his relationship with the latter as counsel. Atty. Estrabillo denied that he was serving conflicting interests when he instructed his secretary to draft the motions for extension of time and postponement for Filipinas. He averred that he informed his clients about it and denied demanding payment.

IBP Commissioner recommended that he be suspended for 6 months. IBP-BOG affirmed.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Atty. Estrabillo is guilty of representing conflicting interests

RULING:

YES.

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.

CANON 17 - A LAWYER OWES FIDELITY TO THE CAUSE OF HIS CLIENT AND HE SHALL BE MINDFUL OF THE TRUST AND CONFIDENCE REPOSED IN HIM.

Atty. Estrabillo admitted that he instructed his secretary to draft and file motions for Filipinas in the civil case filed by his client against the latter. However, he explained that it was merely a humanitarian act on his part in helping Filipinas on the matter, to give the latter an opportunity to settle their accountability to his client and that there was no intention on his part to violate the trust reposed upon him by his client. Such explanation cannot, in any way, absolve him from liability.

The relationship between a lawyer and his/her client should ideally be imbued with the highest level of trust and confidence. The legal profession dictates that it is not a mere duty, but an obligation, of a lawyer to 'accord the highest degree of fidelity, zeal and fervor in the protection of the client's interest. Thus, part or the lawyer's duty in this regard is to avoid representing, conflicting interests. Jurisprudence is to the effect that a lawyer's act which invites suspicion of unfaithfulness or double-dealing in the performance of his duty already evinces inconsistency of interests. In broad terms, lawyers are deemed to represent conflicting interests when, in behalf of one client, it is their duty to contend for that which duty to another client requires them to oppose.

Indeed, a motion for extension to file an answer would not be favorable to his client's cause as the same would merely delay the judgment sought by his client in filing the case. Moreso, the motion for postponement of the TRO hearing would definitely run counter with the interest of his client as such remedy was precisely sought, supposedly with urgency, to protect his client's right over the subject property before Filipinas could proceed with the sale of the same.

Moreover, Rule 15.03 above-cited expressly requires a written consent of all parties concerned after full disclosure of the facts if ever, for whatever reason, a lawyer will be involved in conflicting interests. Corollary to this, Rule 15 .04 of the CPR substantially states that if a lawyer would act as a mediator, or a negotiator for that matter, a written consent of all concerned is also required. Notably, there is no record of any written consent from any of the parties involved in this case. Conflicting interest is contrary to principles of public policy and good taste. 

Anent the penalty, there is no clear showing that his malpractice was deliberately done in bad faith or with deceit.

ACCORDINGLY, the Court resolves to SUSPEND Atty. Jaime F. Estrabillo from the practice 'of law for six (6) months to commence immediately from the receipt of this Decision, with a WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar offense will warrant a more severe penalty.         

GREGORIO V. CAPINPIN, JR. v. ATTY. ESTANISLAO L. CESA, JR.

A.C. No. 6933, July 05, 2017, THIRD DIVISION (Tijam, J.)