| CONTACT: |
| Supreme Court of the Philippines Library Services, Padre Faura, Ermita, Manila, Philippines 1000 |
| (632) 8524-2706 |
| libraryservices.sc@judiciary.gov.ph |
[ A.C. No. 8916 [Formerly CBD Case No. 11-3213], June 28, 2017 ]
ARTHUR S. BARSOBIA V. ATTYS. GILBERT RAYMUND T. REYES, JOSE ANTONIO J. HERNANDEZ AND CHARITY D. AURELLANO
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 28 June 2017 which reads as follows:
"A.C. No. 8916 [Formerly CBD Case No. 11-3213] - Arthur S. Barsobia v. Attys. Gilbert Raymund T. Reyes, Jose Antonio J. Hernandez and Charity D. Aurellano.
In his verified Affidavit Complaint,[1] dated February 25, 2011, complainant Arthur S. Barsobia (Barsobia) alleges that Attys. Gilbert Raymund T. Reyes, Jose Antonio J. Hernandez and Charity D. Aurellano (respondents) of the Law Firm Poblador Bautista & Reyes (Poblador Firm), violated Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR), or the prohibition against the representation of conflicting interests.
Complainant's Position
Barsobia complained that in a case before the Court of Appeals (CA), docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 69346-MIN, entitled "Arthur Barsobia v. Capistrano Development Corporation and Heirs of Nicolas Capistrano, et al." (CA case), respondents represented Capistrano Development Corporation (CDC). Later, in another case, Civil Case No. 68097, entitled "Fil-Estate Properties, Inc. v. Capistrano Development Corporation," before the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City (RTC case), respondents represented Fil-Estate Properties, Inc., (Fil-Estate), against CDC.
Barsobia claimed that in representing CDC in the CA case, and in representing Fil-Estate against CDC in the RTC case, respondents violated the rule against conflict of interest. He asserted that in the CA case, the defense raised by CDC was that it was not liable for the disturbance compensation because the destruction of his property was caused by Fil- Estate. On the other hand, in the RTC case, Fil-Estate raised as a defense that since CDC, and not Fil-Estate, was the owner of the land, it could be held liable for disturbance compensation.[2]
Respondents' Position
For their part, respondents averred that Fil-Estate, CDC, and the Heirs of Nicolas Capistrano (Heirs) were joint venture partners in the development of the Mountain Meadows Residential Estates Project in Cagayan De Oro City (Project).[3] Under the said agreement, CDC and the Heirs were to contribute the land for the Project; while Fil-Estate would undertake the development works.[4]
Accordingly, in 1994, CDC and the Heirs filed a Petition for Exemption from CARP with the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) for the land they would contribute to the Project. The petition was granted on April 18, 1995, but subject to the right of the displaced farmworkers to disturbance compensation to be determined by the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator of Misamis Oriental.
Respondents continued that in 1996, Barsobia filed a Motion for Intervention before the PARAB, impleading CDC, Fil-Estate and the Heirs. Atty. Dionisio Capistrano (Atty. Capistrano), then CDC President and counsel, issued an authorization for Attys. Cerilo Rico Abelardo and Alan Quintana (Attys. Abelardo and Quintana), in-house counsels for Fil-Estate, to represent CDC and the Heirs as well. The engagement of Attys. Abelardo and Quintana included an authorization for them to appoint a substitute counsel, when necessary.[5]
Eventually, in a Decision, dated February 10, 1997, the PARAB awarded disturbance compensation to Barsobia in the amount of P628,175.00, reimbursement of the value of improvements in the amount of P43,140.00, value of the house in the amount of P15,000.00, and attorney's fees of P25,000.00.[6] Unsatisfied with the award, Barsobia appealed to the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB), where Attys. Abelardo and Quintana continued as counsels for Fil-Estate, CDC and the Heirs.
On August 14, 2000, the DARAB affirmed the ruling of the PARAB. Barsobia moved for reconsideration, but his motion was denied.
On February 6, 2002, he appealed to the Court of Appeals. In his petition for review, Barsobia dropped Fil-Estate as party-respondent.
In the meantime, respondents alleged that there was a change in the management of CDC as a result of an intra-corporate dispute. The new CDC management, however, did not terminate the authority given to Attys. Abelardo and Quintana, who continued to represent CDC, the Heirs and Fil- Estate.
On September 28, 2000, Fil-Estate filed the RTC case against CDC under its new management, for the latter's alleged failure to implement some of its obligations under the joint venture agreement. Respondent Reyes signed as one of the lawyers handling the RTC case. According to respondents, the case was filed due to the refusal of CDC and some of the Heirs to execute a Certification of the Project Agreement with Segregation of Lots. As a result, Fil-Estate was not able to release individual titles to buyers or assignees of subdivision lots.
Returning to the CA case, Attys. Abelardo and Atty. Quintana used their prerogative to appoint a substitute counsel for CDC and the Heirs. They appointed the Poblador Firm as their substitute counsel, with respondents signing for the law firm. Thus, on behalf of CDC and the Heirs, respondents filed a Comment,[7] a Rejoinder [8] and a Memorandum[9] in the CA case.
Sometime in December 2002, Barsobia filed an "Omnibus Motion to Strike from the Record the Comments and Subsequent Pleadings filed by Private Respondents and Motion to Cite for Indirect Contempt Attys. Gilbert Raymund T. Reyes, Jose Antonio J. Hernandez, and Charity D. Aurellano, all of the Law Office of Poblador, Bautista and Reyes" in the CA Case. The motion was denied by the CA in a Resolution, dated January 24, 2011. [10]
When the CA, however, directed CDC to confirm the engagement of respondents as its counsels, it could not give confirmation as there was no corporate record of such engagement because Attys. Abelardo and Quintana simply used their prerogative to substitute respondents in their place. Consequently, on May 23, 2002, the CA ordered that all pleadings filed by respondents in the CA case be stricken from the record and, at the same time, directed CDC and the Heirs to engage a new counsel.
In compliance with the order, CDC and the Heirs engaged the services of the Lagamon Law Office. Thereupon, respondents' law firm voluntarily withdrew its appearance as counsel for CDC and the Heirs. In turn, the new counsel adopted the previously filed comment and rejoinder of respondents in the CAcase.[11]
IBP Report and Recommendation
In his Report and Recommendation,[12] dated October 21, 2015, Investigating Commissioner Joel L. Bodegon (investigating commissioner) recommended that the complaint of Barsobia be dismissed for lack of merit. It was held that Barsobia was not a client of respondents, thus, he had no standing to question their legal representation in these cases.
The investigating commissioner also observed that the CA case was handled by respondents to resist the claim of Barsobia for disturbance compensation from CDC and Fil-Estate. On the other hand, respondents represented Fil-Estate in the RTC case to enforce provisions of their joint venture agreement. The matter of disturbance compensation was not at issue in the RTC case, and the matter of the project agreement was not involved in the CA case. Hence, it was his view that the separate issues in these two cases could not prejudice the parties represented by respondents.
Lastly, it was concluded that respondents represented CDC and the Heirs with unwavering zeal and fidelity in the CA case despite their
representation of Fil-Estate in the RTC case. The investigating commissioner likewise opined that the genuineness and reliability of the pleadings filed by respondents for CDC became apparent when the new counsel of CDC, Lagamon Law Office, adopted the same pleadings in the CA case. Thus, it cannot be said that CDC and Fil-Estate were impaired by the representation of respondents.
In its Resolution No. XXII-2016-202,[13] dated February 25, 2016, the IBP Board of Governors (IBP Board) resolved to adopt the findings of facts and recommendation of dismissal by the investigating commissioner.
Hence, the case was elevated.
The Court accepts and adopts the findings of fact of the investigating commissioner and the recommendation of the IBP Board.
It is a well-established rule that for a charge to warrant a disciplinary action against a lawyer, the complainant must present convincing proof to substantiate the charge. Otherwise, the presumption that the lawyer is innocent of the charge prevails.[14]
There is conflict of interest under Rule 15.03 of the CPR when a lawyer represents inconsistent interests of two or more opposing parties. The test is whether or not in behalf of one client, it is the lawyer's duty to fight for an issue or claim, but it is his duty to oppose it for the other client. In brief, if he argues for one client, this argument will be opposed by him when he argues for the other client. This rule covers not only cases in which confidential communications have been confided, but also those in which no confidence has been bestowed or will be used. Also, there is conflict of interests if the acceptance of the new retainer will require the attorney to perform an act 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.
Another test of the inconsistency of interests is whether the acceptance of a new relation will prevent an attorney from the full discharge of his duty of undivided fidelity and loyalty to his client or invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or double dealing in the performance thereof. [15]
Based on the foregoing, to establish the existence of conflict of interest, it must be determined whether the CA and the RTC cases involve the same issues; whether respondents injuriously affected either CDC or Fil-Estate in representing them in different cases; and whether the acceptance of the cases prevented respondents from performing their duty with undivided fidelity and loyalty.
After a review of the records, the Court finds that there is no conflict of interest. Thus, respondents did not violated Rule 15.03 of the CPR.
Neither CDC nor Fil-Estate protested the representation of respondents
Respondents were first appointed by Fil-Estate in the RTC case. On the other hand, the initial counsel of CDC in the CA case were Attys. Abelardo and Quintana, in-house counsels for Fil-Estate, who were appointed by CDC President, Atty. Capistrano. The engagement had a provision that Attys. Abelardo and Quintana could appoint a substitute counsel of their choice. Accordingly, through their president, CDC voluntarily accepted the in-house counsel of Fil-Estate to represent them. When the RTC case was filed, Attys. Abelardo and Quintana exercised their prerogative and appointed respondents as substitute counsels for CDC in the CA case.
CDC knew fully well that respondents were the substitute counsels chosen by Attys. Abelardo and Quintana, in-house counsels of Fil-Estate, yet, it did not question the said representation. Further, respondents were allowed to file several pleadings for CDC in the CA case. In all these times, CDC and Fil-estate did not question the representations made by respondents, indicating that they were satisfied with their performance in the respective cases. The immediate parties affected herein, CDC and Fil-Estate, had no objections whatsoever.
On the other hand, Barsobia was never a client of respondents as to give him legitimate reason to question their representation. Glaringly, the same issue of conflict of interest was raised by Barsobia before the CA. The rejection by the CA of his motion for disqualification should already have indicated to Barsobia that the legal representation of respondents did not violate any rule or norm of conduct.
The CA and RTC cases involved different issues; there is no conflicting arguments raised by either parties
As discussed earlier, one of the tests to determine the presence of conflict of interest is whether a lawyer has the duty to oppose an allegation he made for one client for another client. In this case, respondents had no such duty.
The CA case was handled by respondents to resist the claim of Barsobia for disturbance compensation from CDC, the Heirs and Fil-Estate; whereas, respondents represented Fil-Estate in the RTC case to enforce provisions of their joint venture agreement, an internal conflict. The matter of disturbance compensation was not at issue in the RTC Case, and the matter of the project agreement was not involved in the CA case.
Due to the distinct differences between the CA and RTC cases, it could not be concluded that respondents used information gained during its representation of CDC in the CA case to Fil-Estate's advantage in the RTC case. The information regarding the disturbance compensation being asked by Barsobia surely had no bearing in the RTC case as the issue raised therein was the failure of CDC to comply with its contractual obligations with Fil-Estate under the Project Agreement, an internal disagreement.
Moreover, only CDC and the Heirs where named party-respondents in the CA case because Barsobia dropped Fil-Estate in his appeal. Considering that respondents were only representing CDC and the Heirs, there was nothing for them to oppose on behalf of Fil-Estate against CDC and the Heirs insofar as the CA case is concerned.
Barsobia claimed that respondents raised a defense in the RTC case that Fil-Estate was not liable for disturbance compensation; while they raised an argument in the CA case that CDC and the Heirs were not liable for disturbance compensation because the disturbance was caused by the employees of Fil-Estate. According to him, these contradictory claims espouses conflicting positions. A review of the Comment [16] and the Rejoinder [17] filed by respondents in the CA case, however, reveals that they did not make any contradictory or conflicting positions. There is nothing therein which depicted that CDC and the Heirs blamed Fil-Estate for the disturbance compensation in the CA case. Again, Barsobia dropped Fil-Estate from his appeal in the said case, thus, there was no way for respondents to espouse the cause of Fil-Estate against CDC and the Heirs.
As the CA and RTC cases involved different issues and parties, it is not possible for respondents to represent conflicting interests.
Respondents did not cause any injury to either CDC or Fil-Estate; they adequately represented their clients
Based on the evidence presented, it appears that respondents represented CDC and the Heirs with steadfast zeal and fidelity in the CA case despite their representation of Fil-Estate against CDC in the RTC case.
It must be stressed that after the CA ordered the striking of the comment and rejoinder filed by respondents from the records, the new counsel for CDC and the Heirs adopted the same comment and rejoinder filed by respondents. This is good indicia of the quality and dedication of respondents in discharging their duties as counsels for CDC and the Heirs. The pleadings were properly and fittingly crafted in such a way that the new counsel, Lagamon Law Office, retained and adopted the same pleadings. It also shows that respondents' legal representation of CDC and the Heirs did not cause them damage or injury. Thus, they cannot be held liable for betraying the confidence and trust of their clients.
The investigating commissioner correctly ruled that had respondents neglected in the performance of their duties as counsels, the same should have been reflected from the pleadings filed by them. Moreover, it would not have taken CDC and the Heirs much effort to see whether the pleadings were exemplary or mediocre. To reiterate, nothing from records would demonstrate that CDC and the Heirs ever criticized the quality and value of the legal work delivered by respondents. It goes to show that respondents, during their tenure as CDC's and the Heirs' counsels in the CA case, acted with zeal and loyalty to their clients and their cause.
It must be stressed that respondents' legal representation of CDC and the Heirs in the CA case was only a continuation of the legal representation of Attys. Aberlardo and Quintana. As they neither complained nor objected to respondents' representation in the CA case even when respondents were the counsel of Fil-Estate in the RTC case, it only meant that CDC and the Heirs consented to respondents' acting as their counsel in the CA case. Accordingly, there is no conflict of interests between the representations of the respondents in the CA and RTC cases. The observation of the investigating commissioner regarding the present complaint is enlightening:
Accordingly, the case is considered CLOSED and TERMINATED.
SO ORDERED. (Carpio, J., on official leave; Peralta, J., Acting Chairperson, per Special Order No. 2445 dated June 16, 2017)."
Very truly yours,
MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTO
Division Clerk of Court
By:
(Sgd.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZON
Deputy Division Clerk of Court
[1] Rollo, (Vol. I), pp. 1-3.
[2] Id. (Vol. II); IBP records, p. 40.
[3] Id. (Vol. I), p. 184.
[4] Id.
[5] Id. at 85.
[6] Id. at 258 to 262.
[7] Id. at 311 to 321.
[8] Id. at 322 to 328.
[9] Id. at 329 to 343.
[l0] Id. at 407 to 409.
[11] Id. at 412 to 422.
[12] Id. (Vol. l)pp. 169-180.
[13] Id. at 167-168.
[14] Mejares v. Romana, 469 Phil. 619-629 (2004).
[15] Medina v. Lizardo, A.C. No. 10533, January 31, 2017.
[16] Rollo (Vol. I), pp. 78-88.
[17] Id. at 90-96.
[18] Id. (Vol. II), pp. 175-176; Report and Recommendation of IBP-CBD, pp. 7-8.
"A.C. No. 8916 [Formerly CBD Case No. 11-3213] - Arthur S. Barsobia v. Attys. Gilbert Raymund T. Reyes, Jose Antonio J. Hernandez and Charity D. Aurellano.
In his verified Affidavit Complaint,[1] dated February 25, 2011, complainant Arthur S. Barsobia (Barsobia) alleges that Attys. Gilbert Raymund T. Reyes, Jose Antonio J. Hernandez and Charity D. Aurellano (respondents) of the Law Firm Poblador Bautista & Reyes (Poblador Firm), violated Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR), or the prohibition against the representation of conflicting interests.
Complainant's Position
Barsobia complained that in a case before the Court of Appeals (CA), docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 69346-MIN, entitled "Arthur Barsobia v. Capistrano Development Corporation and Heirs of Nicolas Capistrano, et al." (CA case), respondents represented Capistrano Development Corporation (CDC). Later, in another case, Civil Case No. 68097, entitled "Fil-Estate Properties, Inc. v. Capistrano Development Corporation," before the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City (RTC case), respondents represented Fil-Estate Properties, Inc., (Fil-Estate), against CDC.
Barsobia claimed that in representing CDC in the CA case, and in representing Fil-Estate against CDC in the RTC case, respondents violated the rule against conflict of interest. He asserted that in the CA case, the defense raised by CDC was that it was not liable for the disturbance compensation because the destruction of his property was caused by Fil- Estate. On the other hand, in the RTC case, Fil-Estate raised as a defense that since CDC, and not Fil-Estate, was the owner of the land, it could be held liable for disturbance compensation.[2]
Respondents' Position
For their part, respondents averred that Fil-Estate, CDC, and the Heirs of Nicolas Capistrano (Heirs) were joint venture partners in the development of the Mountain Meadows Residential Estates Project in Cagayan De Oro City (Project).[3] Under the said agreement, CDC and the Heirs were to contribute the land for the Project; while Fil-Estate would undertake the development works.[4]
Accordingly, in 1994, CDC and the Heirs filed a Petition for Exemption from CARP with the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) for the land they would contribute to the Project. The petition was granted on April 18, 1995, but subject to the right of the displaced farmworkers to disturbance compensation to be determined by the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator of Misamis Oriental.
Respondents continued that in 1996, Barsobia filed a Motion for Intervention before the PARAB, impleading CDC, Fil-Estate and the Heirs. Atty. Dionisio Capistrano (Atty. Capistrano), then CDC President and counsel, issued an authorization for Attys. Cerilo Rico Abelardo and Alan Quintana (Attys. Abelardo and Quintana), in-house counsels for Fil-Estate, to represent CDC and the Heirs as well. The engagement of Attys. Abelardo and Quintana included an authorization for them to appoint a substitute counsel, when necessary.[5]
Eventually, in a Decision, dated February 10, 1997, the PARAB awarded disturbance compensation to Barsobia in the amount of P628,175.00, reimbursement of the value of improvements in the amount of P43,140.00, value of the house in the amount of P15,000.00, and attorney's fees of P25,000.00.[6] Unsatisfied with the award, Barsobia appealed to the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB), where Attys. Abelardo and Quintana continued as counsels for Fil-Estate, CDC and the Heirs.
On August 14, 2000, the DARAB affirmed the ruling of the PARAB. Barsobia moved for reconsideration, but his motion was denied.
On February 6, 2002, he appealed to the Court of Appeals. In his petition for review, Barsobia dropped Fil-Estate as party-respondent.
In the meantime, respondents alleged that there was a change in the management of CDC as a result of an intra-corporate dispute. The new CDC management, however, did not terminate the authority given to Attys. Abelardo and Quintana, who continued to represent CDC, the Heirs and Fil- Estate.
On September 28, 2000, Fil-Estate filed the RTC case against CDC under its new management, for the latter's alleged failure to implement some of its obligations under the joint venture agreement. Respondent Reyes signed as one of the lawyers handling the RTC case. According to respondents, the case was filed due to the refusal of CDC and some of the Heirs to execute a Certification of the Project Agreement with Segregation of Lots. As a result, Fil-Estate was not able to release individual titles to buyers or assignees of subdivision lots.
Returning to the CA case, Attys. Abelardo and Atty. Quintana used their prerogative to appoint a substitute counsel for CDC and the Heirs. They appointed the Poblador Firm as their substitute counsel, with respondents signing for the law firm. Thus, on behalf of CDC and the Heirs, respondents filed a Comment,[7] a Rejoinder [8] and a Memorandum[9] in the CA case.
Sometime in December 2002, Barsobia filed an "Omnibus Motion to Strike from the Record the Comments and Subsequent Pleadings filed by Private Respondents and Motion to Cite for Indirect Contempt Attys. Gilbert Raymund T. Reyes, Jose Antonio J. Hernandez, and Charity D. Aurellano, all of the Law Office of Poblador, Bautista and Reyes" in the CA Case. The motion was denied by the CA in a Resolution, dated January 24, 2011. [10]
When the CA, however, directed CDC to confirm the engagement of respondents as its counsels, it could not give confirmation as there was no corporate record of such engagement because Attys. Abelardo and Quintana simply used their prerogative to substitute respondents in their place. Consequently, on May 23, 2002, the CA ordered that all pleadings filed by respondents in the CA case be stricken from the record and, at the same time, directed CDC and the Heirs to engage a new counsel.
In compliance with the order, CDC and the Heirs engaged the services of the Lagamon Law Office. Thereupon, respondents' law firm voluntarily withdrew its appearance as counsel for CDC and the Heirs. In turn, the new counsel adopted the previously filed comment and rejoinder of respondents in the CAcase.[11]
IBP Report and Recommendation
In his Report and Recommendation,[12] dated October 21, 2015, Investigating Commissioner Joel L. Bodegon (investigating commissioner) recommended that the complaint of Barsobia be dismissed for lack of merit. It was held that Barsobia was not a client of respondents, thus, he had no standing to question their legal representation in these cases.
The investigating commissioner also observed that the CA case was handled by respondents to resist the claim of Barsobia for disturbance compensation from CDC and Fil-Estate. On the other hand, respondents represented Fil-Estate in the RTC case to enforce provisions of their joint venture agreement. The matter of disturbance compensation was not at issue in the RTC case, and the matter of the project agreement was not involved in the CA case. Hence, it was his view that the separate issues in these two cases could not prejudice the parties represented by respondents.
Lastly, it was concluded that respondents represented CDC and the Heirs with unwavering zeal and fidelity in the CA case despite their
representation of Fil-Estate in the RTC case. The investigating commissioner likewise opined that the genuineness and reliability of the pleadings filed by respondents for CDC became apparent when the new counsel of CDC, Lagamon Law Office, adopted the same pleadings in the CA case. Thus, it cannot be said that CDC and Fil-Estate were impaired by the representation of respondents.
In its Resolution No. XXII-2016-202,[13] dated February 25, 2016, the IBP Board of Governors (IBP Board) resolved to adopt the findings of facts and recommendation of dismissal by the investigating commissioner.
Hence, the case was elevated.
The Court's Ruling
The Court accepts and adopts the findings of fact of the investigating commissioner and the recommendation of the IBP Board.
It is a well-established rule that for a charge to warrant a disciplinary action against a lawyer, the complainant must present convincing proof to substantiate the charge. Otherwise, the presumption that the lawyer is innocent of the charge prevails.[14]
There is conflict of interest under Rule 15.03 of the CPR when a lawyer represents inconsistent interests of two or more opposing parties. The test is whether or not in behalf of one client, it is the lawyer's duty to fight for an issue or claim, but it is his duty to oppose it for the other client. In brief, if he argues for one client, this argument will be opposed by him when he argues for the other client. This rule covers not only cases in which confidential communications have been confided, but also those in which no confidence has been bestowed or will be used. Also, there is conflict of interests if the acceptance of the new retainer will require the attorney to perform an act 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.
Another test of the inconsistency of interests is whether the acceptance of a new relation will prevent an attorney from the full discharge of his duty of undivided fidelity and loyalty to his client or invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or double dealing in the performance thereof. [15]
Based on the foregoing, to establish the existence of conflict of interest, it must be determined whether the CA and the RTC cases involve the same issues; whether respondents injuriously affected either CDC or Fil-Estate in representing them in different cases; and whether the acceptance of the cases prevented respondents from performing their duty with undivided fidelity and loyalty.
After a review of the records, the Court finds that there is no conflict of interest. Thus, respondents did not violated Rule 15.03 of the CPR.
Neither CDC nor Fil-Estate protested the representation of respondents
Respondents were first appointed by Fil-Estate in the RTC case. On the other hand, the initial counsel of CDC in the CA case were Attys. Abelardo and Quintana, in-house counsels for Fil-Estate, who were appointed by CDC President, Atty. Capistrano. The engagement had a provision that Attys. Abelardo and Quintana could appoint a substitute counsel of their choice. Accordingly, through their president, CDC voluntarily accepted the in-house counsel of Fil-Estate to represent them. When the RTC case was filed, Attys. Abelardo and Quintana exercised their prerogative and appointed respondents as substitute counsels for CDC in the CA case.
CDC knew fully well that respondents were the substitute counsels chosen by Attys. Abelardo and Quintana, in-house counsels of Fil-Estate, yet, it did not question the said representation. Further, respondents were allowed to file several pleadings for CDC in the CA case. In all these times, CDC and Fil-estate did not question the representations made by respondents, indicating that they were satisfied with their performance in the respective cases. The immediate parties affected herein, CDC and Fil-Estate, had no objections whatsoever.
On the other hand, Barsobia was never a client of respondents as to give him legitimate reason to question their representation. Glaringly, the same issue of conflict of interest was raised by Barsobia before the CA. The rejection by the CA of his motion for disqualification should already have indicated to Barsobia that the legal representation of respondents did not violate any rule or norm of conduct.
The CA and RTC cases involved different issues; there is no conflicting arguments raised by either parties
As discussed earlier, one of the tests to determine the presence of conflict of interest is whether a lawyer has the duty to oppose an allegation he made for one client for another client. In this case, respondents had no such duty.
The CA case was handled by respondents to resist the claim of Barsobia for disturbance compensation from CDC, the Heirs and Fil-Estate; whereas, respondents represented Fil-Estate in the RTC case to enforce provisions of their joint venture agreement, an internal conflict. The matter of disturbance compensation was not at issue in the RTC Case, and the matter of the project agreement was not involved in the CA case.
Due to the distinct differences between the CA and RTC cases, it could not be concluded that respondents used information gained during its representation of CDC in the CA case to Fil-Estate's advantage in the RTC case. The information regarding the disturbance compensation being asked by Barsobia surely had no bearing in the RTC case as the issue raised therein was the failure of CDC to comply with its contractual obligations with Fil-Estate under the Project Agreement, an internal disagreement.
Moreover, only CDC and the Heirs where named party-respondents in the CA case because Barsobia dropped Fil-Estate in his appeal. Considering that respondents were only representing CDC and the Heirs, there was nothing for them to oppose on behalf of Fil-Estate against CDC and the Heirs insofar as the CA case is concerned.
Barsobia claimed that respondents raised a defense in the RTC case that Fil-Estate was not liable for disturbance compensation; while they raised an argument in the CA case that CDC and the Heirs were not liable for disturbance compensation because the disturbance was caused by the employees of Fil-Estate. According to him, these contradictory claims espouses conflicting positions. A review of the Comment [16] and the Rejoinder [17] filed by respondents in the CA case, however, reveals that they did not make any contradictory or conflicting positions. There is nothing therein which depicted that CDC and the Heirs blamed Fil-Estate for the disturbance compensation in the CA case. Again, Barsobia dropped Fil-Estate from his appeal in the said case, thus, there was no way for respondents to espouse the cause of Fil-Estate against CDC and the Heirs.
As the CA and RTC cases involved different issues and parties, it is not possible for respondents to represent conflicting interests.
Respondents did not cause any injury to either CDC or Fil-Estate; they adequately represented their clients
Based on the evidence presented, it appears that respondents represented CDC and the Heirs with steadfast zeal and fidelity in the CA case despite their representation of Fil-Estate against CDC in the RTC case.
It must be stressed that after the CA ordered the striking of the comment and rejoinder filed by respondents from the records, the new counsel for CDC and the Heirs adopted the same comment and rejoinder filed by respondents. This is good indicia of the quality and dedication of respondents in discharging their duties as counsels for CDC and the Heirs. The pleadings were properly and fittingly crafted in such a way that the new counsel, Lagamon Law Office, retained and adopted the same pleadings. It also shows that respondents' legal representation of CDC and the Heirs did not cause them damage or injury. Thus, they cannot be held liable for betraying the confidence and trust of their clients.
The investigating commissioner correctly ruled that had respondents neglected in the performance of their duties as counsels, the same should have been reflected from the pleadings filed by them. Moreover, it would not have taken CDC and the Heirs much effort to see whether the pleadings were exemplary or mediocre. To reiterate, nothing from records would demonstrate that CDC and the Heirs ever criticized the quality and value of the legal work delivered by respondents. It goes to show that respondents, during their tenure as CDC's and the Heirs' counsels in the CA case, acted with zeal and loyalty to their clients and their cause.
It must be stressed that respondents' legal representation of CDC and the Heirs in the CA case was only a continuation of the legal representation of Attys. Aberlardo and Quintana. As they neither complained nor objected to respondents' representation in the CA case even when respondents were the counsel of Fil-Estate in the RTC case, it only meant that CDC and the Heirs consented to respondents' acting as their counsel in the CA case. Accordingly, there is no conflict of interests between the representations of the respondents in the CA and RTC cases. The observation of the investigating commissioner regarding the present complaint is enlightening:
This case should therefore be treated as nothing more than an ill-motivated-if not desperate - attempt to hamper, impede and nullify legal representation which complainant found to be effective and damaging to his cause. This is not the way to litigate one's case. Cases should be fought not by disqualifying or disbarring lawyers. As cases should be prosecuted or defended on the strength of one's own evidence, not on the weakness of the other party's evidence, so must a party have to rely on his own legal representation by engaging competent and quality lawyers. It behooves a party to keep the litigation within the confines of his own case, and not extend it to include disbarment or disqualification of the other party's counsel. That way, parties contribute[d] in a meaningful way to the effective, orderly and inexpensive administration of justice.[18]WHEREFORE, the Court resolves to ADOPT and APPROVE the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations of the Investigating Commissioner in the attached Report and Recommendation, which the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines likewise adopted and approved. The complaint against Attys. Gilbert Raymund T. Reyes, Jose Antonio J. Hernandez and Charity D. Aurellano is DISMISSED.
Accordingly, the case is considered CLOSED and TERMINATED.
SO ORDERED. (Carpio, J., on official leave; Peralta, J., Acting Chairperson, per Special Order No. 2445 dated June 16, 2017)."
Very truly yours,
MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTO
Division Clerk of Court
By:
(Sgd.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZON
Deputy Division Clerk of Court
[1] Rollo, (Vol. I), pp. 1-3.
[2] Id. (Vol. II); IBP records, p. 40.
[3] Id. (Vol. I), p. 184.
[4] Id.
[5] Id. at 85.
[6] Id. at 258 to 262.
[7] Id. at 311 to 321.
[8] Id. at 322 to 328.
[9] Id. at 329 to 343.
[l0] Id. at 407 to 409.
[11] Id. at 412 to 422.
[12] Id. (Vol. l)pp. 169-180.
[13] Id. at 167-168.
[14] Mejares v. Romana, 469 Phil. 619-629 (2004).
[15] Medina v. Lizardo, A.C. No. 10533, January 31, 2017.
[16] Rollo (Vol. I), pp. 78-88.
[17] Id. at 90-96.
[18] Id. (Vol. II), pp. 175-176; Report and Recommendation of IBP-CBD, pp. 7-8.