754 Phil. 52
LEONEN, J.:
Being her surviving spouse, I am the sole legal heir entitled to succeed to and inherit the estate of said deceased who did not leave any descendant or any other heir entitled to her estate.[9] (Emphasis in the original, underscoring supplied)
Another Complaint[19] was filed against Atty. Santos by Atty. Jose Mangaser Caringal (Atty. Caringal). This was docketed as A.C. No. 10584.[20] Similar to Bernardino’s Complaint, Atty. Caringal alleged that Atty. Santos represented clients with conflicting interests.[21] He also alleged that in representing Marilu Turla, Atty. Santos would necessarily go against the claims of Mariano Turla.[22]CROSS-EXAMINATION BY:
ATTY. CARINGAL . . . . . . . . . Q : In your Judicial Affidavit[,] you mentioned that you know Marilu C. Turla[,] the plaintiff[,] since she was about four years old. A : Yes, sir. Q : As a matter of fact[,] you know her very well[,] considering that you are a Ninong of the plaintiff, isn’t it? A : I was not a Ninong when I first knew Marilu Turla, I was just recently married to one of her cousins. . . . . . . . . . Q : Now, the parents of Marilu Turla are Mariano C. Turla and Rufina C. Turla? THE WITNESS : Yes, sir. As per my study and as per my knowledge of her relationship[s]. THE COURT : What’s the name of the mother? ATTY. CARINGAL :Rufina, your Honor. Rufina Turla.
Q : And wife died ahead of Mariano, isn’t it? THE WITNESS : Yes, sir. Q : And of course, being the daughter of Rufina Turla, Marilu is also an heir of Rufina Turla, isn’t it? A : Of course. Q : Now, we go by the ethics of the profession, Mr. Witness. You recall[,] of course[,] and admitted [sic] in court that you drafted this document which you requested to be marked as Exhibit B. THE COURT : Exhibit? ATTY. CARINGAL : “B”, your Honor, in particular reference to the Affidavit of Adjudication for the extra judicial settlement of the intestate estate of the late Rufina De Castro Turla[,] and I have just learned from you as you just testified. Rufina is the mother of the plaintiff here[,] Marilu Turla. THE WITNESS : Yes, sir. Q : And as you admitted, you prepared you drafted [sic] this Extra Judicial. A : Yes, sir. Q : Or this Affidavit of Adjudication. ATTY. REY SANTOS : At this point in time, your Honor, I would object to the question regarding my legal ethics because it is not the issue in this case. . . . . . . . . . ATTY. CARINGAL . . . . . . . . . Q : . . . In this document consisting of one, two, three, four and appearing to have been duly notarized on or about 29th [of] June 1994 with document number 28, page number 7, book number 23, series of 1994 before Notary Public Hernando P. Angara. I call your attention to the document[,] more particularly[,] paragraph 6 thereof and marked as Exhibit 7-A for the defendants[.] I read into the record and I quote, “Being her surviving spouse, I am the sole legal heir entitled to succeed to and inherit the estate of the said deceased who did not leave any descendant, ascendant or any other heir entitled to her estate.”[16] Mr. Witness, is this particular provision that you have drafted into this document . . . true or false? ATTY. REY SANTOS : Your Honor, I would like to reiterate that any question regarding the matter that would impugn the legitimacy of the plaintiff, Marilu Turla[,] is impertinent and immaterial in this case[.] [I]t was only the wife Rufina Turla [who] ha[s] the right to impugn the legitimacy of the plaintiff[,] and that has been the subject of my continuing objection from the very beginning. THE COURT : But then again[,] you have presented this document as your Exhibit B[.] [Y]ou have practically opened the floodgate to . . . questions on this document. ATTY. REY SANTOS : Only for the purposes [sic] of showing one or two . . . properties owned by the late Mariano Turla, your Honor. That is why that’s only [sic] portion I have referred to in marking the said documents, your Honor. THE COURT : So, you now refused [sic] to answer the question? ATTY. REY SANTOS : No, I am not refusing to answer, I am just making a manifestation. ATTY. CARINGAL : What is the answer, is it true or false, your Honor[?] ATTY. REY SANTOS : My answer regarding the same would be subject to my objection on the materiality and impertinency and relevancy of this question, your Honor[,] to this case. THE COURT : So anyway, the court has observed the continuing objection before[,] and to be consistent with the ruling of the court[,] I will allow you to answer the question[.] [I]s it true or false? THE WITNESS : No, that is not true. ATTY. CARINGAL : That is not true. Mr. Witness, being a lawyer[,] you admit before this court that you have drafted a document that caused the transfer of the estate of the decease[d] Rufina Turla. THE WITNESS : Yes, sir. . . . . . . . . . ATTY. CARINGAL Q : This document, this particular provision that you said was false, you did not tell anybody[,] ten or five years later[,] that this is false, is it not? THE WITNESS : I called the attention of Mr. Mariano Turla[.] I . . . asked him what about Lulu[17] she is entitled [sic] to a share of properties and he . . . told me, “Ako na ang bahala kay Lulu[,] hindi ko pababayaan yan”. So, he asked me to proceed with the Affidavit of Adjudication wherein he claimed the whole [sic] properties for himself.[18] (Emphasis supplied)
14.4 Being the lawyer of Mariano Turla in the drafting of the document some fifteen years ago, he is fully aware of all the circumstances therein recited. Moreover at that time, the [sic] Lynn Batac Santos was then employed at the BIR [sic] who arranged for the payment of the taxes due. There is some peculiarity in the neat set up [sic] of a husband and wife team where the lawyer makes the document while the wife who is a BIIR [sic] employee arranges for the payment of the taxes due the government;
14.5 Respondent attorney could not have been mistaken about the fact recited in the Affidavit of Adjudication, etc. that said deceased (Rufina de Castro Turla) “did not leave any descendant, xxx, or any other heir entitled to her estate’ [sic] . . . [.][32] (Emphasis in the original)
. . . Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility particularly Rule 15.03 specifically proscribes members of the bar from representing conflicting interests. The Supreme Court has explained that “the proscription against representation of conflicting interest finds application where the conflicting interests arise with respect to the same general matter and is applicable however slight such adverse interest may be; the fact that the conflict of interests is remote or merely probable does not make the prohibition inoperative.”. . . . . . . . .
. . . In the case at bar, the fact that the respondent represented Mariano Turla is no secret. The respondent has in a number of pleadings/motions/documents and even on the witness stand admitted that he drafted Mariano Turla’s Affidavit of Adjudication which expressly states that he was the sole heir of Rufina Turla.
And then he afterwards agreed to represent Marilu Turla who claimed to be Mariano Turla’s daughter. To substantiate her claim that she is Mariano Turla’s daughter, the respondent admitted that he relied on the birth certificate presented by Marilu Turla[,] which indicates that she is not only the daughter of Mariano Turla but also of Rufina Turla as evidenced by the Birth Certificate presented stating that Rufina Turla is Marilu Turla’s mother. This means that Marilu Turla was also a rightful heir to Rufina Turla’s inheritance and was deprived of the same because of the Affidavit of Adjudication which he drafted for Mariano Turla[,] stating that he is his wife’s sole heir.
. . . To further explain, the respondent[,] in agreeing to represent Marilu Turla[,] placed himself in a position where he is to refute the claim in Mariano Turla’s Affidavit of Adjudication that he is the only heir of Rufina Turla.[54] (Citations omitted)
RULE 139-B DISBARMENT AND DISCIPLINE OF ATTORNEYS
SEC. 12. Review and decision by the Board of Governors.—. . . . . . . . .
(b) If the Board, by the vote of a majority of its total membership, determines that the respondent should be suspended from the practice of law or disbarred, it shall issue a resolution setting forth its findings and recommendations which, together with the whole record of the case, shall forthwith be transmitted to the Supreme Court for final action.
CANON 15 — A lawyer shall observe candor, fairness and loyalty in all his dealings and transactions with his client.. . . . . . . . .
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.
There is conflict of interest 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.[61] (Emphasis supplied, citations omitted)
Worse[,] the respondent himself on the witness stand during his April 14, 2009 testimony in the Civil Case for Sum of Money with Prayer of Writ of Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order docketed as Civil Case No. 09-269 filed with the RTC of Makati City admitted as follows: “I called the attention of Mr. Mariano Turla[.] I . . . asked him what about Lulu she is entitled [sic] to a share of properties and he . . . told me, ‘Ako na ang bahala kay Lulu[,] hindi ko pababayaan yan.’ So he asked me to proceed with the Affidavit of Adjudication wherein he claimed the whole [sic] properties for himself.” This very admission proves that the respondent was privy to Marilu Turla’s standing as a legal and rightful heir to Rufina Turla’s estate.[62] (Citation omitted)
CANON 10 — A lawyer owes candor, fairness and good faith to the court.
Rule 10.01 — A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court; nor shall he mislead or allow the court to be mislead by any artifice.
Corollary to the foregoing, the Commission by virtue of the doctrine res ipsa loquitor [sic] finds that the respondent’s act of failing to thwart his client Mariano Turla from filing the Affidavit of Adjudication despite . . . his knowledge of the existence of Marilu Turla as a possible heir to the estate of Rufina Turla, the respondent failed to uphold his obligation as a member of the bar to be the stewards of justice and protectors of what is just, legal and proper. Thus in failing to do his duty and acting dishonestly[,] not only was he in contravention of the Lawyer’s Oath but was also in violation of Canon 10, Rule 10.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.[66] (Emphasis in the original)
ARTICLE VIII
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT. . . . . . . . .
Section 5. The Supreme Court shall have the following powers:. . . . . . . . .
(5) Promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights, pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts, the admission to the practice of law, the integrated bar, and legal assistance to the underprivileged. . . . (Emphasis supplied)
We begin by referring to the authority of the Supreme Court to discipline officers of the court and members of the court and members of the Bar. The Supreme Court, as regular and guardian of the legal profession, has plenary disciplinary authority over attorneys. The authority to discipline lawyers stems from the Court’s constitutional mandate to regulate admission to the practice of law, which includes as well authority to regulate the practice itself of law. Quite apart from this constitutional mandate, the disciplinary authority of the Supreme Court over members of the Bar is an inherent power incidental to the proper administration of justice and essential to an orderly discharge of judicial functions. . . .
. . . The disciplinary authority of the Court over members of the Bar is but corollary to the Court’s exclusive power of admission to the Bar. A lawyers [sic] is not merely a professional but also an officer of the court and as such, he is called upon to share in the task and responsibility of dispensing justice and resolving disputes in society.[71] (Citations omitted)
RULE 138
Attorneys and Admission to Bar. . . . . . . . .
SEC. 27. Disbarment or suspension of attorneys by Supreme Court, grounds therefor.—A member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such office, grossly immoral conduct, or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, or for any violation of the oath which he is required to take before admission to practice, or for a wilful disobedience appearing as an attorney for a party to a case without authority so to do. The practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either personally or through paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice. (Emphasis supplied)
Parenthetically, it is this court that has the constitutionally mandated duty to discipline lawyers.[73] Under the current rules, the duty to assist fact finding can be delegated to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. The findings of the Integrated Bar, however, can only be recommendatory, consistent with the constitutional powers of this court. Its recommended penalties are also, by its nature, recommendatory.[74]
Time and again, this Court emphasizes that the practice of law is imbued with public interest and that “a lawyer owes substantial duties not only to his client, but also to his brethren in the profession, to the courts, and to the nation, and takes part in one of the most important functions of the State—the administration of justice—as an officer of the court.” Accordingly, “[l]awyers are bound to maintain not only a high standard of legal proficiency, but also of morality, honesty, integrity and fair dealing.”[76] (Citations omitted)