THIRD DIVISION
[A.C. No. 4218. July 20, 2000]
ROMEO H.
SIBULO, complainant, vs. ATTY. STANLEY R. CABRERA, respondent.
D E C I S I O N
PURISIMA, J.:
At bar is an
administrative complaint against the respondent, Atty. Stanley Cabrera, for
unethical practice/conduct.
The facts that
matter are as follows:
In a case, entitled
"Brenda Sucaldito[1] versus Reynaldo Marcelo, et al.", docketed as Civil Case No. 90-55209 before Branch 53
of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, defendant Reynaldo Marcelo retained the
services of the herein respondent as his lawyer. Subsequently, however, the
respondent also entered his appearance as counsel for plaintiff Brenda
Sucaldito in the same case, without withdrawing his appearance as counsel for
defendant Reynaldo Marcelo. In view of such development Atty. Reyes Geromo,
former counsel of Brenda Sucaldito, filed with the Manila Regional Trial Court
a motion to disqualify the respondent on the ground of unethical conduct.[2] Finding merit in the said motion, the trial court
ordered the disqualification of respondent in the case.[3]
Complainant Romeo
Sibulo, an intervenor in the aforementioned Civil Case No. 90-55209, brought
the present administrative complaint against respondent, praying for the
latter’s removal from or suspension in the practice of law, on the ground of
unethical practice/conduct.
In his Answer[4] to the Complaint, respondent denied the wrongdoing
alluded to him; theorizing that "xxx I merely accepted a case from a plaintiff
and at the same time I was the counsel as intervenor of one of the defendants
xxx."
This case was
referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation,
report and recommendation.[5]
Acting thereupon on
April 7, 2000, the IBP came out with its Resolution No. XIV-000-163, which
reads:
"RESOLUTION NO. XIV-000-163
Adm. Case No.
4218
Romeo E. Sibulo vs. Atty. Stanly Cabrera
RESOLVED to ADOPT
and APPROVE, as it is hereby ADOPTED and APPROVED, the Report and
Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner of the above-entitled case,
herein made part of this Resolution/Decision as annex ‘A’; and, finding the
recommendation fully supported by the evidence on record and the applicable
laws and rules, said recommendation is with modification that Respondent
be CENSURED and FINED One Thousand Pesos (P1,000.00)." [6]
The IBP Report,[7] in part, found:
"The
respondent’s answer is quite revealing. While he denies any unethical conduct
on his part, respondent seeks to justify what he did and of which he is charged
by tongue-in-cheek declaring that he did no wrong ‘considering that I merely
accepted a case from a plaintiff and at the same time I was the counsel as
intervenor of one of the defendants.’
Nothing further
need be said. For all his disclaimers and the affidavits of two (2) witnesses
in his favor, it is beyond cavil that Atty. Cabrera has violated Canon 15 and
the subsequent Rules of Code of Professional Responsibility. The complainant’s
motives are not of paramount interest. To our mind, Atty. Cabrera has lain
himself open to the specifications against him. Remarkably, he admits the same
by his lame explanation.
From all the
foregoing, we recommend that Atty. Stanley R. Cabrera be CENSURED by the
Honorable Supreme Court and ordered to fine a pay (sic) in such amount as the
Honorable Court may see fit."
Respondent has all
but admitted the wrongdoing complained of, when he stated in his Answer that he
"merely accepted a case from a plaintiff and at the same time I [he] was
the counsel as intervenor of one of the defendants." Such a revelation is
a categorical admission that he (respondent) represented two conflicting
interests, which representations or appearances are prohibited by Rule 15.03 of
Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which provides:
"CANON 15 - A
LAWYER SHALL OBSERVE CANDOR, FAIRNESS, AND LOYALTY IN ALL HIS DEALINGS AND
TRANSACTIONS WITH HIS CLIENT.
xxx.....xxx.....xxx
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."
Respondent was
bound to faithfully represent his client in all aspects of subject civil case.
When he agreed to represent the defendant and later on, also the plaintiff in
the same case, he could no longer serve either of his said clients faithfully,
as his duty to the plaintiff did necessarily conflict with his duty to the
defendant. The relation of attorney and client is based on trust, so that
double dealing which could sometimes lead to treachery, should be avoided.[8]
Considering the
attendant facts and circumstances, the Court is of the sense that the amount of
fine recommended below is not commensurate with the wrong done by the
respondent.
WHEREFORE, respondent is found GUILTY of unethical
conduct for representing two conflicting interests and is hereby FINED in the
amount of TEN THOUSAND (P10,000.00) Pesos, with a warning that a
repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely.
SO ORDERED.
Melo,
(Chairman), Vitug, Panganiban, and Gonzaga-Reyes,
JJ., concur.