Republic of the
Supreme Court
SECOND DIVISION
|
JOSEFINA M. ANION, Complainant, - versus - ATTY. CLEMENCIO SABITSANA,
JR., Respondent. |
A.C. No. 5098
Present: BRION, J.,
Acting Chairperson, PERALTA,* PEREZ, SERENO, and REYES, JJ. Promulgated: April
11, 2012 |
x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
D E C I S I O N
BRION, J.:
We resolve this disbarment complaint against Atty. Clemencio Sabitsana, Jr. who is charged of: (1) violating the lawyers duty to preserve confidential information received from his client;[1] and (2) violating the prohibition on representing conflicting interests.[2]
In her complaint, Josefina M. Anion (complainant) related that she previously engaged the legal services of Atty. Sabitsana in the preparation and execution in her favor of a Deed of Sale over a parcel of land owned by her late common-law husband, Brigido Caneja, Jr. Atty. Sabitsana allegedly violated her confidence when he subsequently filed a civil case against her for the annulment of the Deed of Sale in behalf of Zenaida L. Caete, the legal wife of Brigido Caneja, Jr. The complainant accused Atty. Sabitsana of using the confidential information he obtained from her in filing the civil case.
Atty. Sabitsana admitted having advised the complainant in the preparation and execution of the Deed of Sale. However, he denied having received any confidential information. Atty. Sabitsana asserted that the present disbarment complaint was instigated by one Atty. Gabino Velasquez, Jr., the notary of the disbarment complaint who lost a court case against him (Atty. Sabitsana) and had instigated the complaint for this reason.
The Findings of the IBP Investigating Commissioner
In
our Resolution dated
In Bautista vs. Barrios, it was held that a lawyer may
not handle a case to nullify a contract which he prepared and thereby take up
inconsistent positions. Granting that
Zenaida L. Caete, respondents present client in Civil Case No. B-1060 did not
initially learn about the sale executed by Bontes in favor of complainant thru the
confidences and information divulged by complainant to respondent in the course
of the preparation of the said deed of sale, respondent nonetheless has a duty
to decline his current employment as counsel of Zenaida Caete in view of the
rule prohibiting representation of conflicting interests.
In re De la Rosa clearly suggests
that a lawyer may not represent conflicting interests in the absence of the written
consent of all parties concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts. In
the present case, no such written consent was secured by respondent before
accepting employment as Mrs. Caetes counsel-of-record. x x x
x x x
Complainant
and respondents present client, being contending claimants to the same property,
the conflict of interest is obviously present. There is said to be
inconsistency of interest when on behalf of one client, it is the attorneys
duty to contend for that which his duty to another client requires him to
oppose. In brief, if he argues for one client this argument will be opposed by
him when he argues for the other client. Such is the case with which we are now
confronted, respondent being asked by one client to nullify what he had
formerly notarized as a true and valid sale between Bontes and the complainant.
(footnotes omitted)[3]
The IBP Commissioner recommended that Atty. Sabitsana be suspended from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year.[4]
The Findings of the IBP Board of Governors
In
a resolution dated
Atty.
Sabitsana moved to reconsider the above resolution, but the IBP Board of
Governors denied his motion in a resolution dated
The Issue
The issue in this case is whether Atty. Sabitsana is guilty of misconduct for representing conflicting interests.
The Courts Ruling
After a careful study of the records, we agree with the findings and recommendations of the IBP Commissioner and the IBP Board of Governors.
The relationship between a lawyer and his/her client should ideally be imbued with the highest level of trust and confidence. This is the standard of confidentiality that must prevail to promote a full disclosure of the clients most confidential information to his/her lawyer for an unhampered exchange of information between them. Needless to state, a client can only entrust confidential information to his/her lawyer based on an expectation from the lawyer of utmost secrecy and discretion; the lawyer, for his part, is duty-bound to observe candor, fairness and loyalty in all dealings and transactions with the client.[6] Part of the lawyers duty in this regard is to avoid representing conflicting interests, a matter covered by Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility quoted below:
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.
The
proscription against representation of conflicting interests applies to a
situation where the opposing parties are present clients in the same action or
in an unrelated action.[7] The prohibition
also applies even if the lawyer would not be called upon to contend for one client that which the lawyer has to oppose for
the other client, or that there would be no occasion to use the confidential
information acquired from one to the disadvantage of the other as the two
actions are wholly unrelated.[8] To be held accountable
under this rule, it is enough that the opposing parties in one case, one of
whom would lose the suit, are present clients and the nature or conditions of the
lawyers respective retainers with each of them would affect the performance of the duty of undivided fidelity to
both clients.[9]
Jurisprudence has provided three tests in determining whether a violation of the above rule is present in a given case.
One test is whether a lawyer is duty-bound to fight for an issue
or claim in behalf of one client and, at the same time, to oppose that claim
for the other client. Thus, if a
lawyers argument for one client has to be opposed by that same lawyer in
arguing for the other client, there is a violation of the rule.
Another test of inconsistency of interests is whether the acceptance of a new relation would prevent the full discharge
of the lawyers duty of undivided fidelity and loyalty to the client or
invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or double-dealing in the performance of that
duty. Still another
test is whether the lawyer would be called upon in the new relation to use
against a former client any confidential information acquired through their
connection or previous employment.[10] [emphasis ours]
On the basis of the
attendant facts of the case, we find substantial evidence to support Atty.
Sabitsanas violation of the above rule, as established by the following
circumstances on record:
One, his legal services were initially engaged by the complainant to
protect her interest over a certain property. The records show that upon the
legal advice of Atty. Sabitsana, the Deed of Sale over the property was
prepared and executed in the complainants favor.
Two, Atty. Sabitsana met with Zenaida Caete to discuss the latters legal
interest over the property subject of the Deed of Sale. At that point, Atty.
Sabitsana already had knowledge that Zenaida Caetes interest clashed with the
complainants interests.
Three, despite the knowledge of the clashing interests between his two
clients, Atty. Sabitsana accepted the engagement from Zenaida Caete.
Four, Atty. Sabitsanas actual knowledge of the conflicting interests between
his two clients was demonstrated by his own actions: first, he filed a case against the complainant in behalf of Zenaida
Caete; second, he impleaded the
complainant as the defendant in the case; and third, the case he filed was for the annulment of the Deed of Sale that
he had previously prepared and executed for the complainant.
By his acts, not only did Atty. Sabitsana agree to represent one
client against another client in the same action; he also accepted a new
engagement that entailed him to contend
and oppose the interest of his other client in a property in which his legal
services had been previously retained.
To be sure, Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides an exception to the above prohibition. However, we find no reason to apply the exception due to Atty. Sabitsanas failure to comply with the requirements set forth under the rule. Atty. Sabitsana did not make a full disclosure of facts to the complainant and to Zenaida Caete before he accepted the new engagement with Zenaida Caete. The records likewise show that although Atty. Sabitsana wrote a letter to the complainant informing her of Zenaida Caetes adverse claim to the property covered by the Deed of Sale and, urging her to settle the adverse claim; Atty. Sabitsana however did not disclose to the complainant that he was also being engaged as counsel by Zenaida Caete.[11] Moreover, the records show that Atty. Sabitsana failed to obtain the written consent of his two clients, as required by Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Accordingly, we find as the IBP Board of Governors did Atty.
Sabitsana guilty of misconduct for representing conflicting interests. We
likewise agree with the penalty of suspension for one (1) year from the
practice of law recommended by the IBP Board of Governors. This penalty is
consistent with existing jurisprudence on the administrative offense of
representing conflicting interests.[12]
We note that Atty. Sabitsana takes exception to the IBP recommendation
on the ground that the charge in the complaint was only for his alleged
disclosure of confidential information, not for representation of conflicting
interests. To Atty. Sabitsana, finding him liable for the latter offense is a
violation of his due process rights since he only answered the designated
charge.
We find no violation of Atty. Sabitsanas due process rights. Although
there was indeed a specific charge in the complaint, we are not unmindful that
the complaint itself contained allegations of acts sufficient to constitute a
violation of the rule on the prohibition against representing conflicting
interests. As stated in paragraph 8 of
the complaint:
Atty. Sabitsana, Jr. accepted the commission
as a Lawyer of ZENAIDA CANEJA, now Zenaida Caete, to recover lands from Complainant,
including this land where lawyer Atty. Sabitsana, Jr. has advised his client
[complainant] to execute the second sale[.]
Interestingly, Atty.
Sabitsana even admitted these allegations in his answer.[13] He also averred in his
Answer that:
6b. Because the defendant-to-be in the complaint (Civil Case No.
B-1060) that he would file on behalf of Zenaida Caneja-Caete was his former
client (herein complainant), respondent asked [the] permission of Mrs. Caete
(which she granted) that he would first write a letter (Annex 4) to the
complainant proposing to settle the case amicably between them but complainant
ignored it. Neither did she object to respondents handling the case in behalf
of Mrs. Caete on the ground she is now invoking in her instant complaint. So
respondent felt free to file the complaint against her.[14]
We have consistently held that the
essence of due process is simply the opportunity to be
informed of the charge against oneself and to be heard or, as applied to
administrative proceedings, the opportunity to explain
ones side or the opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling
complained of.[15]
These opportunities were all afforded to Atty. Sabitsana, as shown by the above
circumstances.
All told, disciplinary proceedings against lawyers are sui generis.[16] In the exercise of its disciplinary powers, the Court merely calls upon a
member of the Bar to account for his actuations as an officer of the Court with
the end in view of preserving the purity of the legal profession. We likewise
aim to ensure the proper and honest administration of justice by purging the
profession of members who, by their misconduct, have proven themselves no
longer worthy to be entrusted with the duties and responsibilities of an
attorney.[17] This is all that we did
in this case. Significantly, we did this to a degree very much lesser than what
the powers of this Court allows it to do in terms of the imposable penalty. In
this sense, we have already been lenient towards respondent lawyer.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the
Court resolves to ADOPT the findings
and recommendations of the Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar
of the
Atty.
Sabitsana is DIRECTED to inform the
Court of the date of his receipt of this Decision so that we can determine the
reckoning point when his suspension shall take effect.
SO ORDERED.
ARTURO
D. BRION
Associate
Justice
WE
CONCUR:
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
Associate Justice
|
JOSE Associate Justice |
MARIA Associate Justice |
BIENVENIDO L. REYES
Associate Justice
* Additional Member vice Justice Antonio T. Carpio per raffle dated March 19, 2012.
[1] Rollo, pp. 5-6. See paragraphs 6, 9 and 10 of the complaint.
[2] Ibid.
[3]
Pages
[4]
[5] Resolution No. XVI-2004-124.
[6] CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY, Canon 15.
[7]
Quiambao v. Bamba, Adm. Case No. 6708,
[8] Ibid.
[9] Ibid.
[10]
[11] Rollo. p. 82.
[12]
Quiambao v. Bamba, supra
note 7, at 16, citing Vda. de Alisbo v. Jalandoon, Sr., Adm. Case No. 1311, July 18, 1991, 199 SCRA 321; Philippine National Bank v. Cedo, Adm.
Case No. 3701, March 28, 1995, 243 SCRA 1; Maturan
v. Gonzales, A.C. No. 2597, March
12, 1998, 287 SCRA 443; and Northwestern University, Inc. v. Arquillo,
A.C. No. 6632, August 2, 2005, 465 SCRA 513.
[13] Rollo, p. 55.
[14]
[15] Teresita T. Bayonla v. Atty. Purita A. Reyes, A.C. No. 4808, November 22, 2011, citing Samalio v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 140079, March 31, 2005, 454 SCRA 462.
[16]
Teresita T. Bayola v. Atty. Purita A. Reyes, supra note 13, citing Suzuki v. Tiamson, Adm. Case No. 6542,
[17] Ibid.