EN BANC
[A.C. No. 5948. January 22, 2003.]
(Formerly A.M. No. CBD-354)
GAMALIEL ABAQUETA , complainant, vs . ATTY. BERNARDITO A.
FLORIDO , respondent.
Errol Wilfred J. Zshornack for complainant.
SYNOPSIS
Respondent Atty. Florido was earlier the counsel for complainant Gamaliel Abaqueta
in SP Proc. No. 3971-R. Later, Atty. Florido was counsel for Milagros Yap Abaqueta in Civil
Case No. CEB-11453. Both cases involved the very same properties where Florido made
allegations in Civil Case No. CEB-11453 that were contrary to and in direct con ict with his
averments as counsel for complainant in SP Proc. No. 3971-R. Thus, whether or not Atty.
Florido violated the prohibition against representing con icting interests, the Court ruled in
the positive. Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility prohibits such action
unless with the written consent of all concerned after full disclosure of the facts. Atty.
Florido admitted that he did not secure the consent of Gamaliel before he agreed to
represent Milagros in the civil case. Thus, the Court suspended respondent Atty. Florido
from the practice of law for three (3) months.
SYLLABUS
1. LEGAL ETHICS; CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY; VIOLATION
AGAINST RULE ON REPRESENTATION OF CONFLICTING INTERESTS. — Rule 15.03 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility explicitly provides that — RULE 15.03. — A lawyer shall
not represent con icting interests except by written consent of all concerned given after a
full disclosure of the facts. There is a con ict of interest if there is an inconsistency in the
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 ght for an issue or claim but it is his duty to oppose it for
the other client. In short, if he argues for one client, this argument will be opposed by him
when he argues for the other client. There is a representation of con icting interests if the
acceptance of the new retainer will require the attorney to do anything which will injuriously
affect his rst 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 rst client any knowledge acquired
through their connection. As pointed out by the investigating commissioner, respondent
does not deny that he represented complainant in Special Proceedings No. 3971-R. He
also does not deny that he is the lawyer of Milagros Yap Abaqueta in Civil Case No. CEB-
11453, led against complainant and involving the same properties which were litigated in
Special Proceedings No. 3971-R. Respondent also admitted that he did not secure the
consent of complainant before he agreed to act as Milagros Yap Abaqueta's lawyer in Civil
Case No. CEB-11453. AIHaCc
2. ID.; ID.; LAWYER'S OBLIGATIONS TO CLIENT. — It is axiomatic that no lawyer
is obliged to act either as adviser or advocate for every person who may wish to become
his client. He has the right to decline such employment, subject, however, to Canon 14 of
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
the Code of Professional Responsibility. Once he agrees to take up the cause of the client,
the lawyer owes delity to such cause and must always be mindful of the trust and
con dence reposed in him. He must serve the client with competence and diligence and
champion the latter's cause with wholehearted delity, care and devotion. A lawyer may
not, without being guilty of professional misconduct, act as counsel for a person whose
interest con icts with that of his former client. The reason for the prohibition is found in
the relation of attorney and client which is one of trust and con dence of the highest
degree. Indeed, as we stated in Sibulo v. Cabrera , "The relation of attorney and client is
based on trust, so that double dealing, which could sometimes lead to treachery, should be
avoided."
RESOLUTION
YNARES-SANTIAGO , J : p
This is an administrative complaint 1 against Atty. Bernardito A. Florido led with the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Commission on Bar Discipline, praying that
appropriate sanctions be imposed on respondent for representing conflicting interests.
Complainant is a Filipino by birth who had acquired American citizenship. He resides
at 15856 N. 15th Way, Phoenix, Arizona 85022, U.S.A. Respondent is a practicing lawyer
based in Cebu City.
On November 28, 1983, complainant engaged the professional services of
respondent trough his attorney-in-fact, Mrs. Charito Y. Baclig, to represent him in Special
Proceedings No. 3971-R, entitled, "In the Matter of the Intestate Estate of Deceased
Bonifacia Abaqueta, 2 Susana Uy Trazo, petitioner" before the Regional Trial court of Cebu.
3
Accordingly, respondent entered his appearance in Special Proceedings No. 3971-R
as counsel for herein complainant. 4 Subsequently, he led complainant's "Objections and
Comments to Inventory and Accounting," registering complainant's objection —
. . . to the inclusion of the properties under Items 1 to 5 contained in the
inventory of the administratrix dated November 9, 1983. These properties are the
sole and exclusive properties of the oppositor per the latest tax declarations
already marked as Exhibits "2", "3", "4", "5" and "6" in the Formal Offer of Exhibits
by oppositor in writing dated August 17, 1983 . . .. 5
Several years later, Milagros Yap Abaqueta led an action for sum of money against
complainant, docketed as Civil Case No. CEB-11453 and entitled, "Milagros Yap Abaqueta
vs. Gamaliel Abaqueta and Casiano Gerona." 6 Respondent signed the Complaint as
counsel for plaintiff Milagros Yap Abaqueta, averring, inter alia, that:
Plaintiff and defendant Gamaliel Abaqueta are the conjugal owners of
those certain parcels of land, more particularly as follows . . .
The "parcels of land" referred to as conjugal property of complainant and Milagros
Yap-Abaqueta are the very same parcels of land in Special Proceedings No. 3971-R which
respondent, as lawyer of complainant, alleged as the "sole and exclusive properties" of
complainant. In short, respondent lawyer made allegations in Civil Case No. CEB-11453
which were contrary to and in direct con ict with his averments as counsel for
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
complainant in Special Proceedings No. 3971-R.
Complainant further averred that respondent admitted he was never authorized by
the former to appear as counsel for complainant's ex-wife in Civil Case No. CEB-11453;
that respondent failed to indicate in the Complaint the true and correct address of herein
complainant, which respondent knew as far back as August 2, 1990, when he wrote a letter
to the complainant at the said address. 7 Consequently, complainant failed to receive
summons and was declared in default in Civil Case No. CEB-11453. While the order of
default was eventually set aside, complainant incurred expenses to travel to the
Philippines, which were conservatively estimated at $10,000.00. He argues that
respondent's conduct constitute professional misconduct and malpractice as well as
trifling with court processes.
In his defense, respondent claims in his Answer 8 that he always acted in good faith
in his professional relationship with complainant in spite of the fact that they have not
personally met. He based the matters he wrote in the Complaint on information and
documents supplied by Mrs. Charito Y. Baclig, complainant's sister-in-law and attorney-in-
fact, indicating that he was sole and exclusive owner of the properties. This was sometime
in November 1983. No a davit of adjudication was ever furnished respondent by
complainant and this was apparently suppressed because it would show that the
properties formed part of the estate.
Eight years later, in November 1991, long after Special Proceedings No. 3971-R was
settled and the attorney-client relationship between complainant and respondent was
terminated, Mrs. Milagros Abaqueta through Mrs. Baclig, engaged his services to le Civil
Case No. CEB-11453. Mrs. Baclig presented to him a deed of absolute sale dated July 7,
1975, 9 showing that the properties subject hereof were not complainant's exclusive
property but his conjugal property with his wife, the same having been acquired during the
subsistence of their marriage. Thus, in all good faith, respondent alleged in the complaint
that said properties were conjugal assets of the spouses.
Respondent further pointed out that his law rm handles on the average eighty new
court cases annually and personally interviews four or ve clients, prospective clients
and/or witnesses daily except Saturdays and Sundays. It regularly closes to the public at
7:00 p.m., but work continues sometimes until 8:30 p.m. This has been going on for the
last twenty- ve years out of respondent's thirty-three years of private practice. The
absence of personal contact with complainant and the lapse of eight years resulted in the
oversight of the respondent's memory that complainant was a former client. Furthermore,
the caption of the Special Proceeding was not in the name of complainant but was entitled,
"In the Matter of the Intestate Estate of Bonifacia Payahay Abaqueta."
Respondent expressed regret over the oversight and averred that immediately after
discovering that the formerly represented complainant in Special Proceeding No. 3971-R,
he led a motion to withdraw as counsel for plaintiff, which was granted by the trial court.
1 0 He denied any malice in his acts and alleged that it is not in his character to do malice or
falsehood particularly in the exercise of his profession.
In his Comments/Observations on Respondent's Answer, 1 1 complainant averred
that respondent's conduct was geared towards insuring a court victory for Milagros Yap in
Civil Case No. CEB-11453, wherein he deliberately stated that complainant's address was
9203 Riverside Lodge Drive, Houston, Texas 77083, U.S.A., when he knew fully well that
complainant's true and correct address was c/o V.A. Hospital, 7th Street & Italian School
Road, Phoenix, Arizona, 85013, U.S.A. By falsely stating and concealing his true and correct
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
address, respondent eventually succeeded in obtaining a default judgment in favor of his
client.
During the pendency of these proceedings before the IBP, it appeared that
respondent's son got married to the daughter of IBP National President Arthur D. Lim.
Thus, Atty. Lim inhibited himself from participating in the resolution of the case. 1 2
Subsequently, a Resolution was issued requiring the IBP to elevate the entire records of
the case within thirty (30) days from notice. 1 3
The main issue to be resolved in the case at bar is whether or not respondent
violated Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The investigating
Commissioner found that respondent clearly violated the prohibition against representing
con icting interests and recommended that he be suspended from the practice of law for
a period of three (3) months.
We find the recommendation well-taken.
Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility explicitly provides that —
RULE 15.03. — A lawyer shall not represent con icting interests except by
written consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts.
There is a con ict of interest if there is an inconsistency in the 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 ght for an issue or claim but it is his duty to oppose it for the other client. 1 4 In
short, if he argues for one client, this argument will be opposed by him when he argues for
the other client. 1 5
There is a representation of con icting interests if the acceptance of the new
retainer will require the attorney to do anything which will injuriously affect his rst 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. 1 6
As pointed out by the investigating commissioner, respondent does not deny that he
represented complainant in Special Proceedings No. 3971-R. He also does not deny that
he is the lawyer of Milagros Yap Abaqueta in Civil Case No. CEB-11453, led against
complainant and involving the same properties which were litigated in Special Proceedings
No. 3971-R. Respondent also admitted that he did not secure the consent of complainant
before he agreed to act as Milagros Yap Abaqueta's lawyer in Civil Case No. CEB-11453.
The reasons proffered by respondent are hardly persuasive to excuse his clear
representation of con icting interests in this case. First, the investigating commissioner
observed that the name "Gamaliel Abaqueta" is not a common name. Once heard, it will
surely ring a bell in one's mind if he came across the name again. In this case, respondent
actively prosecuted the cause of complainant in Special Proceedings No. 3971-R, such
that it would be impossible for respondent not to have recalled his name.
Second, assuming arguendo that respondent's memory was indeed faulty, still it is
incredible that he could not recall that complainant was his client, considering that Mrs.
Charito Baclig, who was complainant's attorney-in-fact and the go-between of complainant
and respondent in Special Proceedings No. 3971-R, was the same person who brought
Milagros Yap Abaqueta to him. Even a person of average intelligence would have made the
connection between Mrs. Baclig and complainant under such circumstances.
Lastly, the fact that the subject matter of Civil Case No. CEB-11453 and Special
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
Proceedings No. 3971-R are the same properties could not have escaped the attention of
respondent. With such an abundance of circumstances to aid respondent's memory, it
simply strains credulity for him to have conveniently forgotten his past engagement as
complainant's lawyer. What rather appears, given the prevailing facts of this case, is that he
chose to ignore them on the assumption that the long period of time spanning his past
and present engagement would effectively blur the memories of the parties to such a
discrepancy.
It is axiomatic that no lawyer is obliged to act either as adviser or advocate for every
person who may wish to become his client. He has the right to decline such employment,
1 7 subject, however, to Canon 14 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. 1 8 Once he
agrees to take up the cause of the client, the lawyer owes delity to such cause and must
always be mindful of the trust and con dence reposed in him. 1 9 He must serve the client
with competence and diligence 2 0 and champion the latter's cause with wholehearted
fidelity, care and devotion. 2 1
A lawyer may not, without being guilty of professional misconduct, act as counsel
for a person whose interest con icts with that of his former client. 2 2 The reason for the
prohibition is found in the relation of attorney and client which is one of trust and
con dence of the highest degree. 2 3 Indeed, as we stated in Sibulo v. Cabrera, 2 4 "The
relation of attorney and client is based on trust, so that double dealing, which could
sometimes lead to treachery, should be avoided." 2 5
Credence cannot, however, be given to the charge that respondent fraudulently and
maliciously falsi ed the true and correct address of the complainant notwithstanding
respondent's knowledge thereof. Lawyers normally do not have knowledge of the personal
circumstances of a party in a case and usually rely on the information supplied by their
clients. The fact that respondent sent a letter to complainant at the latter's correct
address 2 6 sixteen months before the ling of Civil Case No. CEB-11453 does not by itself
prove malice on the part of respondent. A new address was furnished by Milagros Yap
Abaqueta days before the complaint was led. Respondent had no reason to doubt the
correctness of the address of the complainant given to him by Milagros Yap Abaqueta
considering that she was complainant's wife.
WHEREFORE, Atty. Bernardito A. Florido is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for
Three (3) months. He is further ADMONISHED to exercise greater care and diligence in the
performance of his duties towards his clients and the court. He is warned that a repetition
of the same or similar offense will be dealt with more severely.
SO ORDERED.
Puno, Vitug, Mendoza, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio, Austria-
Martinez, Corona, Carpio-Morales, Callejo, Sr., and Azcuna, JJ., concur.
Bellosillo, J., is on leave.
Davide, Jr., C.J., took no part due to closeness to a party.
Footnotes
1. Record, Vol. 1, p. 1.
2. Mother of complainant.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
3. Record, Vol. 1, p. 8.
4. Ibid., p. 9.
5. Id., p. 10.
6. Id., p. 14.
7. Id., p. 68.
8. Id., pp. 18–25.
9. Id., p. 29.
10. Id., pp. 31–32.
11. Id., pp. 33–35.
12. Record, Vol. II, p. 2.
13. Ibid., p. 10.
14. Pineda, Legal and Judicial Ethics, 1999 ed., p. 199.
15. Ibid.
16. Id., citing Pierce v. Palmer, 31 R.I. 432.
17. Canon 31, Code of Professional Responsibility.
18. Canon 14. — A lawyer shall not refuse his services to the needy.
19. Canon 17, Code of Professional Responsibility.
20. Canon 18, Code of Professional Responsibility.
21. Santiago v. Fojas, 248 SCRA 68, 73 [1995], citing Vda. de Alisbo v. Jalandoon, 199
SCRA 321 [1991].
22. Cruz v. Jacinto, 328 SCRA 636, 642 [2000].
23. Maturan v. Gonzales, 287 SCRA 943 [1998].
24. 336 SCRA 237, 240 [2000].
25. Citing Hilado v. David, 84 Phil. 569 [1941].
26. Exhibit 2.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com