JOSEPHINE L. OROLA, MYRNA L.

OROLA,
MANUEL L. OROLA, MARY ANGELYN OROLA-
BELARGA, MARJORIE MELBA OROLA-CALIP, and
KARENOROLA, Complainants, vs. ATTY. JOSEPH
ADOR RAMOS, Respondent.

A . C . N O . 9 8 6 0 S E P T E M B E R 11 , 2 0 1 3
FA C T S
Complainants Josephine, Myrna, Manuel, (all surnamed Orola), Mary Angelyn Orola-Belarga
(Mary Angelyn), and Marjorie Melba Orola-Calip (Marjorie) are the children of the late
Trinidad Laserna-Orola (Trinidad), married to Emilio Q. Orola (Emilio).

Meanwhile, complainant Karen Orola (Karen) is the daughter of Maricar Alba-Orola (Maricar) and Antonio L. Orola (Antonio), the deceased brother of the above-named complainants and the son of Emilio.

In the settlement of Trinidad’s estate, pending before the Regional Trial Court of Roxas City, Branch 18 (RTC), the parties were represented by the following:
FA C T S
(a) Atty. Roy M. Villa (Atty. Villa) as counsel for and in behalf of Josephine, Myrna, Manuel, Mary
Angelyn, and Marjorie (Heirs of Trinidad);

(b) Atty.Ely F. Azarraga, Jr. (Atty. Azarraga) as counsel for and in behalf of Maricar, Karen, and the other heirs of the late Antonio (Heirs of Antonio), with respondent as collaborating counsel; and

(c) Atty. Aquiliana Brotarlo as counsel for and in behalf of Emilio, the initially appointed administrator of Trinidad’s estate.

The Heirs of Trinidad and the Heirs of Antonio moved for the removal of Emilio as administrator and, in his
stead, sought the appointment of the latter’s son, Manuel Orola, which the RTC granted in an Order.
Subsequently, respondent filed an Entry of Appearance as collaborating counsel for Emilio in the same case
and moved for the reconsideration of the RTC Order.
FA C T S
Due to the respondent’s new engagement, complainants filed the instant disbarment
complaint before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), that he violated: (a) Rule
15.03 of the Code, as he undertook to represent conflicting interests in the subject case;
and (b) Section 20(e), Rule 138 of the Rules, as he breached the trust and confidence
reposed upon him by his clients, the Heirs of Antonio. Complainants further claimed that
while Maricar, the surviving spouse of Antonio and the mother of Karen, consented to the
withdrawal of respondent’s appearance, the same was obtained only on October 18, 2007,
or after he had already entered his appearance for Emilio on October 10, 2007. In this
accord, respondent failed to disclose such fact to all the affected heirs and, as such, was
not able to obtain their written consent as required under the Rules.
FA C T S
The Recommendation and Action of the IBP is that the respondent was found guilty of representing
conflicting interests only with respect to Karen as the records of the cases how that he never acted as
counsel for the other complainants. It was observed that while respondent's withdrawal of appearance was
with the express conformity of Maricar, respondent nonetheless failed to obtain the consent of Karen, who
was already of age and one of the Heirs of Antonio, as mandated under Rule 15.03 of the Code.

On the other hand, Commissioner held that there was no violation of Section 20, Rule 138 of the Rules as complainants themselves admitted that respondent "did not acquire confidential information from his former client nor did he

use against the latter any knowledge obtained in the course of his previous employment." Considering that it was respondent's first offense, the imposition of disbarment too harsh a penalty and, instead, recommended that he be

severely reprimanded for his act with warning that a repetition of the same or similar acts would be dealt with more severely.
FA C T S
The IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved with modification but imposed
against respondent the penalty of six (6) months suspension from the practice of law.

Respondent's motion for reconsideration was denied in IBP.

ISSUE
Whether or not respondent is guilty of
representing conflicting interests in violation of
Rule 15.03 of the Code?
RULING
Yes, the Court concurs with the IBP’s finding that respondent violated
Rule 15.03 of the Code, but reduced the recommended period of
suspension to three (3) months.
Rule 15.03 of the Code reads:

CANON 15 – A LAWYER SHALL OBSERVE CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND LOYALTY IN ALL HIS DEALINGS AND TRANSACTIONS WITH HIS CLIENTS.

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.
RULING
Under the afore-cited rule, it is explicit that a lawyer is prohibited from
representing new clients whose interests oppose those of a former client in
any manner, whether or not they are parties in the same action or on
totally unrelated cases. The prohibition is founded on the principles of
public policy and good taste. It behooves lawyers not only to keep
inviolate the client's confidence, but also to avoid the appearance of
treachery and double-dealing for only then can litigants be encouraged to
entrust their secrets to their lawyers, which is of paramount importance in
the administration of justice.
RULING
In Hornilla v. Salunat (Hornilla), the Court explained the concept of conflict of
interest, to wit:
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.
RULING
It must, however, be noted that a lawyer’s immutable duty to a former client does
not cover transactions that occurred beyond the lawyer’s employment with the
client. The intent of the law is to impose upon the lawyer the duty to protect the
client’s interests only on matters that he previously handled for the former client
and not for matters that arose after the lawyer-client relationship has terminated.

Applying the above-stated principles, the Court agrees with the IBP’s finding that respondent represented conflicting interests and, perforce, must be held administratively liable therefor.

Respondent Atty. Joseph Ador Ramos is hereby held GUILTY of representing conflicting interests in
violation of Rule 15.03,Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Accordingly, he is
hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of three (3) months, with WARNING that a
repetition of the same or similar acts in the future will be dealt with more severely.
RULING
Records reveal that respondent was the collaborating counsel not only for
Maricar as claimed by him, but for all the Heirs of Antonio in Special
Proceeding No. V-3639. In the course thereof, the Heirs of Trinidad and the
Heirs of Antonio succeeded in removing Emilio as administrator for having
committed acts prejudicial to their interests.

Hence, when respondent proceeded to represent Emilio for the purpose of

seeking his reinstatement as administrator in the same case, he clearly
worked against the very interest of the Heirs of Antonio – particularly,
Karen – in violation of the above-stated rule.
 C A N O N 1 5 – A L AW Y E R S H A L L O B S E RV E C A N D O R ,
FA I R N E S S A N D L O YA LT Y I N A L L H I S D E A L I N G S A N D
TRANSACTIONS WITH HIS CLIENTS.

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.

THANK YOU!