THIRD DIVISION
[A.C. No. 11548. October 11, 2017.]
ALEXANDER BANSIL, ALFREDO BANSIL, LEILA BANSIL-PASCUAL, complainants,vs. ATTY. RAYMUNDO HIPOLITO III, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedOctober 11, 2017, which reads as follows: ICHDca
"A.C. No. 11548 (ALEXANDER BANSIL, ALFREDO BANSIL, LEILA BANSIL-PASCUAL, Complainants, v. ATTY. RAYMUNDO HIPOLITO III, Respondent.) — The complainants filed this complaint for disbarment charging Atty. Raymundo G. Hipolito III with violating Rule 15.03 of Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Lawyer's Oath for his unfair dealings with the client, representing conflicting interests, and fomenting dissension among the heirs of the late Paulina Bansil.
The complainants aver that they are among the eight siblings and compulsory heirs of Paulina whose estate is being settled in S.P. No. Q-91-8559 1 entitled Intestate Estate of Paulina L. Bansil pending in Branch 99 of the Regional Trial Court in Quezon City; that part of the estate is the lease rights over a commercial space occupied by the Lumanog Music Store and Sporting Goods situated at 635 G. Puyat Street, Quiapo, Manila and owned by Pilar Monroy Sandico; that when Paulina died in 1991, one of the heirs, Perla Bansil-Abuzo, brought a petition for the issuance of letter of administration; 2 and that Perla took her oath as Special Administratrix of the estate on May 5, 1992. 3
It appears that on January 4, 1999, the respondent, representing himself as counsel for Sandico, filed a complaint for unlawful detainer against Perla; 4 and that on August 16, 1999, the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) in Manila eventually rendered a decision in favor of Sandico by ordering Perla and all persons claiming rights under her to vacate the premises. Perla appealed the case but to no avail. 5
Several years later, or on December 29, 2003, the respondent formally entered his appearance in the intestate proceedings as the counsel for Ruben Bansil, Rizalina Bansil-Garcia, Renato Bansil, Noel Bansil, and Perla Bansil-Abuzo, heirs of the late Paulina and siblings of the complainants herein. 6 However, after filing his entry of appearance, he filed a motion for execution dated December 30, 2003 in the ejectment case before the MeTC that he had handled for Sandico. 7 According to the complainants, Perla was deliberately not furnished with a copy of the motion for execution, which was instead sent to complainant Alexander Bansil. 8
The complainants maintain that the respondent thereby violated Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility by representing conflicting interests through his appearance for Perla in the intestate proceedings at a time when the ejectment case filed against her was still pending. 9 The respondent likewise violated Section 20, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court by stating a falsehood in the motions and pleadings he had filed in the intestate court to the effect that complainant Alexander was the administrator of the estate when he knew that Alexander was not such administrator. 10 The respondent also wrongfully included Alfredo and Leila as plaintiffs in the civil action for annulment of sale, reconveyance and damages filed against Alexander and his spouse Betty Bansil despite the absence of consent from both of them. 11
The respondent countered in his verified answer 12 that he did not represent conflicting interests because the defendant in the ejectment case was the Estate of Paulina Bansil, as represented by its administrator-designate Atty. Bansil, while his clients in the settlement of estate proceedings were the Bansil siblings, including Perla; 13 that he did not commit any falsehood because Atty. Bansil had represented himself as the administrator-designate of the Estate of Paulina Bansil; 14 and that it was upon the instance of his clients in representation of the other siblings Alfredo and Leila that he initiated the civil action for annulment of sale, reconveyance and damages. 15
Report and Recommendation of the IBP
After due hearing, Commissioner Romulado A. Din, Jr. submitted his Report and Recommendation 16 recommending the dismissal of the complaint on the ground that there was "no showing that the respondent would be fighting for inconsistent causes; respondent is not at risk of betraying the confidence of present or future client and, he does not compromise his zeal and loyalty in pursuing the cause of another client." 17 Commissioner Din also did not find evidence proving that the respondent had committed misrepresentation and fomented dissension among the siblings. 18
On November 30, 2013, the IBP Board of Governors issued Resolution No. XX-2013-164 19 reversing the recommendation of Commissioner Din, and recommending that the respondent be instead reprimanded for his actions, thus:
RESOLUTION NO. XX-2013-164
RESOLVED to REVERSE as it is hereby REVERSED, the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner in the above-entitled case, herein made part of this Resolution as Annex "A," considering the act of Respondent evinces potential conflict of interest, Atty. Raymundo G. Hipolito III is hereby REPRIMANDED with WARNING that repetition of similar act shall be dealt with more severely.
Based on the records of the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC), the respondent has not filed a petition for review as of January 4, 2017. TCAScE
Issue
Did the respondent violate the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Lawyer's Oath for representing conflicting interests when he filed his entry of appearance in the intestate proceedings in behalf of the Bansil siblings, including Perla, while serving as the counsel in the ejectment case against the estate of Paulina?
Ruling of the Court
We concur with the recommendation of the IBP Board of Governors.
The extended resolution by the IBP Board of Governors, 20 through its Director for Bar Discipline Dominic C.M. Solis, adequately explained how the respondent had represented conflicting interests while serving simultaneously as the counsel for Sandico in the ejectment case and for the Bansil siblings in the settlement of estate proceedings. We quote with approval the pertinent portions of the resolution as follows:
The Board agrees with Commissioner Din's finding that respondent Hipolito is not guilty of actual conflict of interest when he took on the case of Ruben Bansil, Rizalina Bansil Garcia, Noel Bansil and Perlan [sic] Bansil Abuzo in Special Proceeding No. Q-91-8559 since the rule concerning conflict of interest prohibits a lawyer from representing a client if that representation will be directly adverse to any of his present or former clients and, in this case, there is no indication or proof that respondent's original client, Pilar Monroy Sandico, was adversely affected by respondent's new representation of the Bansil heirs. In fact, respondent still filed a Motion for Execution on behalf of Sandico against the Estate of Paulina L. Bansil. On the other hand, the pleadings and motions filed by respondent in representation of the Bansil heirs in the estate proceedings were not directed against the specific property subject of the case between Sandico and the said estate but were against herein complainant Atty. Alexander Bansil, the administrator-designate of the estate.
The foregoing notwithstanding, since the Bansil heirs sought for the replacement of Atty. Bansil by Perla Bansil Abuzo and since such issue seems yet to be unresolved, there is a potential conflict of interest since Perla Bansil Abuzo was the original defendant in the case filed by Sandico and there is nothing in the record to show that such case has already been fully executed. Verily, another test of conflict of interest is whether, on behalf of one client, it is the lawyer's duty to contest for that which his duty to another client requires him to oppose or when the possibility of such situation will develop. In addition, the rule holds even if the inconsistency is remote or merely probable or the lawyer acted in good faith with no intention to represent conflicting interest. 21
Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility reads:
A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by written consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts.
In Heirs of Lydio "Jerry" Falame v. Baguio, 22 the Court has laid down the following tests in determining conflict of interest, thus:
A lawyer may not, without being guilty of professional misconduct, act as counsel for a person whose interest conflicts with that of his present or former client. The test is whether, on behalf of one client, it is the lawyer's duty to contest for that which his duty to another client requires him to oppose or when the possibility of such situation will develop. The 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. In addition, the rule holds even if the inconsistency is remote or merely probable or the lawyer has acted in good faith and with no intention to represent conflicting interests. 23
As keenly observed by the IBP Board of Governors, the respondent was subject to a potential conflict of interest by simultaneously representing Sandico and the Bansil siblings, particularly Perla, who was being sought to replace complainant Atty. Bansil as the administrator of the estate. Even if the inconsistency was remote or merely probable or even if he had acted in good faith and with no intention to represent conflicting interests, his actuation was still in violation of the rule on conflict of interest. 24
As regards the penalty, we affirm the recommendation of reprimand by the IBP Board of Governors considering that this case is the first complaint filed against the respondent. This penalty is in accord with our ruling in Heirs of Lydio Jerry Falame v. Atty. Baguio, supra.
WHEREFORE, the Court FINDS and DECLARES respondent ATTY. RAYMUNDO HIPOLITO III guilty of violating Canon 15, Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility; and accordingly REPRIMANDS him with WARNING that any similar infraction in the future will be dealt with more severely.
Let copies of this decision be furnished to the Office of the Bar Confidant, to be appended to the respondent's personal record as an attorney; to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines; and to all courts in the Philippines for their information and guidance. cTDaEH
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 362-364.
2.Id. at 306.
3.Id. at 307.
4.Id. at 309-311.
5.Id. at 312-315.
6.Id. at 331-335.
7.Id. at 326-327.
8.Id. at 5.
9.Id. at 2-4.
10.Id. at 5-6.
11.Id. at 6-7.
12.Id. at 56-66.
13.Id. at 59.
14.Id. at 61-62.
15.Id. at 65.
16.Id. at 374-379.
17.Id. at 378.
18.Id.
19.Id. at 372.
20.Id. at 380-384.
21.Id. at 382-383.
22. Adm. Case No. 6876, March 7, 2008, 548 SCRA 1.
23.Id. at 12-13.
24.Tulio v. Buhangin, A.C. No. 7110, April 20, 2016, 790 SCRA 508, 517.