ADVERTISEMENT
SECOND DIVISION
[A.C. No. 6319. October 14, 2015.]
ATTY. EUSTAQUIO Z. GACOTT, JR., ET AL., petitioner, vs. ATTY. ROBERT PENEYRA, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 14 October 2015 which reads as follows:
"A.C. No. 6319: ATTY. EUSTAQUIO Z. GACOTT, JR., ET AL. v. ATTY. ROBERT PENEYRA
This court resolves the Complaint dated November 20, 2003 filed by complainants Atty. Eustaquio Z. Gacott, Jr. (Gacott), et al. 1 against respondent Atty. Robert Peneyra for representing conflicting interests.
Complainants alleged that respondent actively represented conflicting interests in two (2) civil cases before Branch 51 of the Regional Trial Court of Puerto Princesa City. 2
On December 4, 1991, respondent entered his appearance as counsel de parte of the defendants 3 in Special Civil Case No. 2420 before Branch 51 of the Regional Trial Court of Puerto Princesa City. 4 The case involved a tract of land owned by the Abrina Family under Plan Rs-4A-000004 (F-61701), previously covered by Original Certificate of Title No. 429 and registered under the name of Lourdes Abrina. 5 Having previously served as counsel for the Abrina Family, complainant Gacott filed a Complaint-in-Intervention in Civil Case No. 2420 to claim additional attorney's fees. 6 Complainant Gacott argued that he had not been paid his attorney's fees by the Abrina Family and was, therefore, entitled to intervene. 7
On August 14, 2003, respondent took an adverse and inconsistent stand against his former clients in Special Civil Case No. 2420 by filing Civil Case No. 3929. 8 Raffled to Branch 51 of the Regional Trial Court of Puerto Princesa City, the case 9 was for a Judicial Confirmation of Sale and/or Judicial Partition, Quieting of Title with Annulment of Project of Partition dated October 10, 2001. 10
Respondent admitted that he represented the Abrina Family in Civil Case No. 2420 and represented parties against the same family in Civil Case No. 3929. He claimed 11 that he did so as part of a legal strategy to defeat the allegedly "irregular and outrageous claim" for additional attorney's fees filed by complainant Gacott. 12 Respondent averred that his clients were engaged in a "bitter conflict regarding the claim for additional attorney's fees of Atty. Gacott, Jr. as payment for legal services rendered in a previous case." 13 He argued that an adverse judgment against his clients in Civil Case No. 3829 would benefit them by frustrating complainant Gacott's claim. 14 ITAaHc
Complainants argued that respondent defrauded his clients and used them to get back at complainant Gacott after he had filed a disbarment case. 15
On December 14, 2012, Investigating Commissioner Oliver A. Cachapero of the Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines found that respondent had indeed represented conflicting interests. 16 He found that while the prohibition against representing conflicting interests is not absolute, respondent failed to comply with the requirements of the law, which applied even if all parties were aware of the situation. 17 Respondent should have obtained the consent of all parties in writing and made them on record. 18 Though there was no evidence that complainant Gacott was prejudiced, the Commissioner recommended that respondent be censured. 19
In the Notice of Resolution dated March 21, 2013, 20 the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines resolved to adopt and approve unanimously the report and recommendations of the Investigating Commissioner. As of November 12, 2013, no motion for reconsideration nor petition for review has been filed by either party. 21
Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states:
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.
A conflict of interest exists when a counsel represents two or more parties with opposing interests. 22 As a general rule, representing conflicting interests is disallowed for reasons of public policy and good taste. 23 It may be allowed only if a written consent of all parties involved is given after full factual disclosure by the counsel.
The issue of representing conflicting interests cannot be taken lightly. Lawyers are expected to observe utmost fairness and loyalty in all their dealings involving clients. 24 In several cases, this court has laid down the rule in determining when a lawyer has crossed the line that makes him or her liable for violating the rule against representing conflicting interests. In Hornilla v. Salunat: 25
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.26 (Emphasis supplied, citation omitted)
In Mabini Colleges, Inc. v. Pajarillo: 27
The rule prohibiting conflict of interest applies to situations wherein a lawyer would be representing a client whose interest is directly adverse to any of his present or former clients. It also applies when the lawyer represents a client against a former client in a controversy that is related, directly or indirectly, to the subject matter of the previous litigation in which he appeared for the former client. This rule applies regardless of the degree of adverse interests. What a lawyer owes his former client is to maintain inviolate the client's confidence or to refrain from doing anything which will injuriously affect him in any matter in which he previously represented him. A lawyer may only be allowed to represent a client involving the same or a substantially related matter that is materially adverse to the former client only if the former client consents to it after consultation.28 (Emphasis supplied, citation omitted)
The legal profession is founded on the highest degree of trust and confidence reposed to its members by both litigants and legal colleagues. Lawyers must avoid any appearance of treachery and double dealing, 29 lest the administration of justice be reduced to nothing but a money-making scheme. The same degree of candor, fairness, and loyalty is expected of a lawyer when he or she deals with a fellow lawyer. Under no circumstances is it excusable for a newly retained counsel to use his or her clients to "get back" at the former handling counsel, which is exactly what occurred in the case of complainant Gacott and respondent. If complainant Gacott had indeed made an "outrageous claim" for additional attorney's fees, respondent should have brought it to the attention of the court instead of taking matters into his own hands. Respondent's "legal strategy" involved pawning his clients in order to defeat what could have been a reasonable claim of another lawyer. This is the height of unprofessionalism, and it cannot be tolerated.
WHEREFORE, this court FINDS and PRONOUNCES respondent Atty. Robert Peneyra guilty of violating Canon 15, Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and SUSPENDS him from the practice of law for one (1) year effective upon receipt of this Resolution, with a warning that his commission of a similar offense will be dealt with more severely. CHTAIc
Let copies of this Resolution be included in the personal record of Atty. Robert Peneyra and entered in his file in the Office of the Bar Confidant.
Let copies of this Resolution be disseminated to all lower courts by the Office of the Court Administrator, as well as to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for its guidance.
SO ORDERED."
(Carpio, J., on official leave; Brion, J., designated Acting Chairperson per S.O. No. 2222; and Peralta, J., designated Acting Member per S.O. No. 2223, both dated September 29, 2015.)
Very truly yours,
MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. The Complaint was filed by "Atty. Eustaquio Z. Gacott, Jr., and Angelica Abrina". They were subsequently referred to as "Gacott, et al." in the proceedings before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.
2. Rollo, p. 417, Commission on Bar Discipline Report and Recommendation dated December 14, 2012.
3. Id. at 2-3, Petition. The defendants in the case were Estrella Abrina-Bartolo and the heirs of Sancho and Josefina Abrina, namely: Castor F. Abrina, Nimfa Abrina-Espanol, German F. Abrina, Monlita Abrina-Esguerra, and Josie Abrina-Vicente.
4. Id. at 2.
5. Id. at 3.
6. Id. at 417-418, Commission on Bar Discipline Report and Recommendation dated December 14, 2012.
7. Id. at 2, Petition.
8. Id.
9. In this case, respondent entered his appearance as counsel for plaintiffs Onos Mangotara, Alfredo Rapirap, Asterio Tubog, Leopoldo Valencia, Jessie Gascon, Edgar Dionela, Gerome Ditchon, Cesar Barlas, Tessie Eva, Tito Gejon, Alfredo Cabildo, Joseph Alfanta, and Nimfa A. Espanol.
10. Rollo, p. 3, Petition.
11. Id. at 33, Comment.
12. Id.
13. Id.
14. Id. at 33-34.
15. Id.
16. Id. at 419, Commission on Bar Discipline Report and Recommendation dated December 14, 2012.
17. Id. at 419-420.
18. Id.
19. Id. at 421.
20. Id. at 416.
21. Id. at 422.
22. See Hornilla v. Salunat, 453 Phil. 108 (2003) [Per J. Ynares-Santiago, First Division].
23. Anglo v. Valencia, A.C. No. 10567, February 25, 2015 <http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?file=/jurisprudence/2015/february2015/10567.pdf> [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe, First Division].
24. CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY, Canon 15.
25. 453 Phil. 108 (2003) [Per J. Ynares-Santiago, First Division].
26. Id. at 111-112.
27. A.C. No. 10687, July 22, 2015 <http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?file=/jurisprudence/2015/july2015/10687.pdf> [Per J. Villarama, Jr., Third Division].
28. Id. at 5.
29. See Quiambao v. Bamba, 505 Phil. 126 (2005) [Per J. Davide, Jr., First Division].