THIRD DIVISION
[A.C. No. 6740. February 26, 2014.]
SENIOR MARKETING CORPORATION, represented by JAMES VINCENT C. NAVARETTE, complainant, vs. ATTY. AQUILINO P. BOLINAS, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated February 26, 2014, which reads as follows:
"A.C. No. 6740 — (Senior Marketing Corporation, represented by James Vincent C. Navarette v. Atty. Aquilino P. Bolinas). — Complainant Senior Marketing Corporation (complainant) filed a complaint for disbarment against Atty. Aquilino Bolinas (Atty. Bolinas), alleging that on September 5, 1995, it engaged the services of Atty. Bolinas to handle collection cases and other legal services and paid him for the months of October to December 1995; that on January 5, 1998, the retainer's fee of Atty. Bolinas was increased from P2,000.00 to P3,000.00 per month as evidenced by a voucher issued to and acknowledged by Atty. Bolinas; that on December 11, 1997, Atty. Bolinas entered his appearance as counsel for complainant in a case that the latter filed against Dante Almacen for extrajudicial foreclosure of real estate; that complainant also conferred with Atty. Bolinas regarding the cases to be filed against their erring sales representatives and turned over to him pertinent documents material to their prosecution; that since the engagement of Atty. Bolinas as their counsel from 1995 to 2002, he had access to the documents related to the cases he handled; that due to business reversal and financial constraints, complainant terminated his services as retainer; that his termination irked him and in obvious vindictiveness, he accepted cases filed against complainant by its employees; and that Atty. Bolinas' act of accepting the cases and in representing complainant's employees in a case filed against complainant without its consent violated his oath of office.
In his comment, Atty. Bolinas denied conferring with complainant's representative, James Navarette, but admitted talking to its previous managers on the possibility of filing complaints against its erring sales representatives. Atty. Bolinas also denied having access to all documents related to cases he had handled as he was only furnished photocopies of documents on certain accounts which he used as basis for sending letters and filing appropriate legal actions. Atty. Bolinas, however, admitted handling the cases of complainant's employees and that he accepted the cases more than one (1) year after their retainship was terminated by complainant. aSCDcH
In its Report and Recommendation, 1 dated June 4, 2007, the Investigating Commissioner found Atty. Bolinas guilty of violating the Code of Professional Responsibility by representing conflicting interests and recommended that he be suspended from the practice of law for six (6) months.
In a Resolution, 2 dated June 26, 2007, the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) amended the recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner and dismissed the complaint for lack of merit.
Consequently, complainant filed a motion for reconsideration.
In its Resolution, 3 dated June 20, 2013, the Board of Governors of the IBP reversed and set aside its earlier resolution and suspended Atty. Bolinas from the practice of law for a period of three (3) months.
Together with the records forwarded to the Court is a motion for reconsideration filed by Atty. Bolinas. The IBP failed to act on the said motion for reconsideration. As the records of the case are before it, the Court, instead of referring the case back to the IBP, will just resolve the motion of Atty. Bolinas to avoid further delay.
The Court agrees with the recommendation of the IBP except as to the penalty.
Canon 21 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides:
Canon 21. A lawyer shall preserve the confidence and secrets of his client even after the attorney-client relationship is terminated.
Also, Canon 15 of the same code explicitly states:
Rule 15.01 — A lawyer, in conferring with a prospective client, shall ascertain as soon as practicable whether the matter would involve a conflict with another client or is own interest, and if so, shall forthwith inform the prospective client.
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 Court in the case of Hornilla v. Atty. Salunat, 4 held that:
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.
In the present case, Atty. Bolinas clearly violated the prohibition against representing conflicting interests when he accepted the cases filed against complainant by its employees notwithstanding the fact that he was previously the retained counsel of the complainant and that the latter consulted him on the possibility of filing complaints against its erring employees and had access to documents material to their prosecution. The explanation of Atty. Bolinas that he accepted the case of complainant's employees one year after his termination does not excuse him. The termination of the attorney-client relationship does not justify a lawyer to represent an interest adverse to or in conflict with that of the former client except where there is an express consent from the former client. 5STcDIE
The Court, however, does not agree with the final recommendation of the IBP that the penalty be reduced to three (3) months of suspension from the 6-month suspension recommended by the Investigating Commissioner, without clearly and distinctly stating the facts and reasons on which that reduction was based.
In several cases, 6 the Court imposed a penalty ranging from three months to two years' suspension where the respondent was found guilty of representing conflicting interests. In this case, the Court finds the suspension of Atty. Bolinas from the practice of law for a period of six (6) months as warranted.
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Aquilino P. Bolinas is found GUILTY of violation of Rules 15.01 and 15.03 of Canon 15 and Canon 21 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, and is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of SIX (6) MONTHS effective from receipt of this Resolution, with a warning that a similar infraction in the future shall be dealt with more severely.
Let a copy of this Resolution be furnished the Bar Confidant to be spread on the records of the respondent; the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for distribution to all its chapters; and the Office of the Court Administrator for dissemination to all courts throughout the country. (Abad, J., on official leave, Bersamin J., designated Acting Member, per Special Order No. 1640 dated February 19, 2014)
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LUCITA ABJELINA SORIANODivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 574-579.
2. Id. at 573.
3. Id. at 572.
4. 453 Phil. 108 (2003).
5. Samson v. Era, A.C. No. 6664, July 16, 2013.
6. Orola v. Ramos, A.C. No. 9860, September 11, 2013; Samson v. Era, A.C. No. 6664, July 16, 2013; Lim v. Villarosa, 524 Phil. 37 (2006).