Suspension of Atty. Samuel C. Occena from the Practice of Law
On January 26, 1988, the Supreme Court of the Philippines issued Circular No. 4-88, announcing the three-month suspension of Atty. Samuel C. Occena from the practice of law. This decision stemmed from his unethical representation of conflicting interests, specifically his involvement in a case for the Nagsil Village Foundation against former clients regarding the same property. The court emphasized that lawyers must uphold strict ethical standards, including confidentiality and loyalty to former clients. Atty. Occena's previous admonishments for similar unethical behavior contributed to the severity of this disciplinary action.
January 26, 1988
SUPREME COURT CIRCULAR NO. 4-88
| TO | : | The Court of Appeals, Sandiganbayan, Regional Trial Courts in the Eleventh Judicial Region, Municipal Trial Courts in Davao City and Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts, Same Region |
| SUBJECT | : | Suspension of Atty. Samuel C. Occena from the Practice of Law |
For the information and guidance of all concerned, quoted hereunder is the pertinent portion of the Resolution of the Third Division of this Court, dated January 20, 1988, in G. R. No. 77739, entitled "Bienvenido Toling, et al. vs. RTC, Branch 8, Davao City et al." c
"G.R. No. 77739 — (Bienvenido Toling et el. v. RTC Branch 8, Davao City, et al.) — . . .
"It is likewise unethical for respondent Occena to represent Nagsil Village Foundation in a case filed by his former clients over the same piece of property involved in the case where he appeared for the petitioners. The estoppel cited by Judge Milagros C. Nartatez in her September 13, 1985 order is of no moment. The petitioners pursued their case in the trial court as pauper litigants and were apparently unaware about the finer points of legal ethics. It is the lawyer who is required to show greater zeal and attention in obeying all the ethical requirements of his profession. He may not represent conflicting interests and is obliged to maintain inviolate confidential information from former clients. As a matter of fact, whether or not he acquired confidential information from his former clients, he may not represent the latter's adversary against them in any action related to the case where he represented his former clients.
"The Courts notes the cavalier attitude of Occena towards admonitions of this Court, in administrative cases earlier filed against him. He has been warned in the past about unethical practices as a lawyer. The petitioners cite Pacquing v. Court of Appeals, et al. (115 SCRA 117) Legara v. Occena (Adm. Case No. 2491, March 21, 1984) and Toling V. Occena (Adm. Case No. 2494, March 21, 1984) as some of the cases where this Court imposed alternative fine or imprisonment against Atty. Occena. acd
"Considering the foregoing, . . . The Court further Resolved to SUSPEND Atty. Samuel C. Occena from the PRACTICE OF LAW for Three (3) months. . . ." cd i
January 26, 1988.
(SGD.) CLAUDIO TEEHANKEE Chief Justice