FRIAS vs. LOZADA, AC No. 6656, Dec. 13, 2005
"X x x.
Canon 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides:
A lawyer shall not represent conflicting
interests except by written consent of all concerned given after a full
disclosure of the facts.
A lawyer may not,
without being guilty of professional misconduct, act as counsel for a person
whose interest conflicts with that of his present[21] or former client.[22] He may not also undertake to
discharge conflicting duties any more than he may represent antagonistic
interests. This stern rule is founded on the principles of public policy
and good taste.[23] It springs from the relation of
attorney and client which is one of trust and confidence.
The test of conflict of interest 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 its performance.[24] The conflict exists 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
represented him and also whether he will be called upon in his new relation to
use against the first client any knowledge acquired through their connection.[25]
In this case, respondent not only admitted that she represented
both complainant and San Diego in unrelated actions but also counseled both of
them in the sale of the Alabang property.
As their lawyer, she was duty-bound to protect both of their
interests. She should have therefore refrained from jumbling their
affairs. Yet she introduced complainant to another client of hers as a
buyer of the property. She even had the temerity to broker the
transaction. At that early stage, she should have realized that her role
as their lawyer had been seriously compromised. Since buyer and seller
had evident antagonistic interests, she could not give both of them sound legal
advice. On top of this, respondent’s obvious tendency then was to help
complainant get a high selling price since the amount of her commission was
dependent on it.
After several suits were filed as an offshoot of the transaction
between her two clients, respondent found herself in a very tight
situation. Although she denied that she represented any of them, her
active participation in the transaction was obvious and it clearly displayed an
utter disregard of the rule against discharging inconsistent duties to her clients.
The great likelihood was that she would be called upon to use against either
the complainant or San Diego information acquired through her professional
connection with them.
Furthermore, her role as their counsel in the other unrelated
cases was also compromised. Both parties had, at this point, become
wary of her since she had by then taken – for her own convenience – San Diego’s
side by refusing to return the P900,000 to complainant until San Diego was paid. It was not
surprising therefore that complainant filed this administrative case because of
the suspicion that respondent had double-crossed her.
The records further establish that respondent collected her full
commission even before the transaction between complainant and San Diego was
completed. This unmasked respondent’s greed which she now wants us so
badly to ignore. Her integrity was placed in serious doubt the moment her
promised commission started motivating her every move. Her behavior was, sad to
say, simply distasteful.
Likewise, her act of borrowing money from a client was a violation
of Canon 16.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility:
A lawyer shall not borrow money from his client
unless the client’s interests are fully protected by the nature of the case and
by independent advice.
A lawyer’s act of asking a client for a loan, as what respondent
did, is very unethical. It comes within those acts considered as abuse of
client’s confidence. The canon presumes that the client is disadvantaged
by the lawyer’s ability to use all the legal maneuverings to renege on her
obligation.
Finally, respondent should be reminded that a lawyer should, at
all times, comply with what the court lawfully requires.[26] Here, respondent continues to
disregard the final order of the Court of Appeals finding her liable for the P900,000 she received from
complainant. We see no justification for her continued delay in complying
with an order that has long become final. Respondent adamantly insists that she
and complainant should simultaneously settle their obligations. As a
lawyer, she should have known that her obligation to complainant was
independent of and separate from complainant’s obligation to the buyer. Her
refusal to comply with the appellate court’s order is, therefore, a willful
disobedience to its lawful orders and must not be left unpunished.
X x x."
