|
BILDNER vs.
Lokin, et. al., A.C. No. 6554, Dec. 14, 2005.
|
|
"x x x.
Segueing to the merits of
the petition, respondent admits that his firm represented Ilusorio in
Sandiganbayan Case No. 009[8]and
that he represented Manuel Nieto, Jr. and Lourdes Africa in SEC Case No.
09-98-6086.[9] The
Court notes, however, that besides Nieto and Africa, respondent represented
Salvador Hizon as well, as indicated in his Memorandum submitted to the SEC[10] and
as found by the Committee on Professional Responsibility, Discipline and
Disbarment of the IBP.[11]
Notwithstanding his acknowledged involvement in both the Sandiganbayan and SEC
cases, respondent denies that he was guilty of representing conflicting
interests, he proffering that, in the first place, the case of Ilusorio in the
Sandiganbayan “has been the personal account of Atty. Raval, separate and apart
from the accounts of the law partnership.” Not only is this claim
unsubstantiated, however. It is contradicted by respondent’s own evidence
and statements.
Thus, respondent attached to his Comment to the present petition documentary
evidence consisting of, among other things, two letters to the PCGG, in one of
which he signed on behalf of his firm, and in the other his name appeared as
counsel on behalf of his firm.[12]
The subject of both letters was the then pending negotiations between the PCGG
and Ilusorio who was therein identified as the client of respondent’s
firm. In connection with these letters, respondent claims: “If by chance
the signature of the Respondent appears on some correspondences, it is only
because Respondent, in good faith, accommodated Atty. Raval upon the latter’s
request who, as then Deputy Secretary of the Senate of the Philippines, is not
authorized to engage in the private practice.”[13]
Besides being a flimsy excuse by itself, this claim of respondent, being an
acknowledgment that he signed correspondences with the PCGG pertaining to the
Ilusorio case, only shows that both he and Atty. Raval
collaborated on said case.
Furthermore, as earlier noted, respondent has stated that Ilusorio was
represented by his firm in the Sandiganbayan case.[14]
In light thereof, respondent was personally barred by the rules of ethics from
representing an interest contrary to that earlier espoused by his firm.
So this Court held in Hilado v. David:[15]
x x x If this letter was written under the circumstances explained
by Attorney Franciso and he was unaware of its contents, the fact
remains that his firm did give Mrs. Hilado a formal professional advice from
which, as heretofore demonstrated, emerged the relation of attorney and
client. This letter binds and estops him in the same manner and to the
same degree as if he personally had written it. An information
obtained from a client by a member or assistant of a law firm is information
imparted to the firm. This is not a mere fiction or
an arbitrary rule; for such member or assistant, as in our case, not only acts
in the name and interest of the firm, but his information, by the
nature of his connection with the firm is available to his associates or
employers. x x x (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
Respondent denies, however, representing conflicting interests on the ground
that SB Case No. 009 and SEC Case No. 09-98-6086 are totally distinct from each
other. He attempts to distinguish them as follows:
36. SB Case No. 009, initiated by the PCGG before the
Sandiganbayan is totally distinct and separate, and has no relation at all to
SEC Case No. 09-98-6086. Said cases involve different parties and causes
of action.
37. In Sandiganbayan Case No. 009, the opposing parties are the
Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) as plaintiff; Atty. Potenciano
Ilusorio, as Defendant and Third party Plaintiff; and Independent Realty
Corporation (IRC) and Mid-Pasig Land Development Corp. (MLDC).
38. The subject matter in SB Case No. 009 are shares owned
by the National Government, through IRC and MLDC, in the Philippine Overseas
Telecommunications Corporation (POTC).
39. SEC Case No. 09-98-6086 involves a dispute regarding the
PHILCOMSAT election of its Board of Directors and corporate officers.[16]
The foregoing explanation fails to mention, however, that Ilusorio, a defendant
in the Sandiganbayan case, was one of the petitioners in the SEC case, and that
among the grounds Ilusorio relied upon in his petition in the SEC was the
existence of the Compromise Agreement in the Sandiganbayan, which vested in him
ownership and voting rights corresponding to 673 POTC shares.[17]
Nowhere is the conflict of interest clearer than in respondent’s Memorandum
dated September 28, 1998 filed with the SEC wherein he argued in behalf of
Nieto, et al. as follows:
A continued exercise of jurisdiction and a subsequent disposition of the
instant Petition by this Honorable Commission would pre-empt the resolution by
the Sandiganbayan of the disputed shares. It would in fact affirm the
ownership by the Petitioners of the said shares subject of the Sandiganbayan
case. This Petition is a premature action to enforce the Compromise
Agreement entered into by Mr. Ilusorio. Clearly, this is
beyond the jurisdiction of this Honorable Commission. Any right to be
derived from the Compromise Agreement is clearly inchoate at this point in time.[18] (Emphasis
and underscoring supplied)
Plainly, when respondent represented Nieto, et al. in the SEC, he was
advocating an interest hostile to the implementation of the same Compromise
Agreement that he had priorly negotiated for Ilusorio.
The Board thus erred when, while acknowledging that Ilusorio was represented by
respondent’s firm in his negotiations with the PCGG, it nonetheless maintained
that there was no conflict of interest upon a finding that the subsequent SEC
case “did not in any way involve the validity of the compromise agreement
forged with the PCGG.”[19]
X x x."
