A.C. No. 5303 June 15, 2006
Jalandoni, et al; a highly
HUMBERTO C. LIM, JR., in behalf of PENTA RESORTS
CORPORATION/Attorney-in-Fact of LUMOT A.
JALANDONI, Complainant,
vs.
ATTY. NICANOR V. VILLAROSA, Respondent
Facts:
Humberto C. Lim Jr.1 filed a verified complaint for disbarment
against respondent Atty. Nicanor V. Villarosa on July 7, 2000.
On September 19, 1997, Lumot A. Jalandoni,
Chairman/President of PRC was sued before RTC, Branch 52
in Civil Case No. 97-9865, RE: Cabiles et al. vs.
LumotJalandoni, et al. The latter engaged the legal services of
herein respondent who formally entered his appearance on
October 2, 1997 as counsel for the defendants Lumot A.
Jalandoni/TottiAnlapGargoles. Respondent as a consequence
of said Attorney-Client relationship represented Lumot A.
Jalandoni et al in the entire proceedings of said case.Utmost
trust and confidence was reposed on said counsel, hence
delicate and confidential matters involving all the personal
circumstances of his client were entrusted to the respondent.
However, on April 27, 1999 respondent, without due notice
prior to a scheduled hearing, surprisingly filed a Motion to
withdraw as counsel, one day before its scheduled hearing on
April 28, 1999. A careful perusal of said Motion to Withdraw as
Counsel will conclusively show that no copy thereof was
furnished to Lumot A. Jalandoni, neither does it bear her
conformity. The far reaching effects of the untimely and
unauthorized withdrawal by respondent caused irreparable
damage and injury to Lumot A.
meritorious case in favor of his client suddenly [suffered]
unexpected defeat.That the grounds alleged by respondent for
his withdrawal as counsel of Lumot A. Jalandoni, et al. was
that he is [a] retained counsel of Dennis G. Jalbuena and the
Fernando F. Gonzaga, Inc. It was Dennis G. Jalbuena who
recommended him to be the counsel of Lumot A. Jalandoni, et
al.
There is no dispute that respondent was able to acquire vast
resources of confidential and delicate information on the facts
and circumstances of [Civil Case No. 97-9865] when Lumot A.
Jalandoni was his client … which knowledge and information
was acquired by virtue of lawyer-client relationship between
respondent and his clients.
Respondent did then and there, willfully, unlawfully, feloniously
conspired and confabulated with the Sps. Dennis and Carmen
J. Jalbuena in concocting the despicable and fabricated
charges against his former clients denominated as PP vs.
Lumot A. Jalandoni, Pamela J. Yulo, Cristina J. Lim and Leica
J. Lim for viol. of Art. 172 of Revised Penal Code due to a
board resolution executed by the corporation which the Sps.
Jalbuena, with the assistance of herein respondent, claimed to
have been made without an actual board meeting due to an
alleged lack of quorum, [among other things]. Were it not for
said fiduciary relation between client and lawyer, respondent
will not be in a position to furnish his conspirator spouses with
confidential information on Lumot A. Jalandoni/PRC, operator
of Alhambra Hotel.
Adding insult to injury, respondent opted to deliberately
withhold the entire case file including the marked exhibits of
the Cabiles case for more than three (3) months after his
untimely unilateral withdrawal therefrom, despite repeated
demands from [his] client.
Issue:
Whether there existed a conflict of interest in the cases
represented and handled by respondent.
Ruling:
Yes.
Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR)
highlights the need for candor, fairness and loyalty in all the
dealings of lawyers with their clients.Rule 15.03 of the CPR
aptly provides:
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.
It is only upon strict compliance with the condition of full
disclosure of facts that a lawyer may appear against his client;
otherwise, his representation of conflicting interests is
reprehensible.There is representation of conflicting interests if
the acceptance of the new retainer will require the
attorney to do anything 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, and also whether
he will be called upon in his new relation to use against his first
client any knowledge acquire in the previous employment.
An attorney owes to his client undivided allegiance. After being
retained and receiving the confidences of the client, he cannot,
without the free and intelligent consent of his client, act both
for his client and for one whose interest is adverse to, or
conflicting with that of his client in the same general
matter…. The prohibition stands even if the adverse
interest is very slight; neither is it material that the
intention and motive of the attorney may have been
honest.
The representation by a lawyer of conflicting interests, in the
absence of the written consent of all parties concerned after a
full disclosure of the facts, constitutes professional misconduct
which subjects the lawyer to disciplinary action.
Issue:
Whether respondent properly withdrew his services as
counsel of record in Civil Case No. 97-9865.
Ruling:
Yes.
Canon 22 – A lawyer shall withdraw his services only for good
cause and upon notice appropriate in the circumstances.
The relation of attorney and client may be terminated by the
client, by the lawyer or by the court, or by reason of
circumstances beyond the control of the client or the lawyer.
The termination of the attorney-client relationship entails
certain duties on the part of the client and his lawyer.
An attorney may only retire from a case either by written
consent of his client or by permission of the court after due
notice and hearing, in which event the attorney should see to it
that the name of the new lawyer is recorded in the case. A
lawyer who desires to retire from an action without the written
consent of his client must file a petition for withdrawal in
court. He must serve a copy of his petition upon his client and
the adverse party at least three days before the date set for
hearing, otherwise the court may treat the application as a
"mere scrap of paper.

[A client] may discharge his attorney at any time with or

without cause and thereafter employ another lawyer who may
then enter his appearance. Thus, it has been held that a client
is free to change his counsel in a pending case and thereafter
retain another lawyer to represent him. That manner of
changing a lawyer does not need the consent of the lawyer to
be dismissed. Nor does it require approval of the court.
A.C. No. 5804. July 1, 2003
BENEDICTO HORNILLA and ATTY. FEDERICO D.
RICAFORT, complainants, vs. ATTY. ERNESTO S.
SALUNAT, respondent.
FACTS:
On November 21, 1997, Benedicto Hornilla and Atty. Federico
D. Ricafort filed an administrative complaint with the IBP
Commission on Bar Discipline, against respondent Atty.
Ernesto S. Salunat for illegal and unethical practice and
conflict of interest. They alleged that respondent is a
member of the ASSA Law and Associates, which was the
retained counsel of the Philippine Public School Teachers
Association (PPSTA). Respondent’s brother, Aurelio S.
Salunat, was a member of the PPSTA Board which approved
respondent’s engagement as retained counsel of PPSTA.
Complainants as members of the PPSTA, filed two cases
against its members of the Board of Directors:
(1) an intra-corporate case before the SEC for the terms 1992-
1995 and 1995-1997 [SEC Case No. 05-97-5657], and
(2) a complaint before the Office of the Ombudsman for
unlawful spending and the undervalued sale of real property of
the PPSTA [OMB Case No. 0-97-0695].
Atty. Salunat entered his appearance as counsel for the
PPSTA Board members in the said cases. Complainants
contend that he was guilty of conflict of interest because he
was engaged by the PPSTA, of which complainants were
members, and was being paid out of its corporate funds where
complainants have contributed. Despite being told by PPSTA
members of the said conflict of interest, respondent refused to
withdraw his appearance in the said cases.
Moreover, complainants aver that respondent violated Rule
15.06 of the Code of Professional Responsibility when he
appeared at the meeting of the PPSTA Board and assured its
members that he will win the PPSTA cases.
In his Answer, respondent stressed that he entered his
appearance as counsel for the PPSTA Board Members for and
in behalf of the ASSA Law and Associates. As a partner in the
said law firm, he only filed a Manifestation of Extreme Urgency
in OMB Case. On the other hand, the SEC Case was handled
by another partner of the firm, Atty. Agustin V. Agustin.
Respondent pointed out that his relationship to Aurelio S.
Salunat was immaterial; and that when he entered into the
retainer contract with the PPSTA Board, he did so, not in his
individual capacity, but in representation of the ASSA Law
Firm. He denied that he ensured the victory of the PPSTA
Board in the case he was handling. He merely assured the
Board that the truth will come out and that the case before the
Ombudsman will be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction,
considering that respondents therein are not public officials,
but private employees. Anent the SEC case, respondent
alleged that the same was being handled by the law firm of
Atty. Eduardo de Mesa, and not ASSA. Hence, prayed for the
dismissal of the complaint against him.
ISSUE:
WON Atty. Salunat is guilty of representing conflicting
interests.
HELD:
The pertinent rule of the Code of Professional Responsibility
provides:
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 said case. Clearly, respondent was guilty of conflict of
There is conflict of interest when a lawyer represents interest when he represented the parties against whom his
inconsistent interests of two or more opposing parties. The test other client, the PPSTA, filed suit.
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 In his Answer, respondent argues that he only represented the
the other client. This rule covers not only cases in which Board of Directors in OMB Case wherein he filed a pleading.
confidential communications have been confided, but also By filing the said pleading, he necessarily entered his
those in which no confidence has been bestowed or will be appearance therein. Again, this constituted conflict of interests,
used. Also, there is conflict of interests if the acceptance of the considering that the complaint in the Ombudsman, albeit in the
new retainer will require the attorney to perform an act which name of the individual members of the PPSTA, was brought in
will injuriously affect his first client in any matter in which he behalf of and to protect the interest of the corporation.
represents him and also whether he will be called upon in his
new relation to use against his first client any knowledge ACCORDINGLY, respondent Atty. Ernesto Salunat is found
acquired through their connection. Another test of the GUILTY of representing conflicting interests and is
inconsistency of interests is whether the acceptance of a new ADMONISHED to observe a higher degree of fidelity in the
relation will prevent an attorney from the full discharge of his practice of his profession. He is further WARNED that a
duty of undivided fidelity and loyalty to his client or invite repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more
suspicion of unfaithfulness or double dealing in the severely.
performance thereof.
SO ORDERED.
The prevailing rule is that a situation wherein a lawyer
represents both the corporation and its assailed directors
unavoidably gives rise to a conflict of interest. The interest of
the corporate client is paramount and should not be influenced
by any interest of the individual corporate officials. A lawyer
engaged as counsel for a corporation cannot represent
members of the same corporation’s board of directors in a
derivative suit brought against them. To do so would be
tantamount to representing conflicting interests, which is
prohibited by the Code of Professional Responsibility.

In the case at bar, the records show that SEC Case was filed
by the PPSTA against its own Board of Directors. Respondent
admits that the ASSA Law Firm, of which he is the Managing
Partner, was the retained counsel of PPSTA. Yet, he appeared
as counsel of record for the respondent Board of Directors in
PEREZ vs. ATTY. DE LA TORRE
A.C. 6160; March 30, 2006
FACTS:
In December 2001, several suspects for murder and
kidnapping for ransom, among them Sonny Boy Ilo and Diego
Avila, were apprehended and jailed by the police authorities.
Atty. De La Torre went to the municipal building of Calabanga
where Ilo and Avila were being detained and made
representations that he could secure their freedom if they sign
the prepared extrajudicial confessions.
Unknown to the two accused, Atty. De La Torre was
representing the heirs of the murder victim. On the strength of
the extrajudicial confessions, cases were filed against them.
Perez, complainant, who was implicated in the extrajudicial
confessions as the mastermind in the criminal activities,
charged Atty. Danilo de la Torre with misconduct or conduct
unbecoming of a lawyer for representing conflicting interests
Atty. De la Torre explained that while being detained at
the Calabanga Municipal Police Jail, Avila sought his
assistance in drafting an extrajudicial confession regarding his
involvement in the crimes of kidnapping for ransom, murder
and robbery. He advised Avila to inform his parents about his
decision to make an extrajudicial confession, apprised him of
his constitutional rights and of the possibility that he might be
utilized as a state-witness.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. De La Torre violated Rule 15.03 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility.
RULING:
YES. Under Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, a lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests
except by written consent of all concerned given after a full
disclosure of the facts. Respondent is therefore duty bound to
refrain from representing two parties having conflicting
interests in a controversy. By doing precisely the foregoing,
and without any proof that he secured the written consent of
both parties after explaining to them the existing conflict of
interest, respondent should be sanctioned.
In this case, there is conflict of interests when a lawyer
represents inconsistent interests of two or more opposing
parties.There is a representation of conflicting interests if the
acceptance of the new retainer will require the attorney to do
anything 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.
In the course of a lawyer-client relationship, the lawyer
learns all the facts connected with the client’s case, including
the weak and strong points of the case. The nature of that
relationship is, therefore, one of trust and confidence of the
highest degree. It behooves lawyers not only to keep inviolate
the client’s confidence, but also to avoid the appearance of
impropriety and double-dealing for only then can litigants be
encouraged to entrust their secrets to their lawyers, which is of
paramount importance in the administration of justice.
LETICIA GONZALES, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY.
MARCELINO CABUCANA, RESPONDENT.
A.C. No. 6836, January 23, 2006
Gonzales vs. Cabucana
FACTS:
This is a disbarment case filed by Leticia Gonzales against
Atty. Marcelino Cabucana for representing conflicting interests.
Gonzales is a complainant in a Civil case for Sum of money
and damages filed before the MTCC of Santiago City. She
was represented by the law firm of CABUCANA, CABUCANA,
DE GUZMAN AND CABUCANA LAW OFFICE, with Atty.
Edmar Cabucana handling the said civil case. Judgment was
rendered in favor of Gonzales, however the court sheriff
Romeo Gatcheco failed to fully implement the writ of execution
in that case. Aggrieved, Gonzales filed an administrative case
before the Supreme Court against sheriff Gatcheco. Gatcheco
with his wife then went to the house of Gonzales asking that
an affidavit of desistance be executed to dismiss the case
against him. Gonzales did not heed to his request and instead
alleged harassment against the Sps. Gatcheco and filed
criminal cases against the spouses for trespass, grave threats,
grave oral defamation, simple coercion and unjust vexation.
Now Sps. Gatcheco secured the services of herein respondent
Atty. Marcelino Cabucana who is the brother of Atty. Edmar
Cabucana. Both Cabucanas are associates/partners of the
above-mentioned law firm.
Gonzales then filed before the IBP a petition stating that
respondent should be disbarred from the practice of law since
respondent's acceptance of the cases of the Gatchecos
violates the lawyer-client relationship between complainant
and respondent's law firm and renders respondent liable under
the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) particularly
Rules 10.01, 13.01, 15.02, 15.03, 21.01 and 21.02.
Respondent Cabucana claims that he is representing the Sps.
Gatcheco probono and entered his appearance in good faith
sinceno other counsel is willing to take their case and opted to
represent them rather than leave them defenseless and
abdicate his sworn duty to delay no man for money or malice.
He further contends that the civil case filed by Gonzales where
respondent's brother served as counsel is different and distinct
from the criminal cases filed by complainant against the
Gatcheco spouses, thus, he did not violate any canon on legal
ethics.
The IBP Board of Governors resolved to adopt and approved
the Report and Recommendation of the IBP-Commission on
Bar Discipline thru Commissioner Reyes that respondent
made (a) mistake in the acceptance of the administrative case
of Romeo Gatcheco, Atty. Marcelino Cabucana, Jr. is hereby
WARNED and REPRIMANDED and advised to be more
circumspect and careful in accepting cases which might result
in conflict of interests.
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Marcelino Cabucana violated the
CPR relating to representing conflicting interests?
HELD: Yes. Respondent is found guilty of violating Rule 15.03
of Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, to wit:
Rule 15.03 – A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interest
except by written consent of all concerned given after a full
disclosure of the facts.
It is well-settled that a lawyer is barred from representing
conflicting interests except by written consent of all concerned
given after a full disclosure of the facts. [24] Such prohibition is
founded on principles of public policy and good taste as the
nature of the lawyer-client relations is one of trust and
confidence of the highest degree. [25] Lawyers are expected
not only to keep inviolate the client's confidence, but also to
avoid the appearance of treachery and double-dealing for only
then can litigants be encouraged to entrust their secrets to
their lawyers, which is of paramount importance in the
administration of justice.
while herein respondent signed the pleadings for the Gatcheco
spouses only with his name, [39] without any mention of the law
firm. We also note the observation of the IBP Commissioner
Reyes that there was no malice and bad faith in respondent's
acceptance of the Gatchecos' cases as shown by the move of
complainant to withdraw the case.

One of the tests of inconsistency of interests is whether the WHEREFORE, Resolution No. XVI-2005-153 of the Integrated
acceptance of a new relation would prevent the full discharge Bar of the Philippines
of the lawyer's duty of undivided fidelity and loyalty to the client is APPROVED with MODIFICATION that respondent Atty.
or invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or double-dealing in the Marcelino Cabucana, Jr. is FINED the amount of Two
performance of that duty. Thousand Pesos (P2,000.00) with a STERN WARNING that a
commission of the same or similar act in the future shall be
The claim of respondent that there is no conflict of interests in dealt with more severely.
this case, as the civil case handled by their law firm where
Gonzales is the complainant and the criminal cases filed by
Gonzales against the Gatcheco spouses are not related, has
no merit. The representation of opposing clients in said cases,
though unrelated, constitutes conflict of interests or, at the very
least, invites suspicion of double-dealing which this Court
cannot allow.
Respondent further argued that it was his brother who
represented Gonzales in the civil case and not him, thus, there
could be no conflict of interests. We do not agree. As
respondent admitted, it was their law firm which represented
Gonzales in the civil case. Such being the case, the rule
against representing conflicting interests applies.
We shall consider however as mitigating circumstances the
fact that he is representing the Gatcheco spouses pro bono
and that it was his firm and not respondent personally, which
handled the civil case of Gonzales. As recounted by
complainant herself, Atty. Edmar Cabucana signed the civil
case of complainant by stating first the name of the law firm
CABUCANA, CABUCANA, DE GUZMAN AND CABUCANA
LAW OFFICE, under which, his name and signature appear;