Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Ethics - Lee Vs Simando
Ethics - Lee Vs Simando
Lim
Lee vs. Simando
A.C. No. 9537 June 10, 2013
FACTS:
Atty. Simando was the retained counsel of complainant Dr.
Lee. Atty. Simando went to see Dr. Lee and asked if the latter
could help a certain Felicito M. Mejorado (Mejorado for his
needed funds. Mejorado was Atty. Simando!s client in a case
claimin" rewards a"ainst the #ureau of $ustoms. Dr. Lee
initially refused to lend money %ut Atty. Simando persisted
and assured her that Mejorado will pay his o%li"ation. &e
e'en o(ered to %e the co)maker of Mejorado and assured
her that Mejorado*s o%li"ation will %e paid when due. Due to
Atty. Simando*s persistence+ his daily calls and fre,uent 'isits
to con'ince Dr. Lee+ the latter "a'e in to her lawyer*s
demands+ and -nally a"reed to "i'e Mejorado si.ea%le
amounts of money. /hen the said o%li"ation %ecame due+
despite Dr. Lee*s repeated demands+ Mejorado failed and
refused to comply with his o%li"ation. Since Atty. Simando
was still her lawyer then+ Dr. Lee instructed him to initiate
le"al action a"ainst Mejorado. Atty. Simando said he would
"et in touch with Mejorado and ask him to pay his o%li"ation
without ha'in" to resort to le"al action. &owe'er+ e'en after
se'eral months+ Mejorado still failed to pay Dr. Lee+ so she
a"ain asked Atty. Simando why no payment has %een made
yet. Dr. Lee then reminded Atty. Simando that he was
supposed to %e the co)maker of the o%li"ation of Mejorado+
to which he replied: 0Di kasuhan din ninyo ako10 Despite
complainant*s repeated re,uests+ respondent i"nored her
and failed to %rin" le"al actions a"ainst Mejorado. 2hus+
complainant was forced to terminate her contract with Atty.
Simando and demand payment from him as well.
ISSUE:
/hether or not 3espondent is "uilty of representin"
con4ictin" interest.
EL!:
5uilty. 6)month Suspension. $learly+ it is improper for
respondent to appear as counsel for one party (complainant
as creditor a"ainst the ad'erse party (Mejorado as de%tor
who is also his client+ since a lawyer is prohi%ited from
representin" con4ictin" interests. &e may not+ without %ein"
"uilty of professional misconduct+ act as counsel for a person
whose interest con4ict with that of his present or former
client. 3espondent*s assertion that there is no con4ict of
interest %ecause complainant and respondent are his clients
in unrelated cases fails to con'ince. &is representation of
opposin" clients in %oth cases+ thou"h unrelated+ o%'iously
constitutes con4ict of interest or+ at the least+ in'ites
suspicion of dou%le)dealin". Moreo'er+ with the su%ject loan
John Jeric S. Lim
a"reement entered into %y the complainant and Mejorado+
who are %oth his clients+ readily shows an apparent con4ict
of interest+ moreso when he si"ned as co)maker