Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Lee V Simando
Lee V Simando
SIMANDO,
Respondent.
A.C. No. 9537 June 10, 2013
One test is whether a lawyer is duty-bound to fight for an issue or claim in behalf
of one client and, at the same time, to oppose that claim for the other client.
Thus, if a lawyers argument for one client has to be opposed by that same
lawyer in arguing for the other client, there is a violation of the rule.
Facts: Atty. Simando was the retained counsel of complainant Dr. Lee from
November 2004 until January 8, 2008, with a monthly retainer fee of Php
3,000.00
Sometime during the above-mentioned period, Atty. Simando went to see Dr. Lee
and asked if the latter could help a certain Felicito M. Mejorado for his needed
funds. He claimed that Mejorado was then awaiting the release of his claim for
informer's reward from the Bureau of Customs. Because Dr. Lee did not know
Mejorado personally and she claimed to be not in the business of lending money,
the former initially refused to lend money. But Atty. Simando allegedly persisted
and assured her that Mejorado will pay his obligation and will issue postdated
checks and sign promissory notes. He allegedly even offered to be the co-maker
of Mejorado and assured her that Mejorado's obligation will be paid when due.
Atty. Simando was quoted saying: "Ipapahamak ba kita, kliyente kita"; "Sigurado
ito, kung gusto mo, gagarantiyahan ko pa ito, at pipirma din ako"; "Isang buwan
lang, at hindi hihigit sa dalawang buwan ito, bayad ka na."3
Due to Atty. Simando's persistence, his daily calls and frequent visits to convince
Dr. Lee, the latter gave in to her lawyer's demands, and finally agreed.
Respondent acted as co-maker with Mejorado in 5 different cash loans
amounting to Php 1,400,000.
When the said obligation became due, Mejorado failed and refused to comply
with his obligation. Since Atty. Simando was still her lawyer then, Dr. Lee
instructed him to initiate legal action against Mejorado. Atty. Simando said he
would get in touch with Mejorado and ask him to pay his obligation without
having to resort to legal action. However, even after several months, Mejorado
still failed to pay Dr. Lee, so she again asked Atty. Simando why no payment has
been made yet. Dr. Lee then reminded Atty. Simando that he was supposed to be
the co-maker of the obligation of Mejorado, to which he replied: "Di kasuhan din
ninyo ako!"
Atty. Simando also insisted that he did not violate their lawyerclient relationship,
since Dr. Lee voluntarily made the financial investment with Mejorado and that he
merely introduced complainant to Mejorado. He further claimed that there is no
conflict of interest because he is Mejorado's lawyer relative to the latter's claim
for informer's reward, and not Mejorado's lawyer against Dr. Lee. He reiterated
that there is no conflicting interest as there was no case between Mejorado and
Dr. Lee that he is handling for both of them.
Second, Atty. Simando admitted that Mejorado is another client of him albeit in a
case claiming rewards against the Bureau of Customs;
Third, Atty. Simando admitted that he was the one who introduced complainant
and Mejorado to each other for the purpose of entering into a financial
transaction while having knowledge that complainant's interests could possibly
run in conflict with Mejorado's interests which ironically such client's interests, he
is duty-bound to protect;
Fourth, despite the knowledge of the conflicting interests between his two clients,
respondent consented in the parties' agreement and even signed as co-maker to
the loan agreement;
Fifth, respondent's knowledge of the conflicting interests between his two clients
was demonstrated further by his own actions, when he:
(a) failed to act on Mejorado's failure to pay his obligation to complainant despite
the latter's instruction to do so;
(b) denied liability despite signing as co-maker in the receipts/promissory notes
arising from the loan agreement between his two clients;
(c) rebutted complainant's allegations against Mejorado and him, and even
divulged informations he acquired while he was still complainant's lawyer.