SIMON D. PAZ v. ATTY. PEPITO A. SANCHEZ, AC. NO.

6125, 2006-09-19
Facts:
In his complaint dated 23 July 2003, complainant stated that sometime in 1995, complainant and his
partners, Alfredo Uyecio and Petronila Catap, engaged the services of respondent to assist them purchase,
as well as document the purchase, of several parcels of land from tenant-farmers in Pampanga.
Respondent was also tasked to defend complainant's claim on the properties against the claim of a certain
George Lizares ("Lizares").
The complaint arose because respondent, allegedly after the termination of his services in May 2000, filed
a complaint before the Department of Agrarian Reform Board ("DARAB case") in behalf of one Isidro
Dizon ("Dizon") for annulment of Transfer Certificate Title No. 420127-R ("TCT No. 420127-R") in the
name of complainant and his partners. Complainant explained that Dizon's property, covered by
Emancipation Patent No. 00708554/Transfer Certificate Title No. 25214 ("TCT No. 25214"), was among
those properties purchased by complainant with respondent's assistance.
Complainant alleged that respondent is guilty of representing conflicting interests when he represented
Dizon in a case involving the same properties and transactions in which he previously acted as
complainant's counsel. Complainant added that respondent filed the DARAB case with "malicious
machination" because respondent used complainant's old address to serve the complaint and summons,
enabling respondent to obtain a judgment by default in Dizon's favor.
The IBP Board of Governors issued Resolution No. XVI-2005-78 dated 12 March 2005 adopting, with
modification, Commissioner San Juan's Report and Recommendation finding respondent guilty of
violating the prohibition against representing conflicting interests.
IBP Board of Governors recommended the imposition on respondent of a penalty of one year suspension
from the practice of law with a warning that a similar offense in the future will be dealt with more
severely.
Issues:
Whether Atty. Pepito A. Sanchez should be disbarred for representing conflicting interests.
Ruling:
On Respondent's Violation of the Prohibition against Representing Conflicting Interests
Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that "a lawyer shall not represent
conflicting interests except by written consent of all concerned given after full disclosure of the facts."
Lawyers are deemed to represent conflicting interests when, in behalf of one client, it is their duty to
contend for that which duty to another client requires them to oppose. The proscription against
representation of conflicting interest applies to a situation where the opposing parties are present clients in
the same action or in an unrelated action.
By respondent's own admission, when he filed the DARAB case on Dizon's behalf against complainant,
both complainant and Dizon were respondent's clients at that time.
The Court notes that respondent did not specifically deny that he represented conflicting interests.
Respondent merely offered to justify his actuations by stating that he felt it was his "duty and
responsibility' to file the case because he felt responsible for the cancellation of TCT No. 25214 and its
subsequent transfer in complainant's name. Respondent stated that he "will forever be bothered by his
conscience" if he did not file the case. However, good faith and honest intentions do not excuse the
violation of this prohibition. In representing both complainant and Dizon, respondent's duty of undivided
fidelity and loyalty to his clients was placed under a cloud of doubt. Respondent should have inhibited
himself from representing Dizon against complainant in the DARAB and RTC cases to avoid conflict of
interest.
In Maturan v. Gonzales, the Court said:
The reason for the prohibition is found in the relation of attorney and client, which is one of trust and
confidence of the highest degree. A lawyer becomes familiar with all the facts connected with his client's
case. He learns from his client the weak points of the action as well as the strong ones. Such knowledge
must be considered sacred and guarded with care. No opportunity must be given him to take advantage of
the client's secrets. A lawyer must have the fullest confidence of his client. For if the confidence is
abused, the profession will suffer by the loss thereof.
WHEREFORE, the Court finds respondent Atty. Pepito A. Sanchez GUILTY of violating Rule 15.03 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility. The Court SUSPENDS respondent from the practice of law for
ONE YEAR and WARNS respondent that the commission of a similar act in the future will merit a more
severe penalty.
RIVERA vs CORRAL

FACTS:
Jose A. Rivera instituted a Complaint for Disbarment charging Atty. Napoleon Corral with Malpractice
and Conduct Unbecoming a Member of the Philippine Bar. The complaint alleges that a decision was
penned by Presiding Judge Ybañez on a case for ejectment, and that such decision was received by
Annaliza Superio, Secretary of Atty. Napoleon Corral. Corral filed a notice on appeal. On March 14,
1990, Atty. Napoleon Corral came to the Office of the Clerk of Court, Branch 7, Bacolod City and
changed the date February 23, 1990 to February 29, 1990. Realizing later that there is no 29th in February
1990, he filed a "REPLY TO PLAINTIFF’S MANIFESTATION" claiming therein that he received the
Decision not on the 29th in (sic) February 1990 but on the 28th of February 1990. Atty. Napoleon Corral
violated the proper norms/ethics as a lawyer by tampering with particularly by personally and manually
changing entries in the court’s record without the Court’s prior knowledge and permission, conduct
unbecoming of a member of the Philippine Bar much more so because in so doing he was found to have
been motivated by the desire of suppressing the truth.
In his defense, respondent claimed that the correction of the date was done on the paper prepared by him.
He also alleged that the correction was initiated and done in the presence and with the approval of the
Clerk of Court and the other court employees. According to respondent, the correction was made because
of typographical error he committed. He denied that Annaliza Superio, who received the decision in his
behalf, is his secretary.
In a Resolution dated January 20, 1993, the Court referred the case to the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and recommendation. Thereafter, Investigating Commissioner
Victor C. Fernandez submitted his report on August 21, 1997 finding respondent guilty as charged and
recommended his suspension from the practice of law for six (6) months. On October 25, 1997, the IBP
Board of Governors passed a Resolution approving and adopting the report and recommendation of the
Investigating Commissioner.

ISSUE:
Whether respondent should be disbarred due to the tampering or corrections he made on the paper
prepared by him.

RULING:
In his report, the Investigating Commissioner pointed out that the correction introduced by respondent
was made not to reflect the truth but to mislead the trial court into believing that the notice of appeal was
filed within the reglementary period. The Decision rendered in the case was duly received by a certain
Annaliza Superio, the secretary of respondent, on February 22, 1990. Respondent filed the Notice of
Appeal on March 13, 1990 which was clearly out of time. To extricate himself from such predicament,
respondent altered the date when he allegedly received the Decision from February 23, 1990 to February
29, 1990. Realizing that there was no February 29, 1990 in the calendar, he sought to change the date
again to February 28, 1990 by means of a "reply to Plaintiff’s Manifestation".
The Investigating Commissioner further pointed out that respondent’s claim that the correction was made
in the presence of the Clerk of Court and other court employees was denied by Nilda P. Tronco, the
Branch Clerk of the Municipal Trial Court of Bacolod City, who declared that the alteration was
surreptitiously made and would have been left unnoticed were it not for the timely discovery thereof.
While the prevailing facts of the case do not warrant so severe a penalty as disbarment, the inherent
power of the Court to discipline an errant member of the Bar must, nonetheless, be exercised because it
can not be denied that respondent has violated his solemn oath as a lawyer not to engage in unlawful,
dishonest or deceitful conduct.
The relevant rules to the case at bar are Rules 1.01 and Rule 19.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. Rule 1.01 states in no uncertain terms that: "A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful,
dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct." More specifically, Rule 19.01 mandates that "a lawyer shall
employ only fair and honest means to attain the lawful objectives of his client and shall not present,
participate or threaten to present unfounded criminal charges to obtain improper advantage in any case or
proceeding."
The Court "can not overstress the duty of a lawyer to at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the
legal profession. He can do this by faithfully performing his duties to society, to the bar, to the courts and
to his clients." A lawyer may be disciplined or suspended for any misconduct, whether in his professional
or private capacity. Public confidence in the law and lawyers may be eroded by the irresponsible and
improper conduct of a member of the Bar. Thus, every lawyer should act and comport himself in such a
manner that would promote public confidence in the integrity of the legal profession."
By altering the material dates to make it appear that the Notice of Appeal was timely filed, respondent
committed an act of dishonesty. Under pertinent rules, dishonesty constitutes grave misconduct upon
which the Court, in a recent case, imposed a one-year suspension on respondent therein for inserting in
the records of the case a certification of non-forum shopping and making it appear that the same was
already part of such records at the time the complaint was filed. It should be stressed that brazenly
resorting to such a legal subterfuge to mislead the court and to cover up for his failings toward his client
is not only a disgraceful indictment on respondent’s moral fiber and personal fitness to his calling as a
lawyer.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, respondent Atty. Napoleon Corral is SUSPENDED from the
practice of law for ONE (1) YEAR and STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar
offense will be dealt with more severely.