Professional Documents
Culture Documents
(Javier) KANG TAE SIK VS. ATTY. ALEX Y. TAN AND ATTY. ROBERTO S. FEDERIS
(Javier) KANG TAE SIK VS. ATTY. ALEX Y. TAN AND ATTY. ROBERTO S. FEDERIS
The firm represented him in the ff cases: Contrary to the charges, Atty. Tan's firm was hired
(1) Criminal Case No. 94-133989-90 involving to represent complainant only in two of the four
violation of BP. 22 before the RTC, Branch 13 of cases that were endorsed to the firm for which he
Manila City (Manila Case) for which he paid P was paid PHP 200,000.00 or PHP 50,000.00
200K as professional fee; (2) Criminal Case No. acceptance fee for each case. As for him (Atty.
46356 involving violation of BP. 22 before the Tan), he represented complainant only in the First
MTC, Branch 69 of Pasig City (First Pasig Pasig Case. His engagement therein lasted only for
Case) where Atty. Tan and his associates entered two years because complainant advised him to
their appearance and filed a motion to revive withdraw therefrom as he (complainant) allegedly
case; and (3) Civil Case No. 7230 involving a had an NBI friend who could help him in criminal
complaint for sum of money against him before cases. At any rate, his withdrawal of appearance
RTC 157 of Pasig City (Second Pasig Case) for was with complainant's full consent. [20]
which he paid P300K as fees.
It is not true that he was complainant's business
The firm however deliberately neglected these consultant who assisted with the latter's matters
cases. On one occasion, they made him sign involving the NBI, BID, and BOC, nor did
documents that he did not understand but which complainant disclose his past criminal conviction
turned out to be a Withdrawal of Appearance. As or other cases except the First Pasig Case.
[21]
such, after only a year, the firm withdrew its After the termination of the firm's engagement,
appearance in both Pasig Cases. Atty. Tan and his he no longer maintained communication with
associates' intentional neglect was part of a ploy complainant. In fact, he already forgot his name
to obtain information from these cases which they and only recalled him as a former client when the
used to blackmail him. present disbarment case was filed against him.[22]
On April 21, 2014, he received an order from the In September 2013, he was invited by Mr. Kevin
BID to file a counter-affidavit vis-à-vis a letter- Lee (Mr. Lee), another Korean national, to
complaint filed by Atty. Tan positing that he incorporate L&K Beverage Corporation, which was
(complainant) violated immigration laws and was appointed by Lotte Chilsung, one of the largest
convicted for two counts of violation of BP 22 in beverage manufacturers in Seoul, Korea, as its
the Manila Case. Attached thereto was another sole distributor in the Philippines of a popular wine
letter signed by Atty. Federis which was filed with in Korea, Chumchurum sojo. They eventually
the NBI albeit Atty. Federis' name still appeared as discovered, however, that complainant, through
one of the associates of A. Tan, Zoleta & his NBI friends, initiated an NBI investigation on
Associates Law Firm. These letter-complaints, their shipments, alleging undervaluation thereof. [23]
however, were groundless since the warrant of
arrest and hold departure order against him which Complainant is known for harassing business
were mentioned therein had already been lifted. competitors and even caused some of them to be
deported. Atty. Tan received life-threatening text
Atty. Tan and Atty. Federis used information messages from him, which prompted him to report
acquired during their lawyer-client relationship, complainant to the NBI and the Philippine National
such as the records in the Manila case, to Police and to file a deportation case against him.
[24]
circulate letters maligning his person within the His allegations therein were supported by
Korean community. Too, they used the same to file records in the Manila Case which were public
the deportation case before the NBI, in violation of records.[25]
their duties under the CPR. More, after gaining
1
In any case, Atty. Tan maintains he is not guilty of to preserve his or her client's secrets and
violating the CPR since his duty to a former client confidences outlasts the termination of an
does not extend to transactions beyond his attorney-client relationship.
engagement. He is not required to protect the
client's interest after the lawyer-client relationship As such, the CPR prohibits lawyers from
has been terminated. In the same vein, conflict of representing interests that conflict with that of his
interest only arises if the lawyer used confidential or her client. Rule 15.03 of Canon 15 of the CPR
information, which was acquired during the provides, viz.:
engagement, against his client while their
relationship is subsisting. At any rate, the rule on CANON 15 – A lawyer shall observe candor,
"conflicted interest" prescribes in five years. It has fairness and loyalty in all his dealings and
been 18 years since complainant's conviction. transactions with his clients.
Finally, he was only discharging his duty to report
any violation of immigration laws when he filed the Rule 15.03 – A lawyer shall not represent
letter-complaint.[26] conflicting interests except by written consent of
all concerned given after a full disclosure of the
Respondents offered as evidence copies of facts.
relevant pleadings in the cases involving
complainant and the NBI investigations. [27] This rule against conflict of interest applies even if
the relation of lawyer-client had already been
On May 6, 2015, Atty. Tan informed the Integrated terminated and covers not only cases in which
Bar of the Philippines (IBP) that Atty. Federis had confidential communications have been confided,
passed away in April 2015.[28] He was thus but also those in which no confidence has been
dropped from the case. bestowed or will be used. The rule holds even if
Report and Recommendation of the IBP the inconsistency is remote, merely probable, or
the lawyer has acted in good faith and with no
Initially, both the IBP Commission on Bar intention to represent conflicting interests.
Discipline[29] and Board of Governors (BOG)
[30]
recommended the dismissal of the complaint. (HTA) On this score, Atty. Tan's argument that his
They essentially found that complainant failed to duty of fidelity to clients only subsists while the
prove that the Manila Case, which was used as lawyer-client relationship has not yet been
basis to file the NBI letter-complaints, was among terminated, thus, fails.
those handled by Atty. Tan during the firm's
engagement. In any case, nine years had already Too, his argument that the rule against conflict of
passed since complainant was convicted, and
interest prescribes in five years is misplaced. The
seven years since the deportation complaints case he cited as basis, PCGG v.
were filed. Sandiganbayan, pertained to the duration of
prohibition against retired or separated lawyers in
On complainant's Motion for Reconsideration, the government service from taking part in cases
IBP BOG[31] reversed and recommended that Atty. involving matters they handled in their former
Tan be suspended from the practice of law for six government positions. In fine, the same
months. Under its Extended Resolution [32] dated is inapplicable here where the respondent is a
June 2, 2022, it explained that Atty. Tan violated private practitioner.
the proscription against conflict of interest when
he filed the deportation complaints against his
Complainant, however, failed to substantiate his
former client, complainant, by using information
charges against Atty. Tan.
and documents entrusted to his firm by virtue of
their lawyer-client relationship.
In Hornilla v. Salunat, we explained that there is
a conflict of interest when a lawyer represents
Issue
inconsistent interests of two or more opposing
parties. Since then, jurisprudence has
Did Atty. Tan violate the proscription against
developed three tests to determine the existence
conflict of interest?
of conflict of interest: first, whether a lawyer is
duty-bound to fight for an issue or claim on behalf
Ruling
of one client, and at the same time, to oppose that
claim for the other client; second, whether
We dismiss the complaint for lack of merit.
acceptance of a new relation would prevent the
discharge of the lawyer's duty of undivided fidelity
Canon 17 of the CPR states: and loyalty to the client, or invite suspicion of
CANON 17 – A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of unfaithfulness or double-dealing in the
his client and he shall be mindful of the trust and performance of that duty; and third, whether the
confidence reposed upon him. lawyer would be called upon in the new relation to
use against a former client any confidential
The relationship between a lawyer and client is information acquired through their connection or
strictly personal and highly confidential and previous employment.
fiduciary. In engaging the services of an attorney,
the client reposes upon him or her special powers This case falls under the third test.
of trust and confidence. The relation is of such
delicate, exacting and confidential nature that is In Parungao v. Atty. Lacuanan, the Court
required by necessity and public interest. Only explained that the third test specifically applies to
then can the public be encouraged to entrust their a situation wherein the professional engagement
confidence in lawyers. Thus, the duty of a lawyer with the former client was already terminated
2
when the lawyer entered into a new engagement
with the present client. It bears to stress that the
test explicitly requires the lawyer's use against
the former client of "confidential information
acquired through their connection or previous
employment."
ACCORDINGLY, the
Court RESOLVES to DISMISS the case against
Atty. Alex Y. Tan for utter lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.