Myline Cordial

Roberto Bernardino vs. Atty. Victor Rey Santos
A.C. No. 10583 [Formerly CBD 09-2555], February 18, 2015

Violation of Canon 10, Rule 10.01 and Canon 15, Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

FACTS:
Atty. Santos drafted Mariano Turla’s Affidavit of Self-Adjudication which states that Mariano Turla is the sole heir of Rufina Turla knowing this to be false. Mariano and Rufina Turla had a daughter.

Years later Atty. Santos, on behalf of Marilu Turla, daughter of Rufina and Mariano Turla, filed a Complaintfor sum of money with prayer for Writ of Preliminary Injunction and temporary restraining order against the complainant, Bernardino. The Complaint alleged that Marilu Turla is an heir of Mariano Turla, which allegedly contradicts the Affidavit of Self-Adjudication that Atty. Santos drafted.

ISSUE:
WON Atty. Santos represented clients with conflicting interests thereby violating the Code of Professional Responsibility.

RULING:
YES. Respondent violated Canon 15, Rule 15.03. There is conflict of interest when a lawyer represents inconsistent interests of two or more opposing parties. The test 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 the other client. In brief, if he argues for one client, this argument will be opposed by him when he argues for the other client.” This rule covers not only cases in which confidential communications have been confided, but also those in which no confidence has been bestowed or will be used. Also, there is conflict of interests if the acceptance of the new retainer will require the attorney to perform an act 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.

However, Rule 15.03 provides for an exception, specifically, “by written consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts.” The respondent failed to present evidence that he obtained the written consent of Mariano Turla and Marilu Turla.

He also violated Canon 10, Rule 10.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility by failing to thwart his client Mariano Turla from filing the Affidavit of Adjudication despite his knowledge of the existence of Marilu Turla as a possible heir to the estate of Rufina Turla. As officers of the court, lawyers have the duty to uphold the rule of law. The respondent failed to uphold his obligation as a member of the bar to be the stewards of justice and protectors of what is just, legal and proper.

Full text: Bernardino vs. Santos A.C. No. 10583 February 18, 2015