G.R. No. A.C. No. 9459, January 7, 2020
Rene J. Hierro, Complainant, v. Atty. Plaridel C. Nava II, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Rene J. Hierro filed a disbarment complaint against respondent Atty. Plaridel C. Nava II for violating Canons 7.03, 15.03, 17, 21.01, and 22 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The charges stemmed from three acts: (1) conflict of interest for acting as counsel for Hierro’s spouse, Annalyn Hierro, in a petition for a Temporary Protection Order (TPO) against Hierro, despite Hierro being a former client; (2) grossly immoral conduct for engaging in adulterous relations with Annalyn and fathering a child with her; and (3) dereliction of duty for allegedly abandoning Hierro as counsel in a Grave Threats case, leading to his conviction. Atty. Nava denied the allegations. He claimed his representation of Annalyn was limited, emergency-based, and did not involve confidential information, as the petition cited public records of Hierro’s criminal cases. He also noted a dismissed adultery complaint and asserted Hierro terminated his services in the criminal case. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Investigating Commissioner recommended disbarment, which the IBP Board of Governors adopted.

ISSUE

Whether Atty. Plaridel C. Nava II should be disbarred for violating the Code of Professional Responsibility through conflict of interest, grossly immoral conduct, and dereliction of duty.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court adopted the IBP’s recommendation and ordered the disbarment of Atty. Plaridel C. Nava II. The Court found that Atty. Nava violated Canon 15.03 by representing conflicting interests. He was Hierro’s retained counsel in multiple criminal cases yet represented Annalyn in a TPO petition against Hierro, which cited those very cases to demonstrate Hierro’s propensity for violence, thereby using knowledge from his former client against him. His defense of emergency and temporary capacity was rejected, as he should have foreseen the conflict and recommended another lawyer. Regarding gross immorality, the Court found sufficient evidence, including Annalyn’s admission, the sworn statement of Atty. Nava’s wife, and affidavits from witnesses confirming the adulterous affair and the birth of a child. The dismissal of the criminal adultery case was irrelevant, as administrative proceedings are sui generis. This conduct was willful, flagrant, and scandalous, showing indifference to community standards and a lack of the moral character required of lawyers. The Court did not explicitly rule on the charge of abandonment, as the violations for conflict of interest and gross immorality were sufficient grounds for disbarment. Atty. Nava was found guilty of gross misconduct and ordered disbarred, with his name stricken from the Roll of Attorneys.