G.R. No. A.C. No. 12160 August 14, 2018
BUENA VISTA PROPERTIES, INC., Complainant vs. ATTY. AMADO B. DELORIA, Respondent

FACTS

Complainant Buenavista Properties, Inc. (BPI) entered into a Joint Venture Agreement (JVA) with La Savoie Development Corporation (LSDC), represented by respondent Atty. Amado B. Deloria, for land development. Disputes arose, leading BPI to file a civil case against LSDC for contract termination, with Atty. Deloria acting as LSDC’s counsel. The RTC denied LSDC’s prayer for a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction. Subsequently, Atty. Deloria, on behalf of LSDC, filed a complaint before the HLURB seeking the same relief—compelling BPI to execute deeds of sale—effectively initiating a second case for identical causes of action.
BPI further alleged that Atty. Deloria, to deflect liability from LSDC, convinced lot buyers who had purchased from LSDC to engage his services to file cases against BPI before the HLURB for delivery of titles. One such client, Corazon Flores, executed an affidavit stating that Atty. Deloria neglected her case by failing to file necessary pleadings and communicate. BPI also accused Atty. Deloria of misrepresenting that a certain individual was BPI’s president’s secretary to facilitate service of a notice and of misquoting the JVA in his pleadings.

ISSUE

Whether Atty. Amado B. Deloria violated the Code of Professional Responsibility, warranting disciplinary action.

RULING

Yes, the Court found Atty. Deloria guilty of multiple violations. The core of the ruling rests on the prohibition against conflict of interest and the duty of candor and fairness. Atty. Deloria violated Rule 15.03 of the CPR by representing conflicting interests. He concurrently represented LSDC, the developer in the JVA, and the lot buyers who purchased from LSDC. The interests of LSDC and the buyers were directly adverse in the context of the title delivery disputes, as LSDC’s liability to the buyers was a central issue. His actions in soliciting the buyers as clients to sue BPI, while defending LSDC, created a clear conflict, breaching his duty of undivided loyalty.
Furthermore, the Court found him liable for forum shopping under Rule 12.02. By filing the HLURB case for LSDC seeking the same reliefs already prayed for in the pending RTC civil case, he engaged in willful and deliberate forum shopping, an act of deceit toward the court. His neglect of his client Corazon Flores’s case, as attested, violated Canon 18 and the duty to serve with competence and diligence. The misrepresentation regarding the identity of BPI’s employee and the misquotation of the JVA constituted dishonesty and a violation of the lawyer’s duty to act with candor and fairness under Canon 10. While the charge for violating the one-year prohibition on practice before the HLURB (from his former role as Commissioner) was not sufficiently proven, the aggregate of his other unethical acts demonstrated a pattern of misconduct. The Court suspended Atty. Deloria from the practice of law for two years, with a stern warning.