G.R. No. A.C. No. 10297. March 09, 2022
Gertrudes Mahunot Ang @ Gertrudes M. Simonetti, Complainant, vs. Atty. Lord M. Marapao, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Gertrudes Mahunot Ang filed a verified letter-complaint against Atty. Lord M. Marapao for violating the Lawyer’s Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR). In 1998 and 1999, Atty. Marapao represented Gertrudes’ husband, Venancio Ang, in various criminal cases filed against Gertrudes. These cases were eventually dismissed after the couple reconciled. Subsequently, in December 2001, Gertrudes hired Atty. Marapao as her lawyer in two cases of Estafa and/or violation of BP 22 she filed against Rosita Mawili and Genera Legetimas.
Eight years later, on December 1, 2009, Gertrudes was sued by Eufronia Estaca Guitan and Victoria Huan in a civil case (Civil Case No. 7688) before the RTC of Tagbilaran City. Atty. Marapao appeared as counsel for Eufronia and Victoria in this case against Gertrudes. Furthermore, from 2009 to 2011, Atty. Marapao continued to render legal services to Eufronia and her niece, Rosario Galao Leyson, assisting them in filing more than thirty (30) criminal cases against Gertrudes for various offenses.
Gertrudes accused Atty. Marapao of: (1) violating the ethical rule against conflict of interest by representing new clients against a former client; (2) failing to preserve client confidences and secrets by using privileged information to file cases against her years later; and (3) filing frivolous suits as a form of harassment to coerce her and her husband regarding land interests.
Atty. Marapao countered that the cases he filed for Eufronia, Rosario, and Victoria were separate and distinct from the earlier cases involving Gertrudes, and thus no privileged communication was used. He denied filing frivolous cases, asserting it was his duty not to do so, and noted that while many charges were dismissed, several were reinstated by prosecutorial authorities.
The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) investigated and recommended Atty. Marapao’s suspension from the practice of law for one (1) year for conflict of interest, but found no violation of the rule on privileged communication. Atty. Marapao filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which was denied, prompting him to file a Verified Petition for Review with the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

1. Whether Atty. Marapao violated the Lawyer’s Oath and Rule 1.03, Canon 1 of the CPR by initiating frivolous cases.
2. Whether Atty. Marapao violated Rules 21.01, 21.02, and 21.03 of Canon 21 of the CPR regarding privileged communication between lawyer and client.
3. Whether Atty. Marapao violated Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of the CPR by engaging in conflict of interest.

RULING

1. Yes, Atty. Marapao violated the Lawyer’s Oath and Rule 1.03, Canon 1 of the CPR. The Court found that Atty. Marapao exhibited a propensity to be litigious. He facilitated the filing of over 30 criminal cases by Eufronia and Rosario against Gertrudes, on top of the approximately 50 cases previously filed by Venancio. While some cases found probable cause, this does not justify his litigious behavior. A lawyer’s duty to justice is superior to his duty to his client, and he must temper a client’s propensity to litigate and avoid filing frivolous suits that burden the judiciary. His actions demonstrated a failure to exercise ethical restraint.
2. No, Atty. Marapao did not violate the rules on privileged communication. The complainant failed to present clear and convincing evidence that Atty. Marapao used or disclosed any confidential information acquired during his previous representation of Gertrudes in the later cases against her. The burden of proof rests on the complainant, and mere allegation is insufficient. The cases he handled for Gertrudes in 2001 were distinct in subject matter and parties from the cases filed in 2009-2011.
3. Yes, Atty. Marapao violated Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of the CPR regarding conflict of interest. The rule prohibits a lawyer from representing conflicting interests. Atty. Marapao represented Gertrudes in 2001 and then, in 2009, accepted engagement against her in a civil case involving related subject matter (land transactions). The Court found a prima facie showing that the present controversy (Civil Case No. 7688) was related to the subject matter of his former representation. By switching sides, he placed himself in a position where he could use against his former client the confidential knowledge gained from that previous relationship, creating an appearance of treachery and double-dealing. His defense of having obtained Gertrudes’ consent was unsubstantiated.
DISPOSITIVE:
Atty. Lord M. Marapao was found GUILTY of violating the Lawyer’s Oath, Rule 1.03 of Canon 1, and Rule 15.03 of Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The Court MODIFIED the IBP’s recommendation and SUSPENDED him from the practice of law for TWO (2) YEARS, with a STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar infraction would be dealt with more severely.