G.R. No. A.C. No. 10553, July 5, 2017
Filipinas O. Celedonio, Complainant vs. Atty. Jaime F. Estrabillo, Respondent

FACTS

The disbarment complaint originated from an estafa case filed by Alfrito Mah against complainant’s husband, where respondent Atty. Estrabillo served as Mah’s counsel. Complainant and her husband negotiated with respondent for the case’s withdrawal. Respondent advised them to execute a deed of sale over their property as collateral for a settlement, assuring them it would not be registered. The criminal case was dismissed. Later, when complainant decided to sell the property, she discovered respondent had notarized the deed and caused its registration and annotation on the title. Spouses Mah then filed a civil case for specific performance over the same property.
While this civil case was pending, complainant, needing legal assistance, approached respondent. Respondent, through his secretary, prepared and filed a Motion for Extension of Time and an Urgent Motion to Postpone a hearing on her behalf, for which she paid fees. Relying on these motions, complainant did not attend the scheduled hearing. However, the hearing proceeded, with respondent appearing for the opposing party (his original clients, the Mah spouses) and even filing a Motion to Declare Defendants in Default. A default judgment was subsequently rendered against complainant and her husband.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Atty. Estrabillo violated the Code of Professional Responsibility by representing conflicting interests and engaging in deceitful conduct.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court found respondent guilty of representing conflicting interests and suspended him from the practice of law for six months. The legal logic centers on the prohibition against dual representation, which is grounded on the fiduciary nature of the lawyer-client relationship and public policy. Canon 15, Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility explicitly states a lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by written consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts.
The Court held that respondent’s actions constituted a clear case of representing conflicting interests. While initially counsel for the Mah spouses, he intervened to assist the adverse party, the Celedonio spouses, by facilitating the preparation and filing of pleadings in the civil case filed by his own clients against them. This created a situation where his duty to his original clients (the Mahs) directly conflicted with the assistance he provided to the opposing party. His act of preparing motions that led complainant to believe a hearing was postponed, while knowing it would proceed and even appearing therein to advocate against her, was an unfair and deceitful tactic that prejudiced her defense. The Court emphasized that such conduct erodes trust in the legal profession. However, other allegations of deceit regarding the deed of sale were not substantiated by sufficient evidence. Considering it was his first offense and absent proof of deliberate bad faith, a six-month suspension was deemed appropriate.