G.R. No. A.C. No. 10687; July 22, 2015
Mabini Colleges, Inc. represented by Marcel N. Lukban, Alberto I. Garcia, Jr., and Ma. Pamela Rossana A. Apuya, Complainant, vs. Atty. Jose D. Pajarillo, Respondent.

FACTS

In 1996, complainant Mabini Colleges, Inc., a corporation with a divided Board of Trustees, appointed respondent Atty. Jose D. Pajarillo as its corporate secretary. In 1999, one faction (Adeva Group) authorized a loan application with the Rural Bank of Paracale (RBP). The opposing faction (Lukban Group) opposed the loan. Respondent sent a letter to RBP assuring the bank of the complainant’s financial capacity. RBP granted the loan. Later, the Securities and Exchange Commission nullified appointments made by the Adeva Group, and complainant informed RBP. RBP’s response revealed that respondent was its legal counsel, a fact complainant claimed it was previously unaware of. The loan was later increased. In 2002, RBP moved to foreclose the mortgage, and complainant filed a case for Annulment of Mortgage against RBP. Respondent entered his appearance as counsel for RBP in that case. In 2011, complainant filed this disbarment complaint, alleging respondent represented conflicting interests and failed to exhibit candor, fairness, and loyalty. Respondent defended himself by arguing the complainants lacked authority to file the case, that he was only a corporate secretary and not legal counsel for the college, and that there was no conflict as the loan documents were public record.

ISSUE

Whether respondent is guilty of representing conflicting interests when he entered his appearance as counsel for RBP in the case for annulment of mortgage filed by complainant against RBP.

RULING

Yes, respondent is guilty of representing conflicting interests. The Supreme Court affirmed the IBP’s findings and penalty. Cash vouchers from 1994 to 2001 proved respondent was compensated by complainant for retained legal services, making complainant his former client. By representing RBP in a case filed by his former client against the bank, without the written consent of all concerned after full disclosure, respondent violated Canon 15, Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The rule prohibits representing conflicting interests, which exists when a lawyer represents inconsistent interests of opposing parties, regardless of whether confidential information was exchanged or if the matters are public record. The test is whether the lawyer’s duty to one client requires him to oppose for the other client what he would advocate for the first. Respondent acted for complainant’s interest by assuring RBP of its capacity in 1999, then acted against that interest by defending RBP in the annulment case. The Court also held that a disbarment complaint is imbued with public interest, and any person may file it, making the issue of the representatives’ authority immaterial. Respondent was suspended from the practice of law for one year.