A.C. No. 10992 & A.C. No. 10993. June 19, 2018. RODOLFO M. YUMANG, CYNTHIA V. YUMANG AND ARLENE TABULA, COMPLAINANTS, VS. ATTY. EDWIN M. ALAESTANTE, RESPONDENT. [A.C. No. 10993] BERLIN V. GABERTAN AND HIGINO GABERTAN, COMPLAINANTS, VS. ATTY. EDWIN M. ALAESTANTE, RESPONDENT.
FACTS

In A.C. No. 10992, complainants charged Atty. Edwin M. Alaestante with various ethical violations, primarily stemming from a letter he wrote to the Department of Justice (DOJ) Secretary on January 3, 2012. In this letter, filed on behalf of his clients, he accused Cynthia Yumang and others of syndicated estafa, qualified theft, and grave threats. The letter contained allegations that Cynthia was a “savvy businesswoman” with “tremendous political clout and influence” in Marikina City, implying that local authorities could not be trusted to handle the case impartially. This letter formed the basis for a libel complaint against the respondent, and the DOJ eventually dismissed the criminal complaints he initiated for lack of merit.
In A.C. No. 10993, complainants Berlin and Higino Gabertan, who were named as respondents in the same DOJ complaint initiated by Atty. Alaestante, alleged that he subsequently represented them in defending against those very charges. They claimed they engaged his legal services, paid him a professional fee, and that he drafted their counter-affidavit and rejoinder. They argued this constituted representation of conflicting interests, as he was the lawyer who initiated the complaint against them and then accepted their engagement to defend against it.

ISSUE

Whether Atty. Edwin M. Alaestante violated the Code of Professional Responsibility and his oath as a lawyer, warranting disciplinary action.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court found Atty. Alaestante guilty of professional misconduct and suspended him from the practice of law. The Court ruled on two distinct violations. First, regarding the libelous letter (A.C. No. 10992), the Court held that while lawyers have a duty to advocate for their clients zealously, this must be done within the bounds of the law and with courtesy and fairness. The statements in the letter, which were found to have no factual basis and were irrelevant to the legal complaint, were scurrilous and offensive. They were calculated to disparage the complainants and influence the DOJ through improper means, constituting a violation of the lawyer’s duty to uphold the dignity of the legal profession. This act amounted to misconduct.
Second, regarding the conflict of interest (A.C. No. 10993), the Court found that Atty. Alaestante indeed represented conflicting interests. Canon 15, Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility explicitly prohibits a lawyer from representing new clients whose interests are opposed to those of a former client in the same or a related matter. By filing the DOJ complaint against the Gabertans and then accepting their engagement to defend them in the same case, he placed himself in a position where his duty to his new clients (the Gabertans) was directly adverse to the interests of his former clients (the complainants in the DOJ case) whom he had initially assisted. His denial was unconvincing, and the acceptance of a fee solidified the attorney-client relationship with the Gabertans. This was a clear and serious ethical breach.
Consequently, the Court imposed a six-month suspension for the misconduct in A.C. No. 10992 and a one-year