A.C. No. 11504. August 1, 2017. ARIEL G. PALACIOS, for and in behalf of the AFP Retirement and Separation Benefits System (AFP-RSBS), Complainant, vs. ATTY. BIENVENIDO BRAULIO M. AMORA, JR., Respondent.
FACTS

The complainant, AFP-RSBS, engaged the legal services of respondent Atty. Bienvenido Braulio M. Amora, Jr. for its Riviera real estate project in Silang, Cavite. The respondent was hired for various tasks, including securing land reclassification, corporate registration, and licenses to sell. A critical engagement was a March 14, 2000 contract where respondent was paid PHP 1.8 million to act as counsel before the Sangguniang Bayan of Silang to secure reclassification of the property from agricultural to residential/commercial use. However, the respondent furnished a resolution showing the reclassification had already been approved by the Sangguniang Bayan on February 21, 2000—a month before the contract was signed. Thus, no service could have been performed under that specific contract.
After his services were terminated, the respondent subsequently represented Philippine Golf Development and Equipment, Inc. (Phil Golf), an investor in the Riviera project. In this new capacity, he filed a case against his former client, AFP-RSBS, before the HLURB for alleged breach of contract. In that case, he utilized confidential information acquired during his prior representation of AFP-RSBS to advance Phil Golf’s claims against it.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Atty. Amora, Jr. violated the Code of Professional Responsibility and his Lawyer’s Oath through his actions in representing conflicting interests and charging an unjustified fee.

RULING

Yes, the respondent is guilty of professional misconduct. The Supreme Court adopted the findings of the IBP Board of Governors. On the conflict of interest, the Court emphasized that Canon 21 of the CPR mandates a lawyer to preserve the confidences of a former client. Rule 21.01 forbids a lawyer from using prior client confidences to the disadvantage of that client, and Rule 21.02 prohibits their use for the benefit of a third person or the lawyer’s own interest. By representing Phil Golf in a suit against AFP-RSBS and using confidential information obtained during his prior engagement, the respondent blatantly violated these rules. His defense that AFP-RSBS consented was rejected, as consent to adverse representation must be fully informed and given in writing, which was not present.
Regarding the PHP 1.8 million fee, the Court found it unjustified. The legal service contracted for on March 14, 2000—securing reclassification—was impossible to perform as the favorable resolution had been issued a month prior. Charging and accepting a substantial fee for a service that required no work constitutes a clear violation of Canon 15, Rule 15.03, which prohibits a lawyer from neglecting a legal matter entrusted to him, and Canon 1, which mandates respect for the law. The Court ordered the respondent to return this amount. Considering the violations, the Court modified the IBP’s recommended penalty and suspended Atty. Amora, Jr. from the practice of law for two years, with a warning that a repetition would be dealt with more severely.