A.C. No. 11944. June 20, 2018.
BSA TOWER CONDOMINIUM CORPORATION, complainant, vs. ATTY. ALBERTO CELESTINO B. REYES II, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant BSA Tower Condominium Corporation filed a disbarment complaint against respondent Atty. Alberto Celestino B. Reyes II. It alleged two primary violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR). First, it claimed that between December 2006 and January 2007, Reyes obtained PHP 25 million from the corporation for expenses related to settling its real estate tax liabilities but could only account for PHP 5 million, violating Rule 16.01 on accounting for client funds. Second, BSA Tower asserted that in 2011, Reyes entered his appearance as counsel for the plaintiff in a civil case against the corporation, Marietta K. Ilusorio v. BSA Tower Condominium Corp., and later testified against it. BSA Tower contended this was a conflict of interest, as the case involved information Reyes acquired while serving as its Corporate Secretary, and he did not secure its written consent, thereby violating Rules 15.03 and 21.02.
Respondent Reyes denied the charges. Regarding the funds, he explained his engagement was on a contingent fee basis—10% of the savings he generated for BSA Tower. He successfully reduced the corporation’s annual realty tax, generating significant savings, but was never paid his fee. He had filed and won a collection case in the Makati RTC to recover his compensation. Concerning the conflict of interest charge, Reyes claimed he had sought and received verbal consent from a BSA Tower representative before representing Ilusorio and that the corporation did not object when he entered his appearance. The trial court in that civil case later denied BSA Tower’s motion to expunge his testimony.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Atty. Alberto Celestino B. Reyes II should be disbarred for alleged violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility concerning the accounting of client funds and conflict of interest.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the complaint for utter lack of merit, affirming the resolutions of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Board of Governors. In administrative proceedings, the burden of proof rests on the complainant, and the case must be established by substantial evidence—relevant evidence a reasonable mind would accept as adequate. The Court found BSA Tower failed to meet this burden.
On the alleged violation of Rule 16.01 (failure to account for funds), the Court noted that the factual and legal issues had already been adjudicated by the regular courts. The Makati RTC, in a separate collection case, had ruled in favor of Reyes, ordering BSA Tower to pay him his contingent fee. This judicial determination contradicted the complainant’s claim of misappropriation.
Regarding the alleged violations of Rules 15.03 and 21.02 (conflict of interest and misuse of confidential information), the Court applied the tests from jurisprudence, which examine whether a lawyer’s new engagement prevents undivided loyalty to a former client or involves using confidential information against them. The record showed that the Makati RTC hearing the Ilusorio case had already ruled there was no conflict of interest in Reyes’s appearance. Furthermore, BSA Tower provided no convincing evidence that Reyes used specific confidential information acquired from his prior engagement to its disadvantage. His claim of having obtained verbal consent, coupled with the trial court’s ruling, undermined the complaint.
The Court emphasized that disciplinary proceedings are sui generis, aimed at preserving the integrity of the legal profession, not to punish. Where the material facts have been passed upon by judicial tribunals and the complainant fails to present substantial evidence to overturn those findings, the administrative complaint must fail. Consequently, the acts of Reyes were not shown to