G.R. No. A.C. No. 12071, March 11, 2020
Jonathan C. Parungao, Complainant, v. Atty. Dexter B. Lacuanan, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Jonathan C. Parungao filed a disbarment complaint against respondent Atty. Dexter B. Lacuanan for representing conflicting interests. Jonathan alleged that Atty. Lacuanan had served as his counsel in several transactions from 2007 to 2011, including a collection matter, a proposed business retainer, the purchase of a lot from Metrobank (evidenced by a Deed of Absolute Sale dated May 13, 2011), and the drafting of a demand letter dated November 2, 2011, regarding a defective vehicle. Jonathan claimed a friendship developed, and he confided personal and marital details to Atty. Lacuanan. In 2013, Jonathan discovered Atty. Lacuanan was representing his wife, Mary Grace, as counsel in a criminal complaint for concubinage, physical injury, and threat, and in a subsequent Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage filed against him. Jonathan argued this representation violated his confidences and constituted representation of conflicting interests without his written consent.
Atty. Lacuanan admitted rendering intermittent professional services to the Spouses Parungao from 2008 to 2011 but denied being a close friend or receiving confidential marital information. He contended there was no standing attorney-client relationship with Jonathan when he accepted Mary Grace’s case in 2013, as the last engagement was in 2011. He argued the prior engagements (lot purchase and vehicle demand) were unrelated to the marital cases and that any information about Jonathan’s assets or standing was known to Mary Grace as his wife. He also claimed he made a full disclosure to Jonathan at the Prosecutor’s Office and that Jonathan did not object, only requesting he dissuade Mary Grace from pursuing the criminal case.
The IBP Investigating Commissioner recommended dismissal, but the IBP Board of Governors reversed, finding Atty. Lacuanan guilty of conflict of interest and suspending him for one month. The Board held that the prohibition covers cases even where no confidence was bestowed, that his actions invited suspicion of double-dealing, and that a lawyer’s duty to preserve client confidences extends beyond the termination of the engagement.

ISSUE

Whether or not Atty. Dexter B. Lacuanan is guilty of representing conflicting interests in violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

RULING

The Supreme Court DISMISSED the disbarment complaint and ABSOLVED Atty. Lacuanan of all administrative charges. The Court held he was not guilty of representing conflicting interests.
The Court ruled that for a violation of the rule on conflict of interest to exist, there must be a showing of a substantial relation between the subject matter of the former and present representations. The two prior engagements for Jonathan (the lot purchase in 2011 and the demand letter for a defective vehicle in 2011) are totally distinct, unrelated, and immaterial to the subsequent marital cases (criminal complaint for concubinage and petition for nullity of marriage filed in 2013). The subject matters are not connected. The Court also found no evidence that Atty. Lacuanan acquired any confidential information from Jonathan during the prior engagements that could be used against him in the marital cases. Information regarding Jonathan’s assets or standing was deemed known to his wife, Mary Grace. Furthermore, the allegations in the marital cases were based on public records (a Court of Appeals decision regarding Jonathan’s previous marriage) and events occurring from late 2012 onwards, long after the professional engagements ended. The termination of the attorney-client relationship, under these specific circumstances where no confidences were breached and the matters were unrelated, provided no bar to Atty. Lacuanan’s subsequent representation.