G.R. No. A.C. No. 13559 (Formerly CBD Case No. 14-4205). March 13, 2023.
Kang Tae Sik, Complainant, vs. Atty. Alex Y. Tan and Atty. Roberto S. Federis, Respondents.

FACTS

Complainant Kang Tae Sik, a Korean national engaged in importation, engaged the law firm of respondent Atty. Alex Y. Tan, A. Tan, Zoleta & Associates, as his retained counsel. The firm represented him in several cases, including two criminal cases for violation of B.P. Blg. 22 and a civil case for sum of money. Complainant paid substantial fees for these services. The firm later withdrew its appearance in two of the cases. Complainant alleged that after the termination of the engagement, Atty. Tan and his associate, Atty. Roberto S. Federis (who later died and was dropped from the case), used confidential information acquired during the lawyer-client relationship to file deportation complaints against him with the Bureau of Immigration and the National Bureau of Investigation. These complaints cited his prior conviction in one of the cases. Complainant also alleged that Atty. Tan established a competing business and filed the complaints to eliminate him as a competitor. Atty. Tan denied representing complainant in the case where he was convicted, claimed his engagement was limited and had terminated years prior, and asserted that the information used in the complaints was from public records. He also claimed he filed the complaints because complainant was harassing his new business.

ISSUE

Did Atty. Tan violate the proscription against conflict of interest under the Code of Professional Responsibility?

RULING

No. The Supreme Court dismissed the complaint for lack of merit. While the Court affirmed that the duty of fidelity and the rule against representing conflicting interests under Canon 15 and Canon 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility extend even after the termination of the lawyer-client relationship, complainant failed to substantiate his charges with substantial evidence. The Court applied the tests for conflict of interest, particularly whether a lawyer used against a former client any confidential information acquired through their previous connection. The records showed that Atty. Tan’s firm represented complainant in cases different from the one where he was convicted. The conviction was a matter of public record, and complainant did not prove that the information used in the deportation complaints was acquired confidentially during the attorney-client relationship. Therefore, complainant did not meet the required quantum of proof to establish a violation.