A.C. No. 1359 October 17, 1991
Generosa Buted and Benito Bolisay, petitioners, vs. Atty. Harold M. Hernando, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant spouses Generosa Buted and Benito Bolisay filed an administrative complaint for malpractice against their former counsel, Atty. Harold M. Hernando. The controversy stemmed from a series of legal representations involving a parcel of land, Lot 9439-B. Respondent initially represented Luciana Abadilla in a partition case where she successfully claimed exclusive ownership over the lot. After Luciana sold the lot to complainant Benito Bolisay, the latter retained respondent’s services in an action for specific performance filed by Luis and Elena Sy. In that case, respondent defended Benito’s ownership of the lot against the Sy spouses’ claims under a lease contract.
Subsequently, on February 23, 1974, respondent, without the knowledge or consent of the complainant spouses, filed a petition in a cadastral proceeding seeking the cancellation of the Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) issued in the names of the complainants over the same Lot 9439-B. He acted as counsel for the heirs of Carlos, Dionisia, and Francisco Abadilla, who were Luciana’s registered co-owners. This petition directly attacked the very ownership interest he had previously defended for Benito Bolisay. The complainants objected upon learning of this, but respondent pursued the case until its dismissal on the ground of prescription.

ISSUE

Whether or not respondent Atty. Harold M. Hernando violated the Canons of Professional Ethics by representing conflicting interests.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court found respondent guilty of representing conflicting interests. The legal logic is anchored on the fiduciary duty of undivided loyalty a lawyer owes to a client, which extends beyond the termination of the professional relationship. The then-governing Canons of Professional Ethics explicitly prohibited representing conflicting interests except by express consent of all concerned after full disclosure. A conflict exists when, in behalf of one client, it is a lawyer’s duty to contend for that which his duty to another client requires him to oppose.
The Court ruled that respondent was in a clear conflict of interest situation. By defending Benito Bolisay’s ownership of Lot 9439-B in the specific performance case and later filing a petition to cancel the very title constituting that ownership in the cadastral proceeding, he assumed duties to contend for and against the same interest concerning the same property. The Court rejected respondent’s defense that he did not acquire confidential information during his prior representation. The prohibition is not contingent upon proof of actual acquisition or use of confidential data. The rule is that a lawyer is barred from accepting a new retainer against a former client in a matter related to the former representation. The absence of a monetary consideration for his prior service does not mitigate the violation. Consequently, the Court suspended Atty. Hernando from the practice of law for five months.