G.R. No. 13986 , February 26, 2025
VERA LAW (DEL ROSARIO BAGAMASBAD & RABOCA), COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. EDITHA R. HECHANOVA, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

Complainant VERA LAW is a law partnership. Respondent Atty. Editha R. Hechanova joined the firm in 1991 as an associate and became a partner in 1997, heading its Intellectual Property (IP) Department. VERA LAW alleged that while still a partner, Hechanova committed acts detrimental to the partnership in preparation for her departure. Specifically, in August 2005, she registered “HECHANOVA & CO., INC.” with the SEC, amending its primary purpose to include acting as patent and trademark agents, directly competing with VERA LAW. In February 2005, she registered her name as a service mark for legal services with the IPO. In September 2005, she executed a lease for office space in Makati. After an administrative investigation on December 9, 2005, she allegedly recruited two senior lawyers from her department to join her new firm. On December 12, 2005, the remaining partners voted to expel her. Upon leaving, she allegedly announced she would get a client (Honda), took files including powers of attorney, requested clients to sign new powers appointing her, and maligned VERA LAW by telling clients the firm lacked competent IP lawyers after her departure. The complaint also alleged she represented conflicting interests by later opposing a trademark application for Gourdo’s Inc. (a former client) and representing parties opposing another former client, AMSPEC. Hechanova denied the allegations, claiming she was expelled without due process and that her registered company was initially for an internet business, only amending its purpose after her expulsion to organize her practice. She denied poaching clients, stating clients sought her out independently, and denied making disparaging remarks.

ISSUE

Whether Atty. Editha R. Hechanova violated the Code of Professional Responsibility (and Accountability) warranting disciplinary action.

RULING

Yes, the Court found respondent liable for professional misconduct. The lawyer-client relationship creates a fiduciary duty requiring utmost fidelity. Hechanova breached this duty through acts of disloyalty while still a partner. By registering a competing business entity and a service mark for legal services, and securing a lease for a new office—all while actively part of the partnership—she engaged in preparatory acts to establish a competing practice, violating her duty of loyalty. Her actions in recruiting firm lawyers, removing client files, and facilitating the transfer of client representations to herself constituted active solicitation and poaching, prejudicial to the administration of justice. Her representation of conflicting interests against former clients Gourdo’s Inc. and AMSPEC violated the rule against representing adverse interests in the same or a related matter. The Court suspended Atty. Editha R. Hechanova from the practice of law for one year, with a stern warning that a repetition would be dealt with more severely. She was also ordered to return the original files of VERA LAW’s clients within 30 days.