G.R. No. A.C. No. 2597 March 12, 1998
Glorito V. Maturan, petitioner, vs. Atty. Conrado S. Gonzales, respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Glorito V. Maturan, acting as attorney-in-fact for spouses Antonio and Gloria Casquejo via a Special Power of Attorney prepared and notarized by respondent Atty. Conrado S. Gonzales, engaged respondent’s services to eject squatters from a lot. Respondent filed and won an ejectment case (Civil Case No. 1783-11) for petitioner and filed a motion for a writ of execution. Meanwhile, the Casquejos entered into a compromise agreement with the registered owner, Celestino Yokingco, in a separate reconveyance case (Civil Case No. 2067). While the motion for execution was pending and without withdrawing as counsel for petitioner, respondent filed, on behalf of Yokingco, an action to annul the judgment in the reconveyance case and a separate injunction case against petitioner. Petitioner filed a disbarment complaint, alleging respondent represented conflicting interests. Respondent claimed he believed the lawyer-client relationship ended with the filing of the motion for execution and that his acceptance of Yokingco’s case was to earn more for his family.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Atty. Conrado S. Gonzales is guilty of representing conflicting interests in violation of legal ethics.

RULING

Yes, respondent is guilty of representing conflicting interests. The Court adopted the IBP’s finding that respondent violated the prohibition against representing conflicting interests, which is rooted in the fiduciary duty of trust and confidence between lawyer and client. A lawyer may not act against a present or former client in a related suit. The Court rejected respondent’s justification, stating that a lawyer-client relationship is not terminated merely by filing a motion for execution; acceptance implies prosecution to conclusion. The Court modified the IBP’s recommended one-year suspension, imposing a two-year suspension from the practice of law, consistent with precedent in similar cases.