AC 5098; (April, 2012) (Digest)
G.R. No. A.C. 5098; April 11, 2012
Josefina M. Aniñon, Complainant, vs. Atty. Clemencio Sabitsana, Jr., Respondent.
FACTS
Complainant Josefina M. Aniñon engaged the legal services of respondent Atty. Clemencio Sabitsana, Jr. for the preparation and execution of a Deed of Sale covering a parcel of land owned by her late common-law husband, Brigido Caneja, Jr. The deed was executed in her favor. Subsequently, Atty. Sabitsana accepted employment as counsel for Zenaida L. Cañete, the legal wife of Brigido Caneja, Jr., in a civil case for the annulment of the very same Deed of Sale he had previously prepared for Aniñon.
Aniñon filed a disbarment complaint, accusing Atty. Sabitsana of violating his duty to preserve client confidences and of representing conflicting interests. Atty. Sabitsana admitted advising Aniñon on the deed but denied receiving confidential information. He also claimed the complaint was instigated by another lawyer who had lost a case against him.
ISSUE
Whether Atty. Sabitsana is guilty of professional misconduct for representing conflicting interests.
RULING
Yes, Atty. Sabitsana is administratively liable. The Supreme Court adopted the findings of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), which found a clear violation of Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. This rule prohibits a lawyer from representing conflicting interests except with the written consent of all concerned given after full disclosure.
The legal logic is grounded on the fiduciary nature of the attorney-client relationship, which demands undivided loyalty and the preservation of client confidences. The Court applied the test for conflicting interests: whether a lawyer would be duty-bound to fight for an issue for one client and oppose it for another. Here, Atty. Sabitsana was asked by his new client, Cañete, to nullify the very contract he had previously prepared and notarized for his former client, Aniñon. This placed him in a position of taking inconsistent legal positions for opposing parties contending over the same property. The conflict existed regardless of whether he actually used confidential information, as the rule is designed to prevent even the potential for disloyalty. No written consent from both parties was secured. Consequently, the Court suspended Atty. Sabitsana from the practice of law for one year for misconduct.