G.R. No. A.C. No. 555 November 25, 1968
ERNESTO M. NOMBRADO, petitioner, vs. ATTY. JUANITO T. HERNANDEZ, respondent.

FACTS

This is a disbarment case against Atty. Juanito T. Hernandez on two counts of malpractice. First, he appeared as counsel for Crispin Nazareno in a forcible entry case against Arsenio Pansaon, whom he had previously represented as counsel for the complainant in a criminal case for serious physical injuries against Eufemio Nazareno (Crispin’s son), arising from a dispute over the same parcel of land. The criminal case was dismissed. In the subsequent forcible entry case, Pansaon moved to disqualify Atty. Hernandez but later withdrew the motion. Pansaon testified in the disbarment proceedings that Atty. Hernandez might have used confidential information against him, which Atty. Hernandez denied, stating he only acquired information about the mauling incident itself. Second, Atty. Hernandez was counsel for the accused in a theft of large cattle case. At the hearing, he prepared and presented a motion to dismiss for the complaining witness, Ramon Morales, and later manifested his intention to intervene on behalf of the complaining party when the private prosecutor insisted on proceeding despite the complainant’s desistance.

ISSUE

Whether Atty. Juanito T. Hernandez committed malpractice by: (1) representing a new client in a case against a former client involving a related subject matter; and (2) simultaneously representing conflicting interests in a criminal case.

RULING

On the first count, YES, Atty. Hernandez committed unprofessional conduct. The Court, agreeing with the Solicitor General, ruled that the previous attorney-client relationship with Pansaon in the criminal case, which stemmed from the land dispute, should have precluded him from appearing for the opposing party in the subsequent forcible entry case involving the same land. The rule prohibits such representation to avoid the appearance of treachery and to uphold public policy, regardless of whether confidential information was actually used. On the second count, NO. The Court found no impropriety because the complainant had already desisted from prosecuting the case, so there was no actual conflict of interests when Atty. Hernandez assisted with the motion to dismiss and intervened on the complainant’s behalf. The Court imposed the penalty of reprimand and a warning against repetition, citing comparable precedent.