G.R. No. A.C. No. 6160 ; March 30, 2006
NESTOR PEREZ, Complainant, vs. ATTY. DANILO DE LA TORRE, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Nestor Perez, a barangay captain implicated as a mastermind in criminal cases, charged respondent Atty. Danilo de la Torre with misconduct for representing conflicting interests. Perez alleged that in December 2001, respondent, while already retained by the heirs of murder victim Resurreccion Barrios, went to the municipal jail and assisted detainees Sonny Boy Ilo and Diego Avila in preparing their extrajudicial confessions. These confessions were used to file cases, implicating Perez. The victim’s daughter, Vicky de Chavez, testified that her family retained respondent to prosecute the killers and that she was present when respondent met with and advised Avila and Ilo.
Respondent denied the accusations, claiming Avila and Ilo sought his assistance voluntarily. He asserted he advised them of their constitutional rights, conferred with their parents, and only assisted after ensuring no compulsion existed. He maintained he did not offer his services but merely acceded to their request.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Atty. Danilo de la Torre violated Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility by representing conflicting interests.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court found respondent guilty of representing conflicting interests. The Court adopted the findings of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), which concluded that substantial evidence proved respondent simultaneously represented the heirs of the murder victim and the accused detainees, Ilo and Avila, who confessed to the crime. Rule 15.03 prohibits a lawyer from representing conflicting interests except with the written consent of all concerned after full disclosure. The test for conflict is whether a lawyer’s duty to fight for an issue for one client would require him to oppose that same issue for another client.
The Court emphasized that the prohibition is founded on public policy and the fiduciary nature of the lawyer-client relationship, which demands undivided loyalty and avoids even the appearance of impropriety. Respondent’s defense—that the accused sought his help—did not exonerate him. By assisting the accused in executing confessions while being previously retained by the victim’s family, respondent engaged in clear double-dealing. His actions invited suspicion of infidelity and undermined trust in the legal profession. Considering it was his first infraction, disbarment was deemed too severe. The Court modified the IBP’s recommendation and suspended respondent from the practice of law for three years.