G.R. No. A.C. No. 6632. August 2, 2005
NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY, INC., and BEN A. NICOLAS, Complainants, vs. Atty. MACARIO D. ARQUILLO, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainants Northwestern University, Inc. and Ben A. Nicolas filed an administrative case against Atty. Macario D. Arquillo for representing conflicting interests before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) in San Fernando, La Union. The complaint alleged that in a set of consolidated labor cases, respondent acted as counsel for eight complainants (including Teresita A. Velasco et al.) and simultaneously for one of the respondents, Jose G. Castro. Specifically, on August 12, 1997, Arquillo filed a Motion to Dismiss on behalf of Castro. Sixteen days later, on August 28, 1997, he filed a Complainant’s Consolidated Position Paper representing the eight employee-complainants in the same consolidated proceedings.
Respondent failed to file an Answer to the complaint despite orders from the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD) and did not appear in any scheduled hearings, waiving his right to participate. The IBP-CBD found him guilty and recommended a six-month suspension, which the IBP Board of Governors increased to two years. Respondent filed a Motion for Reconsideration, arguing no conflict existed because all parties were allegedly on the same side, citing a labor arbiter’s decision that absolved Castro of personal liability.

ISSUE

Whether Atty. Macario D. Arquillo violated the prohibition against representing conflicting interests under the Code of Professional Responsibility.

RULING

Yes, Atty. Arquillo is guilty of representing conflicting interests. The Code of Professional Responsibility, under Rule 15.03, prohibits lawyers from representing conflicting interests except with all affected clients’ written consent after full disclosure. A conflict exists when a lawyer’s duty to advance one client’s cause requires opposing the cause of another client, or when the representation invites suspicion of unfaithfulness. Here, Arquillo’s simultaneous representation of opposing parties—employee-complainants and a management respondent (Castro) in the same consolidated labor cases—created a clear conflict. His filing of a Motion to Dismiss for Castro, aimed at defeating the claims, was inherently adverse to his duty to vigorously pursue the complainants’ claims for illegal dismissal. His subsequent position paper even attempted to shield Castro from liability, demonstrating divided loyalty. The defense that no conflict existed because Castro was later absolved is irrelevant; the prohibition applies regardless of good faith and is determined at the time of representation based on the potential for conflict. Considering jurisprudence, the Supreme Court reduced the suspension from two years to one year, finding the IBP’s modified penalty excessive but upholding the finding of misconduct.