AC 6708; (August, 2005) (Digest)
Adm. Case No. 6708, August 25, 2005
FELICITAS S. QUIAMBAO, Complainant, vs. ATTY. NESTOR A. BAMBA, Respondent.
FACTS
Complainant Felicitas S. Quiambao, former president of Allied Investigation Bureau, Inc. (AIB), engaged respondent Atty. Nestor A. Bamba as her counsel in an ejectment case. She paid his attorney’s fees. While still counsel of record in that pending case, Atty. Bamba, acting as legal counsel for AIB, filed a replevin case against Quiambao to recover a company vehicle. Further, while serving as AIB’s counsel, he assisted Quiambao in organizing a competing security agency, Quiambao Risk Management Specialists, Inc. (QRMSI), and was involved as a “silent partner.” Simultaneously, he convinced Quiambao’s brother to establish another agency, San Esteban Security Services, Inc. (SESSI), where he became an incorporator and president.
Atty. Bamba admitted filing the replevin case while representing Quiambao but claimed he was not her “personal lawyer” and that the cases were unrelated. He denied being a silent partner in QRMSI, stating he merely recommended his former law partner for the role, and asserted SESSI was formed to complement AIB’s business.
ISSUE
Whether Atty. Nestor A. Bamba is guilty of professional misconduct for representing conflicting interests.
RULING
Yes, Atty. Bamba is guilty of representing conflicting interests. The Supreme Court emphasized that the prohibition against conflict of interest is absolute and is designed to assure clients of their lawyer’s undivided loyalty. The rule forbids a lawyer from representing opposing parties in the same or related litigation, and from accepting new retainers that will injuriously affect a former client in any matter in which the lawyer previously represented them.
The Court found that by filing a case against Quiambao on behalf of AIB while actively representing her in the ejectment case, Atty. Bamba violated Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. His duty of loyalty to Quiambao was compromised. His subsequent actions in facilitating the creation of QRMSI and SESSI, while still counsel for AIB, constituted further acts of disloyalty and double-dealing, breaching his fiduciary duty. His defenses were unavailing; the relationship of lawyer-client is not determined by the payment of fees but by the giving of advice or assistance. The simultaneous representation created an impermissible conflict, regardless of whether the cases were “unrelated.” The Court modified the IBP’s recommended penalty, imposing a one-year suspension from the practice of law.