AC 6836; (January, 2006) (Digest)
A.C. No. 6836; January 23, 2006
LETICIA GONZALES, Complainant, vs. ATTY. MARCELINO CABUCANA, JR., Respondent.
FACTS
Complainant Leticia Gonzales was the plaintiff in a civil case for sum of money, Civil Case No. 1-567, where she was represented by the law firm CABUCANA, CABUCANA, DE GUZMAN AND CABUCANA LAW OFFICE. Atty. Edmar Cabucana, the respondent’s brother, actively handled the case. After obtaining a favorable judgment, Gonzales filed an administrative complaint against Sheriff Romeo Gatcheco for failing to fully implement the writ of execution. Subsequently, Gonzales filed criminal cases against Sheriff Gatcheco and his wife for acts allegedly committed in relation to the execution. Respondent Atty. Marcelino Cabucana, Jr., an associate/partner in the same law firm, entered his appearance as defense counsel for the Gatcheco spouses in these criminal cases.
Gonzales filed this disbarment complaint, alleging that respondent represented conflicting interests by defending the Gatchecos, who were adverse to her, while his law firm was still her counsel of record in the related civil case. Respondent countered that he never personally represented Gonzales, as his brother handled that case, and that he accepted the Gatchecos’ defense pro bono as no other lawyer would take their case. During the IBP proceedings, Gonzales submitted a sworn affidavit of desistance, withdrawing her complaint and stating she implicated the respondent out of anger towards the Gatchecos.
ISSUE
Whether or not respondent Atty. Marcelino Cabucana, Jr. violated the rule against representing conflicting interests under the Code of Professional Responsibility.
RULING
Yes, the respondent is administratively liable. The Supreme Court found a violation of Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which prohibits a lawyer from representing conflicting interests except with the written consent of all concerned after full disclosure. The prohibition extends to all lawyers in a law firm due to the presumption of shared confidences among partners and associates. The civil case handled by the respondent’s firm and the criminal cases he personally accepted are intimately connected, as both arose from the same transaction—the enforcement of the judgment in the civil case. By defending the very individuals accused of harassing his firm’s client over the execution of that judgment, respondent placed himself in a position where his duty to defend the Gatchecos could conflict with his firm’s duty to protect Gonzales’s interests, creating a forbidden adversarial relationship.
The affidavit of desistance did not exonerate the respondent. The Court emphasized that disciplinary actions against lawyers are matters of public interest and cannot be dependent on the complainant’s whims. The withdrawal of the complaint does not automatically absolve the lawyer, as the duty to the court and the legal profession remains. Considering the respondent’s claim of having acted pro bono and the complainant’s desistance as mitigating circumstances, the Court modified the IBP’s recommended penalty. Instead of suspension, respondent Atty. Marcelino Cabucana, Jr. was FINED Two Thousand Pesos (P2,000.00) with a STERN WARNING.