AC 9395; (November, 2014) (Digest)
G.R. No. A.C. No. 9395; November 12, 2014
Daria O. Daging, Complainant, vs. Atty. Riz Tingalon L. Davis, Respondent.
FACTS
Complainant Daria O. Daging, owner of Nashville Country Music Lounge, entered into a Retainer Agreement dated March 7, 2005, with the Davis & Sabling Law Office, signed by respondent Atty. Riz Tingalon L. Davis and his partner, Atty. Amos Saganib Sabling. Due to delinquent rental payments, the lessor, Benjie Pinlac, terminated the lease and, together with Novie Balageo and respondent, inventoried the bar’s equipment and informed complainant that Balageo would take over its operation. Complainant later filed an ejectment case against Pinlac and Balageo before the MTCC of Baguio City. During the subsistence of the Retainer Agreement, respondent appeared as counsel for Balageo in that ejectment case and filed an “Answer with Opposition to the Prayer for the Issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Injunction” on her behalf. Respondent denied acting as Balageo’s business partner and claimed that the retainer was initiated by his partner, Atty. Sabling, and that he had no knowledge of any information complainant confided to the law firm. He admitted representing Balageo but later withdrew as her counsel.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Atty. Riz Tingalon L. Davis violated Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility by representing conflicting interests.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court found respondent guilty of violating Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The rule prohibits a lawyer from representing conflicting interests except with the written consent of all concerned after full disclosure. It is undisputed that complainant was a client of respondent’s law firm under a subsisting Retainer Agreement when respondent represented Balageo, the adversary in complainant’s ejectment case. The prohibition is absolute and applies regardless of the lawyer’s good faith or lack of intention to represent conflicting interests. The Court rejected respondent’s defense that he had no personal knowledge of any information from complainant, holding that a lawyer who takes up the cause of the adversary of a party who has engaged the services of his law firm undermines the integrity of the profession. The penalty for such violation ranges from reprimand to suspension. The Court adopted the recommendation of the IBP Board of Governors and suspended respondent from the practice of law for six months.