G.R. No. A.C. No. 9422, November 19, 2018
Atty. Florante S. Legaspi, Complainant, v. Atty. El Cid C. Fajardo, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Atty. Florante Legaspi represented Cristina Gabriel in a civil case against Jannet Malino and others. The case was decided based on a compromise agreement on December 10, 2010. The day before this decision, respondent Atty. El Cid Fajardo filed an entry of appearance as collaborating counsel for the defendant, Malino. Subsequently, on January 18, 2011, respondent filed a Special Power of Attorney from Gabriel appointing him as her attorney-in-fact and an Ex-Parte Motion to Dismiss the case on her behalf. He also filed a notice terminating complainant’s services. Complainant opposed these actions, asserting they were irregular and filed without Gabriel’s knowledge after a final judgment.
The trial court denied respondent’s motions as irregular and moot, given the finality of its decision. Complainant then filed this administrative case, accusing respondent of representing conflicting interests by acting for both the defendant Malino and the plaintiff Gabriel in the same case. Respondent admitted the facts but defended his actions, claiming his role as Gabriel’s attorney-in-fact was merely clerical and did not constitute legal representation.

ISSUE

Whether or not respondent Atty. El Cid Fajardo should be administratively sanctioned for representing conflicting interests.

RULING

Yes, respondent is administratively liable. The Court adopted the findings of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), which found a violation of Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR). Rules 15.01 and 15.03 mandate that a lawyer must avoid conflicts of interest and shall not represent conflicting interests without the written consent of all parties after full disclosure.
The legal logic is anchored on the fiduciary and confidential nature of the lawyer-client relationship, which demands undivided allegiance. By first appearing as collaborating counsel for defendant Malino and then accepting an appointment to act as attorney-in-fact for the opposing party, Gabriel, in the very same case, respondent placed himself in a position of conflicting loyalties. The Court rejected respondent’s defense that his actions were merely clerical. His filing of substantive pleadings, like a motion to dismiss, on behalf of Gabriel constituted legal representation. His admission that accepting Gabriel’s appointment was advantageous to his original client, Malino, explicitly demonstrates the conflict. This situation created a risk of manipulating one client for the benefit of another, breaching the duty of candor, fairness, and loyalty.
Consequently, the Court suspended respondent Atty. El Cid Fajardo from the practice of law for one (1) year, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar act would be dealt with more severely.