G.R. No. A.C. No. 9537; June 10, 2013
Case Title: Dr. Teresita Lee vs. Atty. Amador L. Simando

FACTS

Complainant Dr. Teresita Lee retained respondent Atty. Amador L. Simando as her counsel from November 2004 until January 8, 2008. During this period, Atty. Simando persistently asked Dr. Lee to lend money to his other client, Felicito M. Mejorado, who was awaiting an informer’s reward from the Bureau of Customs. Atty. Simando assured Dr. Lee of repayment, offered to be a co-maker, and made statements such as “Ipapahamak ba kita, kliyente kita” and “Sigurado ito, kung gusto mo, gagarantiyahan ko pa ito, at pipirma din ako.” Relying on these assurances, Dr. Lee extended loans totaling Php1,400,000.00 to Mejorado between November and December 2006, with Atty. Simando signing as co-maker on the loan receipts.
When Mejorado defaulted, Dr. Lee instructed Atty. Simando, then still her lawyer, to initiate legal action. Atty. Simando delayed, suggesting he would settle the matter without litigation. After months of inaction, Dr. Lee reminded Atty. Simando of his liability as co-maker, to which he retorted, “Di kasuhan din ninyo ako!” Dr. Lee terminated his services in January 2008. Her new lawyer later demanded payment from Atty. Simando as co-maker, but he denied liability, claiming novation due to additional loans Dr. Lee allegedly extended to Mejorado without his knowledge.
In the disbarment proceedings before the IBP-CBD, Atty. Simando countered that Dr. Lee was a money-lender who initiated the transaction as an investment, not a loan, and that he signed receipts for Php1,400,000.00 although only Php700,000.00 was actually given. He also disclosed confidential information about Dr. Lee’s other lending activities, which he learned while representing her. The IBP-CBD initially recommended a six-month suspension, but the IBP Board of Governors later granted his motion for reconsideration and dismissed the case for lack of sufficient evidence.

ISSUE

Whether Atty. Amador L. Simando violated the Code of Professional Responsibility, warranting disciplinary action.

RULING

The Supreme Court REVERSED the IBP Board of Governors’ dismissal and REINSTATED the IBP-CBD’s finding of guilt. Atty. Simando was found to have violated Canon 1, Rule 1.01 (prohibiting unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct) and Canon 15, Rule 15.03 (prohibiting a lawyer from representing conflicting interests) of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
The Court held that Atty. Simando engaged in deceitful conduct by exploiting his position of trust as Dr. Lee’s retained counsel to induce her into lending money to his other client, Mejorado, through false assurances of repayment and by acting as co-maker. This act constituted a conflict of interest, as he placed himself in a position where his duty to Dr. Lee (to advise her prudently) conflicted with his interest in assisting Mejorado. His subsequent refusal to take legal action against Mejorado and his hostile response (“Di kasuhan din ninyo ako!”) further demonstrated a betrayal of his fiduciary duty to his client, Dr. Lee.
Additionally, the Court found that Atty. Simando violated Rule 21.01 on confidentiality by divulging in his Answer information about Dr. Lee’s other money-lending activities, which he acquired in the course of his professional employment with her, and using it to her disadvantage.
The Supreme Court imposed a SIX-MONTH SUSPENSION from the practice of law on Atty. Simando, with a warning that a repetition of the same or similar offense would warrant a more severe penalty. The decision was declared immediately executory.