A.C. No. 9906; July 29, 2013
Atty. Lester R. Nuique, Complainant, vs. Atty. Eduardo Sedillo, Respondent.

FACTS

Atty. Lester Nuique filed a disbarment complaint against Atty. Eduardo Sedillo. The complainant alleged that the respondent represented conflicting interests. The respondent was originally counsel for spouses Kiyoshi and Estrelieta Kimura in a collection case against Carlos Amasula, Jr., with Estrelieta’s brother, Manuel Patrimonio, acting as their representative. In 2006, Kiyoshi and Estrelieta had a falling out. Kiyoshi, through new representatives, filed a falsification case against Estrelieta and Manuel. The respondent entered his appearance as counsel for Estrelieta and Manuel in this criminal case. He also represented them in a subsequent civil case filed by an assignee of Kiyoshi and opposed Kiyoshi’s motion to intervene in another civil case.
The complainant further charged the respondent with using disrespectful language in a motion, stating he would take a court resolution “with a grain of salt,” and with spreading malicious rumors about the complainant. The complainant later withdrew his complaint, but the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) proceeded with the investigation.

ISSUE

Whether Atty. Eduardo Sedillo is guilty of representing conflicting interests in violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court found Atty. Sedillo guilty of representing conflicting interests and suspended him from the practice of law for six months. The legal logic is anchored on the prohibition under Canon 15, Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which bars a lawyer from representing new clients whose interests oppose those of a former client in the same or a related matter. The Court rejected the respondent’s defense that his real client in the original collection case was only the representative, Manuel Patrimonio. The Court held that the attorney-client relationship was established with the spouses Kimura as the principals; Manuel was merely their agent. Therefore, the respondent owed a duty of loyalty to Kiyoshi Kimura.
By subsequently representing Estrelieta and Manuel in legal actions directly adverse to Kiyoshi—specifically the falsification case and the related civil suits—while still the counsel of record for Kiyoshi in the pending Amasula case, the respondent placed himself in a position of conflict. His duty to defend Estrelieta and Manuel was directly incompatible with his duty of fidelity to his former client, Kiyoshi. The rule against conflict of interests is designed to prevent any possibility of betrayal of a client’s trust, and it applies irrespective of the complainant’s subsequent withdrawal of the disbarment case, as the proceeding is one of public interest. The charges for disrespectful language and spreading rumors were dismissed for lack of sufficient evidence. The six-month suspension was deemed appropriate as a first offense.