View full case

NESTOR PEREZ v. ATTY. DANILO DE LA TORRE

FACTS:

The complainant, Nestor Perez, filed a letter-complaint against respondent, Atty. Danilo de la Torre, for representing conflicting interests. Perez alleged that several suspects for murder and kidnapping for ransom were apprehended and jailed, and that respondent went to the municipal building where the suspects were being detained and made representations that he could secure their freedom if they sign the prepared extrajudicial confessions. Unknown to the two accused, respondent was representing the heirs of the murder victim. On the strength of the extrajudicial confessions, cases were filed against them, including Perez who was implicated as the mastermind. Respondent denied the accusations, explaining that he only assisted the accused in executing their extrajudicial confessions after advising them of their rights. The complaint was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation. The Investigating Commissioner found respondent guilty of representing conflicting interests, and recommended a one-year suspension. The IBP modified the recommendation and increased the period of suspension to two years. The Supreme Court agreed with the findings of the IBP, but deemed a three-year suspension more appropriate. Thus, Atty. Danilo de la Torre was found guilty and suspended from the practice of law for three years.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether respondent Atty. Danilo de la Torre violated Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility by representing conflicting interests.

  2. Whether respondent's assistance to the accused in executing their extrajudicial confessions constitutes a violation of his duty as a lawyer.

RULING:

  1. Yes, respondent violated Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The complainant was able to prove that at the time respondent was representing the accused Avila and Ilo, he was also representing the family of the murder victim. This constitutes a conflict of interests, as a lawyer should refrain from representing two parties with conflicting interests in a controversy, unless there is written consent from all parties after a full disclosure of the facts. Respondent failed to secure such consent and therefore should be sanctioned.

  2. Yes, respondent's assistance to the accused in executing their extrajudicial confessions constitutes a violation of his duty as a lawyer. Respondent should have exercised his better judgment before conceding to the accused's choice of counsel, especially knowing that he was previously retained by the heirs of the murder victim. By assisting the accused in executing the confessions, respondent further demonstrated a conflict of interests and a disregard for his duty as a lawyer.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The prohibition against representing conflicting interests is founded on principles of public policy and good taste. It is essential for lawyers to maintain trust and confidence with their clients, as well as avoid the appearance of impropriety and double-dealing.

  • A lawyer has a duty to refrain from representing two or more opposing parties with inconsistent interests. This duty extends to cases where no confidential communications have been confided.

  • A lawyer should not use any knowledge acquired through the attorney-client relationship against the interests of the first client.

  • When there is conflict of interests, a lawyer's duty to fight for an issue or claim for one client should not be opposed by the same lawyer when representing the other client.