View full case

LETICIA GONZALES v. ATTY. MARCELINO CABUCANA

FACTS:

Leticia Gonzales filed a complaint before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) against Atty. Marcelino Cabucana, praying for his disbarment for representing conflicting interests. Gonzales alleged that she was the complainant in a case for sum of money and damages, and her law firm, CABUCANA, CABUCANA, DE GUZMAN AND CABUCANA LAW OFFICE, with Atty. Edmar Cabucana as her counsel, represented her in the said case. A decision was rendered in favor of Gonzales, but the writ of execution was not fully implemented by the sheriff. Gonzales filed a complaint against the sheriff and subsequently filed criminal cases against him and his wife. Despite the pending civil case wherein respondent's law firm represented Gonzales, respondent represented the Gatcheco spouses in the criminal cases. Gonzales argued that this violated the lawyer-client relationship and the Code of Professional Responsibility. The respondent claimed that he did not appear in the civil case and that he represented the Gatcheco spouses pro bono because no other counsel was willing to take their case. The parties exchanged pleadings and submitted their respective position papers before the Commission on Bar Discipline of the IBP.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether Atty. Marcelino C. Cabucana, Jr. accepted a case that presented a conflict of interests.

  2. Whether Atty. Marcelino C. Cabucana, Jr. should be sanctioned for violating Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

  3. Whether the rule against representing conflicting interests applies in this case.

  4. Whether the respondent's claim of acting in good faith and with honest intention is a valid defense.

  5. Whether the respondent's claim that no other lawyer is willing to take the spouses' case is a valid defense.

  6. Whether the affidavit of desistance filed by Gonzales should be considered in favor of the respondent.

RULING:

  1. The Court found that Atty. Marcelino C. Cabucana, Jr. accepted a case that presented a conflict of interests. Although the civil case he handled and the criminal cases filed against the Gatcheco spouses were unrelated, representing opposing clients in said cases constituted a conflict of interests or at least invited suspicion of double-dealing.

  2. Atty. Marcelino C. Cabucana, Jr. was reprimanded and advised to be more careful in accepting cases that might result in conflicts of interests.

  3. Yes, the rule against representing conflicting interests applies in this case. The Court held that the respondent's conduct of taking up the cause of the adversary of the party who sought and obtained legal advice from his firm undermines the integrity of justice and brings the legal profession into disrepute and suspicion.

  4. No, the respondent's claim of acting in good faith and with honest intention does not exculpate him. Even if the respondent acted in good faith, the prohibition still applies and his failure to observe the requirements laid down by the rules exposes him to the charge of double-dealing.

  5. No, the respondent's claim that no other lawyer is willing to take the spouses' case is not a valid defense. While there may be instances where lawyers cannot decline representation, they cannot be made to labor under a conflict of interest between a present client and a prospective one. The respondent should have observed the requirements laid down by the rules to ensure that there is no conflict of interest.

  6. The Court is not bound by the affidavit of desistance filed by Gonzales as the present case involves public interest. The Court's exercise of its power to take cognizance of administrative cases against lawyers is not for the purpose of enforcing civil remedies but to protect the court and the public against attorneys guilty of unworthy practices in their profession.

PRINCIPLES:

  • A lawyer is barred from representing conflicting interests except with the written consent of all concerned given after full disclosure of the facts.

  • The prohibition against representing conflicting interests is based on principles of public policy and good taste, and the lawyer-client relationship is one of trust and confidence.

  • One test of inconsistency of interests is whether the acceptance of a new relation would prevent the full discharge of the lawyer's duty of undivided fidelity and loyalty to the client or invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or double-dealing.

  • The representation of opposing clients in different cases, even if unrelated, constitutes a conflict of interests or at least invites suspicion of double-dealing.

  • The rule against representing conflicting interests aims to keep above reproach the honor and integrity of the courts and the legal profession.

  • The defense of acting in good faith and with honest intention does not render the prohibition against representing conflicting interests inoperative.

  • Lawyers cannot be made to labor under a conflict of interest between a present client and a prospective one, even if no other lawyer is willing to take the case.

  • The Court's exercise of its power to take cognizance of administrative cases against lawyers is not for the purpose of enforcing civil remedies between parties, but to protect the court and the public against attorneys guilty of unworthy practices in their profession.