View full case

ELESIO C. PORMENTO v. ATTY.

FACTS:

In the case of Elesio C. Pormento Sr. v. Atty. Elias A. Pontevedra, the complainant filed a verified Complaint seeking the disbarment of the respondent lawyer. The complainant alleges that the respondent, who had been their family's legal counsel for several years, engaged in malpractice and misconduct. Specifically, the complainant claims that the respondent failed to inform him of the dismissal of his counterclaim in a civil case, depriving him of his right to appeal. As a result, the complainant had to hire a new lawyer to recover his ownership over a parcel of land. The complainant also accuses the respondent of using confidential information obtained while still his client in a criminal case where the respondent served as the counsel for the accused. Furthermore, the complainant mentions an incident where the respondent acted as counsel for his nephew in an ejectment case filed by the complainant, related to the ownership of a property. In response, the respondent denies the allegations and argues that there were no conflicting interests in his representation of clients. The case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, and the Investigating Commissioner found the respondent guilty of violating the Code of Professional Responsibility. However, the IBP Board of Governors dismissed the case for lack of merit. The complainant then raises issues regarding the dismissal, claiming lack of proper notice, hearing, and explanation. Thus, the case is brought before the Supreme Court for review.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the respondent violated the rule against representing conflicting interests.

  2. Whether the respondent violated the duty to preserve the confidences and secrets of his former client.

  3. Did the respondent violate the prohibition against representation of conflicting interests in Civil Case No. 1648 and Criminal Case No. 3159?

  4. Did the respondent use confidential information obtained from the complainant in Civil Case No. 1648 in the defense of his clients in Criminal Case No. 3159?

  5. Did the respondent properly inform the complainant of the dismissal of his counterclaim in Civil Case No. 1648?

  6. Whether the respondent duly notified the complainant of the dismissal of his counterclaim.

  7. Whether the penalty of suspension is proportionate to the offense committed.

  8. Whether the respondent's belief that he was fulfilling his duty to defend the poor and needy mitigates his liability.

RULING:

  1. The Court found no conflict of interests when the respondent represented the complainant's nephew and other family members in the ejectment case and criminal complaint. The Court ruled that the respondent's participation in the deed of sale of the property did not necessarily mean that he obtained information that can be used against the complainant in the ejectment case.

  2. The Court found no violation of the duty to preserve the confidences and secrets of the complainant. The Court ruled that there was no evidence to prove that the respondent advised the complainant to allow his nephew to temporarily occupy the property or that the ownership of the property was a major issue in the ejectment case.

  3. The respondent violated the prohibition against representation of conflicting interests in Civil Case No. 1648 and Criminal Case No. 3159.

  4. There is no direct evidence to prove that the respondent used confidential information obtained from the complainant in Civil Case No. 1648 in the defense of his clients in Criminal Case No. 3159. However, the mere fact of their previous attorney-client relationship should have precluded the respondent from appearing as counsel for the opposing side.

  5. The complainant failed to present substantial evidence to prove that the respondent did not inform him of the dismissal of his counterclaim in Civil Case No. 1648. There is sufficient evidence to prove that the complainant has been properly notified of the trial court's order of dismissal.

  6. The respondent duly notified the complainant of the dismissal of his counterclaim based on the acknowledgment of receipt of the trial court's order and the withdrawal of the case records.

  7. The penalty of suspension is deemed disproportionate to the offense committed considering the respondent's honest belief that there is no conflict of interests, being his first infraction of this nature. Thus, a fine is imposed instead.

  8. The respondent's belief that he was serving the poor and needy is considered as a mitigating circumstance.

PRINCIPLES:

  • A lawyer should not represent conflicting interests without the written consent of all concerned after a full disclosure of the facts.

  • A lawyer should preserve the confidences and secrets of his clients even after the attorney-client relationship is terminated.

  • A lawyer should disclose all the circumstances of his relations to the parties and any interest in or connection with the controversy to the client at the time of retainer.

  • A lawyer should not use information acquired in the course of employment to the disadvantage of his client unless the client consents.

  • The relations of attorney and client should adhere to proper professional standards and avoid the appearance of treachery and double-dealing. Attorneys should keep inviolate the client's confidence.

  • The prohibition against representation of conflicting interests applies even if the attorney's intentions and motives were honest and he acted in good faith.

  • The termination of the attorney-client relationship does not provide justification for a lawyer to represent an interest adverse to or in conflict with that of the former client.

  • Attorneys should refrain from all appearances and acts of impropriety, including circumstances indicating conflicts of interest.

  • Lawyers should behave with circumspection and dedication fitting of a member of the Bar, observing candor, fairness, and loyalty in all transactions with clients.

  • It is the responsibility of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines to ensure compliance with the requirements provided for in Section 12(a), Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court.