View full case

HEIRS OF LYDIO “JERRY” FALAME v. ATTY. EDGAR J. BAGUIO

FACTS:

The Heirs of Lydio "Jerry" Falame (complainants), namely Melba Falame, Leo Falame, and Jerry Falame, filed a disbarment complaint against Atty. Edgar J. Baguio (respondent) before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Board of Governors. In their complaint, the complainants alleged that their father, Lydio "Jerry" Falame, engaged the services of the respondent as his counsel in a forcible entry case. The respondent represented the defendants and filed an answer to the complaint. The complainants claimed that even after their victory in the first civil case, Lydio continued to retain the respondent as his legal adviser and counsel for his businesses until Lydio's death. However, the respondent later filed a case against the complainants involving the same property subject of the first civil case, this time representing the spouses Raleigh and Noemi Falame. The complainants accused the respondent of violating his oath as an attorney, making false statements in the complaint, and filing a baseless and fabricated suit against them. The respondent denied the allegations and argued that he did not betray Lydio's confidence and that the second civil case was unrelated to the first civil case. The complainants also claimed that the respondent violated Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility by representing conflicting interests. The IBP Board of Governors dismissed the disbarment complaint for lack of specification and sufficient bases.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the administrative complaint is barred by prescription.

  2. Whether the charges against the respondent have been proven.

  3. Whether or not the lawyer's representation of conflicting interests violated Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

  4. Whether or not the lawyer's representation of conflicting interests violated Canon 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

  5. Whether the respondent lawyer engaged in dishonorable conduct by lying to the court.

  6. Whether the respondent lawyer violated the oath and duties of a lawyer.

RULING:

  1. The administrative complaint is not barred by prescription. The Court held that the ordinary statutes of limitation do not apply to disbarment proceedings and a disbarment proceeding is not affected by the fact that the facts alleged may constitute a crime with a prescribed period for prosecution.

  2. Some of the charges raised by the complainants are unsubstantiated. However, there is sufficient basis to hold the respondent accountable for violation of Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

  3. The lawyer is found guilty of representing conflicting interests and is reprimanded. While the lawyer represented both parties in the first civil case, he pursued inconsistent positions in the second civil case, advocating for one client's sole ownership in the first case and for another client's co-ownership in the second case. This violates Rule 15.03, which prohibits lawyers from representing conflicting interests. Additionally, the lawyer's actions also violate Canon 17, which requires a lawyer to be loyal to the cause of the client and protect their interests.

  4. Yes, the respondent lawyer engaged in dishonorable conduct by lying to the court.

  5. Yes, the respondent lawyer violated the oath and duties of a lawyer.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Disbarment proceedings are not subject to statutes of limitation.

  • The requirement of notice and hearing in administrative cases does not require full adversarial proceedings.

  • In administrative cases, the requirement of notice and hearing does not necessitate full adversarial proceedings. Actual adversarial proceedings only become necessary for clarification when there is a need to propound searching questions to witnesses who give vague testimonies. Due process is fulfilled when parties are given a reasonable opportunity to be heard and submit evidence.

  • Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility prohibits lawyers from representing conflicting interests without written consent from all parties involved after full disclosure of the facts.

  • The rule concerning conflict of interest prohibits a lawyer from representing a client if that representation will be directly adverse to any of their present or former clients.

  • The termination of attorney-client relation does not justify a lawyer representing an interest adverse to or in conflict with that of the former client.

  • Canon 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility requires lawyers to be faithful to their clients' cause and protect their interests at all costs, even to themselves. This duty of loyalty continues even after the termination of the attorney-client relationship and survives the client's death.

  • Joint representation of clients does not negate the duty to avoid representation of conflicting interests. Even if only one client pays the lawyer, the lawyer is still prohibited from representing conflicting interests.

  • The lawyer's duty of loyalty is grounded in the fiduciary obligation to maintain trust and confidence and to protect the client's interests, including not disclosing or using any of the client's confidences acquired in the previous relationship.

  • Lawyers have a duty to uphold the dignity of the legal profession.

  • Lawyers are bound by their oath to "do no falsehood" and to conduct themselves with honesty and integrity.