FACTS:

Benedicto Hornilla and Federico D. Ricafort filed an administrative complaint against Atty. Ernesto S. Salunat for illegal and unethical practice and conflict of interest. The complainants alleged that Atty. Salunat, as a member of the ASSA Law and Associates, was the retained counsel of the Philippine Public School Teachers Association (PPSTA). It was further alleged that Atty. Salunat's brother, Aurelio S. Salunat, was a member of the PPSTA Board which approved Atty. Salunat's engagement as counsel. Complainants, who are members of PPSTA, initiated cases against the Board of Directors before the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Office of the Ombudsman for unlawful spending and undervalued sale of property. Atty. Salunat appeared as counsel for the PPSTA Board members in these cases despite being informed of the conflict of interest. Complainants also contended that Atty. Salunat violated Rule 15.06 of the Code of Professional Responsibility when he assured the PPSTA Board members that he would win the cases. Atty. Salunat argued that he represented the PPSTA Board as a partner of ASSA Law and Associates and denied ensuring the victory of the Board. He also claimed that the SEC case was handled by another partner of the law firm. Consequently, the case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Commission on Bar Discipline, and after investigation, Commissioner Lydia A. Navarro recommended a six-month suspension for Atty. Salunat. The Board of Governors of IBP adopted the recommendation, leading Atty. Salunat to file a Motion for Reconsideration with the Supreme Court.

ISSUES:

1. Whether respondent was guilty of conflict of interest for representing the PPSTA Board members while being engaged as PPSTA's retained counsel.

2. Whether respondent violated Rule 15.06 of the Code of Professional Responsibility by assuring the PPSTA Board members of winning the cases.

RULING:

1. Yes, respondent was guilty of conflict of interest. The Supreme Court held that respondent's engagement as retained counsel of the PPSTA, while also representing the PPSTA Board members, constituted a conflict of interest. This violated Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which prohibits a lawyer from representing conflicting interests without the written consent of all parties involved.

2. Yes, respondent violated Rule 15.06 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The Court found that respondent's assurance to the PPSTA Board members of winning the cases went against his duty as a lawyer to fairly represent opposing parties. This violated the rule that if a lawyer argues for one client, he should oppose it when arguing for another client.

PRINCIPLES:

• Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility - A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests without the written consent of all parties involved.

• Rule 15.06 of the Code of Professional Responsibility - A lawyer shall not assure the winning of a case when representing conflicting interests.