View full case

ROBERTO BERNARDINO v. ATTY. VICTOR REY SANTOS

FACTS:

The accused, Rosario Manalo-Ga and Wilfredo Manalo, were charged with estafa after allegedly failing to return the complainant's Php 1.5 million investment. During the trial, the defense counsel sought to impeach a witness by asking her about a previous conviction for estafa. The prosecution objected, arguing that the evidence of the conviction was not yet final. The court sustained the objection and prohibited the defense from presenting the evidence. The defense filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied. Dissatisfied, the accused filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, but it was dismissed. Consequently, the case was elevated to the Supreme Court.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether respondent Atty. Santos violated the Code of Professional Responsibility.

  2. Whether the penalty of suspension of three (3) months from the practice of law is proper.

  3. Whether there is a conflict of interest in the case.

  4. Whether the respondent violated Canon 10, Rule 10.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

  5. Whether or not disciplinary action can be imposed by the Supreme Court against lawyers.

  6. Whether or not the findings and recommendations of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines are binding.

RULING:

  1. The Supreme Court accepts and adopts the findings of fact of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Board of Governors' Resolution. However, it modifies the recommended penalty of suspension from the practice of law from three (3) months to one (1) year.

  2. Yes, there is a conflict of interest in the case. The respondent represented Marilu Turla in a case involving Rufina Turla's estate, while knowing that Mariano Turla was also a possible heir. The respondent's acceptance of the new client and his failure to disclose the conflict of interest and obtain the written consent of all parties involved violated Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

  3. Yes, the respondent violated Canon 10, Rule 10.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The respondent failed to disclose the existence of another possible heir to Rufina Turla's estate and allowed Mariano Turla to file the Affidavit of Self-Adjudication despite this knowledge. This act was deemed dishonest and in violation of the lawyer's duty to be honest in all their dealings.

  4. Yes, disciplinary action can be imposed by the Supreme Court against lawyers. The Supreme Court has the authority to disbar or suspend lawyers for deceit, malpractice, gross misconduct, grossly immoral conduct, conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, violation of the oath required for admission to practice, or wilful disobedience. The practice of soliciting cases for gain also constitutes malpractice.

  5. No, the findings and recommendations of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines are not binding. While the Integrated Bar can assist in fact-finding and recommend penalties, the Supreme Court holds the power to impose sanctions on lawyers. The Resolutions of the Integrated Bar are merely recommendatory and should not be equated with decisions and resolutions rendered by the Supreme Court.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Canon 15, Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states that a lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except with the written consent of all parties after full disclosure of the facts.

  • The rule on conflict of interest is based on the fiduciary obligation in a lawyer-client relationship. Lawyers must treat all information received from their clients with utmost confidentiality in order to encourage clients to fully inform their counsels of the facts of their case.

  • Conflict of interest exists when a lawyer represents inconsistent interests of two or more opposing parties. The test is whether the lawyer, in behalf of one client, is duty-bound to fight for an issue or claim that he is duty-bound to oppose for the other client. This rule applies not only to cases with confidential communications but also to those with no confidence bestowed or used.

  • Lawyers have a duty of undivided fidelity and loyalty to their clients.

  • Lawyers should not accept a new client if it will result in a conflict of interest with their existing client.

  • Lawyers should obtain the written consent of all parties involved if there is a conflict of interest.

  • Lawyers have a duty to be honest and fair to the court.

  • The Supreme Court has plenary disciplinary authority over attorneys and members of the Bar.

  • The Supreme Court has the constitutional duty to discipline lawyers.

  • The practice of law is imbued with public interest and lawyers have duties not only to their clients but also to their brethren in the profession, the courts, and the nation.

  • Lawyers must maintain a high standard of legal proficiency, morality, honesty, integrity, and fair dealing.

  • Only the Supreme Court can impose sanctions on members of the Bar.