View full case

ARIEL G. PALACIOS v. ATTY. BIENVENIDO BRAULIO M. AMORA

FACTS:

The case involves a complaint filed by Ariel G. Palacios, the Chief Operating Officer and authorized representative of the AFP Retirement and Separation Benefits System (AFP-RSBS), for the disbarment of Atty. Bienvenido Braulio M. Amora Jr. The complaint alleged that Atty. Amora violated various provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility, the Rules of Court, the Lawyer's Oath, and Article 1491 of the Civil Code. The complaint stemmed from Atty. Amora's alleged misconduct and unethical behavior in his legal representation of the complainant. The complainant entered into several engagement agreements with Atty. Amora for the development and registration of the Riviera project, a residential subdivision and golf club. However, after terminating Atty. Amora's services, Atty. Amora became the representative and assignee of Phil Golf, an investor in the Riviera project, and pushed for swapping proposals between the complainant and Phil Golf that were deemed disadvantageous to the complainant. Furthermore, Atty. Amora filed a case against the complainant for alleged breach of contract on behalf of Phil Golf, misrepresenting Phil Golf as a duly organized and existing corporation despite its revoked Certificate of Registration. As a result, the complainant filed an action for disbarment against Atty. Amora, leading to the recommendation of a three-year suspension from the practice of law and the return of Php1.8 million to the complainant by the IBP-BOG. The issue before the Court is whether Atty. Amora should be held administratively liable based on the allegations in the complaint.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether respondent violated the Lawyer's Oath and Rules 15.01, 15.03, 21.01, and 21.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

  2. Whether respondent represented conflicting interests without the necessary written consent.

  3. Whether the respondent violated the rule on conflict of interest by representing a new client against his former client.

  4. Whether the respondent violated the rule on preservation of client confidences by using confidential information acquired from his former client against him.

  5. Whether there is a basis for the return of the disputed payment of Php 1.8 million.

  6. Whether or not the respondent, Atty. Amora, rendered legal services in connection with the Sangguniang Bayan Resolution.

  7. Whether or not Atty. Amora violated Article 1491 of the Civil Code.

  8. Whether or not Atty. Amora should be suspended for his misconduct.

  9. Whether Atty. Bienvenido Braulio M. Amora, Jr. violated the Lawyer's Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility.

  10. What is the appropriate penalty for the violations committed by Atty. Amora.

RULING:

  1. Yes, respondent violated the Lawyer's Oath and Rules 15.01, 15.03, 21.01, and 21.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

  2. Yes, respondent represented conflicting interests without the necessary written consent.

  3. Yes, the respondent violated the rule on conflict of interest by representing a new client against his former client. The respondent's actions fell short of the standard set forth by the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) and are in violation of his oath as a lawyer. Representing the interests of a new client against a former client violates the rule prohibiting representation of conflicting interests.

  4. Yes, the respondent violated the rule on preservation of client confidences by using confidential information acquired from his former client against him. The respondent caused the filing of a complaint before the HLURB and must have necessarily divulged and used information gathered while he was the complainant's counsel. This violates Rules 21.01 and 21.02 of the CPR which pertain to the preservation of client confidences even after the attorney-client relationship is terminated.

  5. No, there is no basis for the return of the disputed payment of Php 1.8 million. Complainant failed to present evidence to overturn the disputable presumption that the payment was due to the respondent. Therefore, the presumption that the money paid by the complainant was due to the respondent stands.

  6. The Court finds that Atty. Amora actually rendered legal services in connection with the Sangguniang Bayan Resolution. The complainant failed to present any evidence to prove that the resolution was passed without the intervention of Atty. Amora. The Court adopts the findings of the commissioner that there is no basis to order Atty. Amora to return the payment of Php1.8 Million.

  7. The Court agrees with Atty. Amora's argument that Article 1491 of the Civil Code does not apply in this case. The properties that Atty. Amora acquired were allegedly not in litigation or the object of any litigation at the time of his acquisition. Therefore, there is no violation of Article 1491.

  8. Despite the absolution of Atty. Amora from liability under Article 1491, the Court deems it necessary to suspend him due to his other acts of misconduct. Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court provides that a lawyer may be suspended from his office as an attorney for any gross misconduct. Disbarment, however, is deemed too harsh of a penalty in this case.

  9. Atty. Amora is found GUILTY of violating the Lawyer's Oath and Canon 15, Rule 15.03; Canon 21, Rule 21.01 and 21.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

  10. Atty. Amora is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of two (2) years.

PRINCIPLES:

  • A lawyer must maintain allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines and support its Constitution and obey its laws. (Lawyer's Oath)

  • A lawyer should not promote or sue any groundless, false, or unlawful suit, or give aid or consent to the same. (Lawyer's Oath)

  • A lawyer must not delay any person for money or malice and must conduct himself as a lawyer according to the best of his knowledge and discretion with all good fidelity to the courts and his clients. (Lawyer's Oath)

  • A lawyer must ascertain whether a prospective client's matter would involve a conflict with another client or his own interest and must inform the prospective client if such conflict exists. (Rule 15.01)

  • A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except with the written consent of all concerned parties after a full disclosure of the facts. (Rule 15.03)

  • Failure to secure written consent from both clients after a full disclosure of the facts subjects a lawyer to disciplinary action. (Gonzales v. Cabucana, Jr.)

  • 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. (Hilado v. David)

  • Conflict of interest exists when a lawyer represents inconsistent interests of two or more opposing parties. It occurs when the lawyer's duty to fight for an issue or claim for one client is opposed to his duty to oppose it for another client. (Hornilla v. Salunat)

  • Conflict of interest may also exist if the acceptance of a new retainer will require the attorney to perform an act that will injuriously affect his first client or use against his first client any knowledge acquired through their connection. (Hornilla v. Salunat)

  • A lawyer should decline any employment that would involve any conflict of interest. (Ylaya v. Gacott)

  • A lawyer has a duty to decline professional employment if its acceptance involves a violation of the proscription against conflict of interest or any of the rules of professional conduct.

  • A lawyer shall preserve the confidence and secrets of his client even after the attorney-client relationship is terminated.

  • A lawyer shall not, to the disadvantage of his client, use information acquired in the course of employment, unless the client with full knowledge of the circumstances consents thereto.

  • Lawyers shall not represent conflicting interests except with the written consent of all concerned given after full disclosure of the facts.

  • The attorney-client relationship is one of trust and confidence of the highest degree. Lawyers must keep inviolate the client's confidence and avoid the appearance of treachery and double-dealing.

  • Allegations alone cannot suffice to prove that a lawyer did not render any service and is not entitled to payment.

  • The prohibition on acquiring property by lawyers under Article 1491 of the Civil Code applies only during the pendency of litigation involving the property.

  • Disbarment is a penalty that must be imposed with caution and only in clear cases of misconduct that seriously affect the lawyer's standing and character as an officer of the court and as a member of the bar.

  • Disbarment should not be decreed where lesser penalties can accomplish the desired end.

  • Violation of the high moral standards of the legal profession justifies the imposition of appropriate penalties, including suspension and disbarment.

  • Suspension from the practice of law for one (1) to three (3) years is the usual penalty for a lawyer's representation of conflicting interests.

  • The imposition of disciplinary penalties such as suspension and disbarment should be done with great caution due to the severe consequences that cannot be repaired.