View full case

JONATHAN C. PARUNGAO v. ATTY. DEXTER B. LACUANAN

FACTS:

Jonathan C. Parungao filed a disbarment complaint against Atty. Dexter B. Lacuanan before the Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for representing conflicting interests. According to Jonathan, he was introduced to Atty. Lacuanan in 2007 and the latter had served as his counsel in various transactions. In 2008, Jonathan consulted Atty. Lacuanan regarding the collection of payment from a client and paid professional fees for consultation. In 2009, Atty. Lacuanan submitted a proposal for a retainer agreement but it did not push through. In March 2011, the Spouses Parungao engaged Atty. Lacuanan's services for the purchase of a lot and paid him per appearance for his services. Atty. Lacuanan also drafted a demand letter on behalf of Jonathan. Jonathan alleged that a friendship developed between him and Atty. Lacuanan and that he confided personal details to him. However, in May 2013, Jonathan discovered that Atty. Lacuanan was representing his wife in a criminal complaint and a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage. Jonathan, thus, sought the disbarment of Atty. Lacuanan for representing conflicting interests.

Jonathan Parungao filed a disbarment complaint against Atty. Dexter Lacuanan, alleging that the latter violated Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) by accepting the engagement as counsel for Mary Grace Parungao in a criminal complaint and civil case against Jonathan without the latter's written consent. Jonathan claimed that Atty. Lacuanan had previously rendered legal services to him and his wife, Mary Grace. He submitted documentary evidence to support his claim, including a copy of a Deed of Absolute Sale and a demand letter signed by Atty. Lacuanan on his letterhead. Jonathan also presented an affidavit from his mother, corroborating his assertion that Atty. Lacuanan did not ask for his consent to represent Mary Grace in the legal proceedings.

Atty. Lacuanan admitted that he had been friends with Mary Grace since 2006 and that she introduced him to Jonathan in 2007. However, he denied being close friends with Jonathan or having knowledge of his personal life and marital affairs. Atty. Lacuanan argued that there was no attorney-client relationship between him and Jonathan at the time he agreed to be Mary Grace's counsel. He claimed that he only rendered intermittent professional services to the spouses from 2008 to 2011, relating to Jonathan's businesses. Atty. Lacuanan also contended that there was no conflict of interest under the CPR because the subject matter of Mary Grace's criminal complaint and civil case was unrelated to the previous legal services he rendered to Jonathan. He further asserted that he fully disclosed his possible legal representation for Mary Grace to Jonathan before accepting the engagement.

The Investigating Commissioner of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) initially ruled in favor of Atty. Lacuanan, finding no conflict of interest. However, the IBP Board of Governors reversed the decision and suspended Atty. Lacuanan from the practice of law for one month. Atty. Lacuanan appealed the decision, but the IBP Board of Governors held him administratively liable based on the violation of Rule 15.03 of the CPR.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether Atty. Lacuanan is guilty of representing conflicting interests.

  2. Whether Atty. Lacuanan violated his duty to maintain inviolate the confidence of his client.

  3. Whether or not there is a conflict of interests between Atty. Lacuanan's present client and former client.

  4. Whether or not Atty. Lacuanan has confidential information acquired through his connection with his former client.

  5. Whether the burden of proof is on the complainant in an administrative proceeding for disbarment.

  6. Whether the complainant has presented substantial evidence to prove the allegations against the lawyer.

  7. Whether the lawyer's previous engagements with the complainant are related to the pending proceedings between the complainant and his spouse.

RULING:

  1. Atty. Lacuanan is not guilty of representing conflicting interests and is absolved of all administrative charges.

  2. Atty. Lacuanan did not violate his duty to maintain inviolate the confidence of his client.

  3. There is no conflict of interests between Atty. Lacuanan's present client and former client as the present engagement does not involve transactions that occurred during his employment with his former client.

  4. Atty. Lacuanan does not have confidential information acquired through his connection with his former client as there is no evidence to support Jonathan's allegations and Atty. Lacuanan disputes them.

  5. Yes, the burden of proof is on the complainant in an administrative proceeding for disbarment.

  6. No, the complainant has not presented substantial evidence to prove the allegations against the lawyer.

  7. No, the lawyer's previous engagements with the complainant are not related to the pending proceedings between the complainant and his spouse.

PRINCIPLES:

  • A lawyer's duty to protect the interest and confidence of his client, together with the obligation not to represent interests in conflict with the same, extends beyond the end of his professional engagement.

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

  • The protection given to the client's confidence is perpetual and survives even after the termination of litigation or change of relation between the lawyer and the client.

  • The existence of a conflict of interests may be determined using the tests laid down in the Quiambao v. Bamba case.

  • A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except with the written consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts. This is based on principles of public policy, good taste, trust, and confidence. (Rule 15.03, Canon 5 of the Code of Professional Responsibility)

  • Lawyers represent conflicting interests when they have the duty to contend for an issue or claim on behalf of one client and, at the same time, to oppose that claim for another client. (Test of inconsistency of interests)

  • Lawyers are prohibited from using against a former client any confidential information acquired through their connection or previous employment, but this duty only covers matters the lawyer previously handled for the former client and not matters that arose after the lawyer-client relationship terminated. (Palm v. Iledan, Jr.)

  • The prohibition on conflicting interests is stricter when the opposing parties are both the lawyer's present clients. The nature or conditions of the lawyer's retainers with each client can affect the performance of the duty of undivided fidelity to both clients, even if the actions involved are unrelated. (Quiambao Case)

  • Lawyers have a duty to preserve the confidences and secrets of their clients even after the attorney-client relationship is terminated. The client's intention for the communication to be confidential must be proven. (Canon 21 of the Code of Professional Responsibility)

  • The burden of proof lies on the complainant to prove the allegations in an administrative complaint against a lawyer. (BSA Tower Condominium v. Reyes II)

  • A lawyer is presumed to have performed his duties in accordance with his oath unless proven otherwise.

  • The burden of proof in an administrative proceeding is on the complainant to prove the allegations against the lawyer.

  • The quantum of proof necessary for a finding of guilt in an administrative proceeding is substantial evidence.

  • Mere allegations, suspicion, and speculation cannot be given credence as evidence.

  • Charges based on public records, such as final and executory court decisions, are not considered confidential and can be used as evidence.

  • The previous engagements between a lawyer and a client may not be material in pending proceedings if they are unrelated to the issues at hand.