FACTS:

Atty. Marapao has been characterized as having a proclivity towards being litigious, filing numerous civil and criminal cases against the accused Gertrudes. He was accused of initiating frivolous cases and violating ethical rules regarding privileged communication and conflict of interest. The Court found that Atty. Marapao failed to exhibit ethical temperament in facilitating the filing of multiple cases against Gertrudes, including several counts for the same crime. While some of the criminal cases proceeded to court, it was deemed that Atty. Marapao's propensity to be litigious was not justified. It was noted that a lawyer's duty to uphold the cause of justice is superior to their duty to their client, and taking advantage of a client's strong emotions towards adversaries is improper. The sheer number of cases filed by Atty. Marapao was seen as bordering on harassment. However, the Court determined that Atty. Marapao did not violate the ethical rules on privileged communication and conflict of interest.

ISSUES:

1. Whether Atty. Marapao violated Rule 15.02 of Canon 15 and Rules 21.01, 21.02, and 21.03 of Canon 21 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR).

2. Whether Atty. Marapao represented conflicting interests.

3. Whether Atty. Marapao's representation of new clients against his former client constitutes a conflicting interest.

4. Whether there is a violation of the rule on representation of conflicting interests.

5. Whether Atty. Marapao violated the rule on privileged communication and represented conflicting interests.

6. Whether Atty. Marapao's actions warrant suspension or disbarment.

RULING:

1. Atty. Marapao did not violate Rule 15.02 of Canon 15 and Rules 21.01, 21.02, and 21.03 of Canon 21 of the CPR. The complainant failed to provide specific and concrete evidence of how Atty. Marapao utilized and divulged confidential information without the client's consent. The burden of proving that the attorney-client privilege applies rests with the party asserting it. Without specific evidence, it cannot be determined if there was a violation of the rule on privileged communication.

2. Atty. Marapao did not represent conflicting interests. There is no evidence to establish that Atty. Marapao represented conflicting parties in the same or related cases, which is prohibited by Rule 15.03 of Canon 15 of the CPR.

3. Yes, Atty. Marapao's representation of new clients against his former client constitutes a conflicting interest. The rule against representation of conflicting interests prohibits a lawyer from representing inconsistent interests of two or more opposing parties. The acceptance of a new relation should not prevent the full discharge of the lawyer's duty of undivided fidelity and loyalty to the client or invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or double-dealing. In this case, Atty. Marapao's duty to fight for the interests of his new clients conflicts with his duty to oppose their claims on behalf of his former client. Therefore, there is a conflicting interest between Atty. Marapao's current and former clients.

4. Yes, there is a violation of the rule on representation of conflicting interests. Atty. Marapao is forbidden from representing a subsequent client against a former client when the subject matter of the present controversy is related, directly or indirectly, to the subject matter of the previous litigation in which he appeared for the former client. In this case, the subject matter of the suits filed by Gertrudes against Rosita and Genera in 2001, where Atty. Marapao represented Gertrudes, is distinct and separate from the civil case where he now represents Rosario, Eufronia, and Victoria. Thus, there is a violation of the rule on representation of conflicting interests.

5. The Court finds that there is a lack of evidence to prove that Atty. Marapao violated the rule on privileged communication and represented conflicting interests. The petitioner failed to specify the confidential information allegedly used without her consent and did not establish a nexus between the cases handled by Atty. Marapao and the cases filed against her later. Without any showing of a relationship between the cases, Atty. Marapao cannot be held liable for representing conflicting interests.

6. While Atty. Marapao's tendency to file numerous cases against his client's adversary is criticized, the Court finds that suspension or disbarment is too harsh a penalty considering his advanced age, retirement from the practice of law, and lack of previous conviction for an administrative disciplinary case.

PRINCIPLES:

• Lawyers have a duty to maintain the confidentiality and preserve the secrets of their clients even after the attorney-client relationship is terminated. This duty is based on the rules of evidence and professional ethics, which aim to safeguard the client's confidence.

• The attorney-client privilege encourages clients to make full disclosure to their attorneys and have unrestricted confidence in matters affecting their rights or obligations.

• In an administrative case against an attorney, the burden of proving the violation of the rule on privileged communication rests with the complainant. The complainant must provide specific and concrete evidence of the confidential information allegedly divulged by the attorney without the client's consent.

• Lawyers are prohibited from representing conflicting interests, meaning they cannot represent parties with opposing interests in the same or related cases.

• Lawyers are prohibited from representing conflicting interests except with the written consent of all concerned given after full disclosure of the facts.

• The rule against representation of conflicting interests is rooted in principles of public policy, good taste, and the need to maintain the confidence of clients in their lawyers.

• One test of inconsistency of interests is whether the acceptance of a new relation will prevent the lawyer from fully discharging their duty of undivided fidelity and loyalty to the client, or whether it will invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or double-dealing.

• Another test is whether the acceptance of the new retainer will require the attorney to perform an act that will injuriously affect the former client, or whether the attorney will be called upon in their new relation to use against the former client any knowledge acquired through their connection.

• The rule on representation of conflicting interests applies not only to cases where confidential communications have been confided but also to those where no confidence has been bestowed or will be used.

• A lawyer is forbidden from representing a subsequent client against a former client when the subject matter of the present controversy is related, directly or indirectly, to the subject matter of the previous litigation in which the lawyer appeared for the former client.

• A lawyer may properly act as counsel for a new client against a former client in a matter wholly unrelated to the previous employment, where there is no conflict of interests.

• An attorney enjoys the legal presumption of innocence until proven otherwise and is presumed to have performed his duties in accordance with his oath.

• The burden of proving a claim lies with the party making the claim, and reliance on mere allegations, conjectures, and speculations is insufficient.

• Charges based on suspicion and speculation cannot be given credence.

• Adverse actions against an attorney must be supported by sufficient evidence.

• Filing numerous cases against a client's adversary, while deplorable, does not warrant suspension or disbarment in certain circumstances.