Facts:

In the case of Rufina Bautista vs. Atty. Benjamin O. Barrios, the complainant, Rufina Bautista, alleged that Atty. Barrios committed malpractice in his capacity as her attorney. The events leading to the complaint began in August 1955 when Rufina engaged Atty. Barrios to draft an extra-judicial partition of the conjugal properties of Federico Rovero and his deceased wife, Maria Bautista, who was Rufina's sister and had died intestate in 1952. The deed of partition was prepared and signed by the involved parties. However, in September 1955, when Rovero refused to comply with the terms of the partition, Rufina sought Atty. Barrios's representation in a lawsuit (Civil Case No. K-689) against Rovero to enforce the partition. Atty. Barrios, however, refused to represent her, leading Rufina to hire Atty. Artemio S. Arrieta instead. Subsequently, Atty. Barrios appeared as counsel for Rovero, opposing Rufina's claims regarding the partition. In his defense, Atty. Barrios ...

Facts:

Engagement and Drafting of the Partition

• In August 1955, Rufina Bautista engaged the services of Atty. Benjamin O. Barrios to draft an extra-judicial partition.
• The partition deed concerned the division of conjugal properties belonging to Federico Rovero and his deceased wife Maria Bautista (sister of Rufina Bautista) who died intestate in 1952.
• The deed was purportedly prepared at the joint request of Federico Rovero, Rufina Bautista, and Francisco Bautista, as later admitted by Atty. Barrios in his answer to the complaint.

Dispute Over the Partition’s Execution

• In September 1955, upon Federico Rovero’s refusal to comply with the terms of the partition, Rufina Bautista initiated legal proceedings (Civil Case No. K-689, Capiz Court of First Instance) to enforce the deed.
• Rufina Bautista requested Atty. Barrios to represent her in the suit; however, he refused, leading her to secure the services of another lawyer, Atty. Artemio S. Arrieta.

Conflicting Representation and Subsequent Actions

• Instead of representing Rufina, Atty. Barrios appeared for Federico Rovero in the litigation, actively opposing the enforcement of the partition in favor of Rufina.
• During the course of the proceedings, Atty. Barrios argued that the partition deed did not embody all the agreed terms and was subject to modifications—a position that directly conflicted with the interests and understanding of Rufina.
• He further contended that he had been retained by Rovero rather than by Rufina Bautista, a claim that was contradicted by both his prior admission and the circumstances of the case.

Admissions and Inconsistencies

• Atty. Barrios’s assertion that he was not originally engaged by Rufina was undermined by his own acknowledgment that he drafted the partition at the joint request of Federico Rovero, Rufina Bautista, and Francisco Bautista.
• His subsequent participation for Rovero in the case, coupled with his argument that modifications were known to Rufina, introduced inconsistencies and raised serious questions as to his good faith and adherence to professional ethics.

Issue:

Whether Atty. Barrios committed malpractice by:

• Drafting a partition deed at the joint request of parties with conflicting interests.
• Subsequently refusing to represent Rufina Bautista when she sought to enforce the partition.
• Appearing in court on behalf of Federico Rovero, thereby conflicting with the interests of Rufina Bautista.

• Whether his defense—that he was initially engaged by Rovero instead of Rufina—has merit in the context of his prior admissions and the conduct exhibited during the litigation.

• Whether an attorney who has performed services for both parties in a transaction may ethically represent one against the other in a subsequent suit related to the same transaction.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)