Facts:

On August 22, 1974, spouses Generosa Buted and Benito Bolisay filed an administrative complaint against Atty. Harold M. Hernando, alleging malpractice due to his wanton abuse of professional secrets obtained while serving as their counsel. The complaint was formally answered by Hernando on June 25, 1974. Subsequently, the Supreme Court referred the matter to the Solicitor-General for investigation on October 4, 1974. A significant development occurred on February 10, 1975, when the complainants submitted a Joint Affidavit of Desistance. However, a hearing was conducted by the Solicitor-General on October 24, 1975, where Hernando testified in his defense.

The background of the case involved a partition action initiated by Generosa Buted as a compulsory heir of the deceased Teofilo Buted, where Hernando represented Luciana Abadilla and Angela Buted. Hernando successfully defended Abadilla's claim over a parcel of land known as Lot 9439-B. After Abadilla's death, Hern...

Facts:

Initiation of the Complaint and Preliminary Proceedings

• On 22 August 1974, Generosa Buted and Benito Bolisay filed an administrative complaint against Atty. Harold M. Hernando, charging him with malpractice for allegedly abusing confidential information obtained while acting as their counsel.
• Respondent Hernando filed his Answer on 25 June 1974.
• The Court, through a resolution dated 4 October 1974, referred the complaint to the Solicitor-General for investigation, report, and recommendation.
• On 10 February 1975, the complainants presented a Joint Affidavit of Desistance, although the proceedings continued.
• A hearing was conducted on 24 October 1975 before the Solicitor-General, where Hernando testified on his own behalf.

Background of the Representation in Related Cases

• In a partition action involving a parcel of land identified as Lot 9439-B, Hernando acted as counsel for Luciana Abadilla and Angela Buted.
• He successfully defended Luciana Abadilla’s claim of exclusive ownership over Lot 9439-B.
• Upon the death of Luciana Abadilla, Hernando withdrew his appearance in the partition case.
• Subsequent to Luciana’s death, the lot was sold to Benito Bolisay, and a new Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) was issued in the names of the complainant spouses.

Representation in the Specific Performance Action

• In an action for specific performance instituted by Luis Sy and Elena Sy against Benito Bolisay, Hernando was retained by Benito Bolisay.
• It is claimed that Hernando rendered his services to Benito Bolisay free of charge.
• The dispute involved a contract of lease executed by Enrique Buted over a house on a portion of Lot No. 9439-B, with the Sy’s contending that the lease extended to the entire lot.
• Eventually, the Sy’s were ordered to vacate the property.

The Cadastral Petition and Subsequent Developments

• On 23 February 1974, without the consent of the heirs of Luciana Abadilla or the complainant spouses, Hernando filed a petition on behalf of the heirs of Carlos, Dionisia, and Francisco Abadilla to cancel the complainants’ TCT over Lot No. 9439-B.
• Hernando later testified that cancellation of the TCT would transfer ownership of the lot from the complainant spouses to all heirs of Luciana Abadilla.
• The complainant spouses expressed their disapproval of this action via a letter dated 30 July 1974.
• Despite their protest, Hernando pursued the cadastral case until it was dismissed by the trial court on 2 September 1974 on the ground of prescription.

Admissions and Ethical Allegations

• At the hearing before the Solicitor-General, Hernando admitted his involvement in the cadastral proceedings as counsel for the Abadillas.
• He denied having taken possession of or using any confidential information related to the TCT covering Lot 9439-B.
• The Solicitor-General, in the Report and Recommendation dated 29 March 1990, proposed that Hernando be suspended for violation of the Canons of Professional Ethics, specifically for representing clients with conflicting interests.

Definition and Context of Conflict of Interest

• The Canons of Professional Ethics define conflict of interest as a situation where an attorney’s duties toward one client inherently conflict with the interests of another, requiring full disclosure and consent.
• In this case, Hernando’s actions in defending the ownership rights for Benito Bolisay and subsequently challenging those rights in a separate proceeding demonstrate such a conflict.
• References to prior jurisprudence (e.g., Hilado v. David, San Jose v. Cruz) and scholarly opinions underscore the ethical mandate to avoid any appearance of double-dealing or betrayal of client confidence.

Issue:

• Whether Atty. Harold M. Hernando represented conflicting interests by acting for Benito Bolisay in the action for specific performance and later filing a petition that adversely affected the same lot’s ownership held by complainant spouses.
• Whether the absence of evidence showing that confidential information was misused by Hernando negates the ethical breach, despite the inherent conflict arising from his representation of opposing interests.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)