Case Digest (A.C. No. 6876)
Facts:
Heirs of Lydio Jerry Falame v. Atty. Edgar J. Baguio, ADM. CASE NO. 6876, March 07, 2008, Supreme Court Second Division, Tinga, J., writing for the Court. The decision was concurred in by Carpio (Acting Chairperson), Carpio Morales, Azcuna, and Velasco, Jr., JJ.Complainants are the heirs of the late Lydio Jerry Falame (Melba, Leo and Jerry Falame); respondent is Atty. Edgar J. Baguio. In July 1991 Lydio engaged respondent to represent him in Civil Case No. A-2694 (Heirs of Emilio T. Sy v. Lydio Jerry Falame, et al.) in the Municipal Trial Court of Dipolog City. Respondent filed an answer for the defendants and, when position papers were required, offered as evidence a special power of attorney dated 1 July 1988 executed by Lydio in favor of his brother Raleigh, and an affidavit of Raleigh dated 23 July 1988 executed before respondent asserting Lydio’s ownership of the subject property. Complainants allege that respondent continued as Lydio’s legal adviser until Lydio’s death on 8 September 1996.
On 23 October 2000 respondent, representing spouses Raleigh and Noemi Falame, filed Civil Case No. 5568 in the Regional Trial Court, Dipolog City, Branch 6, against the complainants and others, seeking among other reliefs declaration of nullity of a deed of sale, reconveyance or legal redemption, and damages, and praying for preliminary injunction and restraining order. Complainants charged respondent before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) with (a) betrayal of his oath and duty by representing adverse interests to his former client Lydio (conflict of interest), (b) making false statements in the second civil case in violation of paragraph (d), Section 20 of Rule 138, Rules of Court, and (c) instituting a baseless/fabricated suit to retain possession in violation of paragraph (g), Section 20.
Respondent answered denying that Lydio personally retained him (asserting Raleigh engaged and paid him), insisting he signed Raleigh’s affidavit in good faith, denying disclosure or use of confidences and denying any deliberate misstatements; he argued also that the IBP lacked jurisdiction because the civil case was pending and that the Rule 15.03 conflict charge was only pleaded later. Complainants, in a position paper, additionally invoked Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
The IBP Investigating Commissioner recommended dismissal for lack of specificity on what confidential matter was disclosed and for prescription; the IBP Board of Governors adopted the recommendation and dismissed the complaint on grounds of prescription and lack of merit. Dissatisfied, complainants filed a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Is the administrative complaint against Atty. Edgar J. Baguio barred by prescription?
- Did respondent represent conflicting interests in violation of Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility?
- Were respondent’s alleged violations of paragraph (d) and (g), Section 20 of Rule 138 (making false statements; encourag...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)