A.C. No. 9459 - Hierro vs. Nava II

Complainant Rene J. Hierro filed an administrative complaint for disbarment against respondent Atty. Plaridel C. Nava II.
The complaint alleged violations of several provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility, specifically Canons 7.03, 15.03, 17, 21.01, and 22.
The complaint was initiated on May 9, 2012, and subsequently referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) via a Resolution dated February 13, 2013.

Atty. Nava represented two adverse interests by serving as counsel for Hierro in criminal cases and simultaneously acting as counsel for Annalyn Hierro (Hierro’s spouse) in a petition for a Temporary Protection Order (TPO) against Hierro.
The petition for the TPO included reference to Hierro’s criminal cases, which Atty. Nava had previously handled for Hierro, thereby creating a conflict between his duty as a defense counsel and his role in supporting the petition.

Atty. Nava was accused of engaging in an adulterous relationship with Annalyn Hierro, which is especially egregious given that Annalyn is the spouse of Hierro, a former client of Atty. Nava.
It was further alleged that he fathered a child with Annalyn, an act that underscores his breach of moral standards expected of a lawyer.

The complaint also charged Atty. Nava with abandoning Hierro as his counsel in a grave threats case that culminated in Hierro’s conviction.
Atty. Nava disputed this allegation, contending that Hierro himself terminated his services and maintained that his conduct during the proceedings (such as presenting Hierro to the witness stand) did not constitute abandonment.

Investigating Commissioner Rommel V. Cuison prepared a Report and Recommendation recommending the disbarment of Atty. Nava and the removal of his name from the Roll of Attorneys.
On November 28, 2015, the IBP Board of Governors adopted the Report and Recommendation through a formal Resolution.
The case was then transmitted to the Supreme Court for final review and decision.

Atty. Nava argued that he was compelled by exigency and humanitarian concerns to sign the petition for a TPO against Hierro, given the urgency of protecting Annalyn and her young daughters.
He claimed his engagement was strictly limited to filing the petition, after which he promptly withdrew from Annalyn’s representation.
On the issue of conflict of interest, he maintained that the petition’s content was derived from public records and that no confidential information was misused.
Regarding the immorality charge, Atty. Nava underscored that the criminal complaint for adultery against him had been dismissed by the investigating prosecutor, a dismissal he believed exonerated him from the charge.
He also refuted the abandonment claim by asserting that the initiation of the grave threats case predated the filing of the petition against Hierro.

Whether Atty. Nava’s simultaneous representation of Hierro and Annalyn Hierro, particularly in filing a petition for a TPO that referenced Hierro’s criminal cases, constituted a conflict of interest in violation of Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Whether his conduct involving an extramarital affair with Annalyn, which included fathering a child, amounted to grossly immoral behavior falling under the ambit of Rule 7.03 concerning the lawyer’s fitness to practice.
Whether the allegation that he abandoned Hierro in the grave threats case, leading to Hierro’s conviction, was substantiated and constituted a dereliction of duty affecting his professional responsibilities.