Case Digest (A.C. No. 9422)
Facts:
The administrative complaint arises from a series of events involving Atty. Florante S. Legaspi, the complainant, and Atty. El Cid C. Fajardo, the respondent. The complaint was formally filed on February 29, 2012, when Legaspi sought administrative sanctions against Fajardo for alleged conflicts of interest. The core of the incident dates back to July 31, 2008, when Legaspi initiated a case entitled "Cristina Gabriel v. Jannet Malino, Carl Blum Blomary, and the Register of Deeds of Oriental Mindoro," which was registered as Civil Case No. CV-08-5950 in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Calapan City, Oriental Mindoro, Branch 40. On December 10, 2010, the RTC rendered a decision based on a Compromise Agreement signed by the parties. Notably, the day prior to this, on December 9, 2010, Fajardo had entered his appearance as collaborating counsel for one of the defendants, Jannet Malino. Subsequently, on January 18, 2011, Fajardo submitted a Special Power of Attorney claim
...Case Digest (A.C. No. 9422)
Facts:
- Background of the Case
- An administrative complaint was filed on February 29, 2012 by Atty. Florante S. Legaspi (complainant) against Atty. El Cid C. Fajardo (respondent).
- The complaint alleged acts constituting conflict of interest in connection with the same case.
- Chronology of the Underlying Civil Case
- On July 31, 2008, complainant, representing his client Cristina Gabriel, initiated the case “Cristina Gabriel v. Malino, Blum Blomary, and the Register of Deeds of Oriental Mindoro” (Civil Case No. CV-08-5950) before the RTC of Calapan City, Branch 40.
- On December 10, 2010, the RTC rendered a Decision based on a Compromise Agreement signed by both parties.
- Actions of the Respondent
- On December 9, 2010, a day before the RTC’s Decision, respondent formally filed an entry of appearance as collaborating counsel for defendant Jannet Malino.
- On January 18, 2011, respondent further appeared by filing:
- A Special Power of Attorney purportedly executed by Cristina Gabriel, appointing him as her attorney-in-fact.
- An Ex-Parte Plaintiffs Motion to Dismiss with his signature as Gabriel’s attorney-in-fact.
- Respondent subsequently submitted an undated notice terminating complainant’s services as counsel on the ground of “loss of trust and confidence.”
- RTC Rulings and Subsequent Developments
- The complainant opposed both the ex-parte motion and the termination notice, asserting that:
- There was no prior notice or advice from Gabriel regarding these actions.
- The grounds in the Motion to Dismiss were legally and factually unsound.
- The RTC ruling had already become final and executory.
- Gabriel had not yet settled her legal fees despite having obtained a favorable judgment with the complainant’s assistance.
- The RTC issued orders on February 3, 2011 and February 18, 2011, denying the respondent’s filings on the basis that they were irregular and moot due to the finality of the RTC decision.
- In view of these irregularities and conflicting representations, complainant brought the administrative complaint alleging conflict of interest.
- IBP Investigation and Recommendations
- On December 5, 2012, the Court referred the matter to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation.
- On January 4, 2014, the IBP’s Investigating Commissioner found respondent administratively liable for:
- Accepting appointment as attorney-in-fact for Gabriel while simultaneously acting as collaborating counsel for Malino.
- Creating a situation susceptible to manipulation of one party against the other.
- The initial recommendation was a suspension of six (6) months, later modified to one (1) year by the IBP Board of Governors in its Resolution dated June 5, 2015.
- The respondent’s motion for reconsideration was denied on November 28, 2017, and the entire record was elevated to the Court for final action.
- Although respondent filed a petition for review on certiorari, the matter proceeded to the Court's final resolution.
Issues:
- Existence of Conflict of Interest
- Whether respondent’s simultaneous representation—acting as collaborating counsel for one defendant and as attorney-in-fact for the opposing party—gave rise to a conflict of interest.
- Whether such a dual role compromised the duty of loyalty and the confidential nature inherent in the lawyer-client relationship.
- Proper Disciplinary Action
- Whether the documented facts justify imposing administrative sanctions on respondent under the Rules 15.01 and 15.03, Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
- What penalty is appropriate given the established precedents in similar conflict-of-interest cases.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)