A.C. No. 10992, 10993 - Yumang vs. Alaestante

Two separate disbarment complaints were filed against Atty. Edwin M. Alaestante:

Complaints alleged that Atty. Alaestante committed numerous violations, including:

On January 3, 2012, Atty. Alaestante authored a letter addressed to then DOJ Secretary Leila De Lima.
In the letter, he requested the initiation of a preliminary investigation and/or prosecution against respondent Cynthia V. Yumang and her associates for crimes such as:

The complainants’ belief that justice could not be secured locally due to Cynthia’s political clout and material resources in Marikina City.
Their prior unsuccessful attempts to secure justice through local police channels.

On the same date, a Joint Complaint Affidavit was executed by Ernesto S. Mallari and Danilo A. Rustia, Jr. against the complainants for the same criminal charges mentioned in the letter.
In response, Cynthia and her husband Rodolfo filed a libel complaint against Atty. Alaestante (and against Ernesto and Danilo) before the Pasig City Prosecutor’s Office.
Atty. Alaestante admitted authorship of the controversial letter but maintained that:

The letter was not libelous or defamatory.
It constituted privileged communication written in furtherance of his legal duty to his clients.

The City Prosecutor of Pasig found probable cause to indict Atty. Alaestante for libel, while the DOJ dismissed the criminal charges filed by Ernesto and Danilo.
On March 7, 2013, the complainants filed their respective disbarment complaints before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP).
The Investigating Commissioner’s Report and Recommendation (dated September 10, 2013) proposed:

Suspension of Atty. Alaestante for six (6) months in connection with A.C. No. 10992.
Suspension for one (1) year in connection with A.C. No. 10993.

Additional evidence showed that Atty. Alaestante acted for parties with conflicting interests:

He represented Berlin and Higino in matters where he had concurrently filed complaints against complainants.
He prepared pleadings for conflicting sides, leading to allegations of double-dealing and breaches of his ethical responsibilities.

The issuance and subsequent encashment of a P50,000.00 check by Berlin and Higino further raised questions on the propriety of his professional conduct.

Resolutions by the Office of the City Prosecutor and previous administrative cases provided a backdrop that:

Confirmed the unprofessional language and unguarded nature of the letter.
Highlighted that the letter was not protected as a privileged communication since it was not made in a judicial proceeding.

The evidence collectively pointed to a breach of the Lawyer’s Oath, particularly in avoiding the representation of conflicting interests.

Whether Atty. Alaestante’s January 3, 2012 letter to then DOJ Secretary De Lima, characterized by the use of abusive and unprofessional language, constituted a violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Whether Atty. Alaestante’s simultaneous involvement in representing conflicting interests—filing complaints against parties for whom he later acted as legal counsel—amounted to double-dealing and a breach of ethical duty.
Whether the absence of a written contract between Atty. Alaestante and his clients negates the existence of a lawyer-client relationship, in view of the principles governing such relationships.
Whether the conduct of Atty. Alaestante, including his actions of preparing pleadings for parties in adverse positions, warrants the penalties recommended by the Investigating Commissioner and subsequently modified by the IBP-Board of Governors.