Case Summary (A.C. No. 9422)
Background of the Complaint
Complainant Atty. Legaspi filed an administrative complaint on February 29, 2012, asserting that respondent Fajardo engaged in a conflict of interest while representing conflicting parties in "Cristina Gabriel v. Jannet Malino." The case originated from a decision issued by the Regional Trial Court of Calapan City, Oriental Mindoro, which was based on a compromise agreement. Legaspi contended that once Fajardo appeared as counsel for one of the defendants, it created conflicting loyalties.
Notable Events and Legal Proceedings
The timeline includes crucial actions taken by Fajardo, such as filing a formal entry of appearance as collaborating counsel for Malino on December 9, 2010, just a day before the RTC issued its decision. Additionally, Fajardo later filed a Special Power of Attorney and an Ex-Parte Motion to Dismiss as Gabriel's attorney-in-fact, which Legaspi contested.
RTC Rulings
In its orders dated February 3 and February 18, 2011, the RTC affirmed Legaspi's position, deeming Fajardo's pleadings irregular and declared them moot due to the decision's finality. This ruling prompted Legaspi to pursue the administrative complaint, asserting that Fajardo had represented conflicting interests by appearing for Malino while simultaneously acting on behalf of Gabriel.
Respondent's Defense
Fajardo acknowledged the facts reported by Legaspi but maintained that his actions did not constitute a conflict of interest, arguing that his role as attorney-in-fact for Gabriel was merely clerical and did not equate to legal representation.
IBP Investigation and Findings
The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) investigated the matter and, in a report dated January 4, 2014, found Fajardo administratively liable for violating conflict of interest rules outlined in the Code of Professional Responsibility. The Report emphasized that Fajardo's dual representation created an undeniable conflict, wherein he was placed in a position of potentially gaining an advantage for Malino at the expense of Gabriel.
Disciplinary Action and Ruling
In a Resolution dated June 5, 2015, the IBP recommended a one-year suspension from the practice of law for Fajardo. This recommendation was upheld despite his motion for reconsideration being denied. The primary issue brought before the Court was whether Fajardo's actions warranted administrative sanctions
...continue readingCase Syllabus (A.C. No. 9422)
Introduction
- The case involves an administrative complaint filed by Atty. Florante S. Legaspi against Atty. El Cid C. Fajardo.
- The complaint, dated February 29, 2012, seeks administrative sanctions against Fajardo for alleged conflict of interest in legal representation.
Facts of the Case
- On July 31, 2008, Atty. Legaspi, representing his client Cristina Gabriel, initiated a case against Jannet Malino, Carl Blum Blomary, and the Register of Deeds of Oriental Mindoro, titled "Cristina Gabriel v. Jannet Malino, et al." The case was filed in the RTC of Calapan City, Oriental Mindoro, under Civil Case No. CV-08-5950.
- A decision based on a Compromise Agreement was issued by the RTC on December 10, 2010.
- Notably, on December 9, 2010, a day prior to the decision, Atty. Fajardo filed a formal entry of appearance as collaborating counsel for defendant Jannet Malino.
- On January 18, 2011, Fajardo filed a Special Power of Attorney allegedly signed by Gabriel, appointing him as her attorney-in-fact, along with an Ex-Parte Motion to Dismiss which he signed in that capacity.
- Fajardo subsequently submitted a notice terminating Legaspi's services as counsel for Gabriel, citing loss of trust and confidence.
- Legaspi contested Fajardo's actions, stating that Gabriel had not authorized such termination and that the motion to dismiss lacked legal basis and was moot since the RTC ruling was already final.
Rulings by the RTC
- The RTC, in orders dated February 3 and February 18, 2011, sided with Legaspi, declaring Fajardo's pleadings and motions as irregular and moot, given that the