Case Summary (A.C. No. 12071)
Factual Background
Jonathan first engaged Atty. Lacuanan in 2007 through his wife. Services rendered included a 2008 consultation for debt collection (P3,000 fee); a 2009 retainer proposal for a dealership (unconsummated); and in 2011, assistance in purchasing a Metrobank lot (P2,000 per appearance) and drafting a demand letter to Remedios Espela over a defective vehicle. A personal friendship developed, involving dinners and visits to Jonathan’s showroom.
Emergence of Conflict and Disbarment Complaint
By early 2013, Mary Grace filed criminal charges (concubinage, physical injury, threats under RA 9262) and later a petition for nullity of marriage against Jonathan. Atty. Lacuanan appeared as her counsel without Jonathan’s written consent. Jonathan alleged this violated Canons 15.03 and 17, the Lawyer’s Oath, and Section 20, Rule 138, and sought Lacuanan’s disbarment for representing conflicting interests and breaching client confidences.
Respondent’s Defense
Atty. Lacuanan acknowledged intermittent services to the Spouses Parungao ending in 2011 but denied any enduring attorney-client relationship or possession of confidential data useful against Jonathan in 2013. He maintained full disclosure and consent occurred before representing Mary Grace, and asserted that prior matters (property purchase, vehicle demand) were unrelated to marital and criminal issues.
IBP Commission Findings and Resolutions
The CBD Investigating Commissioner initially dismissed the complaint. The IBP Board of Governors reversed this in Resolution XXI-2015-319, finding respondent guilty of conflict of interest and suspending him for one month. Its Extended Resolution underlined that representation of a former client’s adversary—even in unrelated matters—invites suspicion of double-dealing and violates duties under Canon 15.03 and Section 20, Rule 138. A motion for reconsideration was denied.
Issues and Applicable Law
The core issue is whether Atty. Lacuanan violated his duty under Canon 15.03 (no representing conflicting interests without written consent), Canon 17 (fidelity to client), Canon 21 (secrets survive termination), and Section 20(e), Rule 138 (preservation of client confidences). Under the 1987 Constitution, these professional standards anchor the duty to avoid conflicts.
Court’s Analysis of Attorney-Client Relationship
Evidence showed no standing or continuous retainer between Jonathan and Lacuanan after 2011. Services were limited and episodic. As of 2013, no active employment existed to bar representation of Mary Grace under conflict rules predicated on concurrent client representation.
Tests for Conflict of Interest
Quiambao v. Bamba identifies three tests:
- Whether counsel must advocate and oppose the same issue for different clients.
- Whether dual representation impairs undivided loyalty or invites suspicion.
- Whether counsel would use confidential information from a former client against that client.
Palm v. Iledan, Jr. further limits the duty to matters actually handled during the prior engagement.
Application of Tests to the Present Case
Respondent was not called upon to fight for or against Jonathan on issues previously handled. The marital offenses and nullity petition arose from events in late 2012–2013, wholly unrelated to the 2011 property and vehicle matters. No evidence was offered that Atty. Lacuanan acquired confidential information during the limited prior engagements that could be used
...continue readingCase Syllabus (A.C. No. 12071)
Facts of the Case
- In 2007, Mary Grace Parungao introduced her husband, Jonathan C. Parungao, to Atty. Dexter B. Lacuanan.
- Atty. Lacuanan intermittently provided legal services to Jonathan and to the Spouses Parungao:
• 2008: Consultation on debt collection; professional fee paid ₱3,000.00.
• 2009: Drafted a retainer proposal for a Chevron dealership (₱5,000.00), which was never executed.
• March–May 2011: Facilitated the Spouses’ purchase of a lot from Metrobank; paid ₱2,000.00 per court‐appearance and verified the existence of a writ of possession.
• November 2, 2011: Drafted and signed a demand letter on Lacuanan letterhead for Jonathan against Remedios Espela, demanding ₱35,000.00 for vehicle repairs or full refund. - Beyond professional work, Jonathan and his wife entertained Atty. Lacuanan at dinners and in personal visits; Jonathan allegedly confided personal and marital matters.
- In February 2013, marital relations collapsed; Mary Grace filed:
• A criminal complaint (concubinage, physical injury, threats under R.A. No. 9262) before the Quezon City Prosecutor.
• In August 2013, a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage in RTC Quezon City, Branch 107. - Jonathan discovered Atty. Lacuanan representing his wife in both proceedings without his written consent.
Disbarment Complaint
- Jonathan filed CBD Case No. 13-4044 alleging:
• Representation of conflicting interests in violation of Canons 15.03 and 17 of the CPR, the Lawyer’s Oath, and Section 20, Rule 138.
• No termination or severance of the attorney-client relationship from 2007 to 2013.
• Atty. Lacuanan retained confidential information that could be used against him. - Documentary evidence submitted:
• Deed of Absolute Sale (May 13, 2011).
• Demand letter to Espela (Nov 2, 2011).
• Affidavit of Leonora C. Parungao (mother), denying any consent for conflict representation.
Respondent’s Defense
- Admitted acquaintance with both spouses since 2006–2007 but denied any ongoing, standing retainer with Jonathan.
- Stated only intermittent, unrelated engagements from 2008 to 2011, all