PROBLEM AREAS I N LEGAL ETHI CS 1
Co nfli c to fI nt e r e s ti nar e g ul arLa wy wy e r Cl i e ntRe l at i o ns hi p
LOLITA ARTEZUELA ARTEZUELA v. ATTY. ATTY. MADERAZO MADER AZO [A.C. No. 4354. April 22, 2002] FACTS
Allan Echavia had a vehicular accident in Mandaue City. He a! drivin" a #ord $el!tar car oned %y a &apane!e national, Hiro'et!i (iya'i, %ut a! re"i!tered in the na'e o) hi! %rother*in*la, %rother*in*la, &un Anthony +illape. +illape. $he car ra''ed into a !'all carinderia one oned d %y co'plainant -olita Arteuela. $he de!truction o) the carinderia cau!ed the ce!!ation o) the operation o) her !'all %u!ine!! and due to )inancial con!traint!, !topped !endin" her to children to colle"e. $hi! pro'pted the co'plainant to en"a"e the !ervice! o) the re!pondent in )ilin" a da'a"e da'a"e !uit !uit %e)ore %e)ore Ce%u Ce%u $C. $C. An A'ende A'ended d Co'pla Co'plaint int a! therea therea)te )terr )iled, )iled, i'plea i'pleadin din" " Echavia, (iya'i and +illape, and droppin" /ia a! a party*de)endant. Hoever, the ca!e a! di!'i!!ed alle"edly upon the in!tance o) the co'plainant and her hu!%and. ecau!e o) the di!'i!!al, co'plainant )iled a civil ca!e )or da'a"e! a"ain!t the re!pondent layer %ut the !a'e a! di!'i di!'i!!e !!ed. d. Arte Arteuel uelaa )iled )iled a veri)i veri)ied ed co'pla co'plaint int )or di!%ar di!%ar'en 'entt a"ain! a"ain!tt the re!pon re!pondent dent.. Co'plainant clai'ed that re!pondent prepared Echavia1! An!er to the A'ended Co'plaint. $he !aid docu'ent a! even printed in re!pondent1! o))ice. Co'plainant )urther averred that it a! re!pondent ho !ou"ht the di!'i!!al o) the ca!e, 'i!leadin" the trial court into thinin" that the di!'i!!al a! ith her con!ent. e!pondent1! contention e!pondent e!pondent denied the co'plainant! co'plainant! alle"ation! alle"ation! and averred averred that he con!cientiou con!cientiou!ly !ly did hi! part a! the co'plainant1! layer. He ithdre a! coun!el %ecau!e the co'plainant a! uncoope uncooperat rative ive and re)u!e re)u!ed d to con)er con)er ith ith hi'. hi'. He ad'itt ad'itted ed that that Echavi Echavia1 a1!! An!e An!err to the A'ended Co'plaint a! printed in hi! o))ice %ut denied havin" prepared the docu'ent and havin" acted a! coun!el o) Echavia. oard o) overnor! $he oard o) overnor! o) the 6 reco''ended the !u!pen!ion )ro' the practice o) la o) re!pondent Atty. icarte icarte . Maderao )or 7 'onth!, ith a !tern arnin" that repetition o) repre!entin" con)lictin" intere!t! in violation o) Canon 7 o) the Code o) 6ro)e!!ional Ethic!, and Canon 85 and ule 85.03 o) the Code o) 6ro)e!!ional e!pon!i%ility ill %e dealt ith 'ore !everely. ISSUE
9hether re!pondent had a direct hand in the preparation o) Echavia1! An!er to the A'ended Co'plaint hich i! ini'ical to co'plainant1! intere!t!. RULING
$o %e "uilty o) repre!entin" repre!entin" con)lictin" con)lictin" intere!t!, intere!t!, a coun!el*o)*r coun!el*o)*record ecord o) one party need
PROBLEM AREAS I N LEGAL ETHI CS 2
Co nfli c to fI nt e r e s ti nar e g ul arLa wy e r Cl i e ntRe l at i o ns hi p
not al!o %e coun!el*o)*record o) the adver!e party. He doe! not have to pu%licly hold hi'!el) a! the coun!el o) the adver!e party, nor 'ae hi! e))ort! to advance the adver!e party1! con)lictin" intere!t! o) record*** althou"h the!e circu'!tance! are the 'o!t o%viou! and !ati!)actory proo) o) the char"e. t i! enou"h that the coun!el o) one party had a hand in the preparation o) the pleadin" o) the other party, clai'in" adver!e and con)lictin" intere!t! ith that o) hi! ori"inal client. $o re:uire that he al!o %e coun!el*o)*record o) the adver!e party ould puni!h only the 'o!t o%viou! )or' o) deceit and reard, ith i'punity, the hi"he!t )or' o) di!loyalty. Canon 6 of the Code of Profe!ona" Eth!# tate$ t i! the duty o) a layer at the ti'e o) the retainer to di!clo!e to the client the circu'!tance! o) hi! relation! to the partie! and any intere!t in or in connection ith the controver!y, hich 'i"ht in)luence the client in the !election o) the coun!el. t i! unpro)e!!ional to repre!ent con)lictin" intere!t!, e;cept %y e;pre!! con!ent o) all concerned "iven a)ter a )ull di!clo!ure o) the )act!. 9ithin the 'eanin" o) thi! Canon, a "a%&er re'reent #onf"!#t!n( !nteret %hen !n )eha"f of one of the #"!ent* !t ! h! d+t& to #ontend for that %h!#h d+t& to another #"!ent re,+!re h!- to o''oe.
$he pro)e!!ional o%li"ation o) the layer to "ive hi! undivided attention and eal )or hi! client! cau!e i! liei!e de'anded in the Code o) 6ro)e!!ional e!pon!i%ility. nherently di!advanta"eou! to hi! client! cau!e, repre!entation %y the layer o) con)lictin" intere!t! re:uire! di!clo!ure o) all )act! and con!ent o) all the p artie! involved. $hu! CANON /0 A"" "a%&er ha"" o)erve #andor* fa!rne and "o&a"t& !n a"" h! dea"!n( and trana#t!on %!th h! #"!ent. ;;; ule 85.03* A layer !hall not repre!ent con)lictin" intere!t! e;cept %y ritten con!ent o) all concerned "iven a)ter a )ull di!clo!ure o) the )act!.
9hile the e!olution o) the 6 i! purely reco''endatory, e )ind no rea!on to rever!e the !a'e. n di!ciplinary proceedin"! a"ain!t 'e'%er! o) the %ar, only clear preponderance o) evidence i! re:uired to e!ta%li!h lia%ility. A! lon" a! the evidence pre!ented %y co'plainant or that taen
