Simon D. Paz vs. Atty. Atty. Pepito A. Sanchez
Facts
This is a disbarment complaint filed by Simon D. Paz against Atty. Pepito A. Sanchez for representing conflicting interests and violation of lawyer's oath. Petitioner: In 1995, Paz and his partners engaged the services of Sanchez 1) to assist them with the purchase of several parcel of land for tenant-farmers 2) to defend them on the property agains the claim of a certain "Lizares" In 2000, after Sanchez's termination of services from Paz and his partners, he filed a complaint before the DAR Board ("DARAB") in behalf of Dizon for annulment of a transfer certificate title (TCT) under the name of Paz and his partners. Paz explained that such property was purchased with the assistance of Sanchez therefore rendering a conflict of interest. Paz also filed "malicious machination" because Sanchez used the old address of Paz to serve the summons enabling their default. In 2003, despite the knowledge of Paz's pending petition for review in the DARAB case, Sanchez filed a civil case against Paz and Sycamore for annulment of another TCT. Paz pointed out that Sanchez should be punished for forum shopping and preparing for false certificate of non-forum shopping because Sanchez failed to disclose Paz's pending petition before DARAB. Violation of Lawyer's Oath is also also complained because of "malice and full knowledge of the real facts,"mSanchez filed groundless and false suit against Paz. Respondent: Sanchez has been representing Dizon and the tenant-farmers since 1978. He also represented the tenant-farmers from Lizares and since Paz and his partners are buyers of the tenant-farmers properties, they were impleaded as defendants in the Lizares case. On the DARAB case, Sanchez admitted that Paz expressed his interest in Dizon's properties. The complaint was filed in 1997 and not after his service was terminated. He felt compelled to do so because he felt responsible as he was the one who lent to Paz the title of Dizon enabling them to transfer the title to their names. For the address, he put the last known address of Paz in 1997 which in the statement in 2000, it was stated that the summons and notices were served and received. But Paz and his partners ignored them. As per the Sycamore case, Sanchez felt compelled as well when he discovered that the same title was transferred from Paz to Sycamore. So unless such transfer between Paz and Sycamore is nullified, the Register of Deeds cannot execute the DARAB case decision.
IBP Recommendation: Guilty of prohibition against conflict of interests. One year suspension.
Court's Ruling The court finds insufficient evidence to hold respondent liable for forum shopping and for filing groundless suits. However, the court finds respondent liable for violation of the prohibition on representing conflicting interests. On non-forum shopping, the court ruled that although both cases are related because Dizon's property is involved, the reliefs prayed for are different. Forum shopping takes place when litigants files multiple suits involving the same parties to secure favorable judgment but it does not follow that mere filing of several cases based on the same incident constitutes forum shopping. On violation of lawyer's oath, the court notes that the cases are still pending before DARAB and RTC therefore does not have any basis for ruling if there is a violation. On conflicting interests, the court notes that the respondent did not specifically deny that he represented conflicting interests. Rule 15.03: "A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by written consent of all concerned given after full disclosure of facts." By respondent's own admission, when he filed the DARAB case on Dizon's behalf, both Paz and Dizon were respondent's clients at that time - as Paz's counsel on the Lizares case and representing Dizon before the cancellation of lis pendens involving Dizon's property, which cancellation was needed for Paz to purchase the Dizon property. In filing the DARAB case on Dizon's behalf, respondent was duty bound to assail Sanchez's title over Dizon's property, which Sanchez had purchased from Dizon. Clearly a conflict of interest. In representing both, respondent's undivided fidelity and loyalty to his clients was placed under a cloud of doubt. The reason for the prohibition is found in the relation of attorney and client, which is one of trust and confidence of the highest degree. A lawyer becomes familiar with all the facts connected with his client's case. He learns from his client the weak points of the action as well as the strong ones. Such knowledge must be considered sacred and guarded with care. No opportunity must be given him to take advantage of the client's secrets. A lawyer must have the fullest confidence of his client. For if the confidence is abused, the profession will suffer by the loss thereof.
