Nuique vs. Sedillo

Atty. Nuique vs. Atty. Sedillo/ A.C. No. 9906/ REYES, J. Summarized by Jo! Albert R. Am"aro #m"orta!t $eo"le Kiyoshi- Japanese national Estrelieta- wife of Kiyoshi Manuel- brother of Estrelieta Atty. Nuique- Complainant Atty. Sedillo- Respondent

%a&ts' . !!"- Respondent be#ame the lawyer of Kiyoshi and his wife in #ase for re#o$ery of o$erpayment a%ainst Amasula. &rial #ourt ruled fa$orably but the #ase was still on appeal when the present #omplaint was 'led. (e remained their #ounsel u!til July (00) when Kiyoshi terminated his ser$i#es. ". September "))*- Kiyoshi and his wife had a fallin% out. (is wife and her brother had apparently falsi'ed Kiyoshi+s si%nature to ma,e it appear that he loaned hp. . M from the /0 and e$en se#ured it by a mort%a%e on a par#el of land he owned. 1. November (006- Kiyoshi en%a%ed the ser$i#es of the #omplainant while respondent appeared as #ounsel for his wife and her brother in the falsi'#ation #ase. 2. Respondent #ontinued to appear as #ounsel for the wife in se$eral #ases a%ainst Kiyoshi.

#ssue' 3hether not he $iolated Rule .)14 Canon  of the CR

*oldi!+' . Rule .)14 Canon  of the Code of rofessional Responsibility pro$ides that5 A lawyer shall not represent #on6i#tin% interests e7#ept by written #onsent of all #on#erned %i$en after a full dis#losure of fa#ts. ". &o determine #omplian#e4 one test is the in#onsisten#y of interest5 3hether the a##eptan#e of a new relation would pre$ent the full dis#har%e of the lawyer+s duty of undi$ided 'delity and loyalty to the #lient or in$ite suspi#ion of unfaithfulness or double-dealin% in the performan#e of that duty. 89uiambao $s. Atty. 0amba: 1. &he respondent+s representation of Estrelieta and Manuel a%ainst Kiyoshi4 notwithstandin% notwithstandin% that he was still the #ounsel of Kiyoshi and Estrelieta Estrelieta in the #ase a%ainst Amasula4 #reates a suspi#ion of unfaithfulness unfaithfulness or double-dealin% double-dealin%

in the performan#e of his duty towards his #lients. ;nder the #ir#umstan#es4 the de#ent and ethi#al thin% whi#h the respondent should ha$e done was to ad$ise Estrelieta and Manuel to en%a%e the ser$i#es of another lawyer. 2. ?RE4 in $iew of the fore%oin%4 the Court 'nds Atty. Eduardo Sedillo @;=