Orola-v-Ramos.docx

Rule 15.03. - A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by written consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts. OROA! "#. A. v. A##$. RA%O& A.'. (o. )*+0! &epte,ber 11! 013

A'#&/ The respondent acted as a collaborating counsel with Atty. Ely Azarraga, J.r. in representing Maricar, Karen, and the other heirs of late Antonio L. Orola !eirs of Antonio" in the settle#ent of the estate of  Trinidad Laserna$Orola. The !eirs of Antonio, together with the !eirs of  Trinidad, who were the co#plainants in the disbar#ent case, #o%ed for the re#o%al of E#ilio Orola, the ad%erse party, as the ad#inistrator of  Trinidad&s estate. 'ubse(uently, respondent appeared as a collaborating counsel for E#ilio, the opposing party, in the sa#e case. )ue to this, co#plainants co#plainants filed a disbar#ent disbar#ent co#plaint co#plaint before before the *ntegrated *ntegrated +ar of  the hilippines *+" on the ground that the respondent %iolated the prohibition against representing conflicting interests under -ule /.01 of  the 2ode of rofessional -esponsibility. -esponsibility. -espondent contended that he ne%er appeared as counsel for the co#plainants. !e #erely represented Maricar te#porarily at the latter&s re(uest due to the una%ailability of Atty. Azarraga and his ser%ice was free of charge. !e also contended that he consulted Maricar before he undertoo3 to represent E#ilio in the sa#e case and that no infor#ation was disclosed to hi# by Maricar or Atty. Azarraga at any instance. &&"/ 4hether or not respondent is guilty of representing conflicting interests in %iolation of -ule /.01 of the 2ode. 2"/ The The -ule -ule /.01 /.01 of the the 2ode 2ode of rof rofes essi sion onal al -espo -espons nsib ibil ilit ity y pro%ides that5

-ule /.01 $ A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests e6cept by written consent of all concerned gi%en after a full disclosure of the facts.

The abo%e$cited rule is clear and une(ui%ocal that a lawyer is prohibited fro# representing new clients whose interests oppose that of  a for#er client in any #anner, whether they are parties in the sa#e action or on totally unrelated cases. Three tests were pro%ided in the !ornilla %. 'alunat ruling in deter#ining whether or not there is conflict of interests5 7whether or not in behalf of one client, it is the lawyer8s duty to fight for an issue or clai#, but it is his duty to oppose it for the other client. *n brief, if he argues for one client, this argu#ent will be opposed by hi# when he argues for the other client.9 'econd, there is conflict of interests if the acceptance of the new retainer will re(uire the attorney to perfor# an act which will in:uriously affect his first client in any #atter in which he represents hi# and also whether he will be called upon in his new relation to use against his first client any 3nowledge ac(uired through their connection. Lastly, whether the acceptance of a new relation will pre%ent an attorney fro# the full discharge of his duty of undi%ided fidelity and loyalty to his client or in%ite suspicion of unfaithfulness or double dealing in the perfor#ance thereof. *n the instant case, records re%eal that respondent was the collaborating counsel not only for Maricar as clai#ed by hi#, but for all the !eirs of Antonio. The !eirs of Trinidad and the !eirs of Antonio succeeded in re#o%ing E#ilio as ad#inistrator for ha%ing co##itted acts pre:udicial to their interests. !owe%er, the respondent clearly %iolated the prohibition against representing conflicting interests when he proceeded to represent E#ilio for the purpose of see3ing his reinstate#ent as ad#inistrator in the sa#e case.