THIRD DIVISION On August 1991, the petitioners herein filed a case of Indirect Contempt against the sheriff,
Fernando Loncion, under the same Civil Case No. 11204. They hired Atty. Salva for the case.
A.C. No. 4346 April 3, 2002
However, Atty. Rodriguez represented Sheriff Loncion in the Indirect contempt case.
ERLINDA ABRAGAN, MILA GINA JAVIER, REYNALDO MERCADO, PATERNO TORRES,
BENIGNA ANTIBO, ELEISER SALVADOR, EDNA SAPON, JULIANA CUENCA,
Later on, Atty. Salva withdrew the indirect contempt charge of the petitioners. This was
ESPERANZA BUENAFE, VICENTE BARNAGA, MARTHA SAPON, JOSEFINA OPEÑA, allegedly due to the influence of Atty. Rodriguez, who was an alleged former professor by
PUREZA WABE, RONULFO LOPEZ, DOMINADOR HERNANDEZ, FELIPA EMBATE, Atty. Salva.
ROQUE CATIIL, JERRY SAPON, CONCEPCION MATANOG, and PABLO
SALOMON, complainants, And on 1993, Atty. Rodriguez filed a motion to withdraw all the exhibits of the petitioners in
vs. the original case of Civil Case No. 11024 without any consent by the petitioners
ATTY. MAXIMO G. RODRIGUEZ, respondent.
Later on, Atty. Rodriguez even represented Erlinda Abragan, one of the petitioners herein,
PANGANIBAN, J.: the apportionment of parcels of land was erroneously, unprocedurally and illegally submitted
to a commissioner, and that ERLINDA ABRAGAN, after winning in the said Civil Case was
Lawyers violate their oath of office when they represent conflicting interests. They taint not only later on dispossessed of her rights by respondent counsel's maneuver, after the decision (in
their own professional practice, but the entire legal profession itself.
1âwphi1.nêt
Civil Case No. 11208) became final executory;
The Case and the Facts Eventually, Atty. Rodrigues himself also fenced around 10,200 sqm area portion of the lands
in Civil Case. No. 11204, claiming it as his own possession and publicly declaring such.
Before us is a verified Petition praying for the disbarment of Atty. Maximo G. Rodriguez
1
because of alleged illegal and unethical acts.
Petition: Atty. Rodriguez committed “illegal and unethical maneuvers have deprived the
herein petitioners of their vested rights to possess and eventually own the land they have for
decades possessed, and declared as such by final judgment in Civil Case No. 11204”
Case summary:
Atty. Rodriguez was once the lawyer of the Petitioners in 1986.. It was Civil Case Court’s ruling:
No.11204,
The case was a claim for lands by landless claimants of Cagayan De Oro City.
Petitioners did not proffer any proof tending to show that respondent had sold to
Atty. Rodriguez won the case for the clients. And a Writ of Execution was issued. other persons several rights over the land in question; and that he had induced the
former counsel for petitioners, Atty. Salva Jr., to withdraw the indirect contempt
Atty. Rodriguez then allegedly sold some rights to the lands surreptitiously or secretively to
case that they had filed. Neither did the IBP find anything wrong as regards the
other persons without consent of the petitioners in this case, There is in fact an NBI
investigation at that time on the involvement of Atty. Rodriguez on the illegal and 8,000 square meters awarded to respondent as payment for his legal services.
unauthorized apportionment, sale, or assignment of the lands under the Civil Case No. 11204. Petitioners' bare assertions, without any proof to back them up, would not justify
Because of all this, the petitioners ended the Client-Lawyer relationship with Atty. the imposition of a penalty on respondent.
Rodriguez,
Having said that, we find, however, that respondent falls short of the integrity and
good moral character required from all lawyers. They are expected to uphold the In Sum, the Supreme Court decision was to suspend Atty. Rodriguez for six (6) months
dignity of the legal profession at all times. The trust and confidence clients repose because he clearly violated Rule 15.03 of Canon 15 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, which provides that "a lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except
in them require a high standard and appreciation of the latter's duty to the former,
by written consent of all concerned given after full disclosure of the facts."
the legal profession, the courts and the public. Indeed, the bar must maintain a
high standard of legal proficiency as well as of honesty and fair dealings. To this Atty. Rodriguez first represented the herein petitioners for Civil Case No. 11204, then he
end, lawyers should refrain from doing anything that might tend to lessen the also represented Sheriff Loncion for the same case as the opposing party. This is in violation
confidence of the public in the fidelity, honesty and integrity of their profession.7 of his supposed permanent allegiance to his client. So this is unethical.
In the present case, respondent clearly violated Rule 15.03 of Canon 15 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility, which provides that "a lawyer shall not represent
conflicting interests except by written consent of all concerned given after full
disclosure of the facts."
--------------------X X X ----------------------------
In Hilado v. David,11 which we quote below, the Court advised lawyers to be like
Caesar's wife – to be pure and to appear to be so.
The Court explained in Buted v. Hernando:
"[A] lawyer represents conflicting interests when, in behalf of one client, it is his
duty to contend for that which duty to another client requires him to oppose.
"The obligation to represent the client with undivided fidelity and not to divulge his
secrets or confidence forbids also the subsequent acceptance of retainers or
employment from others in matters adversely affecting any interest of the client
with respect to which confidence has been reposed."
