MARIA ELENA MORENO VS. ATTY.

ERNESTO ARANETA

A.C. No. 1109. April 27, 2005

Facts: Ernesto Araneta issued two checks to Elena Moreno for his indebtedness
which amounts to P11, 000.00, the checks were dishonored. It was dishonored
because the account against which is drawn is closed. Thereafter the case was
forwarded to the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline pursuant to Rule 139-B of the
Rules of Court. The Commission recommended the suspension from the practice of
law for three (3) months. On 15 October 2002, IBP Director for Bar Discipline Victor
C. Fernandez, transmitted the records of this case back to this Court pursuant to
Rule 139-B, Sec. 12(b) of the Rules of Court. Thereafter, the Office of the Bar
Confidant filed a Report regarding various aspects of the case. The Report further
made mention of a Resolution from this Court indefinitely suspending the
respondent for having been convicted by final judgment of estafa through
falsification of a commercial document.

Issue: Whether or not Araneta should be disbarred due to the issuance of checks
drawn against a closed account.

Held: The Court held that the act of a person in issuing a check knowing at the time
of the issuance that he or she does not have sufficient funds in, or credit with, the
drawee bank for the payment of the check in full upon its presentment, is a
manifestation of moral turpitude. In Co v. Bernardino and Lao v. Medel, we held that
for issuing worthless checks, a lawyer may be sanctioned with one year’s
suspension from the practice of law, or a suspension of six months upon partial
payment of the obligation. In the instant case, however, herein respondent has,
apparently been found guilty by final judgment of estafa thru falsification of a
commercial document, a crime involving moral turpitude, for which he has been
indefinitely suspended. Considering that he had previously committed a similarly
fraudulent act, and that this case likewise involves moral turpitude, we are
constrained to impose a more severe penalty. In fact, we have long held that
disbarment is the appropriate penalty for conviction by final judgment of a crime
involving moral turpitude. As we said in In The Matter of Disbarment Proceedings v.
Narciso N. Jaramillo, “the review of respondent's conviction no longer rests upon us.
The judgment not only has become final but has been executed. No elaborate
argument is necessary to hold the respondent unworthy of the privilege bestowed
on him as a member of the bar. Suffice it to say that, by his conviction, the
respondent has proved himself unfit to protect the administration of justice.”
 NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY, INC., and BEN A. NICOLAS

vs.

Atty. MACARIO D. ARQUILLO

A.C. No. 6632. August 2, 2005

Facts: Atty. Macatrio D. Arquillo represented opposing parties in one a case before
the before the National Labor Relations Commission, Regional Arbitration Branch in
San Fernando, La Union. Herein, complainants accuse Atty. Arquillo of deceit,
malpractice, gross misconduct and/or violation of his oath as attorney by
representing conflicting interests. The case was filed with the IBP-Commission on
Bar Discipline which found Atty. Arquillo guilty of the charge and recommended a
penalty of suspension for 6 months. The governors of the IBP increased the penalty
for 2 years.

Issue: Whether or not the acts of Arquillo merits his suspension from the practice of
law.

Held: The Code of Professional Responsibility requires lawyers to observe candor,

fairness and loyalty in all their dealings and transactions with their clients. Corollary
to this duty, lawyers shall not represent conflicting interests, except with all the
concerned clients’ written consent, given after a full disclosure of the facts. When a
lawyer represents two or more opposing parties, there is a conflict of interests, the
existence of which is determined by three separate tests: (1) when, in
representation of one client, a lawyer is required to fight for an issue or claim, but is
also duty-bound to oppose it for another client; (2) when the acceptance of the new
retainer will require an attorney to perform an act that may injuriously affect the
first client or, when called upon in a new relation, to use against the first one any
knowledge acquired through their professional connection; or (3) when the
acceptance of a new relation would prevent the full discharge of an attorney’s duty
to give undivided fidelity and loyalty to the client or would invite suspicion of
unfaithfulness or double dealing in the performance of that duty. An attorney
cannot represent adverse interests. It is a hornbook doctrine grounded on public
policy that a lawyer’s representation of both sides of an issue is highly improper.
The proscription applies when the conflicting interests arise with respect to the
same general matter, however slight such conflict may be. It applies even when the
attorney acts from honest intentions or in good faith.
In accordance with previous rulings from this court Atty. Arquillo is suspended for 1
year from the practice of law.

Heirs of Herman Rey, represented by ARACELI Vda. DE ROMERO

vs.

Atty. Venancio Reyes, Jr.

A.C. No. 6192 June 23, 2005

Facts: Atty. Venancio Reyes is counsel for Heirs of Herman Rey for which they are
intervenors in a civil case involving multiple sale of a piece of land. There were
three buyers however, and to settle the case, they had agreed to a Compromise
Agreement. The Compromise Agreement, dated June 16, 1995, was signed in three
stages, first by Elizabeth Reyes and her husband, then by complainants and their
counsel, Atty. Renato Samonte Jr., and last, by Antonio Gonzales, Veronica Gonzales
for and on behalf of V.R. Credit Enterprises, Inc. and by herein respondent. Later,
the RTC which houses the records of the case was destroyed by fire, thus The
complainants filed a motion for reconstitution of the records of the case, which was
granted by the RTC of Bulacan. The documents attached to the motion were the
basis for the reconstituted records. Because of the circumstances of signing of the
Compromise Agreement, the copy submitted to the RTC bore only the signatures of
Elizabeth Reyes, her husband, complainants, and that of their counsel, Atty. Renato
Samonte. After a lapse of two (2) years from the date of the Compromise
Agreement, V.R. Credit Enterprises, Inc. still has not complied with its obligation
toward complainants. Hence, complainants filed a motion for issuance of writ of
execution against V.R. Credit Enterprises, Inc. for such failure. Atty. Reyes filed a
motion for the case was premature. Later he raised the issue that the Compromise
Agreement was not valid since it was not signed by Veronica Gonzales. Hence, the
RTC rued that the Compromise as unenforceable. Thus, herein, complainants filed
this administrative case against Atty. Venancio Reyes Jr. charging him with willful
and intentional falsehood, in violation of his oath as a member of the Philippine bar.
IBP investigating commissioner found him guilty of violation of his oath.

Issue: Whether or not Atty. Venancio Reyes is administratively liable.

Held: Lawyers are indispensable instruments of justice and peace. Upon taking
their professional oath, they become guardians of truth and the rule of law. Verily,
when they appear before a tribunal, they act not merely as the parties’
representatives but, first and foremost, as officers of the court. Thus, their duty to
protect their clients’ interests is secondary to their obligation to assist in the speedy
and efficient administration of justice. In assailing the legality of the Compromise
Agreement, he claims good faith. He maintains that he should not be faulted for
raising an allegedly valid defense to protect his client’s interests. The records show,
however, that his actions bear hallmarks of dishonesty and doublespeak. Atty.
Reyes is one of negotiating panel in the compromise agreement. He impressed
upon the parties and the trial judge that his clients were bound to the Compromise
Agreement. Then, suddenly and conveniently, he repudiated it by falsely alleging
that one of his clients had never signed it. True, lawyers are obliged to present
every available remedy or defense to support the cause of their clients. However,
their fidelity to their causes must always be made within the parameters of law and
ethics, never at the expense of truth and justice. In Choa v. Chiongson this principle
was explained thus: “While a lawyer owes absolute fidelity to the cause of his client,
full devotion to his genuine interest, and warm zeal in the maintenance and defense
of his rights, as well as the exertion of his utmost learning and ability, he must do so
only within the bounds of the law” Thus, herein, Atty. Venancio Reyes, was ordered
suspended for 1 year.