Elmer Canoy vs. Atty.

Jose Max Ortiz

A.C. No. 5485, 16 March 2005
A lawyer is suspended from practicing law for one month after failing to file a
position paper on time and inform his client about the dismissal of their case,
highlighting the importance of competence and diligence in serving clients and the
consequences of negligent behavior.

FACTS:
 In Canoy v. Ortiz, A.C. No. 5485, decided on March 16, 2005, Elmer Canoy
filed a complaint against Atty. Jose Max Ortiz for misconduct and
malpractice.
 Canoy had previously filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against Coca
Cola Bottlers Philippines with the NLRC Regional Arbitration Board VI in
Bacolod City.
 Atty. Ortiz represented Canoy in this proceeding.
 In 1998, the labor arbiter ordered the submission of position papers. Canoy
provided all necessary documents to Atty. Ortiz.
 Despite several follow-up visits, Canoy was not informed about the status of
his case.
 In April 2000, Canoy discovered that his complaint had been dismissed in
1998 for failure to prosecute, as the position papers were not submitted.
The dismissal was without prejudice.
 Canoy alleged that Atty. Ortiz never communicated the status of the case or
his failure to submit the position paper.
 Atty. Ortiz claimed he was preoccupied with his duties as a newly elected
Councilor of Bacolod City and believed Canoy had acquired another lawyer.
 The IBP recommended a reprimand for Atty. Ortiz, but the Supreme Court
found this too lenient and suspended Atty. Ortiz from practicing law for one
month.

This is a case wherein complainant Elmer Canoy accused his former counsel,
Atty. Jose Max Ortiz of misconduct and malpractice. In 1998, Canoy filed a
complaint for illegal dismissal against his former employer, Coca Cola Bottlers
Philippines, and was represented in said case by Atty. Ortiz. Canoy, explained
Ortiz, was one of his indigent clients, in that it was the latter’s practice since
commencing his practice of law to cater to indigent and law-income clients. In
the labor case against CCBP filed with the National Labor Relations Commission,
the labor arbiter ordered the parties to submit their respective petition papers.
Canoy submitted all the necessary documents and records to Atty. Ortiz for the
preparation of the position paper. Canoy made several follow-ups with the office
of his attorney, said visits were unfruitful until it came to his knowledge on 2000,
upon inquiring with the NLRC itself, that his complaint was already dismissed
way back in 1998 for failure to prosecute because the parties did not submit
their position papers. Atty. Canoy further claimed that Atty. Ortiz never informed
him about the status of his case nor of the fact that he failed to submit the
position paper. In his Comment, Atty. Ortiz admitted to not being able to submit
the position paper because the period within which to file it lapsed already, with
arbiter already dismissing the case, but reasoned out that his election as a
Councilor of Bacolod City made him very preoccupied with his functions. His
duties as a public servant and a lawyer are “beyond physical limitation”, said
Atty. Ortiz, so he had to withdraw from his other cases. He also claimed of not
 being able to remember whether he immediately informed Canoy of the
dismissal of the case, but recalled of Canoy conveying that he already has a
lawyer to handle the case. Hence, his office did not insist on refiling the case.
Atty Ortiz also pointed out that the dismissal of Canoy’s complaint was without
prejudice.

ISSUE/S:
Whether or not Atty. Ortiz is guilty of misconduct and malpractice .

HELD:
 Upon investigation of the case, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
concluded that clearly “Atty. Ortiz failed to exercise the degree of
competence and diligence required of him in prosecuting his client” and
recommended that Atty. Ortiz be reprimanded. The Supreme Court, however,
finds the recommended penalty of the IBP too lenient and instead suspended
Atty. Ortize from the practice of law for one month, in lieu of the admonition
or reprimand. According to the Court, Atty Ortiz several canons and rules in
the Code of Professional Responsibility.
 Specifically, Atty. Ortiz was guilty of violating Rule 18.03 of the Code, which
states, “A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his
negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable,” on account of his
failure to file the position paper on time, tantamount to neglecting a legal
mater entrusted to him. That the case was dismissed without prejudice does
not mitigate his liability. Further, Ortiz also violated Rule 22.02, which states,
“A lawyer shall withdraw his services only for good cause and upon notice
appropriate in the circumstances.” Therefore, even if Atty. Ortiz was justified
in terminating his services due to his elective position, he should have
coordinated with the new council of Canoy and turned over to the latter all
papers and property which the Client is entitled and should have cooperated
with his successor in the orderly transfer of the matter, as per Rule 22.02.

Lawyers have a duty to serve their clients with competence and

diligence, keep them informed of the status of their cases, and properly
withdraw their services if necessary. Failure to fulfill these duties
constitutes a violation of the CPR and may result in disciplinary action.
A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client. He is expected to be
mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him. Moreover, he is
mandated by the CPR to serve his client with competence and diligence.
Here, Atty. Ortiz already took up the cause of his client. In doing so, he
impliedly imposed upon himself the legal obligation to champion said
cause until its termination with competence and diligence. Such
competence requires that he not neglect any legal matter entrusted in him.
Being elected to a public office is not enough cause to leave one’s client
in the dark. Such act does not only erode the public’s confidence in the
lawyer, in particular, but also in the judiciary, in general. Hence, Atty. Ortiz
must be held liable.
Benedicto Hornilla and Atty. Federico D. Ricafort
vs. Atty. Ernesto S. Salunat
A.C. No. 5804, 405 SCRA 222, 1 July 2023
In Hornilla v. Salunat, the Supreme Court ruled that a lawyer cannot represent
a corporation and its board of directors in a derivative suit, finding Atty.
Salunat guilty of conflict of interest but issuing a warning instead of
suspension.

TOPIC: Conflict of Interest. 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.

FACTS:
 Complainants Benedicto Hornilla and Atty. Federico D. Ricafort filed an
administrative complaint against respondent Atty. Ernesto S. Salunat.
 Complainants were members of the Philippine Public School Teachers
Association (PPSTA) and had filed an intra-corporate case against the
members of the PPSTA Board of Directors.
 The PPSTA had retained the ASSA Law Firm, of which respondent
attorney was the managing partner, as their counsel.
 Respondent attorney also acted as counsel of record for the respondent
Board of Directors in the same case.

This administrative case is filed by Benedicto Hornilla and Federico

Ricafort against Atty.Ernesto Salunat for illegal and unethical practice and
conflict of interest.
Complainants alleged that respondent is a member of the ASSA Law and
Associates, which was the retained counsel of the Philippine Public School
Teachers Association (PPSTA).
Complainants, who are members of the PPSTA, filed an intra-corporate
case against its members of the Board of Directors before the Securities
and Exchange Commission, which was docketed as SEC Case No. 05-97-
5657, and a complaint before the Office of the Ombudsman, docketed as
OMB Case No. 0-97-0695, for unlawful spending and the undervalued sale
of real property of the PPSTA.
Respondent entered his appearance as counsel for the PPSTA Board
members in the said cases.
Complainants contend that respondent was guilty of conflict of interest
because he was engaged by the PPSTA, of which complainants were
members, and was being paid out of its corporate funds where
 complainants have contributed. Despite being told by PPSTA members of
the said conflict of interest, respondent refused to withdraw his
appearance in the said cases.
In his Answer, respondent stressed that he entered his appearance as
counsel for the PPSTA Board Members for and in behalf of the ASSA Law
and Associates.
Respondent claims that it was complainant Atty. Ricafort who
instigated, orchestrated and indiscriminately filed the said cases against
members of the PPSTA and its Board. He denied that he ensured the
victory of the PPSTA Board in the case he was handling. He merely assured
the Board that the truth will come out and that the case before the
Ombudsman will be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, considering that
respondents therein are not public officials, but private employees.
Anent the SEC case, respondent alleged that the same was being
handled by the law firm of Atty. Eduardo de Mesa, and not ASSA.

ISSUE/S:
 Whether or not respondent was guilty of violating Rule 15.03 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) when he represented the
assailed directors of the corporation of which he is a retained counsel.

HELD:
 The Supreme Court ruled that a lawyer cannot represent a corporation
and its board of directors in a derivative suit.
 The Court agreed with the IBP finding that respondent attorney was
guilty of conflict of interest, which is prohibited by the Philippine Public
School Teacher's Assn., Inc., et al. v. 1992-1995 Board of Directors of the
Philippine Public School Teacher's Assn. (PPSTA), et al.
 The Court held that a lawyer engaged as counsel for a corporation
cannot represent members of the same corporation's board of directors
in a derivative suit brought against them.
 This would be considered representing conflicting interests.
 In other jurisdictions, it is universally recognized that a situation where
a lawyer represents both the corporation and its assailed directors
gives rise to a conflict of interest.
 The interest of the corporate client should be paramount and not
influenced by any interest of the individual corporate members.
 Since this is still his first offense, Atty. Salunat is admonished to observe
a higher degree of fidelity in his professional practice, and is further
warned that a repetition of such act will be dealt with severely.
 There is conflict of interest when a lawyer represents inconsistent
interests of two or more opposing parties. The test is "whether or not in
behalf of one client, it is the lawyer’s duty to fight for an issue or claim, but
it is his duty to oppose it for the other client. In brief, if he argues for one
client, this argument will be opposed by him when he argues for the other
client.
This rule covers not only cases in which confidential communications
have been confided, but also those in which no confidence has been
bestowed or will be used.
Also, there is conflict of interests if the acceptance of the new retainer
will require the attorney to perform an act which will injuriously affect his
first client in any matter in which he represents him and also whether he
will be called upon in his new relation to use against his first client any
knowledge acquired through their connection.
Another test of the inconsistency of interests is whether the acceptance
of a new relation will prevent an attorney from the full discharge of his
duty of undivided fidelity and loyalty to his client or invite suspicion of
unfaithfulness or double dealing in the performance thereof. A stockholder
may sue on behalf of himself and other stockholders and for the benefit of
the corporation, to bring about a redress of the wrong done directly to the
corporation and indirectly to the stockholders. This is what is known as a
derivative suit, and settled is the doctrine that in a derivative suit, the
corporation is the real party in interest while the stockholder filing suit for
the corporation's behalf is only nominal party. The corporation should be
included as a party in the suit.
Respondent Atty. Ernesto Salunat is found GUILTY of representing
conflicting interests and is admonished to observe a higher degree of
fidelity in the practice of his profession. He is further warned that a
repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely.

Wilfredo Anglo vs. Atty. Jose Ma. V. Valencia, et al

A.C. No. 10567, 25 February 2015
A law firm is reprimanded for representing conflicting interests when they
handle a criminal case against a former client, leading to a suspension and
warning from the Supreme Court.

Doctrine: Representing conflicting interests is unethical for a lawyer.

FACTS:
 Wilfredo Anglo filed an administrative complaint against Attys. Jose Ma.
V. Valencia, Jose Ma. J. Ciocon, Philip Z. Dabao, Lily Uy-Valencia, Joey P.
 De La Paz, Cris G. Dionela, Raymundo T. Pandan, Jr., Rodney K. Rubica,
and Wilfred Ramon M. Peñalosa (respondents).
 Respondents were partners in the law firm Valencia Ciocon Dabao
Valencia De La Paz Dionela Pandan Rubica Law Office.
 Anglo availed the services of the law firm for two consolidated labor
cases where he was the respondent.
 Atty. Dionela, a partner of the law firm, represented Anglo in these
cases, which were terminated on June 5, 2008.
 On September 18, 2009, a criminal case for qualified theft was filed
against Anglo and his wife by FEVE Farms Agricultural Corporation,
with Villacorta as their representative.
 Villacorta was also represented by the same law firm that handled
Anglo's labor cases.
 Anglo filed a disbarment case against the respondents, alleging
violation of the rules on conflict of interest and confidentiality.

Complainant Anglo engaged the services of Valencia Ciocon Dabao

Valencia Dela Paz Dionela Pandan Rubica Law Office (law firm) in the labor
case in which Anglo was the respondent. Atty. Dionela, a partner of the
firm, represented the complainant. The labor case was terminated on June
5, 2008 upon the agreement of both parties.
On September 18, 2009, a criminal case for qualified theft was filed
against Anglo and his wife by the Farms Agricultural Corporation (FEVE
Farms) acting through a certain Michael Villacorta. Villacorta was
represented by the law firm, the same law office which represented the
complainant in the labor case.
Anglo filed a disbarment case against the partners of the law firm for
representing conflicting interests.
The respondents contended that the conflict-of-interest principle was
not violated. It has been the practice of their firm to allow their lawyers to
receive their own professional fees exclusively, except for contributions to
the firm to defray office maintenance expenses. This “arrangement” gives
no room for lawyers to discuss their clientele to other lawyers and
associates. Specifically, Atty. Dionela contended he could have not breached
the conflict-of-interest principle because complainant did not confide any
secret during the time the labor case was pending that would have been
used in the criminal case with FEVE Farms.

ISSUE/S:
 Whether or not the respondents are guilty of representing conflicting
interests in violation of the rules on conflict of interest and
confidentiality.
HELD:

YES, the partners of the law firm are guilty of representing conflicting
interests and violated Canons 15 and 21 and Rule 15.03 Canon 15: A lawyer
shall observe candor, fairness, and loyalty in all his dealings and transactions
with his clients. Rule 15.03 – A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests
except by written consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of facts.
Canon 21: A lawyer shall preserve the confidences and secrets of his client
even after the attorney-client relationship is terminated.

There are two tests used to determine whether or not conflict of

interest exists: 1. Whether or not in behalf of one client, it is the lawyer’s duty
to fight for an issue or claim but it is his duty to oppose it for the other client.
2. Whether the acceptance of a new relation will prevent an attorney from the
full discharge of his undivided fidelity and loyalty or invite suspicion of
unfaithfulness or double dealing in the performance thereof. In this case,
respondents represented complainant in the labor case. However, after the
termination of the case, the respondents agreed to represent FEVE Farms, a
new client, in filing a criminal case against the complainant, its former client.

According to the Supreme Court the acceptance of the criminal case by

the respondents is unethical and constitutes conflict of interest. The Supreme
Court (SC) observed that the unethical acceptance arose from the law firm’s
failure to implement a case tracking system for all its handling lawyers. This
lack of case organization, as a result, renders client’s secrets vulnerable to
adverse pressure and erodes the unimpaired trust and confidence reposed by
the client in him.

As has been ruled by the SC in previous cases, the termination of

attorney-client relationship provides no justification for a lawyer to represent
an interest adverse to his former client. Hence, the respondents are guilty of
representing conflicting interests and are meted the penalty of REPRIMAND,
with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar infraction would
be dealt with more severely.
Josephine L. Orola, et al. vs. Atty. Joseph Ador Ramos
A.C. No. 9860, 705 SCRA 350, 11 September 2013
A lawyer is suspended for 3 months after being found guilty of representing
conflicting interests in a disbarment complaint filed against him by the
children of a deceased client.

FACTS:
 The case involves a disbarment complaint filed against Atty. Joseph
Ador Ramos.
 The complainants are the children of the late Trinidad Laserna-Orola,
who was married to Emilio Q. Orola.
 The settlement of Trinidad's estate was pending before the Regional
Trial Court of Roxas City.
 Atty. Ramos represented Maricar Alba-Orola and the other heirs of the
late Antonio Orola as collaborating counsel.
 Atty. Ramos also represented Emilio Orola, who was seeking to be
reinstated as the administrator of Trinidad's estate.
 The complainants filed a disbarment complaint, alleging that Atty.
Ramos violated the duty of loyalty and the prohibition on representing
conflicting interests.
 Atty. Ramos argued that he only temporarily appeared for Maricar and
that he did not have knowledge of the other heirs of Antonio.
 The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) found Atty. Ramos guilty of
representing conflicting interests with respect to one of the
complainants, Karen Orola.
 The IBP recommended a severe reprimand, but the IBP Board of
Governors increased the penalty to a six-month suspension.
 Atty. Ramos filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied.

ISSUE/S:
 Whether Atty. Ramos is guilty of representing conflicting interests.

HELD:
 Atty. Ramos violated the duty of loyalty and the prohibition on
representing conflicting interests.
 An attorney has a duty of loyalty to his client and must avoid
representing conflicting interests.
 The Court imposed a three-month suspension from the practice of law.
 The Court concurs with the IBP's finding that respondent violated Rule
15.03 of the Code, but reduced the recommended period of suspension to
three (3) months.
Under the afore-cited rule, it is explicit that a lawyer is prohibited from
representing new clients whose interests oppose those of a former client in
any manner, whether or not they are parties in the same action or on totally
unrelated cases. The prohibition is founded on the... principles of public policy
and good taste.[26] It behooves lawyers not only to keep inviolate the client's
confidence, but also to avoid the appearance of treachery and double-dealing
for only then can litigants be encouraged to entrust their secrets to... their
lawyers, which is of paramount importance in the administration of justice.
It must, however, be noted that a lawyer's immutable duty to a former
client does not cover transactions that occurred beyond the lawyer's
employment with the client. The intent of the law is to impose upon the
lawyer the duty to protect the client's interests only on matters... that he
previously handled for the former client and not for matters that arose after
the lawyer-client relationship has terminated.
Applying the above-stated principles, the Court agrees with the IBP's
finding that respondent represented conflicting interests and, perforce, must
be held administratively liable therefor.
Respondent's justification that no confidential information was relayed
to him cannot fully exculpate him for the charges against him since the rule on
conflict of interests, as enunciated in Hornilla, provides an absolute
prohibition from representation with respect to... opposing parties in the
same case. In other words, a lawyer cannot change his representation from
one party to the latter's opponent in the same case. That respondent's
previous appearances for and in behalf of the Heirs of Antonio was only a
friendly accommodation cannot... equally be given any credence since the
aforesaid rule holds even if the inconsistency is remote or merely probable or
even if the lawyer has acted in good faith and with no intention to represent
conflicting interests.
Neither can respondent's asseveration that his engagement by Emilio
was more of a mediator than a litigator and for the purpose of forging a
settlement among the family members render the rule inoperative.
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Joseph Ador Ramos is hereby held
GUILTY of representing conflicting interests in violation of Rule 15.03, Canon
15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Accordingly, he is hereby
SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a... period of three (3) months, with
WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar acts in the future will be
dealt with more severely.
Home Guaranty Corp. vs. Atty. Lamberto T. Tagayuna,
Atty. Jose A. Gangan, Atty. Elmar A. Panopio, and Atty.
Renato de Pano, Jr., et al.
A.C. No. 13131, 23 February 2022
Lawyers Atty. Tagayuna and Atty. Panopio are reprimanded for violating
conflict of interest rules and unlawfully withholding client documents, while
the complaint against Atty. De Pano and Atty. Gangan is dismissed.

FACTS:

ISSUE/S:

HELD:

Home Guaranty Corp. vs. Atty. Lamberto T. Tagayuna,

Atty. Jose A. Gangan, Atty. Elmar A. Panopio, and Atty.
Renato de Pano, Jr., et al.
A.C. No. 13131, 23 February 2022
Lawyers Atty. Tagayuna and Atty. Panopio are reprimanded for violating
conflict of interest rules and unlawfully withholding client documents, while
the complaint against Atty. De Pano and Atty. Gangan is dismissed.

FACTS:

ISSUE/S:
HELD: