RAMONA L. VDA. DE ALISBO AND NORBERTO S. ALISBO, PETITIONERS, VS. ATTY. BENITO JALANDOON, SR., RESPONDENT.

A verified complaint for disbarment was filed with then Secretary
of National Defense Juan Ponce Enrile on January 2, 1974, by Ramona L. Vda. de Alisbo
and Norberto S. Alisbo against their former counsel,
Attorney Benito Jalandoon, Sr., charging him with
deceit, malpractice, and professional infidelity.  The complaint was referred to this Court on February 5, 1974.

After the complainants had submitted the required number of
copies of their complaint, the respondent was ordered to file his answer
thereto which he did on June 5, 1974.

On August 20, 1974, the complainants filed
a reply.

On August 28,
1974, the Court referred the complaint to the Solicitor General for investigation report and
recommendation.  On February 2, 1990, or after sixteen (16) years,
the Solicitor General submitted his report to the Court, together with the
transcripts of stenographic notes taken at the investigation and folders of
exhibits submitted by the parties.

The facts of the case, as found by the Solicitor General, are the
following:

On March 16, 1970, Ramon Alisbo engaged
respondent Attorney Benito Jalandoon, Sr., as his
counsel to commence an action to recover his share of the estate of the
deceased spouses Catalina Sales and Restituto Gozuma which had been
adjudicated to him under the judgment dated April 29, 1961 of the Court of First Instance of Negros Oriental, in Civil Case No. 4963, because Alisbo failed to file
a motion for execution of the judgment in his favor within the reglementary five-year period (Sec. 6, Rule 39, Rules of
Court).  The salient provisions of the
Contract for Professional Services (Exhibit A) between Alisbo
and Attorney Jalandoon were the following:

1.  That respondent will
decide whether or not to file a
suit for the recovery of Ramon Alisbo’s share or
claim;

2.  That respondent will
shoulder all expenses of litigations; and

3.  As attorney’s fees,
respondent will be paid fifty per cent (50%) of the value of the property
recovered.

On April 18, 1970, respondent prepared a
complaint for revival of the judgment in Civil Case No. 4963 but filed it only
on September 12, 1970 or
five (5) months later.  It was docketed
as Civil Case No. 9559, entitled: “Ramon S. Alisbo,
Teotimo S. Alisbo and Pacifico S. Alisbo vs. Carlito Sales, in his own capacity and as Judicial
Administrator of the deceased Pedro Sales.” The complaint was signed by
respondent alone.  However, no sooner had
he filed the complaint than he withdrew it and filed in its stead (on the same
day and in the same case) a second complaint dated August 31, 1970, with Ramon
S. Alisbo as the lone plaintiff, praying for the same
relief.  Teotimo
S. Alisbo and Pacifico S. Alisbo were excluded as plaintiffs and were impleaded as defendants instead.  Attorneys Bernardo B. Pablo and Benito Jalandoon, Sr. (herein respondent) signed as counsel.

On December 8, 1971, an amended complaint was filed
wherein the plaintiffs were: Ramon S. Alisbo, assisted by his judicial guardian, Norberto S. Alisbo, and eight (8) others, namely: Pacifico
S. Alisbo, Ramona Vda. de Alisbo and Ildefonso,
Evangeline, Teotimo, Jr., Reynaldo, Elizabeth and Teresita, all surnamed Alisbo.  The amended complaint was signed by Attorney
Bernardo B. Pablo alone as counsel of the plaintiffs.

On August 21, 1973,
defendant Carlito Sales filed a Motion to Dismiss the complaint on the ground that the action for
revival of judgment in Civil Case No. 4963 had already prescribed (Exh. 21).  Plaintiffs
filed an Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss (Exh.
22).

On October 3, 1973, the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental dismissed the complaint on the ground of
prescription as the judgment in Civil
Case No. 4963 became final on May 30, 1961 yet, and, although a complaint for
revival of said judgment was filed by Ramon Alisbo on
September 12, 1970, before the ten-year prescriptive period expired, that
complaint was null and void for Ramon Alisbo was
insane, hence, incompetent and without legal capacity to sue when he instituted
the action.  The subsequent filing of an
Amended Complaint on December 8, 1972,
after the statutory limitation period had expired, was too late to save the
plaintiff’s right of action.  Thereafter,
nothing more was done by any of the parties in the case.

On January 2, 1974,
the complainants charged respondent Attorney Benito Jalandoon,
Sr. with having deliberately caused the dismissal of Civil Case No. 9559 and
with having concealed from them the material fact that he had been the former
legal counsel of Carlito Sales, their adversary in
the probate proceedings.  The respondent
filed a general denial of the charges against him.

When Ramon S. Alisbo engaged the services of Attorney Jalandoon to enforce the decision in Civil Case No. 4963, that decision was already nine (9)
years old, hence, it could no
longer be executed by mere motion.  (Sec.
6, Rule 39, Rules of Court). 
Complainants had only about
a year left within which to
enforce the judgment by an independent action.

Ramon Alisbo was already insane or incompetent when he hired
Attorney Jalandoon to file Civil Case No. 9559 for
him.  Attorney Jalandoon
concealed from Alisbo the fact that he (Atty. Jalandoon) had been the former counsel of Carlito Sales in the probate proceedings where Alisbo and Sales had litigated over their shares of the
inheritance.

However, according to Attorney Jalandoon,
it was only on October 6, 1972,
when Civil Case No. 9559 was called for
pre-trial, that he discovered his previous professional relationship
with Sales.  At that time, the ten-year
prescriptive period for revival of the judgment
in favor of Alisbo had already expired.  He thereupon asked Alisbo’s
permission to allow him (Jalandoon) to withdraw from
the case.  He also informed the court
about his untenable position and requested that he be allowed to retire therefrom.  His
request was granted.

In his report to the Court, the Solicitor General made the
following observations:

“Evident from the foregoing is the fact that in handling the
case for Ramon S. Alisbo which eventually led to its
dismissal, respondent committed
several errors, among which are:

“1)  He did not verify the real status of Ramon Alisbo before filing the case.  Otherwise, his lack of capacity to sue would
not have been at issue.

“2)  He postponed the motion to revive judgment and
gave way instead to a motion to resolve pending incidents in Civil Case
4963.  In doing so, he frittered away
precious time.

“3)  He dropped Ramon Alisbo’s
co-plaintiffs and impleaded them as defendants.  Otherwise, the complaint would have been
defective only in part.

“Had not respondent committed the above mistakes, Civil Case
No. 9559 in all probability would not have been dismissed on the ground of
prescription.” (pp. 9-10, Solicitor General’s Report.)

While the Solicitor General does not believe that Attorney Jalandoon’s mistakes in handling Alisbo’s
case were deliberate or made with malice aforethought because there is no
“proof of collusion or conspiracy between respondent and those who would
benefit from the dismissal of Civil Case No. 9559 x x
x and that, on the other hand, respondent stood to
gain substantially (50% of the amount recovered) if he had succeeded in having
the judgment revived and executed” (pp. 10-11, Solicitor General’s
Report), still those errors are so gross and glaring that they could not have
resulted from mere negligence or lack of due care.

Attorney Jalandoon’s pretense that he
did not know before the pretrial that the Sales defendants had been his clients
in the past, is unbelievable
because:

1.  Before he filed the complaint for revival of
judgment, he had had several interviews with Ramon S. Alisbo
and Norberto Alisbo regarding Civil Case No. 4963.

2.  He must have done some research on the court
records of Civil Case No. 4963, so he could not have overlooked his own
participation in that case as counsel for Carlito
Sales, et al.

3.  To prepare the complaint for revival of
judgment (Civil Case No. 9559), he had to inform himself about the personal
circumstances of the defendants-Carlito Sales, et
al.  The fact that they had been his
clients could not have eluded him.

In view of his former association with the Saleses,
Attorney Jalandoon, as a dutiful lawyer, should have
declined the employment proffered by Alisbo on the ground of conflict of interest.  Had he done that soon enough, the Alisbos (herein complainants) would have had enough time to
engage the services of another lawyer and they would not have lost their case
through prescription of the action.

The actuations of respondent attorney violated Paragraphs 1 and
2, No. 6 of the Canons of Professional Ethics which provide:

“6. 
ADVERSE INFLUENCE AND CONFLICTING INTEREST

“It is the duty of a lawyer at the time of retainer to
disclose to the client all the circumstances of his relations to the parties,
and in any interest in or with the controversy, which might influence the
client in the selection of counsel.

“It is unprofessional to represent conflicting interests,
except by express consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts.  Within the meaning of this canon, 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.” (pp. 14-15, Solicitor General’s Report.)

The impression we gather from the facts is that Attorney Jalandoon used his position as Alisbo’s
counsel precisely to favor his other client, Carlito
Sales, by delaying Alisbo’s action to revive the
judgment in his favor and thereby deprive him of the fruits of his judgment
which Attorney Jalandoon, as Sales’ counsel, had vigorously opposed.  Thus,
although Atty. Jalandoon prepared Alisbo’s complaint for revival of judgment on April
18, 1970, he delayed its filing until September 12, 1970. 
He postponed filing the action by asking the Court instead to resolve
pending incidents in said Civil
Case No. 4963.  By doing that, he frittered away what little
time was left before the action would prescribe.  The original complaint which he filed in the
names of Ramon Alisbo and his brothers was only partially defective because of Ramon’s incompetence.  By dropping the other plaintiffs, leaving
alone the incompetent Ramon to prosecute the action, respondent made the second
complaint wholly defective and ineffectual to stop the
running of the prescriptive period.

After filing the complaint, Attorney Jalandoon
sat on the case.  While he allegedly
found out about Ramon Alisbo’s insanity on July 17,
1971 only, he
amended the complaint to implead Alisbo’s legal guardian as plaintiff
on December 8, 1971 only,
or almost five (5) months
later.  By that time the prescriptive
period had run out.

The surrounding circumstances leave us with no other conclusion
than that attorney Jalandoon, betrayed his client
Ramon Alisbo’s trust and did not champion his cause with that whole-hearted fidelity
care and devotion that a lawyer is obligated to give to every case that he
accepts from a client.  There is
more than simple negligence resulting in the extinguishment and loss of his client’s right of action;
there is a hint of duplicity and
lack of candor in his dealings with his client, which call for the exercise of this Court’s disciplinary power.

The Honorable Solicitor General who conducted the investigation
of this case found respondent Attorney Benito Jalandoon,
Sr. guilty of serious misconduct and infidelity.  Although the Solicitor General recommended the
suspension of respondent Attorney Benito Jalandoon Sr. from the practice of law for a
period of one (1) year, the Court, after due deliberation, decided to suspend
him for a period of two (2)
years from the finality of this decision.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Fernan, C.J., Narvasa,
Gutierrez, Jr., Cruz, Paras, Padilla, Bidin, Sarmiento, Medialdea, Regalado, and Davide, Jr., JJ., concur.

Feliciano, J., see separate opinion.

Melencio-Herrera, J., joins Justice Feliciano in his dissent.

Gancayco, J., on leave.