MARIA TIANIA, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY.  AMADO OCAMPO, RESPONDENT.

These disbarment proceedings against Attorney Amado
Ocampo were filed by Maria Tiania,
docketed as Administrative Case No. 2285, and by Spouses Felicidad
Angel and Alfonso Angel (hereinafter referred to as the Angel Spouses),
docketed as Administrative Case No. 2302.

Both cases were consolidated upon the instance of Atty. Amado Ocampo who, in his answer,
denied the imputations.

The complaints in Adm. Case No. 2285 and Adm. Case No. 2302 were
filed on July 14, 1981 and August 10, 1981, respectively.

On January 27, 1982,
after Atty. Ocampo filed his comment, the Court
referred the case to the Solicitor General for investigation, report, and
recommendation as provided, then, by Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of
Court.^[1]

It was only on April 25,
1990, more than eight years later, that the Office of the Solicitor
General returned the entire records of Adm. Cases Nos. 2285 and 2302 with the
accompanying complaint for disbarment.

Hence, the administrative complaint for disbarment in both cases
was filed.

ADMINISTRATIVE CASE NO. 2285

Maria Tiania claims in her verified
complaint that respondent Amado Ocampo
who has been her “retaining (sic) counsel” in all her legal problems
and court cases as early as 1966, has always had her unqualified faith and
confidence.

In 1972, one Mrs. Concepcion Blaylock
sued Tiania for ejectment^[2]
from a parcel of land described as “Lot 4131,
TS-308.” Ocampo appeared for Tiania
and also for Blaylock.  Tiania confronted Ocampo about
this but the latter reassured Tiania that he will
take care of everything and that there was no need for Tiania
to hire a new lawyer since he is still Tiania’s
lawyer.  Ocampo
prepared the answer in the said ejectment case, which
Tiania signed. 
Then Ocampo made Tiania
sign a Compromise Agreement^[3]
which the latter signed without reading.

Two years from the submission of the Compromise Agreement, Tiania was shocked when she received an order to vacate^[4]
the property in question.  To hold off
her ejectment for another two years, Ocampo advised Tiania to pay him
a certain amount for the sheriff.^[5]

Ocampo denied the charges in
detail.  Although he handled some legal
problems and executed some notarial deeds for Tiania from 1966-1971, Tiania had
also engaged the services of various counsel to represent her in several
criminal and civil cases, involving violations of municipal ordinances and estafa.  Thus, he
could not be the complainant’s “retaining counsel” in all her legal
problems and court cases.

Ocampo then insisted that he appeared
on behalf of Mrs. Blaylock, and not as counsel of Tiania,
in Civil Case No. 1104-0.  He never saw
or talked to Tiania from the time the said civil case
was filed up to the pre-trial and as such could not have discussed with her the
complaint, the hiring of another lawyer, and more so the preparation of the
answer in the said case.  He admitted
that during the pre-trial of the said case, Tiania
showed to him a document which supported her claim, over the property in
question.  Ocampo,
after going over the document, expressed his doubts about its
authenticity.  This convinced Tiania to sign a Compromise Agreement and to pay the
acquisition cost to Blaylock over a period of six (6) months.^[6]

But Tiania never fulfilled any of her
obligations.  She moreover made the
situation worse by selling the contested property to a third party even after
an alias writ of execution had ordered the transfer of the possession of the
disputed property to Blaylock.^[7]

Significantly, the petition was filed five years after Tiania allegedly suffered “terrible shock” upon
receiving the Notice to Vacate.

Citing Arboleda v. Gatchalian,^[8] Ocampo said that the overdue filing of a complaint against
a lawyer should already create a suspicion about the motives of the complainant
or the merit of the complaint.

ADMINISTRATIVE CASE NO. 2302

The Angel spouses, complainants in A.C. No. 2302, allege that
sometime in 1972, they sold their house in favor of Blaylock (the same Mrs. Concepcion Blaylock in A.C. No. 2285) for the amount of
seventy thousand pesos (P70,000.00).  Ocampo (the same respondent Atty. Amado
Ocampo), acted as their counsel and prepared the Deed
of Sale of a Residential House and Waiver of Rights Over a Lot.

With the money paid by Blaylock, the Angel spouses bought another
parcel of land.  Again, Ocampo prepared the Deed of Sale which was signed by the
vendor, a certain Laura Dalanan, and the Angel
spouses, as the vendees.  In addition, Ocampo allegedly made the Angel spouses sign two (2) more
documents which, accordingly, were made parts of the sale transaction.

Those two (2) documents later turned out to be a Real Estate
Mortgage of the same property purchased from Laura Dalanan
and a Promissory Note,^[9]
both in favor of Blaylock.

The Angel spouses never realized the nature of the said documents
until they received a complaint naming them as defendants in a collection suit^[10]
filed by Ocampo on behalf of the plaintiff,
Commercial Corporation of Olongapo, a firm headed by
Blaylock.

The Angel spouses added that Ocampo
reassured them that there was no need for them to engage the services of a new
lawyer since he will take care of everything. 
Ocampo even appeared as counsel for the Angel
spouses in a civil case^[11]
they filed sometime in 1976.  However, in
1978, a Notice to Vacate,^[12]
on the basis of the two (2) documents they signed in 1972, was served on them.

These acts, the complainants charge, violate the ethics of the
legal profession.  They lost their
property as a result of the respondent’s fraudulent manipulation, taking
advantage of his expertise in law against his own unsuspecting and trusting
clients.

As in the first case, Ocampo presented
an elaborate explanation.

Ocampo alleged that it was his client,
Mrs. Concepcion Blaylock, who introduced to him the
Angel spouses in 1972.  Blaylock wanted Ocampo to check the background of the Angel spouses in
connection with the loan they were seeking from Blaylock.

In his interview with Mrs. Angel, Ocampo
learned that the amount of twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00) to be loaned to
the Angel spouses from Blaylock would be used to repurchase the property at 39
Fendler Street, Olongapo City,
which the Angel spouses had originally owned. 
In turn, the Angel spouses should sell the same to Blaylock.

Ocampo himself facilitated the transfer
by delivering to the complainants the P20.000 for the repurchase of the Fendler property. 
This in turn was sold to Blaylock.^[13]

Since the sale of the Fendler property
would render the Angel spouses homeless, they suggested to Blaylock that they
would need an additional loan of forty thousand pesos (P40,000.00) to purchase
from Laura Dalanan another property located at #66
Kessing Street, Olongapo City,
which was mortgaged in favor of a certain Salud
Jimenez.

To expedite the transfer of the Kessing
property from Dalanan to the Angel spouses, Ocampo himself delivered to Salud
Jimenez twenty-two thousand (P22,000.00) pesos from Blaylock in payment of the
mortgage debt of Dalanan.  The balance of eighteen thousand (P18,000.00)
pesos was then delivered to Mrs. Angel upon the execution of the final
documents between the Angel spouses and Dalanan.^[14]

Ocampo explained that simultaneously he
executed a Real Estate Mortgage over the Kessing
property and a Promissory Note for the Angel spouses in favor of Blaylock for
the amount of seventy-four thousand seventy five (P74,075.00) pesos.  Although only forty thousand (P40,000.00) was
received by Mrs. Angel and Dalanan, the difference
between seventy-four thousand seventy five pesos and forty thousand pesos
represented the interests in advance over a period of five years in which the
loan would be paid.

When the monthly amortizations became due, the Angel spouses
never paid any of it despite repeated demands from Blaylock.  Blaylock assigned the promissory note to the
Commercial Credit Corporation which later on filed a civil case against the
Angel spouses.

The Angel spouses never filed an answer and were declared in
default.  Upon execution, the Kessing property was levied on and sold at public auction
followed by a Notice to Vacate.

Ocampo admits appearing for the Angel
spouses in Civil Case No. 1458, filed July 26, 1976, but only because he had
his client Blaylock’s interest foremost in his mind.

Blaylock, through Ocampo, had sued one Benedicto Hermogeno, a lessee of
Blaylock’s property, in an ejectment case.  But before the institution of the ejectment case, Hermogeno, leased
out the same premises to Mrs. Angel on June
14, 1976.  Four days later, Hermogeno, without the knowledge and consent of Mrs. Angel,
regained possession of the leased premises. 
Thus, Ocampo, in filing a complaint against Hermogeno, on behalf of Blaylock, was also doing so for
Mrs. Angel.

These explanations notwithstanding, the Solicitor General charged
the respondent Atty. Amado Ocampo
with malpractice and gross misconduct punishable under Section 27 of Rule 138
of the Rules of Court of the Philippines
and violation of his oath of office as an attorney for the following acts:

a)    Administrative Case No.
2285

At the pre-trial of Civil Case No. 1104-0, the respondent appeared
as counsel for the plaintiff and while appearing for the same, gave advice and
warnings to the defendant which paved the way for an amicable settlement and
which may have prejudiced the defendant’s rights.

b)   Administrative Case No.
2302

(1) Respondent,
while acting as counsel for Mrs. Concepcion Blaylock
and her Commercial Credit Corporation; also acted as counsel of the complainant
Mrs. Angel when he prepared the Deed of Sale of a Residential House and Waiver
of Rights Over a Lot for Mrs. Angel in favor of Zenaida Blaylock, daughter of Concepcion
Blaylock.

(2) Respondent,
while acting as counsel for Mrs. Concepcion Blaylock
and her Commercial Credit Corporation, also acted as counsel of Mrs. Angel when
he proceeded to Cavite
and paid Salud Jimenez the sum of twenty two thousand
pesos (P22,000.00) for Dalanan’s Kessing
Property.

(3) Respondent was
representing conflicting interests when he simultaneously prepared the Deed of
Sale of the Kessing property in favor of Mrs. Angel
and the Real Estate Mortgage for the same property to be signed by Mrs. Angel
in favor of Mrs. Blaylock and her Commercial Credit Corporation.

(4) Respondent used
Mrs. Angel by pretending to protect her interest as his client in Civil Case
No. 2020-0, when admittedly he was only “forced to help and assist Mrs.
Angel in said case to protect the property of Mrs. Blaylock.”

Was the respondent guilty of representing conflicting interests?

The specific law applicable in both administrative cases is Rule
15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which provides:

A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interest except by written
consent of all concerned given after full disclosure of the facts.

We prohibit the representation of conflicting interests not only
because the relation of attorney and client is one of trust and confidence of
the highest degree, but also because of the principles of public policy and
good taste.  An attorney has the duty to
deserve the fullest confidence of his client and represent him with undivided
loyalty.  Once this confidence is abused,
the entire profession suffers.^[15]

The test of the conflict of interest in disciplinary cases
against a lawyer is whether or not 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.^[16]
Considering this criterion and applying it to the present administrative cases,
we find no cogent reason to disturb the findings of the Solicitor General
upholding the complaints against the respondent.  Indeed, the aforementioned acts of the
respondent in representing Blaylock, and at the same time advising Tiania, the opposing party, as in the first administrative
case, and once again representing Blaylock and her interest while handling the
legal documents of another opposing party as in the second case, whether the
said actions were related or totally unrelated, constitute serious misconduct.  They are improper to the respondent’s office
as attorney.

However, taking into consideration the advanced age of the
respondent, who would have reached seventy three (73) years, as of this date,
the Court, while uncompromisingly firm in its stand against erring lawyers,
nonetheless appreciates the advance years of the respondent in his favor.

WHEREFORE, finding the respondent Atty. Amado Ocampo guilty of
malpractice and gross misconduct in violation of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, we hereby SUSPEND him from the practice of law for a period of
one (1) year.

Let this Decision be spread upon the personal records of the
respondent and copies thereof furnished to all courts and to the Integrated Bar
of the Philippines.

Fernan, C.J., Narvasa,
Melencio-Herrera, Gutierrez, Jr., Cruz, Paras, Feliciano, Gancayco,
Padilla, Bidin, Sarmiento, Griño-Aquino, Medialdea, Regalado, and Davide, Jr., JJ., concur.

^[1]
Report and Recommendation of the Office of the Solicitor General, March 27, 1990, 18.

^[2]
“Concepcion F. Blaylock v. Maria Tiania, et al.,” CFI (Olongapo,
Zambales), Civil Case No. 1104-0 filed on November 6, 1972.

^[3]
Civil Case No. 1104-0, Compromise Agreement, signed by Maria Tiania, on her own behalf and on behalf of her husband as
defendants, and by Atty. Amado Ocampo,
as attorney-in-fact and counsel of Mrs. Concepcion
Blaylock, plaintiff, April 2, 1973.

^[4]
Civil Case No. 1104-0, Notice to Vacate, August 20, 1975.

^[5]
Report and Recommendation of the Solicitor General, March 27, 1990, 4-5.

^[6]
Handwritten letter addressed to Atty. Ocampo from
Maria Tiania, August
1, 1975; Promise to pay the obligation, August 4, 1975; Last Promise, September 1, 1975; Definite Last Promise, September 9, 1975.

^[7]
Alias Writ of Execution, issued February
24, 1975; Deed of Absolute Sale, executed June 8, 1974.

^[8]
Administrative Case No. 1034, July 23,
1974, 58 SCRA 64.

^[9]
Both the Real Estate Mortgage and the Promissory Note are dated October 17, 1972.

^[10]
Civil Case No. 1332-0, filed on October
23, 1973.

^[11] Civil
Case No. 2020-0, filed on July 30,
1976.

^[12]
Civil Case No. 1332-0, Notice to Vacate, March 15, 1978.

^[13]
Deed of Sale of a Residential House
and Waiver of Rights over a lot was executed by the Angel Spouses in favor of Zenaida Blaylock, on September 20, 1972.

^[14]
Deed of Sale of a House and Waiver
of Rights over a Lot signed by Dalanan
as vendor and Felicidad Angel as vendee, October 17, 1972.

^[15] Hilado v. David, 84 Phil. 576-579; US v. Laranja, 21 Phil. 510.

^[16]
In re Dela Rosa, 27 Phil. 265-266.