GLORITO V. MATURAN, PETITIONER, VS. ATTY. CONRADO S. GONZALES, RESPONDENT.

Maturan versus Gonzales

The Case

This is an administrative case for disbarment. Glorito Maturan filed a complaint with the Supreme Court against his own lawyer, Attorney Conrado Gonzales, charging him with immoral, unethical, and anomalous acts. The heart of the grievance is that Gonzales, while still counsel for Maturan in an ejectment suit, accepted professional employment from the very persons whose interests were adverse to Maturan in a related case involving the same parcel of land. The case matters because it is a clean, memorable illustration of the prohibition against representing conflicting interests, and of the rule that the lawyer-client relationship is not terminated by the filing of a motion for a writ of execution.

Procedural History

The complaint for disbarment was filed with the Supreme Court on October 25, 1983. The respondent filed his comment on February 6, 1984. The case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. The investigating commissioner, in a report dated August 21, 1997, found the respondent guilty of representing conflicting interests and recommended suspension for three years. The Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar adopted and approved the report and recommendation but reduced the recommended suspension from three years to one year. The matter then came before the Supreme Court, which resolved it in this decision.

Facts

Spouses Antonio and Gloria Casquejo executed a Special Power of Attorney dated November 6, 1981, in favor of their son-in-law, Glorito Maturan, authorizing him to file ejectment cases against squatters occupying a lot in General Santos City, as well as criminal cases for violation of a presidential decree. The respondent, Attorney Conrado Gonzales, prepared and notarized that Special Power of Attorney. Maturan later engaged the services of Gonzales to eject the squatters. The lot was registered in the name of Celestino Yokingco, but Antonio Casquejo had instituted a case for reconveyance and declaration of nullity against Yokingco.

As a consequence of his engagement, Gonzales filed a case for Forcible Entry and Damages against several individuals. On February 18, 1983, judgment was rendered in favor of Maturan. Through Gonzales, Maturan filed a motion for issuance of a writ of execution on March 10, 1983. In the meantime, the parties to the reconveyance case entered into a compromise agreement, judicially approved in a judgment dated March 28, 1983.

On June 22, 1983, while the motion for issuance of a writ of execution was still pending, and without withdrawing as counsel for Maturan, Gonzales filed, on behalf of Celestino Yokingco and others, an action to annul the judgment in the reconveyance case. The action was predicated on the lack of authority of Maturan to represent the Casquejos. On August 24, 1983, Gonzales, again on behalf of Yokingco and others, filed a special civil action for injunction with damages against Maturan. Aggrieved, Maturan filed the administrative complaint for disbarment. In his comment, Gonzales denied any malicious or unethical act. He claimed he believed that filing the motion for a writ of execution was the last and final act in the lawyer-client relationship, and that his formal withdrawal was unnecessary. He added that accepting employment from Yokingco was an opportunity to honestly earn a little more for his children's sustenance.

Issues

• Whether or not the respondent is guilty of representing conflicting interests when he accepted professional employment from the adverse party in a related suit while still counsel for the complainant.
• Whether or not the lawyer-client relationship was terminated by the filing of the motion for issuance of a writ of execution, such that the respondent was free to accept the adverse employment.
• Whether or not the recommended penalty of suspension should be reduced from three years to one year.

Applicable Provisions

Canon 6 of the Canons of Professional Ethics provides:

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.

This canon is the very rule the respondent violated, and its second sentence supplies the test the Court applied to his conduct.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court adopted the findings of the investigating commissioner and found the respondent guilty of representing conflicting interests. It held that it is improper for a lawyer to appear as counsel for one party against the adverse party who is his client in a related suit, as a lawyer is prohibited from representing conflicting interests or discharging inconsistent duties. He may not, without being guilty of professional misconduct, act as counsel for a person whose interest conflicts with that of his present or former client. The Court stressed that good faith and honest intention do not make the prohibition inoperative. The reason for the prohibition lies in the relation of attorney and client, which is one of trust and confidence of the highest degree. A lawyer learns from his client the weak points of the action as well as the strong ones, and such knowledge must be considered sacred and guarded with care.

On the second issue, the Court found the respondent's justification to reveal a patent ignorance of the fiduciary obligations a lawyer owes his client. A lawyer-client relationship is not terminated by the filing of a motion for a writ of execution. His acceptance of a case implies that he will prosecute the case to its conclusion. He may not be permitted to unilaterally terminate the same to the prejudice of his client.

On the third issue, the Court found the reduction of the suspension from three years to one year to be unwarranted. It noted that in similar cases the penalty of two or three years suspension has been imposed where the respondent was found guilty of representing conflicting interests. It cited cases in which respondents were suspended for two years, and one case in which the suspension was three years because the respondent had also deliberately intended to attract clients with interests adverse to his former employer.

Doctrine

A lawyer is prohibited from representing conflicting interests or discharging inconsistent duties. He may not, without being guilty of professional misconduct, act as counsel for a person whose interest conflicts with that of his present or former client. Good faith and honest intention do not make the prohibition inoperative. The prohibition rests on the relation of attorney and client, which is one of trust and confidence of the highest degree, and on the duty to guard the client's secrets. The lawyer-client relationship is not terminated by the filing of a motion for a writ of execution; acceptance of a case implies prosecution to its conclusion, and the lawyer may not unilaterally terminate the relationship to the prejudice of his client. The penalty for representing conflicting interests is suspension from the practice of law, and the Court has imposed two or three years in similar cases.

Disposition

The Court modified the recommendation of the Integrated Bar and suspended the respondent, Attorney Conrado Gonzales, from the practice of law for two years, effective immediately.

Remember This

Memorize this line: a lawyer-client relationship is not terminated by the filing of a motion for a writ of execution, and good faith does not make the prohibition against conflicting interests inoperative. Examiners use this case to test the conflict-of-interest rule under Canon 6 and the fiduciary duty a lawyer owes even after the last pleading appears to have been filed.