ELESIO C. PORMENTO, SR., COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. ALIAS A. PONTEVEDRA, RESPONDENT.

Pormento versus Pontevedra

The Case

This is an administrative case for disbarment filed by Elesio C. Pormento, Senior, against his former family lawyer, Atty. Elias A. Pontevedra, charging malpractice and misconduct. The complainant alleges that the respondent represented clients whose interests conflicted with his own, used against him confidential information acquired during their lawyer-client relationship, and failed to inform him of an order dismissing his counterclaim. The case matters because it is a clean illustration of the prohibition against representation of conflicting interests under the Code of Professional Responsibility, and because it teaches that the termination of the lawyer-client relationship does not free a lawyer to take up the adverse side, and that honest motives and good faith are no defense.

Procedural History

The complainant filed a verified complaint before the Supreme Court, which referred the matter to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for investigation, report, and recommendation. The Investigating Commissioner conducted a hearing and, in his Report and Recommendation, found the respondent guilty of violating Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, and recommended suspension for one month. The Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, in a minute Resolution, annulled and set aside the Commissioner's recommendation and approved the dismissal of the complaint for lack of merit. The Supreme Court then took up the case as an original administrative action and decided it on the extensive pleadings on record, in the interest of justice and speedy disposition.

Facts

Between 1964 and 1994, the respondent served as the legal counsel of the complainant and his family in all their legal proceedings. The rift began when the complainant's counterclaim in a civil case before the Regional Trial Court of Bacolod City was dismissed. The complainant claims the respondent deliberately failed to inform him of the dismissal, depriving him of his right to appeal, and that he learned of the order only when the adverse party extrajudicially foreclosed the mortgage over the land in dispute. He also claims that when he later filed a criminal case for qualified theft against the relatives of the new owner, the respondent appeared as counsel for the accused and used confidential information obtained from him.

In a separate incident, the complainant bought a parcel of land in Escalante, Negros Occidental, and the deed of declaration of heirship and sale was prepared and notarized by the respondent. On the respondent's advice, the complainant allowed his nephew and family to occupy the property to establish possession. When the nephew refused to vacate, the complainant filed an ejectment case, and the respondent appeared as counsel for the nephew. The complainant also filed a criminal complaint against the nephew and other relatives, and the respondent again appeared for the accused.

The respondent denied the allegations. He claimed he delivered a copy of the dismissal order to the complainant within two days of receiving it, that he honestly believed there was no conflict because the cases were separate and distinct, and that he took the defense of the poor and needy for humanitarian reasons. The Investigating Commissioner found him guilty and recommended suspension, but the Board of Governors dismissed the complaint for lack of merit without stating its facts and reasons.

Issues

• Whether or not the respondent is guilty of misconduct for representing interests that conflict with those of his former client, the complainant.
• Whether or not the respondent used confidential information acquired from the complainant to the latter's disadvantage.
• Whether or not the respondent failed to notify the complainant of the dismissal of his counterclaim.
• Whether or not the penalty of suspension is proportionate to the offense committed.

Applicable Provisions

Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides:

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

This is the core rule the respondent is charged with violating, and the Court measures his conduct against it.

Rule 21.02, Canon 21 of the same Code provides:

A lawyer shall not, to the disadvantage of his client, use information acquired in the course of employment, nor shall he use the same to his own advantage or that of a third person, unless the client with full knowledge of the circumstances consents thereto.

This governs the second ground, the alleged use of confidential information against the complainant.

Canon 6 of the Canons of Professional Ethics provides:

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 any interest in or connection with the controversy, which might influence the client in the selection of counsel.

This reinforces the duty of full disclosure that the respondent never satisfied when he took up the adverse side.

Section 12(a), Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court provides:

Every case heard by an investigator shall be reviewed by the IBP Board of Governors upon the record and evidence transmitted to it by the Investigator with his report. The decision of the Board upon such review shall be in writing and shall clearly and distinctly state the facts and the reasons on which it is based. It shall be promulgated within a period not exceeding thirty days from the next meeting of the Board following the submittal of the Investigator's report.

This is the procedural standard the Board of Governors failed to meet when it dismissed the complaint without any findings or explanation.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court found no conflict of interests in the respondent's representation of the complainant's nephew and relatives in the ejectment case and in the criminal complaint involving the trucks. The only established participation of the respondent in the land purchased by the complainant was that he notarized the deed of sale, and that alone does not show he obtained information usable against the complainant. The complainant presented no corroborating evidence of his claim that the respondent advised him to let the nephew occupy the property. But the Court found a conflict of interests in the respondent's representation of the complainant in the civil case and his subsequent employment as counsel for the accused in the criminal case involving the same Lot 609. Even without direct proof that confidential information was used, the mere fact of the previous relationship should have precluded him from appearing for the opposing side. The Court held that the termination of the lawyer-client relationship provides no justification for a lawyer to represent an interest adverse to or in conflict with that of the former client, and that the prohibition applies although the attorney's intentions and motives were honest and he acted in good faith.

On the second issue, the Court found no direct evidence that the respondent took advantage of any information acquired from the complainant, since the information on ownership could have come from other sources. Nonetheless, the respondent should have declined the employment to avoid suspicion, and nothing showed he disclosed the facts and secured the consent of all concerned.

On the third issue, the Court found the complainant failed to prove the respondent did not inform him of the dismissal. The certification showing the complainant's daughter acknowledged receipt of the entire records one week after the respondent received the order supported the inference that the complainant had been duly notified.

On the fourth issue, the Court held suspension disproportionate, considering the respondent's honest belief, his first infraction of this nature, and the mitigating circumstance of his sworn duty to defend the poor and needy, and imposed a fine instead.

Doctrine

A lawyer is forbidden from representing a subsequent client against a former client when the subject matter of the present controversy is related, directly or indirectly, to the subject matter of the previous litigation in which he appeared for the former client. The prohibition applies however slight the adverse interest may be, and it is not excused by the lawyer's honest intentions and good faith, nor by the termination of the attorney-client relationship. What a lawyer owes his former client is to maintain inviolate the client's confidence and to refrain from doing anything that will injuriously affect him in any matter in which he previously represented him. The lawyer must be like Caesar's wife, not only keeping the client's confidence inviolate but also avoiding the appearance of treachery and double-dealing. Finally, the decision of the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines must clearly and distinctly state the facts and the reasons on which it is based.

Disposition

The respondent was found guilty of representing conflicting interests and fined Ten Thousand Pesos, with a warning that a repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely, and the Board of Governors was directed to be heedful of the requirements of Section 12(a), Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is that the termination of the lawyer-client relationship provides no justification for a lawyer to represent an interest adverse to or in conflict with that of the former client. Examiners like to use this case to test the conflict-of-interests rule under Rule 15.03, Canon 15, the duty of confidentiality under Canon 21, and the requirement that the Board of Governors state the facts and reasons for its decisions.