SC CIRCULAR NO. 4, January 26, 1988

For the information and guidance of all concerned, quoted
hereunder is the pertinent portion of the Resolution of the Third
Division of this Court, dated January 20, 1988, in G.R. No. 77739,
entitled “Bienvenido Toling, et al. vs. RTC, Branch 8, Davao City et
al.”

“G.R. No. 77739 – (Bienvenido Toling et al. v. RTC Branch 8, Davao city, et al.) — . . .

“It is likewise unethical for respondent Occena to represent
Nagsil Village Foundation in a case filed by his former clients over the
same price of property involved in the case where he appeared for the
petitioners. The estoppel cited by Judge Milagros C. Nartatez in her
September 13, 1985 order is of no moment. The petitioners pursued their
case in the trial court as pauper litigants and were apparently unaware
about the finer points of legal ethics. It is the lawyer who is required
to show greater zeal and attention in obeying all the ethical
requirements of his profession. He may not represent conflicting
interests and is obliged to maintain inviolate confidential information
from his former clients. As a matter of fact, whether or not he acquired
confidential information from his former clients, he may not represent
the latter’s adversary against them in any action related to the case
where he represented his former clients.

“The Courts notes the cavalier attitude of Occena towards
admonitions of this Courts, in administrative cases earlier filed against him. He has been warned in the past about unethical practices as
a lawyer. The petitioners cite Pacquing v. Court of Appeals,
et al. (115 SCRA 117) Legarda v. Occena (Adm. Case No. 2497, March 21,
1984) and Toling V. Occena (Adm. Case No. 2494, March 21, 1984) as some
of the cases where this Court imposed alternative fine or imprisonment
against Atty. Occena.

“Considering the foregoing, . . . The Court further Resolved to
SUSPEND Atty. Samuel C. Occena from the PRACTICE OF LAW for Three (3)
months. . . .”

January 26, 1988.