DR. ADRIANO B. VELASQUEZ, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. APOLONIO BARRERA, RESPONDENT.

Velasquez versus Barrera

The Case

This is an administrative case for disbarment. Dr. Adriano B. Velasquez filed a verified complaint with the Supreme Court seeking the disbarment of Attorney Apolonio Barrera for acts alleged to be in violation of the lawyer's oath of office. The case matters because it is a classic illustration of the fiduciary duty of a lawyer, the prohibition against representing adverse interests, and the duty of candor toward the client and the court. It also shows how the Supreme Court treats a lawyer who treats an administrative proceeding with indifference.

Procedural History

The complaint was filed directly with the Supreme Court, which referred it to the Office of the Solicitor General for investigation, report, and recommendation. Because most of the parties resided in Baguio, the case was indorsed to the city fiscal of Baguio, who recommended dismissal for lack of interest after the complainant failed to appear. The complainant protested that he had never been notified, and the hearing was thereafter conducted by the Solicitor General's office. After several postponements, the investigator allowed the complainant to present his evidence and cross-examined him. The respondent never appeared and never filed a memorandum. The Solicitor General then filed his report and recommendation finding the respondent guilty of violating his oath of office and recommending reprimand. The case was resolved by the Supreme Court in this decision.

Facts

Pedro Velasquez, brother of the complainant, and Jose Pañgan were sued for ejectment in the Municipal Court of Baguio. After judgment was rendered ordering them to vacate the premises and pay back rentals, the respondent helped them prepare and file the notice of appeal, the appeal bond, and the supersedeas bond. The appeal was perfected and docketed in the Court of First Instance of Baguio. To stay execution, the Far Eastern Surety and Insurance Company issued a supersedeas bond, and the Ymson brothers acted as counter-bondsmen under an indemnity agreement. To protect themselves, the Ymsons demanded security from the defendants, and the complainant executed a chattel mortgage over his personal properties in their favor.

The Court of First Instance rendered judgment against the defendants, and the decision became final. The surety filed a cross-claim and a third party complaint against the Ymsons, who in turn filed a fourth party complaint against the complainant. The respondent acted as counsel for the Ymsons in that fourth party complaint, in the foreclosure of the chattel mortgage, and as private prosecutor in a criminal case for estafa against the complainant. The complainant was acquitted, but the criminal court made an unfavorable finding that there had been connivance between the Ymsons and their counsel, and that the complainant was deceived into signing the chattel mortgage.

The complainant charged that the respondent received attorney's fees and money for an appeal bond but failed to file the bond and the necessary pleading, losing the case by default; that the respondent induced him to sign a chattel mortgage and later used it against him; and that the respondent forced him to turn over the mortgaged properties. The respondent denied an attorney-client relationship with the complainant and claimed he was counsel for Pedro Velasquez and Pañgan.

Issues

• Whether or not the respondent committed malpractice and misconduct by taking undue advantage of the complainant and abusing his confidence in violation of his oath of office.
• Whether or not the respondent represented adverse interests when he later acted for the Ymson brothers against the complainant.
• Whether or not the respondent's failure to appear in the administrative proceedings despite due notice warrants disciplinary sanction.

Applicable Provisions

The decision does not quote a specific statutory provision. It applies the lawyer's oath of office and the settled rule in legal ethics against representing adverse interests, as stated in the report of the Solicitor General:

It is very difficult for an attorney to give disinterested advice where he represents both parties to a controversy; so difficult, in fact that it has become a fixed rule in all branches of the law that when one is representing another in a given matter, he cannot, at the same time, legally represent his principal's adversary.

This rule bears directly on the respondent's act of taking up the cause of the Ymsons against the complainant after having advised the complainant on the chattel mortgage.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court found that the respondent had committed malpractice and misconduct by taking undue advantage of the complainant and abusing his confidence in violation of his oath of office. The Court noted that the respondent advised the complainant to execute the chattel mortgage, and that the respondent later turned against him. The Court held that the respondent neglected to exert all his efforts to protect the interests of his client and instead induced the complainant to sign the chattel mortgage and later represented the Ymsons against him.

On the second issue, the Court found nothing objectionable in the respondent's later representation of the Ymson brothers, because he had intervened in the execution of the indemnity agreement and was enforcing their rights under its terms. The Court, however, emphasized the settled rule that a lawyer cannot represent his principal's adversary, quoting the rule above.

On the third issue, the Court observed that the respondent refused to appear in the administrative proceedings despite several notices, and that the case had been postponed no less than eleven times to give him an opportunity to appear. The Court held that for this actuation alone, the respondent should be reprimanded.

Doctrine

A lawyer owes his client undivided fidelity and good faith. He cannot, at the same time, legally represent his principal's adversary, because it is very difficult for an attorney to give disinterested advice where he represents both parties to a controversy. A lawyer who takes undue advantage of his client's confidence and abuses it violates his oath of office. A lawyer also owes a duty to his own reputation not to take cases in which he must inevitably fail, and he should advise his client against a hopeless appeal. Finally, a lawyer's indifference to an administrative proceeding against him, despite due notice, is itself a ground for reprimand.

Disposition

The Supreme Court found the respondent guilty of violating his oath of office and reprimanded him.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is that when one is representing another in a given matter, he cannot, at the same time, legally represent his principal's adversary. Examiners like to use this case to test the rule against representing adverse interests and the duty of a lawyer to act with good faith and fidelity toward his client.