RUAFINA BAUTISTA, COMPLAINANT-PETITIONER, VS. ATTY. BENJAMIN O. BARRIOS, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

Rufina Bautista complains that
Atty. Barrios committed malpractice in that having drafted a deed of partition
at her request, and as her attorney, he afterwards, in a suit to enforce it,
refused to appear for her, and what is, worse, he appeared instead as counsel
for the other party to the deed of partition and opposed her rights thereunder.

The evidence shows that in August
1955, Rufina Bautista engaged the services of respondent Atty. Barrios to draft
an extra-judicial partition between Rufina Bautista and her brothers and
sisters on one side and Federico Rovero on the other. The deed distributed the
conjugal properties of Rovero and his deceased wife Maria Bautista, who was a
sister of the Bautistas and who died intestate in 1952. The deed was prepared by
said Barrios and was accordingly signed. Thereafter, in September of the same
year, because Rovero refused to comply with the terms of the deed, Rufina
Bautista sued him (Civil Case No. K-689, Capiz Court of First Instance) to
deliver the properties awarded to her in the said extra-judicial partition. She
asked respondent Barrios to represent her; but upon his refusal, Rufina was
compelled to, and did engage the services of Atty. Artemio S. Arrieta.
Thereafter, Atty. Barrios appeared for Federico Rovero, and opposed the demand
of Rufina Bautista.

In an attempt to clear himself,
respondent Barrios declared that it was not Rufina Bautista who had solicited
his services in the preparation of the deed of partition, but that it was
Federico Rovero.

As against the contrary assertions
of Rufina Bautista, this defense of Atty. Barrios cannot prevail, for the
reason that he himself in his answer to the complaint in this Court, admitted
that he had prepared the deed “upon the joint request of Federico Rovero, Rufina
Bautista and Francisco Bautista.” Furthermore, the circumstance that upon
refusal of Rovero to comply with the terms of the deed, Rufina went to ask
Barrios to enforce it—he admits Rufina went to see him—by filing a
complaint against Rovero, strongly corroborates Rufina’s testimony that she had
actually engaged his services to draft the partition. Indeed, when she asked
him to file the complaint, and he refused, he did not tell her that lie had
been engaged by Rovero to draft the partition. He merely told her she had
no case, and that he was reluctant “to take up a lost cause.”

On this issue of fact, the
Solicitor-General finds against respondent. And we agree with said official.

Furthermore, even supposing that,
as claimed by Atty. Barrios, he was employed by both Rovero and the Bautista
brothers to draft the partition, it is doubtful
whether he could appear for one as against the other in a subsequent
litigation. At most, if he could appear for one client, it should be for him
who seeks to enforce the partition as drafted. Yet he appeared for Rovero
who sought to avoid compliance with it, asserting that it did not, contain all
the terms of the agreement, that it was subject to
certain modifications, etc. Moreover, in his defense of Rovero, he raised
issues which obviously violated Rufina’s confidence, because he
alleged—in behalf of Rovero—that the undisclosed modifications were
known to Rufina at the time of the execution of the partition.

The inconsistent positions taken by
the respondent coupled with some flimsy arguments he has advanced: ^[1], do not favorably impress this Court with
his alleged good faith in the matter.

Corrective measures are called for,
and, in accordance with the Solicitor-General’s recommendation, Atty. Barrios
is hereby suspended from the practice of his profession for a period of two
years from the time this decision becomes final.

SO ORDERED.

Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador,
Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, Regala and Makalintal, JJ., concur.