GUADALUPE SAN JOSE, PETITIONER, VS. NAZARIO G. CRUZ, RESPONDENT.

This is a complaint filed by Guadalupe San Jose against Attorney Nazario G. Cruz, charging him with malpractice.

The case was referred for investigation to the Attorney-General who, in
turn, endorsed it to the provincial fiscal of Laguna for the same
purpose. The latter official conducted the necessary investigation
during which the parties submitted a stipulation of facts and presented
other evidence from all of which the following facts may be inferred:

On February 16, 1930, the spouses Raymundo Isaac and Antonina Alay
mortgaged to Dr. Manuel B. Calupitan three parcels of land which they
owned in the barrio of Patimbao of the municipality of Santa Cruz,
Laguna, to guarantee a loan of P1,000 obtained by them, payable on
March 16th of the same year, with interest at the rate of 12 per cent
per annum. As the debtors were not able to pay off the mortgage, the
creditor sold to the herein petitioner all his rights to two of the
said three parcels for the sum of P1,000 as evidenced by the deed of
sale, Exhibit A, executed to that effect. The mortgage deed was
recorded in the registry of deeds of said province in accordance with
Act No. 3344, but not the deed of sale.

The Isaacs not
having paid their debt to the petitioner herein, the latter engaged the
services of the respondent attorney who instituted civil case No. 5480
in the Court of First Instance of Laguna. The respondent did not seek
to foreclose the mortgage, for the simple reason that the deed of sale
executed in his client’s favor was not recorded and in the complaint he
limited himself to demand payment of the amount of P1,000 with the
stipulated interest and the costs, having thus instituted a personal
action.

Judgment was rendered in favor of the petitioner herein, which, upon appeal to the Supreme Court, was affirmed.^[1]
The respondent, after obtaining a judgment in favor of his client in
the Court of First Instance, withdrew as her attorney and did not
represent her in the appeal.

After the case was remanded to
the trial court, a writ of execution of the judgment was issued, and
thereafter the facts, upon which the present complaint is based, arose.
After the three parcels of land had been attached by the sheriff, the
spouses Tomas Matienzo and Maria Carcalin, relatives of the spouses
Raymundo Isaac and Antonina Alay, pretending to be the owners of the
real estate in question, filed a third party claim with the sheriff,
for which reason the sale was temporarily suspended. They immediately
retained the herein respondent as their attorney who instituted in the
same court civil case No. 5952 wherein he asked for and obtained
against the sheriff and the petitioner herein a writ of preliminary
injunction restraining them from proceeding with the attachment and
sale at public auction of the aforementioned lands. Due to this case,
the judgment obtained by the petitioner is pending execution.

Abiding by the investigator’s findings, the Attorney-General submits
that the facts as proved and stated above show clearly that the
respondent is guilty of unprofessional conduct and recommends that the
corresponding disciplinary action be taken against him. We agree with
his recommendation.

The record shows that the respondent
offered his services to the Matienzo spouses knowing that the
petitioner had obtained a favorable judgment in the civil case No. 5480
and that his efforts in the subsequent civil case No. 5952 would
frustrate said judgment and render it ineffectual, as has really been
the result upon his obtaining the writ of injunction above-mentioned.
Obviously his conduct is unbecoming to an attorney and cannot be
sanctioned by the courts. An attorney owes loyalty to his client not
only in the case in which he has represented him but also after the
relation of attorney and client has terminated and it is not a good
practice to. permit him afterwards to defend in another case other
persons against his former client under the pretext that the case is
distinct from, and independent of the former case.

“An
attorney is not permitted, in serving a new client as against a former
one, to do anything which will injuriously affect the former client in
any manner in which the attorney formerly represented him, though the
relation of attorney and client has terminated, and the new employment
is in a different case; nor can the attorney use against his former
client any knowledge or information gained through their former
connection.” (Malcolm on Legal Ethics, p. 143.)

In view of the foregoing considerations, we are of the opinion, and so
hold, that the respondent attorney deserves a reprimand for the acts
committed by him and we would not have hesitated to impose a more
severe penalty were it not for the fact that, apparently, this is his
first offense, and, furthermore we are convinced that it is due
principally to his inexperience in the profession. So ordered.

Avanceña, C. J., Street, Villamor, Ostrand, Villa-Real, Abad Santos, Hull, Vickers, and Butte, JJ., concur.

---

^[1] G. R. No. 35074. San Jose vs. Ysaac and Alay, 56 Phil., 808.