FIRST DIVISION asked for his assistance, the spouses said that the cases filed against them by

Gonzales were merely instigated by a high ranking official who wanted to get even
A.C. No. 6836             January 23, 2006 with them for their refusal to testify in favor of the said official in another case. At first,
respondent declined to serve as counsel of the spouses as he too did not want to
incur the ire of the high-ranking official, but after realizing that he would be abdicating
LETICIA GONZALES, Complainant, a sworn duty to delay no man for money or malice, respondent entered his
vs. appearance as defense counsel of the spouses free of any charge. Not long after, the
ATTY. MARCELINO CABUCANA, Respondent. present complaint was crafted against respondent which shows that respondent is
now the subject of a ‘demolition job.’ The civil case filed by Gonzales where
RESOLUTION respondent’s brother served as counsel is different and distinct from the criminal
cases filed by complainant against the Gatcheco spouses, thus, he did not violate any
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.: canon on legal ethics. 8

Before this Court is a complaint filed by Leticia Gonzales (Gonzales) praying that Atty. Gonzales filed a Reply contending that the civil case handled by respondent’s brother
Marcelino Cabucana, (respondent) be disbarred for representing conflicting interests. is closely connected with the cases of the Gatchecos which the respondent is
handling; that the claim of respondent that he is handling the cases of the
spouses pro bono is not true since he has his own agenda in offering his services to
On January 8, 2004, Gonzales filed a petition before the Integrated Bar of the the spouses; and that the allegation that she is filing the cases against the spouses
Philippines (IBP) alleging that: she was the complainant in a case for sum of money because she is being used by a powerful person is not true since she filed the said
and damages filed before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) of Santiago City, cases out of her own free will.9
docketed as Civil Case No. 1-567 where she was represented by the law firm
CABUCANA, CABUCANA, DE GUZMAN AND CABUCANA LAW OFFICE, with Atty.
Edmar Cabucana handling the case and herein respondent as an associate/partner; The Commission on Bar Discipline of the IBP sent to the parties a Notice of
on February 26, 2001, a decision was rendered in the civil case ordering the losing Mandatory Conference dated March 1, 2004. 10 On the scheduled conference, only a
party to pay Gonzales the amount of P17,310.00 with interest and P6,000.00 as representative of complainant appeared.11 Commissioner Demaree Raval of the IBP-
attorney’s fees; Sheriff Romeo Gatcheco, failed to fully implement the writ of CBD then directed both parties to file their respective verified position papers.12
execution issued in connection with the judgment which prompted Gonzales to file a
complaint against the said sheriff with this Court; in September 2003, Sheriff Complainant filed a Memorandum reiterating her earlier assertions and added that
Gatcheco and his wife went to the house of Gonzales; they harassed Gonzales and respondent prepared and notarized counter-affidavits of the Gatcheco spouses; that
asked her to execute an affidavit of desistance regarding her complaint before this the high-ranking official referred to by respondent is Judge Ruben Plata and the
Court; Gonzales thereafter filed against the Gatchecos criminal cases for trespass, accusations of respondent against the said judge is an attack against a brother in the
grave threats, grave oral defamation, simple coercion and unjust vexation; profession which is a violation of the CPR; and that respondent continues to use the
notwithstanding the pendency of Civil Case No. 1-567, where respondent’s law firm name of De Guzman in their law firm despite the fact that said partner has already
was still representing Gonzales, herein respondent represented the Gatchecos in the been appointed as Assistant Prosecutor of Santiago City, again in violation of the
cases filed by Gonzales against the said spouses; respondent should be disbarred CPR.13
from the practice of law since respondent’s acceptance of the cases of the Gatchecos
violates the lawyer-client relationship between complainant and respondent’s law firm Respondent filed his Position Paper restating his allegations in his Answer.14
and renders respondent liable under the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR)
particularly Rules 10.01,1 13.01,2 15.02,3 15.03,4 21.015 and 21.02.6
On August 23, 2004, Commissioner Wilfredo E.J.E. Reyes issued an Order notifying
both parties to appear before his office on October 28, 2004 for a clarificatory
On January 9, 2004, the IBP-Commission on Bar Discipline ordered Atty. Marcelino question regarding said case.15 On the said date, only respondent
Cabucana, Jr. to submit his Answer to the complaint.7 appeared16 presenting a sworn affidavit executed by Gonzales withdrawing her
complaint against respondent. It reads:
In his Answer, respondent averred: He never appeared and represented complainant
in Civil Case No. 1-567 since it was his brother, Atty. Edmar Cabucana who appeared SINUMPAANG SALAYSAY
and represented Gonzales in said case. He admitted that he is representing Sheriff
Gatcheco and his wife in the cases filed against them but claimed that his
appearance is pro bono  and that the spouses pleaded with him as no other counsel TUNGKOL SA PAG-UURONG NG DEMANDA
was willing to take their case. He entered his appearance in good faith and opted to
represent the spouses rather than leave them defenseless. When the Gatchecos
1
 The Undersigned Commissioner believes that the respondent made a mistake in the
Ako, si LETICIA GONZALES, nasa tamang edad, Pilipino, may asawa, at acceptance of the administrative case of Romeo Gatcheco, however, the Commission
nakatira sa Barangay  Dubinan East, Santiago City, makaraang manumpa (sic) believes that there was no malice and bad faith in the said acceptance and this
ayon sa batas ay nagsasabing: can be shown by the move of the complainant to unilaterally withdraw the case which
she filed against Atty. Marcelino C. Cabucana, Jr. However, Atty. Cabucana is
reminded to be more careful in the acceptance of cases as conflict of interests might
Ako ang nagdedemanda o petitioner sa CBD Case No. 04-1186 na may arise.
pamagat na "Leticia Gonzales versus Atty. Marcelino C. Cabucana, Jr." na
kasalukuyang nahaharap sa Commission on Bar Discipline ng Integrated
Bar of the Philippines It is respectfully recommended that Atty. Marcelino C. Cabucana, Jr. (be) sternly
warned and reprimanded and…advised to be more circumspect and careful in
accepting cases which might result in conflict of interests.21
Ang pagkakahain ng naturang demanda ay nag-ugat sa di-
pagkakaintindihan na namamagitan sa akin at nina Mr. and Mrs. Romeo and
Anita Gatcheco. On June 25, 2005, a Resolution was passed by the Board of Governors of the IBP, to
wit:

Dahil sa aking galit sa naturang mag-asawa, idinawit ko si Atty. Marcelino C.

Makaraang pag-isipang mabuti ang paghain ko ng demanda kontra kay  Atty. Leticia Gonzales vs.
Marcelino C. Cabucana, Jr., nakumbinsi ako na ang pagdedemanda ko Atty. Marcelino Cabucana, Jr.
kay Atty. Marcelino C. Cabucana, Jr. ay isang malaking pagkakamali dahil
siya ay walang kinalalaman (sic) sa di pagkakaintindihan naming(sic) ng RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby ADOPTED and APPROVED,
mag-asawang Gatcheco. the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner of the above-
entitled case, herein made part of this Resolution as Annex "A"; and, finding the
Si Atty. Marcelino C. Cabucana, Jr. ay di ko rin naging abogado sa Civil recommendation fully supported by the evidence on record and the applicable laws
Case No. 1-567 (MTCC Br. I Santiago City) na inihain ko kontra kay Eduardo and rules, and considering that respondent made (a) mistake in the acceptance of the
Mangano. administrative case of Romeo Gatcheco, Atty. Marcelino Cabucana, Jr. is hereby
WARNED and REPRIMANDED and advised to be more circumspect and careful in
Nais kong ituwid ang lahat kung kaya’t aking iniuurong ang naturang kasong accepting cases which might result in conflict of interests.22
inihain ko kontra kay Atty. Marcelino C. Cabucana, Jr. at dahil dito ay hindi
na ako interesado pang ituloy and naturang kaso, at aking hinihiling sa Before going to the merits, let it be clarified that contrary to the report of
kinauukulan na dismisin na ang naturang kaso. Commissioner Reyes, respondent did not only represent the Gatcheco spouses in the
administrative case filed by Gonzales against them. As respondent himself narrated
Ginawa ko ang sinumpaang salaysay na ito upang patotohanan sa lahat ng in his Position Paper, he likewise acted as their counsel in the criminal cases filed by
nakasaad dito.17 Gonzales against them.23

With that settled, we find respondent guilty of violating Rule 15.03 of Canon 15 of the
Commissioner Reyes issued an Order dated October 28, 2004 requiring Gonzales to
Code of Professional Responsibility, to wit:
appear before him on November 25, 2004, to affirm her statements and to be subject
to clarificatory questioning.18 However, none of the parties appeared.19 On February
17, 2005, only respondent was present. Commissioner Reyes then considered the Rule 15.03 – A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interest except by written
case as submitted for resolution.20 consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts.

On February 24, 2005, Commissioner Reyes submitted his Report and It is well-settled that a lawyer is barred from representing conflicting interests except
Recommendation, portions of which are quoted hereunder: by written consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts. 24 Such
prohibition is founded on principles of public policy and good taste as the nature of
the lawyer-client relations is one of trust and confidence of the highest
2
degree.25 Lawyers are expected not only to keep inviolate the client’s confidence, but In the same manner, his claim that he could not turn down the spouses as no other
also to avoid the appearance of treachery and double-dealing for only then can lawyer is willing to take their case cannot prosper as it is settled that while there may
litigants be encouraged to entrust their secrets to their lawyers, which is of paramount be instances where lawyers cannot decline representation they cannot be made to
importance in the administration of justice.26 labor under conflict of interest between a present client and a prospective
one.34 Granting also that there really was no other lawyer who could handle the
One of the tests of inconsistency of interests is whether the acceptance of a new spouses’ case other than him, still he should have observed the requirements laid
relation would prevent the full discharge of the lawyer’s duty of undivided fidelity and down by the rules by conferring with the prospective client to ascertain as soon as
loyalty to the client or invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or double-dealing in the practicable whether the matter would involve a conflict with another client then seek
performance of that duty.27 the written consent of all concerned after a full disclosure of the facts. 35 These
respondent failed to do thus exposing himself to the charge of double-dealing.
As we expounded in the recent case of Quiambao vs. Bamba,28
We note the affidavit of desistance filed by Gonzales. However, we are not bound by
such desistance as the present case involves public interest. 36 Indeed, the Court’s
The proscription against representation of conflicting interests applies to a situation exercise of its power to take cognizance of administrative cases against lawyers is
where the opposing parties are present clients in the same action or in an unrelated not for the purpose of enforcing civil remedies between parties, but to protect the
action. It is of no moment that the lawyer would not be called upon to contend for one court and the public against an attorney guilty of unworthy practices in his
client that which the lawyer has to oppose for the other client, or that there would be profession.37
no occasion to use the confidential information acquired from one to the disadvantage
of the other as the two actions are wholly unrelated. It is enough that the opposing
parties in one case, one of whom would lose the suit, are present clients and the In similar cases where the respondent was found guilty of representing conflicting
nature or conditions of the lawyer’s respective retainers with each of them would interests a penalty ranging from one to three years’ suspension was imposed.38
affect the performance of the duty of undivided fidelity to both clients.29
We shall consider however as mitigating circumstances the fact that he is
The claim of respondent that there is no conflict of interests in this case, as the civil representing the Gatcheco spouses pro bono  and that it was his firm and not
case handled by their law firm where Gonzales is the complainant and the criminal respondent personally, which handled the civil case of Gonzales. As recounted by
cases filed by Gonzales against the Gatcheco spouses are not related, has no merit. complainant herself, Atty. Edmar Cabucana signed the civil case of complainant by
The representation of opposing clients in said cases, though unrelated, constitutes stating first the name of the law firm CABUCANA, CABUCANA, DE GUZMAN AND
conflict of interests or, at the very least, invites suspicion of double-dealing which this CABUCANA LAW OFFICE, under which, his name and signature appear; while
Court cannot allow.30 herein respondent signed the pleadings for the Gatcheco spouses only with his
name,39 without any mention of the law firm. We also note the observation of the IBP
Commissioner Reyes that there was no malice and bad faith in respondent’s
Respondent further argued that it was his brother who represented Gonzales in the acceptance of the Gatchecos’ cases as shown by the move of complainant to
civil case and not him, thus, there could be no conflict of interests. We do not agree. withdraw the case.
As respondent admitted, it was their law firm which represented Gonzales in the civil
case. Such being the case, the rule against representing conflicting interests applies.
Thus, for violation of Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
31
and taking into consideration the aforementioned mitigating circumstances, we
As we explained in the case of Hilado vs. David: impose the penalty of fine of P2,000.00.

…[W]e… can not sanction his taking up the cause of the adversary of the party who WHEREFORE, Resolution No. XVI-2005-153 of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
had sought and obtained legal advice from his firm; this, not necessarily to prevent is APPROVED with MODIFICATION that respondent Atty. Marcelino Cabucana, Jr. is
any injustice to the plaintiff but to keep above reproach the honor and integrity of the FINED the amount of Two Thousand Pesos (P2,000.00) with a STERN WARNING
courts and of the bar. Without condemning the respondent’s conduct as dishonest, that a commission of the same or similar act in the future shall be dealt with more
corrupt, or fraudulent, we do believe that upon the admitted facts it is highly severely.
inexpedient. It had the tendency to bring the profession, of which he is a distinguished
member, "into public disrepute and suspicion and undermine the integrity of justice."32
SO ORDERED.
The claim of respondent that he acted in good faith and with honest intention will also
not exculpate him as such claim does not render the prohibition inoperative.33 MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ
Associate Justice