85. Marces, Sr. vs. Arcangel, A.M. No.
RTJ-91-712, 9 July 1996
Topic: New Code of Judicial Conduct – CANON 1 - Independence
Facts: Complainant is the owner-developer of more or less 312 hectares of land located in Cavite.
Said property was being developed into a residential subdivision, community clubhouse and golf-
course called the Riviera project. In 1996 complainant entered into purchase agreements with several
investors in order to finance its Riviera project. One of these investors was Philippine Golf
Development and Equipment, Inc. (Phil Golf). Complainant retained the services of respondent of the
Amora and Associates Law Offices to represent and act as its legal counsel in connection with the
Riviera Project.
As complainant's legal counsel, respondent was privy to highly confidential information regarding the
Riviera project which included but was not limited to the corporate set-up, actual breakdown of the
shares of stock, financial records, purchase agreements and swapping agreements with its investors.
After complainant terminated respondent’s services as its legal counsel, respondent became Phil Golfs
representative and assignee. Respondent began pushing for the swapping of Phil Golfs properties with
that of complainant. Respondent sent swapping proposals to his former client, herein complainant, this
time in his capacity as Phil Golf’s representative and assignee. These proposals were rejected by
complainant for being grossly disadvantageous to the latter. After complainant’s rejection of the said
proposals, respondent filed a case against its former client on behalf of its subsequent client. Phil Golf
before the HLURB for alleged breach of contract.
Issue: 1. WON Atty. Amora represented conflict of interest.
2. WON Atty. Amora used confidential information against his former client.
Ruling: (1) Yes. There is conflict of interest when a lawyer represents inconsistent interests of two or
more opposing parties. The test is “whether or not in behalf of one client, it is the lawyer’s duty to
fight for an issue or claim, but it is his duty to oppose it for the other client. In brief, if he argues for
one client, this argument will be opposed by him when he argues for the other client. This rule covers
not only cases in which confidential communications have been confided, but also those in which no
confidence has been bestowed or will be used. In the instant case, despite the obvious conflict of
interest between complainant and Phil Golf, respondent nevertheless agreed to represent the latter in
business negotiations and worse, even caused the filing of a lawsuit against his former client, herein
complainant, using information the respondent acquired from his former professional employment.
Rules 15.01 and 15.03 of the Code state:
Rule 15.01. — A lawyer, in conferring with a prospective client, shall ascertain as soon as practicable
whether the matter would involve a conflict with another client or his own interest, and if so, shall
forthwith inform the prospective client.
Rule 15.03. — A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by written consent of all
concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts.
The requirement under Rule 15.03 is quite clear. A lawyer must secure the written consent of all
concerned parties after a full disclosure of the facts. Respondent, however, failed to present any such
document. He points to the fact that complainant approved several transactions between him and the
complainant. In his Position Paper respondent argues that AFP-RSBS gave its formal and written
consent to his status as an investor and allowed him to be subrogated to all the rights, privileges and
causes of action of an investor.
This purported approval, however, is not the consent that the CPR demands.
(2) Yes. Atty. Amora violated Canon 21, rules 21.01 and 21.02.
CANON 21 — A LAWYER SHALL PRESERVE THE CONFIDENCE AND SECRETS OF HIS CLIENT
EVEN AFTER THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATION IS TERMINATED.
Rule 21.01 — A lawyer shall not reveal the confidences or secrets of his client except;
(a) When authorized by the client after acquainting him of the consequences of the disclosure;
(b) When required by law;
(c) When necessary to collect his fees or to defend himself, his employees or associates or by judicial
action.
Rule 21.02 — A lawyer shall not, to the disadvantage of his client, use information acquired in the
course of employment, nor shall he use the same to his own advantage or that of a third person,
unless the client with full knowledge of the circumstances consents thereto.
Using confidential information which he secured from complainant while he was the latter’s counsel,
respondent accused his former client of several violations. In the process, respondent disclosed
confidential information that he secured from complainant thereby jeopardizing the latter’s interest. In
the course of a lawyer-client relationship, the lawyer learns all the fact connected with the client’s
case, including its weak and strong points. Such knowledge must be considered sacred and guarded
with care. No opportunity must be given to him to take advantage of his client; for if the confidence is
abused, the profession will suffer by the loss thereof. It behooves lawyers not only to keep inviolate
the client’s confidence, but also to avoid the appearance of treachery and double-dealing for only then
can litigants be encouraged to entrust their secrets to their lawyers, which is paramount in the
administration of justice.
And, as earlier stated, considering that respondent failed to obtain any written consent to his
representation of Phil Golf's interests, he plainly violated the above rules. Clearly, respondent must be
disciplined for his actuations.
