Scribd
Upload
53 views1 page

Digested Case in PALE

Gonzales filed a complaint against Sheriff Gatcheco for failing to fully implement a court order in Gonzales' favor. Sheriff Gatcheco and his wife later harassed Gonzales and were charged with criminal offenses. While the law firm representing Gonzales in the initial civil case, the respondent attorney also represented Sheriff Gatcheco and his wife in the criminal cases against them. The court found the respondent violated the rule against representing conflicting interests by representing both Gonzales' and the Gatchecos' cases. However, mitigating factors such as the pro bono representation of the Gatchecos and no malice shown reduced the penalty to a P2,000 fine.

Uploaded by

Honey
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
53 views1 page

Digested Case in PALE

Gonzales filed a complaint against Sheriff Gatcheco for failing to fully implement a court order in Gonzales' favor. Sheriff Gatcheco and his wife later harassed Gonzales and were charged with criminal offenses. While the law firm representing Gonzales in the initial civil case, the respondent attorney also represented Sheriff Gatcheco and his wife in the criminal cases against them. The court found the respondent violated the rule against representing conflicting interests by representing both Gonzales' and the Gatchecos' cases. However, mitigating factors such as the pro bono representation of the Gatchecos and no malice shown reduced the penalty to a P2,000 fine.

Uploaded by

Honey
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

4. LETICIA GONZALES vs ATTY.

MARCELINO CABUCANA
Gonzales was the complainant in a civil case where she was represented by the law firm of
Atty. Edmar Cabucana together with the respondent. A decision was rendered by the Court in
favor of Gonzales.Sheriff Gatcheco, failed to fully implement the writ of execution issued in
connection with the judgment.This prompted Gonzales to file a complaint against the said sheriff
;
In September 2003, Sheriff Gatcheco and his wife went to the house of Gonzales, they harassed
Gonzales and asked her to execute an affidavit of desistance regarding her complaint. Gonzales filed a
criminal cases for trespassing, grave threats, grave oral defamation, simple coercion and unjust vexation
against the Gatchecos;
While the respondents law firm was still representing Gonzales, the respondent also represented the
Gatchecos in the cases filed by Gonzales .Respondent alleged that he never appeared and represented of
such case since it was his brother, Atty. Edmar Cabucana who appeared 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 sps pleaded with him as no other counsel was willing
to take their case.
ISSUE: WON respondent violated Rule 15.03 of CPR ?
HELD:
The court held that the respondent is guilty violating Rule 15.03 of the CPR.
Respondent allegation that it was his brother who represented Gonzales, thus there could be no conflict of
interest is no merit. As respondent admitted, it was their law firm which represented Gonzales in the civil
case. Such being the case, the rule against representing conflicting interest applies.
It is well-settled rule that lawyer is barred from representing conflicting interests except by written
consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts. Such prohibition is founded on
principles of public policy as the nature of the lawyer-client relations is one of trust and confidence of the
highest degree. Lawyers are expected not only to keep inviolate the client 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 of paramount importance in the administration of justice. The
proscription against representation of conflicting interests applies to a situation where the opposing
parties are present clients in the same action or in an unrelated action. The court consider however as
mitigating circumstances the fact that he is representing the Gatcheco sps pro bono and that it was his
firm and not respondent personally which handled the civil case of Gonzales. And it was observed that
there was no malice and bad faith in respondents acceptance of the Gatchecos cases as shown by the
move of complainant to withdraw the case. Thus, for violation of Rule 15.03, of CPR and taking
consideration of mitigating circumstances, Atty. Cabucana is fined the amount of P 2,000 with stern
warning that
6.3

You might also like