ebruary 1, 1933
GUADALUPE SAN JOSE, petitioner,
vs.
NAZARIO G. CRUZ, respondent.
Aurelio Palileo and Nazario G. Cruz for respondent.
Attorney-General Jaranilla for the Government.
IMPERIAL, J.:
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 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 vase 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,
furth
