3&.
epublic of tbe ~bilippine%
~upreme QCourt
:iR!lanila
FIRST DIVISION
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames:
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution
dated 7 September 2022, which reads as f ollows:
"A.C. No. 11040 [Formerly CBD Case No. 16-5107) (Manuel L.
Dy, Jr. vs. Atty. Magni.ficus C. V. Canete1). - Before the Court is an
administrative Complaint dated 8 December 2015 filed by Manuel L. Dy, Jr.
(Manuel) against Atty. Magnificus C.V. Cafiete for allegedly violating the
rule on confidentiality and prohibition on representing conflicting interests. 2
Manuel alleged that Atty. Canete was his retained counsel for his sole
proprietorship business named MDR Microware Sales from 1997 to 2001. 3
On 19 April 2005, the business was incorporated as MDR Microware Sales,
Inc. (MDR Inc.) with Manuel and his wife, Jean Dy (Jean), as the principal
stockholders owning 50% and 49% of the outstanding shares, respectively. 4
Allegedly, through unauthorized disbursements, Jean siphoned off
money from MDR Inc. to her personal account. MDR Inc. then filed
lawsuits against her. To Manuel's surprise, Atty. Canete represented Jean
against him and the corporation in a Qualified Theft case, titled MDR
Microware Sales, Inc., represented by Nenita R. Delena5 and Manuel L. Dy,
Jr. v. Jean R. Dy, pending before the Office of the Prosecutor of Cebu City.
Moreover, Atty. Cafiete represented Jean in a letter addressed to the Bank of
the Philippine Islands dated 12 November 2015 where Atty. Cafiete made
reference to the case, titled Dy v. Dy, docketed as SP Case No. 2835-MAN,
pending before the Regional Trial Court of Mandaue City.6
Spelled as " Caflete" per his signature in his Comment dated 18 April 2016; rollo, p. 81; also spelled as
"Canete" in some parts of the records.
Id. at 1-8.
Id. at 1-2.
Id. at 2.
Also spelled as " Delefla" in some parts of the records.
Rollo, p. 3.
- over - five (5) pages ...
66-11
Notice of Resolution 2 A.C. No. 11040
7 September 2022
Thus, Manuel filed the present complaint against Atty. Cafiete before
this Court on 11 January 2016. He argued that when Atty. Cafiete
represented Jean in several cases against him, Atty. Cafiete represented
conflicting interests and violated his confidence.7
In his Comment dated 18 April 2016,8 Atty. Cafiete belied Manuel's
allegations for being misleading and unmeritorious. He asserted that his
engagement with Manuel happened 14 years ago and that the cases he
handled before for Manuel are unrelated to the present cases he is handling
for Jean, which are for Qualified Theft and Violence Against Women and
Children under Republic Act No. 9262 9 (VAWC case).
On 27 July 2016, the Court issued a Resolution referring the
Complaint to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation,
report, and recommendation. 10
After a careful review of the case, the Commission on Bar Discipline
of the IBP recommended the dismissal of the complaint for lack of merit. 11
However, on 27 October 2017, the IBP Board of Governors passed a
Resolution 12 reversing the aforementioned recommendation. Thus:
RESOLVED to REVERSE the recommendation of the Investigating
Commissioner to dismiss the case, and instead APPROVE to recommend
that Atty. Magnificus C. V Canete be SUSPENDED from the practice of
law for a period ofsix (6) months.
The IBP Commission on Bar Discipline forwarded the Notice of
Resolution and records of the case to the Court pursuant to Rule 139-B,
Rules of Court.13
In a Resolution dated 9 March 2020, 14 the Court noted the IBP Board
of Governors' Notice of Resolution dated 27 October 2017.
The issue before this Court is whether Atty. Cafiete is administratively
liable for violating the rule on confidentiality and prohibition on
representing conflicting interests.
We believe so.
7
Id. at 3-4.
Id. at 76-82.
9 An Act Defining Violence Against Women and Their Children, Providing for Protective Measures for
Victims, Prescribing Penalties Therefore, and for Other Purposes.
10
Rollo, p. 85.
11 Id., unpaginated; Report and Recommendation submitted by Commissioner Eldrid C. Antiquiera
dated 23 May 2017.
12 Id., unpaginated.
13 Id., unpaginated.
14 Id., unpaginated.
- over -
66-11
Notice of Resolution 3 A.C. No. 11040
7 September 2022
Rule 15.03 , Canon 15, Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR)
provides:
CANON 15 - A LAWYER SHALL OBSERVE CANDOR,
FAIRNESS AND LOYALTY IN ALL HIS [OR HER] DEALINGS
AND TRANSACTIONS WITH HIS [OR HER] CLIENTS.
xxxx
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.
In Hornilla v. Atty. Salunat, 15 the Court explained that there is conflict
of interest when a lawyer represents inconsistent interests of two or more
opposing parties. Also, jurisprudence has provided three tests in determining
whether a lawyer is guilty of representing conflicting interests:
One test is whether a lawyer is duty-bound to fight for an issue or claim
in behalf of one client and, at the same time, to oppose that claim for the
other client. Thus, if a lawyer' s argument for one client has to be
opposed by that same lawyer in arguing for the other client, there is a
violation of the rule.
Another test of inconsistency of interests is whether the acceptance of
a new relation would prevent the full discharge of the lawyer's duty
of undivided fidelity and loyalty to the client or invite suspicion of
unfaithfulness or double-dealing in the performance of that duty.
Still another test is whether the lawyer would be called upon in the new
relation to use against a former client any confidential information
acquired through their connection or previous employment. 16 (Emphasis
in the original)
Thus, it has been held that an attorney-client relationship is one of
trust and confidence of the highest degree. An attorney owes loyalty to his
client, and the duty of loyalty to client subsists even after the termination of
the attorney-client relationship. It is not good practice for a lawyer to defend
other person in another case against his former client under the pretext that
the case is distinct from, and independent of the former case. 17
Furthermore, "the rule against conflict of interest also 'prohibits a
lawyer from representing new clients whose interests oppose those of a
former client in any manner, whether or not they are parties in the same
action or on totally unrelated cases,' since the representation of opposing
clients, even in unrelated cases, 'is tantamount to representing conflicting
interests or, at the very least, invites suspicion of double-dealing which the
Court cannot allow."' 18
15 453 Phil. I 08, 111 (2003).
16 Dr. Lee v. Atty. Simando, 710 Phil. 600,607 (2013).
17 Rosacia v. Bulalacao, 3 I 9 Phil I , 4 (I 995).
18 Romero v. Evangelista, Jr., A.C. No. 11829, 26 February 2018.
- over -
66-11
Notice of Resolution 4 A.C. No. 11040
7 September 2022
Applying the foregoing doctrines to the present case, the Court finds
Atty. Canete guilty of representing conflicting interests in violation of Rule
15.03, Canon 15, CPR.
In his Comment, Atty. Canete admitted that he represented Jean in the
Qualified Theft case and VAWC case which involve Manuel, his former
client, as the opposing party. 19 Defending and representing Jean against
Manuel in the aforementioned cases, even unrelated with the cases he
previously handled while he was the legal counsel of Manuel or MDR
Microware Sales, the sole proprietorship business of Manuel, is tantamount
to representing conflicting interests. Moreover, such representation presents
a situation where any confidential information previously acquired by Atty.
Canete during his engagement as retained counsel might be used against
Manuel.
The only exception on the prohibition of representing conflicting
interests is provided under Rule 15 .03 Canon 15, CPR- if there is a written
consent from all the paiiies after full disclosure - which is not present in
this case. Thus, Atty. Cafiete's representation of Jean without the written
consent of Manuel is a violation of Rule 15.03, Canon 15, CPR, warranting
disciplinary action therefor.
Anent the appropriate penalty, jurisprudence is replete with cases
where the Court suspended erring lawyers for a period of six months for
violating the prohibition on representing conflicting interests.20 However,
considering the 14-year gap between the cases handled by Atty. Canete for
Manuel and Jean, and it appearing that Atty. Canete was in good faith when
he represented Jean, the Court deems it just to
reduce the penalty recommended by the IBP Board of Governors to three
months suspension from the practice of law.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, Atty. Magnificus C.V.
Canete is found administratively liable for violation of Rule 15.03, Canon
15, Code of Professional Responsibility. Accordingly, he is SUSPENDED
from the practice of law for a period of three months, effective upon his
receipt of this Resolution, with a STERN WARNING that a repetition of
the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely.
Let a copy of this Resolution be furnished the Office of the Bar
Confidant to be entered into the records of Atty. Magnificus C.V. Canete.
Copies shall likewise be furnished the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and
the Office of the Court Administrator for circulation to all courts throughout
the country for their information and guidance.
19 Rollo, p. 78 .
20 See labadan v. Rosario, A.C. No. I 0785, IO February 2021; Ortiz v. Tampus, A.C. No. 12816, 6 July
2021 ; Atty. Nuique v. Atty. Sedillo, 715 Phil. 304(2013).
- over -
66-11
Notice of Resolution 5 A.C. No. 11040
7 September 2022
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
.BUENA L
lerk of Court~"'
by:
MARIA TERESA B. SIBULO
Deputy Division Clerk of Court
66-11
SEP 2 9 2022
Mr. Manuel L. Dy, Jr. Atty. Magnificus C.V. Canete
Complainant Respondent
M-1 Business Center DIVINA & UY LAW OFFICES
Ouano A venue, North Reclamation Area Unit 1504, Ayala Life-FGU Center
Subangdaku, Mandaue City, 6014 Cebu Mindanao Avenue cor. Biliran Road
Cebu Business District, 6000 Cebu City
Integrated Bar of the Philippines
15 Dofia Julia Vargas Avenue
Ortigas Center, 1605 Pasig City
Office of the Bar Confidant (x)
Supreme Court
Office of the Court Administrator (x)
Supreme Court
Public lnfonnation Office (x)
Library Services (x)
Supreme Court
(For uploading pursuant to A.M.
No. 12-7-1-SC)
Philippine Judicial Academy (x)
Supreme Court
UR
