FIRST DIVISION

[A.C. No. 7023. March 30, 2006.]

BUN SIONG YAO , complainant, vs . ATTY. LEONARDO A. AURELIO ,

respondent.

DECISION

YNARES-SANTIAGO , J : p

On November 11, 2004, a complaint-a davit 1 was led against Atty. Leonardo A.
Aurelio by Bun Siong Yao before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) seeking for his
disbarment for alleged violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
The complainant alleged that since 1987 he retained the services of respondent as
his personal lawyer; that respondent is a stockholder and the retained counsel of Solar
Farms & Livelihood Corporation and Solar Textile Finishing Corporation of which
complainant is a majority stockholder; that complainant purchased several parcels of land
using his personal funds but were registered in the name of the corporations upon the
advice of respondent; that respondent, who was also the brother in-law of complainant's
wife, had in 1999 a disagreement with the latter and thereafter respondent demanded the
return of his investment in the corporations but when complainant refused to pay, he led
eight charges for estafa and falsi cation of commercial documents against the
complainant and his wife and the other o cers of the corporation; that respondent also
led a complaint against complainant for alleged non-compliance with the reportorial
requirements of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) with the O ce of the City
Prosecutor of Mandaluyong City and another complaint with the O ce of the City
Prosecutor of Malabon City for alleged violation of Section 75 of the Corporation Code;
that respondent also led a similar complaint before the O ce of the City Prosecutor of
San Jose Del Monte, Bulacan.
Complainant alleged that the series of suits led against him and his wife is a form
of harassment and constitutes an abuse of the con dential information which respondent
obtained by virtue of his employment as counsel. Complainant argued that respondent is
guilty of representing con icting interests when he led several suits not only against the
complainant and the other o cers of the corporation, but also against the two
corporations of which he is both a stockholder and retained counsel. ETHIDa

Respondent claimed that he handled several labor cases in behalf of Solar Textile
Finishing Corporation; that the funds used to purchase several parcels of land were not the
personal funds of complainant but pertain to Solar Farms & Livelihood Corporation; that
since 1999 he was no longer the counsel for complainant or Solar Textile Finishing
Corporation; that he never used any con dential information in pursuing the criminal cases
he led but only used those information which he obtained by virtue of his being a
stockholder.
He further alleged that his requests for copies of the nancial statements were
ignored by the complainant and his wife hence he was constrained to le criminal
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 complaints for estafa thru concealment of documents; that when he was furnished copies
of the nancial statements, he discovered that several parcels of land were not included in
the balance sheet of the corporations; that the nancial statements indicated that the
corporations suffered losses when in fact it paid cash dividends to its stockholders,
hence, he led additional complaints for falsi cation of commercial documents and
violation of reportorial requirements of the SEC.
On July 19, 2005, the Investigating Commissioner 2 submitted a Report and
Recommendation 3 nding that from 1987 up to 1999, respondent had been the personal
lawyer of the complainant and incorporator and counsel of Solar Farms & Livelihood
Corporation. However, in 1999 complainant discontinued availing of the services of
respondent in view of the admission of his (complainant's) son to the bar; he also
discontinued paying dividends to respondent and even concealed from him the
corporations' nancial statements which compelled the respondent to le the multiple
criminal and civil cases in the exercise of his rights as a stockholder.
The investigating commissioner further noted that respondent is guilty of forum
shopping when he led identical charges against the complainant before the O ce of the
City Prosecutor of Malabon City and in the O ce of the City Prosecutor of San Jose del
Monte, Bulacan. It was also observed that respondent was remiss in his duty as counsel
and incorporator of both corporations for failing to advise the o cers of the corporation,
which he was incidentally a member of the Board of Directors, to comply with the
reportorial requirements of the SEC and the Bureau of Internal Revenue. Instead, he led
cases against his clients, thereby representing conflicting interests.
The investigating commissioner recommended that respondent be suspended from
the practice of law for a period of six months 4 which was adopted and approved by the
IBP Board of Governors. SIEHcA

We agree with the findings and recommendation of the IBP.

We nd that the professional relationship between the complainant and the
respondent is more extensive than his protestations that he only handled isolated labor
cases for the complainant's corporations. Aside from being the brother-in-law of
complainant's wife, it appears that even before the inception of the companies, respondent
was already providing legal services to the complainant, thus:
COMM. NAVARRO:

Was there a formal designation or you where only called upon to do so?

ATTY. AURELIO:

Well, I understand in order to show to the employees that they have labor
lawyer and at that time I went to the o ce at least half day every week but
that was cut short. And so when there are cases that crop-up involving
labor then they called me up.
xxx xxx xxx
ATTY. OLEDAN:

Will counsel deny that he was the personal lawyer of the complainant long
before he joined the company?

ATTY. AURELIO:
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 Yes, with respect to the boundary dispute between his land and his neighbor
but the subject matter of all the cases I led they all revolved around the
Financial Statement of the 2 corporations. I never devolves any
information with respect to labor cases and the MERALCO case with
respect to boundary dispute, nothing I used.

ATTY. OLEDAN:

Was he not also the lawyer at that time of complainant when he incorporated
the second corporation in 1992?

ATTY. AURELIO:

Well, I was the one submitted the corporate papers and I think after that I
have nothing to do with the SEC requirements regarding this corporation.
Just to submit the incorporation papers to the SEC and anyway they have
already done that before. They have already created or established the rst
corporation way back before the second corporation started and there was
no instance where I dealt with the Financial Statement of the corporation
with respect to its filing with the SEC.

ATTY. OLEDAN:

My only question is whether he incorporated and therefore was aware of the

corporate matters involving Solar Farms?

ATTY. AURELIO:

As a stockholder I'm aware.

ATTY. OLEDAN:

As a lawyer? IESDCH

ATTY. AURELIO:

Well, as a stockholder I'm aware.

xxx xxx xxx

ATTY. OLEDAN:
You are not the one who filed. . . .

ATTY. AURELIO:
I was the one who led the corporate paper but that's all the participation I
had with respect to the requirement of the SEC with respect to the
corporation.
COMM. NAVARRO:

So, you acted as legal counsel of the corporation even before the initial stage
of the incorporation?

ATTY. AURELIO:
There are two (2) corporations involving in this case, Your Honor, and the
first was I think Solar Textile and this was. . . .

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com

 COMM. NAVARRO:
You were already the legal counsel?

ATTY. AURELIO:
No, this was created before I became a stockholder.

COMM. NAVARRO:
Who was then the legal counsel before of Solar?

MR. YAO:
Siya pa rin pero hindi pa siya stockholder.
ATTY. OLEDAN:

Because, Your Honor, he happens to be the brother-in-law of the wife of the

complainant and he is the husband of the wife of her sister so that's why
he was . . . (inaudible) . . . other legal matters even before the corporation
that was formed and he became also a stockholder and in fact he charge
the corporation certain amounts for professional service rendered it is part
of the Resolution of the O ce of the City Prosecutor of Malabon as annex
to the complaint so he cannot say that he only presented, that he only led
the papers at SEC and aside from that when the corporation, the Solar
Farms was already formed and the property which he is now questioning
was purchased by complainant. He was the one who negotiated with the
buyer, he was always with the complainant and precisely acted as
complainant's personal lawyer. The truth of the matter he is questioning
the boundary and in fact complainant had survey conducted in said parcel
of land which he bought with the assistance and legal advice of
respondent and in fact complainant gave him only a copy of that survey.
Him alone. And he used this particular copy to insists that this property
allegedly belong to the corporation when in truth and in fact he was fully
aware that it was the complainant's personal funds that were used to pay
for the whole area and this was supported by the stockholders who
admitted that they were aware that the parcel of land which he claims does
not appear in the Financial Statement of the corporation was purchased by
the complainant subject to reimbursement by the Board and should the
corporation nally have su cient fund to cover the payment advance by
complainant then the property will be transferred to the corporation. All of
these facts he was privy to it, Your Honor, so he cannot say that and he is
also a stockholder but the fact is, prior to the incorporation and during the
negotiation he was the personal counsel of the complainant. 5

It appears that the parties' relationship was not just professional, but they are also
related by a nity. The disagreement between complainant's wife and the respondent
affected their professional relationship. Complainant's refusal to disclose certain nancial
records prompted respondent to retaliate by filing several suits. HEASaC

It is essential to note that the relationship between an attorney and his client is a
fiduciary one. 6 Canon 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that a lawyer
owes delity to the cause of his client and shall be mindful of the trust and con dence
reposed on him. The long-established rule is that an attorney is not permitted to disclose
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 communications made to him in his professional character by a client, unless the latter
consents. This obligation to preserve the con dences and secrets of a client arises at the
inception of their relationship. The protection given to the client is perpetual and does not
cease with the termination of the litigation, nor is it affected by the party's ceasing to
employ the attorney and retaining another, or by any other change of relation between
them. It even survives the death of the client. 7
Notwithstanding the veracity of his allegations, respondent's act of ling multiple
suits on similar causes of action in different venues constitutes forum-shopping, as
correctly found by the investigating commissioner. This highlights his motives rather than
his cause of action. Respondent took advantage of his being a lawyer in order to get back
at the complainant. In doing so, he has inevitably utilized information he has obtained from
his dealings with complainant and complainant's companies for his own end.
Lawyers must conduct themselves, especially in their dealings with their clients and
the public at large, with honesty and integrity in a manner beyond reproach. 8 Lawyers
cannot be allowed to exploit their profession for the purpose of exacting vengeance or as
a tool for instigating hostility against any person — most especially against a client or
former client. As we stated in Marcelo v. Javier, Sr.: 9
A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal
profession. The trust and con dence necessarily reposed by clients require in the
attorney a high standard and appreciation of his duty to his clients, his
profession, the courts and the public. The bar should maintain a high standard of
legal pro ciency as well as of honesty and fair dealing. Generally speaking, a
lawyer can do honor to the legal profession by faithfully performing his duties to
society, to the bar, to the courts and to his clients. To this end, nothing should be
done by any member of the legal fraternity which might tend to lessen in any
degree the con dence of the public in the delity, honesty and integrity of the
profession. 1 0 (Emphasis supplied)
In sum, we nd that respondent's actuations amount to a breach of his duty to
uphold good faith and fairness, su cient to warrant the imposition of disciplinary sanction
against him.
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Leonardo A. Aurelio is ordered SUSPENDED from the
practice of law for a period of SIX (6) MONTHS effective upon receipt of this Decision. Let
a copy of this Decision be furnished the O ce of the Bar Con dant and the Integrated Bar
of the Philippines. The Court Administrator is directed to circulate this order of suspension
to all courts in the country. TEcADS

SO ORDERED.
Panganiban, C.J., Austria-Martinez, Callejo, Sr. and Chico-Nazario, JJ., concur.

Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 1-10.
2. Lydia A. Navarro.
3. Rollo, pp. 187-195.
4. Id. at 195.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 5. Id. at 159-168.
6. Sumaoang v. Judge, Regional Trial Court of Guimba, Nueve Ecija, Br. 31, G.R. No. 78173,
October 26, 1992, 215 SCRA 136, 143.
7. Genato v. Silapan, 453 Phil. 910, 917 (2003).
8. De Guzman v. De Dios, A.C. No. 4943, January 26, 2001, 350 SCRA 320, 324.
9. A.C. No. 3248, September 18, 1992, 214 SCRA 1.

10. Id. at 12-13.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com