LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS REVIEW

JURISPRUDENCE (CANONS 14 TO 22 OF THE CODE OF

PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY)
ARIEL G. PALACIOS, for and in behalf of the AFP Retirement
and Separation Benefits System (AFP-RSBS) vs. ATTY.
BIENVENIDO BRAULIO M. AMORA, JR., A.C. No. 11504, August
1, 2017

FACTS:

Ariel G. Palacios is the owner-developer of more or

less 312 hectares of land estate property located in the
Municipality of Silang, Province of Cavite. Said property
was being developed into a residential subdivision,
community club house and two (2) eighteen-hole, world-class
championship golf courses (the "Riviera project"). In 1996,
complainant entered into purchase agreements with several
investors in order to finance the 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. As Palacio’s legal
counsel, Atty. Amora 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

legal counsel, respondent became Phil. Golf’s representative
and assignee. Respondent began pushing for the swapping of
Phil. Golf’s 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. After
complainant's rejection of the said proposals, Atty. Amora
on behalf of a subsequent client (Phil. Golf) filed a case
against Palacios before the HLURB for alleged breach of
contract.

The Integrated Bar of the Philippines-Commission on Bar

Discipline (IBP-CBD) recommended the dismissal of the
complaint for lack of merit. On review, however, the IBP
Board of Governors found that Atty. Amora violated Rules
15.01, 15.03, 21.01 and 21.02 of the CPR, as well as Article
1491 of the Civil Code.
It reversed the recommendation of the IBP-CBD and
recommended the suspension of Atty. Amora from the practice
of law for a period of three (3) years and ordered him to
return the amount of P1.8M to Palacios within six (6)
months. Pursuant to Section 12(b), Rule 139-B of the Rules
of Court, the IBP-BOG forwarded the instant case to the
Supreme Court for final action.

ISSUE: Whether Atty. Amora is administratively liable for

his actuations.

RULING:

The Supreme Court held that Atty. Amora represented

conflicting interests. He violated the Lawyer’s Oath which
provides:

I ___________ of ___________ do solemnly swear

that I will maintain allegiance to the Republic of
the Philippines; I will support its Constitution and
obey laws as well as the legal orders of the duly
constituted authorities therein; I will do no
falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any court; I
will not wittingly nor willingly promote or sue any
groundless, false or unlawful suit, or give aid nor
consent to the same; I will delay no man for money
or malice, and will conduct myself as a lawyer
according to the best of my knowledge and discretion
with all good fidelity as well to the courts as to
my clients; and I impose upon myself this voluntary
obligations without any mental reservation or
purpose of evasion. So help me God. (Emphasis
supplied)

The Supreme Court also ruled that Atty. Amora violated

Rules 15.01 and 15.03 of the CPR which explicitly 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 Supreme Court emphasized that 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. Atty. Amora, however, failed to present any such
document. His argument that the 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, is not the consent that the CPR
demands. A lawyer’s failure to acquire a written
consent from both clients after a full disclosure of the
facts would subject him to disciplinary action. Absent such
written consent, Atty. Amora is guilty of representing
conflicting interests.

The Supreme Court reiterated its ruling in Homilla v.

Salunat ( A.C. No. 5804, July 1, 2003, 405 SCRA 220)
regarding the test to determine when a conflict of
interest is present, thus:

“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. Also, there is conflict
of interest if the acceptance of the new retainer
will require the attorney to perform an act which
will injuriously affect his first client in any
matter in which he represents him and also whether
he will be called upon in his new relation to use
against his first client any knowledge acquired
through their connection. Another test of the
inconsistency of interests is whether the
acceptance of a new relation will prevent an
attorney from the full discharge of his duty of
undivided fidelity and loyalty to his client or
invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or double-
dealing in the performance thereof.” (Emphasis
supplied)

Undoubtedly, Atty.Amora’s representation of Phil. Golf

violated the rules on conflict of interest as he undertook
to take up the causes of his new client against the
interest of his former client. His violation of
the rules on conflict of interest renders him subject to
disciplinary action.

The Supreme Court ruled that Atty. Amora violated

Rules 21.01 and 21.02 of the CPR on the ground that when he
caused the filing of the complaint before the HLURB, he must
have necessarily divulged to Phil. Golf and used information
that he gathered while he was complainant’s counsel. Rules
21.01 and 21.02 of the CPR reads:

“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.”

There is, however, no basis for the return of PhP 1.8

Million as there was no violation of Article 1491 of the
New Civil Code of the Philippines. The subject properties
which were acquired by Atty. Amora were not in litigation
and/or object of any litigation at the time of his
acquisition.

Under the foregoing factual backdrop, the Supreme Court

reduced the suspension of Atty. Amora from the practice of
law from three years to TWO (2) YEARS. He is warned that a
repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with
more severely.
DIWEI “BRYAN” HUANG VS. ATTY. JUDE FRANCIS V. ZAMBRANO, A.
C. NO. 12460, MARCH 26, 2019

FACTS:

Huang, a citizen of Singapore, engaged the services of

Atty. Zambrano to pursue a money claim against certain
individuals. On Huang’s behalf, Atty. Zambrano filed a
criminal case for estafa against several individuals. As
Huang was often out of the country, his communication with
Atty. Zambrano was through e-mail or facebook chat messages.

Atty. Zambrano informed Huang that the respondents in

the pending estafa case had expressed their willingness to
settle and pay Huang P250,000.00. Huang accepted the
proposal per Atty. Zambrano’s advice. The respondents in
the estafa case eventually paid Huang the settlement money
via Atty. Zambrano. When Huang inquired as to how he could
get his money, Atty. Zambrano answered that the dismissal of
the estafa case should first be processed. For two months,
Huang constantly followed-up and demanded his money from
Atty. Zambrano but to no avail. Atty. Zambrano would
proffer various excuses. Realizing that the demands for his
money were futile, Huang instituted a disbarment case
against Atty. Zambrano before the IBP-CBD. He asserted that
Atty. Zambrano violated Rules 16.01 and 16.03 of Canon 16 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR).

ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Zambrano violated Rules 16.01

and 16.03 of Canon 16 of the CPR.

RULING:

Yes. Once money or property is received by a lawyer on

behalf of his client, the former has the obligation to
account for the said money or property and remit the same
immediately to the client. To ignore consecutive follow-ups
and demands from the client without any acceptable reason
corrodes the client’s trust and stains the legal profession.
By his actuations, Atty. Zambrano damaged his reliability
and reputation as a lawyer. There is no dispute that he
received the P250,000.00 from the respondents in the estafa
case. He rejected Huang’s sound suggestion to have the
settlement money directly deposited by the respondents to
his account. He also refused Huang’s alternative
proposition to have his friend receive the money on his
behalf. There is evidently a premeditated effort by Atty.
Zambrano to ensure that the settlement money would be given
to him.

There is no law or jurisprudence which requires the

formal dismissal of the case before the lawyer yields
possession of his client’s money. In advising Huang of the
same, Atty. Zambrano had acted deceitfully – willfully
misleading Huang and abusing the trust and confidence his
client reposed in him. This is in contravention of Rule
1.10, Canon 1 of the CPR.

PENALTY IMPOSED ON ATTY. ZAMBRANO:

The Supreme Court DISBARRED Atty. Zambrano for

violating Rules 1.01, 16.01 and 16.03 of the CPR and his
name was ordered STRICKEN OFF from the Roll of Attorneys.

Atty. Zambrano is further DIRECTED to immediately remit

to complainant Huang the full amount of Two Hundred and
Fifty Thousand Pesos (P250,000.00), which will earn interest
of six percent (6%) per annum from finality of this Decision
until its full payment.

NOTE: More will be sent later. Thanks.