Administrative Case - Legal Ethics

ADMINISTRATIVE CASE – LEGAL ETHICS
ROBERTO BERNARDINO vs. ATTY. VICTOR REY SANTOS

A.C. No. 10583, February 18, 2015 (Resolution)
ATTY. JOSE MANGASER CARINGAL vs. ATTY. VICTOR REY SANTOS

A.C. No. 10584, February 18, 2015 (Resolution)
LEONEN, J.
CASE DOCTRINE
A lawyer owes candor, fairness, and good faith to the court (Canon 10). A lawyer shall
not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in Court; nor shall he mislead, or
allow the Court to be misled by any artifice (Rule 10.01). A lawyer shall observe candor,
fairness, and loyalty in all his dealings and transactions with his clients (Canon 15). A
lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by written consent of all concerned
given after a full disclosure of the facts (Rule 15.03).
FACTS
In the first administrative case, complainant Roberto C. Bernardino (Bernardino) filed a

complaint against Atty. Victor Rey Santos (Atty. Santos) before the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP) praying for the latter’s investigation and subjection to disciplinary
action. It was alleged by Bernardino that Atty. Santos falsified the death certificate of his
Aunt Rufina—making it appear that Rufina died in 1992 when it fact she died in 1990.
Atty. Santos apparently used such falsified document to support the Affidavit of Self-
Adjudication executed by the husband of Rufina, Mariano. Years later, Atty. Santos, on
behalf of Marilu, the daughter of Rufina and Mariano, filed a Complaint for sum of
money with prayer for a Writ of Preliminary Injunction and TRO against Bernardino,
alleging that Marilu is an heir of Mariano, which allegedly contradicts the Affidavit of
Self-Adjudication that Atty. Santos drafted. Thus, Atty. Santos represented clients with
conflicting interests.
Another complaint was filed against Atty. Santos by Atty. Jose Mangaser Caringal
(Atty. Caringal). Similar to the earlier complaint, the latter alleged that the former
represented clients with conflicting interests. The same alleged that in representing
Marilu, Atty. Santos would necessarily go against the claims of Mariano. Because of this,
Atty. Santos was allegedly violating the so-called “Dead Man’s Statute” because he
would be utilizing information or matters of fact occurring before the death of his
deceased client. Similarly, he would be unscrupulously utilizing information acquired
during his professional relation with his said client that would constitute a breach of
trust or of privileged communication. It was also alleged that he engaged in forum-
shopping; that he violated Canon 10 and Rule 10.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility (Code) because he drafted an affidavit which states that Mariano is the
sole heir of Rufina when he knew this to be false. Moreover, Atty. Santos allegedly
converted funds belonging to the heirs of Mariano for his own benefit. The funds
involved were rental income from Mariano’s properties that were supposed to be
distributed to the heirs. Instead, Atty. Santos received the rental income.
ISSUE
Whether or not Atty. Santos violated Canon 10, Rule 10.01 and Canon 15, Rule 15.03 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility?
RULING
Yes, Atty. Santos violated Canon 10, Rule 10.01 and Canon 15, Rule 15.03 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.
Violation of Canon 10, Rule 10.01

The Supreme Court adopted the findings of the Commission on Bar Discipline providing
that by virtue of the doctrine res ipsa loquitur finds that the respondent's act of failing to
thwart his client Mariano Turla from ling the Affidavit of Adjudication despite his
knowledge of the existence of Marilu Turla as a possible heir to the estate of Rufina
Turla, the respondent failed to uphold his obligation as a member of the bar to be the
stewards of justice and protectors of what is just, legal and proper. Thus in failing to do
his duty and acting dishonestly not only was he in contravention of the Lawyer's Oath
but was also in violation of Canon 10, Rule 10.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
As officers of the court, lawyers have the duty to uphold the rule of law. In doing so,
lawyers are expected to be honest in all their dealings. Unfortunately, respondent was
far from being honest. With full knowledge that Rufina Turla had another heir, he
acceded to Mariano Turla's request to prepare the Affidavit of Self-Adjudication.
Violation of Canon 15, Rule 15.03

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 interests 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.
Applying the test to determine whether conflict of interest exists, respondent would
necessarily refute Mariano Turla's claim that he is Rufina Turla's sole heir when he
agreed to represent Marilu Turla. Worse, he knew that Mariano Turla was not the only
heir.
However, Rule 15.03 provides for an exception, specifically, "by written consent of all
concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts". Respondent had the duty to inform
Mariano Turla and Marilu Turla that there is a conflict of interest and to obtain their
written consent.
Mariano Turla died on February 5, 2009, while respondent represented Marilu Turla in
March 2009. It is understandable why respondent was unable to obtain Mariano Turla's
consent. Still, respondent did not present evidence showing that he disclosed to Marilu
Turla that he previously represented Mariano Turla and assisted him in executing the A
davit of Self-Adjudication. Thus, the allegation of conflict of interest against respondent
was sufficiently proven.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION OF THE CASE
WHEREFORE, we find respondent Atty. Victor Rey Santos guilty of violating Canon 15,
Rule 15.03 and Canon 10, Rule 10.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The
findings of fact and recommendations of the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of
the Philippines dated May 10, 2013 and March 22, 2014 are ACCEPTED and ADOPTED
with the MODIFICATION that the penalty of suspension from the practice of law for one
(1) year is imposed upon Atty. Victor Rey Santos. He is warned that a repetition of the
same or similar act shall be dealt with more severely.

Administrative Case - Legal Ethics

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Administrative Case - Legal Ethics

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Administrative Case - Legal Ethics

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ADMINISTRATIVE CASE – LEGAL ETHICS

ROBERTO BERNARDINO vs. ATTY. VICTOR REY SANTOS

ATTY. JOSE MANGASER CARINGAL vs. ATTY. VICTOR REY SANTOS

In the first administrative case, complainant Roberto C. Bernardino (Bernardino) filed a

Violation of Canon 10, Rule 10.01

Violation of Canon 15, Rule 15.03

DISPOSITIVE PORTION OF THE CASE

You might also like