Orola v. Ramos

Josephine L. Orola, et al v. Atty.
Joseph Ador Ramos

AC No. 9860, September 11, 2013
Facts:
This involves the settlement of the estate of Trinidad Laserna-Orola. She was
married to Emilio Q. Orola who has the appointed administrator. Some
of the complainants are their children who are named Josephine,
Myrna, Manueal, Mary Angelyn, Marjorie, and Antonio. Antonio, who is
already deceased, is married to Maricar and has a daughter named
Karen, who is also a complainant in this case.
In the settlement of Trinidad’s estate, Maricar and Karen were represented by

Atty. Azarraga, Jr. with Atty. Ramos, the respondent, as collaborating
counsel.
In the course of the proceedings, the heirs of Trinidad and Heirs of Antonio
(Maricar and Karen) moved for the removal of Emilio as administrator
and, in his stead, sought the appointment of the latter’s son, Manual.
The RTC granted the petition in September 20 2007.
Atty. Ramos then asked Maricar and Karen to withdraw as their counsel.
Karen consented to the withdrawal of respondent’s appearance only on
October 18, 2007. However, respondent filed an Entry of Appearance
as collaborating counsel for Emilio on October 10, 2007.
Due to the respondent’s new engagement, complainants filed th einstant

disbarment complaint against respondent before the IBP claiming that
he violated Rule 15.03 of the Code, as he undertook to represent
conflicting interests in the subject case; and Section 20(e), Rule 138 of
the Rules, as he breached the trust and confidence reposed upon him
by his clients, the Heirs of Antonio.
In his defense, respondent contends that he never appeared as counsel for

the Heirs of Trinidad or for the Heirs of Antonio since the counsel of
the Heirs of Antonio was Atty. Azzaraga, Jr. He averred that he only
accommodated Maricar’s request to temporarily appear on her behalf
as their counsel of record could not attend the scheduled hearings and
that his appearance thereat were free of charge. He also claimed that
he obtained Maricar’s permission for him to withdraw from the case as
no further communications transpired after the two hearings he
appeared for. He then clarified that his representation for Emilio in the
subject case was more of a mediator, rather than a litigator, and that
since no settlement was forged between the parties, he formally
withdrew his appearance on December 6, 2007.
In the Report and Recommendation, the IBP found respondent was found
guilty of representing conflicting interests only with respect to Karen as
the records of the case show that he never acted as counsel for the
other complainants.
Issue:
1. Whether Atty. Ramos is guilty of representing conflicting

interests in violation of Rule 15.03 of the Code
Ruling:
1. Yes, Atty. Ramos is guilty of violating Rule 15.03 of the

Code of Professional Responsibility.
Rule 15.03 of the Code provides that a lawyer shall not

represent conflicting interests except by written consent of all
concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts.
Under this rules, it is explicit that a lawyer is prohibited from

representing new clients who interests oppose those of a
former client in any manner, whether or not they are parties
in same action or on totally unrelated cases. The prohibition is
founded on the principles of public policy and good taste. It
behooves lawyers not only to keep inviolate the client's
confidence, but also to avoid the appearance of treachery and
double-dealing for only then can litigants be encouraged to
entrust their secrets to their lawyers, which is of paramount
importance in the administration of justice.
In Hornilla v. Salunat, the Court explained the concept of

conflict of interest. The Court said that 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.” It
further explains that there is also 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.
In this case, the Court with the IBP’s findings that respondent
conflicting interests and, perforce, must be held
administratively liable. The records reveal that respondent was
the collaborating counsel not only for Maricar as claimed by
him, but for all the Heirs of Antonio in Special Proceeding No.
V-3639. In the course thereof, the Heirs of Trinidad and the
Heirs of Antonio succeeded in removing Emilio as
administrator for having committed acts prejudicial to their
interests. Hence, when respondent proceeded to represent
Emilio for the purpose of seeking his reinstatement as
administrator in the same case, he clearly worked against the
very interest of the Heirs of Antonio – particularly, Karen – in
violation of the above-stated rule.
Respondent's justification that no confidential information was

relayed to him cannot fully exculpate him for the charges
against him since the rule on conflict of interests, as
enunciated in Hornilla, provides an absolute prohibition from
representation with respect to opposing parties in the same
case. In other words, a lawyer cannot change his
representation from one party to the latter’s opponent in the
same case. That respondent’s previous appearances for and in
behalf of the Heirs of Antonio was only a friendly
accommodation cannot equally be given any credence since
the aforesaid rule holds even if the inconsistency is remote or
merely probable or even if the lawyer has acted in good faith
and with no intention to represent conflicting interests.
Additionally, even on the assertion that he was only engaging

with Emilio as a mediator, rather than a litigator, his conduct
is likewise improper since Rule 15.04 of the Canon 15 of the
Code similarly requires the lawyer to obtain the written
consent of all concerned before he may act as mediator,
conciliator or arbitrator in settling disputes. Irrefragably,
respondent failed in this respect as the records show that
respondent was remiss in his duty to make a full disclosure of
his impending engagement as Emilio’s counsel to all the Heirs
of Antonio – particularly, Karen – and equally secure their
express written consent before consummating the same.
The Court suspended Atty. Ramos for a period of 3 months and gave a
warning that a repetition of the same or similar acts in the future will
be dealt with more severely.

Orola v. Ramos

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Orola v. Ramos

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

Orola v. Ramos

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Josephine L. Orola, et al v. Atty.

Joseph Ador Ramos

In the settlement of Trinidad’s estate, Maricar and Karen were represented by

Due to the respondent’s new engagement, complainants filed th einstant

In his defense, respondent contends that he never appeared as counsel for

1. Whether Atty. Ramos is guilty of representing conflicting

1. Yes, Atty. Ramos is guilty of violating Rule 15.03 of the

Rule 15.03 of the Code provides that a lawyer shall not

Under this rules, it is explicit that a lawyer is prohibited from

In Hornilla v. Salunat, the Court explained the concept of

Respondent's justification that no confidential information was

Additionally, even on the assertion that he was only engaging

You might also like