Abaqueta vs. Florido

of 4
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Related Documents
   ABAQUETA v. FLORIDOYNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:  This is an administrative complaint[1] against Atty. Bernardito A. Florido fled with the Integrated Bar o the Philippines IBP! ommission on Bar #iscipline$ praying that appropriate sanctions %e imposed on respondent or representing con&icting interests. omplainant is a Filipino %y %irth who had ac'(ired American citi)enship. *e resides at 1+,+- . 1+th /ay$ Phoeni0$ Ari)ona ,+22$ 3.4.A. 5espondent is a practicing lawyer %ased in e%( ity.6n ovem%er 2,$ 17,8$ complainant engaged the proessional services o respondent thro(gh his attorney9in9act$ :rs. harito ;. Baclig$ to represent him in 4pecial Proceedings o. 87<195$ entitled$ =Inthe :atter o the Intestate >state o #eceased Boniacia A%a'(eta$[2] 4(sana 3y Tra)o$ petitioner? %eore the 5egional Trial co(rt o e%(.[8]Accordingly$ respondent entered his appearance in 4pecial Proceedings o. 87<195 as co(nsel or herein complainant.[@] 4(%se'(ently$ he fled complainants =6%ections and omments to Inventory and Acco(nting$? registering complainants o%ection C. . . to the incl(sion o the properties (nder Items 1 to + contained in the inventory o the administratri0dated ovem%er 7$ 17,8. These properties are the sole and e0cl(sive properties o the oppositor per the latest ta0 declarations already marDed as >0hi%its =2?$ =8$ =@?$ =+? and =-? in the Formal 6Eer o >0hi%its %y oppositor in writing dated A(g(st 1<$ 17,8 000.[+]4everal years later$ :ilagros ;ap A%a'(eta fled an action or s(m o money against complainant$ docDeted as ivil ase o. >B911@+8 and entitled$ =:ilagros ;ap A%a'(eta vs. amaliel A%a'(eta and asiano erona.?[-] 5espondent signed the omplaint as co(nsel or plaintiE :ilagros ;ap A%a'(eta$ averring$ inter alia$ thatGPlaintiE and deendant amaliel A%a'(eta are the con(gal owners o those certain parcels o land$ more partic(larly as ollowsH The =parcels o land? reerred to as con(gal property o complainant and :ilagros ;ap9A%a'(eta are the very same parcels o land in 4pecial Proceedings o. 87<195 which respondent$ as lawyer o complainant$ alleged as the =sole and e0cl(sive properties? o complainant. In short$ respondent lawyer made allegations in ivil ase o. >B911@+8 which were contrary to and in direct con&ict with his averments as co(nsel or complainant in 4pecial Proceedings o. 87<195. omplainant (rther averred that respondent admitted he was never a(thori)ed %y the ormer to appear as co(nsel or complainants e09wie in ivil ase o. >B911@+8 that respondent ailed to indicate in the omplaint the tr(e and correct address o herein complainant$ which respondent Dnew as ar %acD as A(g(st 2$ 177$ when he wrote a letter to the complainant at the said address.[<] onse'(ently$ complainant ailed to receive s(mmons and was declared in dea(lt in ivil ase o. >B911@+8. /hile the order o dea(lt was event(ally set aside$ complainant inc(rred e0penses to travel to the Philippines$ which were conservatively estimated at J1$.. *e arg(es that respondents cond(ct constit(te proessional miscond(ct and malpractice as well as tri&ing with co(rt processes.In his deense$ respondent claims in his Answer[,] that he always acted in good aith in his proessional relationship with complainant in spite o the act that they have not personally met. *e %ased the matters he wrote in the omplaint on inormation and doc(ments s(pplied %y :rs. harito ;.Baclig$ complainants sister9in9law and attorney9in9act$ indicating that he was sole and e0cl(sive ownero the properties. This was sometime in ovem%er 17,8. o aKdavit o ad(dication was ever  (rnished respondent %y complainant and this was apparently s(ppressed %eca(se it wo(ld show that the properties ormed part o the estate.>ight years later$ in ovem%er 1771$ long ater 4pecial Proceedings o. 87<195 was settled and the attorney9client relationship %etween complainant and respondent was terminated$ :rs. :ilagros A%a'(eta thro(gh :rs. Baclig$ engaged his services to fle ivil ase o. >B911@+8. :rs. Baclig presented to him a deed o a%sol(te sale dated L(ly <$ 17<+$[7] showing that the properties s(%ect hereo were not complainants e0cl(sive property %(t his con(gal property with his wie$ the same having %een ac'(ired d(ring the s(%sistence o their marriage. Th(s$ in all good aith$ respondent alleged in the complaint that said properties were con(gal assets o the spo(ses.5espondent (rther pointed o(t that his law frm handles on the average eighty new co(rt cases ann(ally and personally interviews o(r or fve clients$ prospective clients andMor witnesses daily e0cept 4at(rdays and 4(ndays. It reg(larly closes to the p(%lic at <G p.m.$ %(t worD contin(es sometimes (ntil ,G8 p.m. This has %een going on or the last twenty9fve years o(t o respondents thirty9three years o private practice. The a%sence o personal contact with complainant and the lapse o eight years res(lted in the oversight andMor lapse o respondents memory that complainant was a ormer client. F(rthermore$ the caption o the 4pecial Proceeding was not in the name o complainant %(t was entitled$ =In the :atter o the Intestate >state o Boniacia Payahay A%a'(eta.?5espondent e0pressed regret over the oversight and averred that immediately ater discovering that he ormerly represented complainant in 4pecial Proceeding o. 87<195$ he fled a motion to withdraw as co(nsel or plaintiE$ which was granted %y the trial co(rt.[1] *e denied any malice in his acts and alleged that it is not in his character to do malice or alsehood partic(larly in the e0ercise o his proession.In his ommentsM6%servations on 5espondents Answer$[11] complainant averred that respondents cond(ct was geared towards ins(ring a co(rt victory or :ilagros ;ap in ivil ase o. >B911@+8$ wherein he deli%erately stated that complainants address was 728 5iverside Nodge #rive$ *o(ston$  Te0as$ <<,8$ 3.4.A.$ when he Dnew (lly well that complainants tr(e and correct address was cMo O.A. *ospital$ <th 4treet  Italian 4chool 5oad$ Phoeni0$ Ari)ona$ ,+18$ 3.4.A. By alsely stating and concealing his tr(e and correct address$ respondent event(ally s(cceeded in o%taining a dea(lt  (dgment in avor o his client.#(ring the pendency o these proceedings %eore the IBP$ it appeared that respondents son got married to the da(ghter o IBP ational President Arth(r #. Nim. Th(s$ Atty. Nim inhi%ited himsel rom participating in the resol(tion o the case.[12] 4(%se'(ently$ a 5esol(tion was iss(ed re'(iring the IBPto elevate the entire records o the case within thirty 8! days rom notice.[18] The main iss(e to %e resolved in the case at %ar is whether or not respondent violated 5(le 1+.8 o the ode o Proessional 5esponsi%ility. The investigating commissioner o(nd that respondent clearly violated the prohi%ition against representing con&icting interests and recommended that he %e s(spended rom the practice o law or a period o three 8! months. /e fnd the recommendation well9taDen.5(le 1+.8 o the ode o Proessional 5esponsi%ility e0plicitly provides that C53N> 1+.8. C A lawyer shall not represent con&icting interests e0cept %y written consent o all concerned given ater a (ll disclos(re o the acts. There is a con&ict o interest i there is an inconsistency in the interests o two or more opposing parties. The test is whether or not in %ehal o one client$ it is the lawyers d(ty to fght or an iss(e or  claim %(t it is his d(ty to oppose it or the other client.[1@] In short$ i he arg(es or one client$ this arg(ment will %e opposed %y him when he arg(es or the other client.[1+] There is a representation o con&icting interests i the acceptance o the new retainer will re'(ire the attorney to do anything which will in(rio(sly aEect his frst client in any matter in which he represents him and also whether he will %e called (pon in his new relation$ to (se against his frst client any Dnowledge ac'(ired thro(gh their connection.[1-]As pointed o(t %y the investigating commissioner$ respondent does not deny that he represented complainant in 4pecial Proceedings o. 87<195. *e also does not deny that he is the lawyer o :ilagros ;ap A%a'(eta in ivil ase o. >B911@+8$ fled against complainant and involving the same properties which were litigated in 4pecial Proceedings o. 87<195. 5espondent also admitted that he did not sec(re the consent o complainant %eore he agreed to act as :ilagros ;ap A%a'(etas lawyer in ivil ase o. >B911@+8. The reasons proEered %y respondent are hardly pers(asive to e0c(se his clear representation o con&icting interests in this case. First$ the investigating commissioner o%served that the name =amaliel A%a'(eta? is not a common name. 6nce heard$ it will s(rely ring a %ell in ones mind i he came across the name again. In this case$ respondent actively prosec(ted the ca(se o complainant in4pecial Proceedings o. 87<195$ s(ch that it wo(ld %e impossi%le or respondent not to have recalled his name.4econd$ ass(ming arg(endo that respondents memory was indeed a(lty$ still it is incredi%le that he co(ld not recall that complainant was his client$ considering that :rs. harito Baclig$ who was complainants attorney9in9act and the go9%etween o complainant and respondent in 4pecial Proceedings o. 87<195$ was the same person who %ro(ght :ilagros ;ap A%a'(eta to him. >ven a person o average intelligence wo(ld have made the connection %etween :rs. Baclig and complainant (nder s(ch circ(mstances.Nastly$ the act that the s(%ect matter o ivil ase o. >B911@+8 and 4pecial Proceedings o. 87<195 are the same properties co(ld not have escaped the attention o respondent. /ith s(ch an a%(ndance o circ(mstances to aid respondents memory$ it simply strains cred(lity or him to have conveniently orgotten his past engagement as complainants lawyer. /hat rather appears$ given the prevailing acts o this case$ is that he chose to ignore them on the ass(mption that the long period o time spanning his past and present engagement wo(ld eEectively %l(r the memories o the parties to s(ch a discrepancy.It is a0iomatic that no lawyer is o%liged to act either as adviser or advocate or every person who may wish to %ecome his client. *e has the right to decline s(ch employment$[1<] s(%ect$ however$ to anon 1@ o the ode o Proessional 5esponsi%ility.[1,] 6nce he agrees to taDe (p the ca(se o the client$ the lawyer owes fdelity to s(ch ca(se and m(st always %e mind(l o the tr(st and confdence reposed in him.[17] *e m(st serve the client with competence and diligence[2] and champion the latters ca(se with wholehearted fdelity$ care and devotion.[21]A lawyer may not$ witho(t %eing g(ilty o proessional miscond(ct$ act as co(nsel or a person whose interest con&icts with that o his ormer client.[22] The reason or the prohi%ition is o(nd in the relation o attorney and client which is one o tr(st and confdence o the highest degree.[28] Indeed$ as we stated in 4i%(lo v. a%rera$[2@] =The relation o attorney and client is %ased on tr(st$ so that do(%le dealing$ which co(ld sometimes lead to treachery$ sho(ld %e avoided.?[2+] redence cannot$ however$ %e given to the charge that respondent ra(d(lently and malicio(sly alsifed the tr(e and correct address o the complainant notwithstanding respondents Dnowledge thereo. Nawyers normally do not have Dnowledge o the personal circ(mstances o a party in a case and (s(ally rely on the inormation s(pplied %y their clients. The act that respondent sent a letter to complainant at the latters correct address[2-] si0teen months %eore the fling o ivil ase o. >B9  11@+8 does not %y itsel prove malice on the part o respondent. A new address was (rnished %y :ilagros ;ap A%a'(eta days %eore the complaint was fled. 5espondent had no reason to do(%t the correctness o the address o the complainant given to him %y :ilagros ;ap A%a'(eta considering that she was complainants wie./*>5>F65>$ Atty. Bernardito A. Florido is 434P>#># rom the practice o law or Three 8! months. *e is (rther A#:6I4*># to e0ercise greater care and diligence in the perormance o his d(ties towards his clients and the co(rt. *e is warned that a repetition o the same or similar oEense will %e dealt with more severely.46 65#>5>#.

Shit happens

Jul 26, 2017
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks