DARIA O. DAGING vs. ATTY. RIZ TINGALON L. DAVIS

A.C. No. 9395               November 12, 2014

DARIA O. DAGING, Complainant vs. ATTY. RIZ TINGALON L. DAVIS, Respondent.

This administrative complaint for disbarment arose from an Affidavit Complaint1 filed by Daria O. Daging (complainant) before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), Benguet Chapter,2 against Atty. Riz Tingalon L. Davis (respondent).

Complainant was the owner and operator of Nashville Country Music Lounge. She leased it from Benjie Pinlac (Pinlac).

Meanwhile, complainant received a Retainer Proposal from Davis & Sabling Law Office signed by respondent and his partner Atty. Amos Saganib Sabling (Atty. Sabling) and eventually resulted in the signing by the complainant.

Complainant was delinquent in paying the monthly rentals, Pinlac terminated the lease. Together with Novie Balageo (Balageo) and respondent, Pinlac went to complainant's music bar, inventoried all the equipment therein, and informed her that Balageo would take over the operation of the bar. Complainant averred that subsequently respondent acted as business partner of Balageo in operating the bar under her business name, which they later renamed Amarillo Music Bar.

Complainant alleged that she filed an ejectment case against Pinlac and Balageo before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Branch 1, Baguio City. At that time, Davis & Sabling Law Office was still her counsel as their Retainer Agreement remained subsisting and in force. However, respondent appeared as counsel for Balageo in that ejectment case

In his Comment, respondent denied participation in the takeover or acting as a business partner of Balageo in the operation of the bar. He asserted that Balageo is the sole proprietress of the establishment. He insisted that it was Atty. Sabling, his partner, who initiated the proposal and was in fact the one who was able to convince complainant to accept the law office as her retainer. Respondent maintained that he never obtained any knowledge or information regarding the business of complainant who used to consult only Atty. Sabling. Respondent admitted though having represented Balageo in the ejectment case, but denied that he took advantage of the Retainer Agreement between complainant and Davis and Sabling Law Office.

The Investigating Commissioner rendered a Report and Recommendation finding respondent guilty of betrayal of his client's trust and for misuse of information obtained from his client to the disadvantage of the latter and to the advantage of another person. He recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice o flaw for a period of one year.

Issue: WON respondent violated the Canon upon appearing as lawyer in the ejectment case?

 Held:

Based on the established facts, it is indubitable that respondent transgressed Rule 15.03 of Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. It provides:

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.

"A lawyer may not, without being guilty of professional misconduct, act as counsel for a person whose interest conflicts with that of his present or former client." The prohibition against representing conflicting interests is absolute and the rule applies even if the lawyer has acted in good faith and with no intention to represent conflicting interests. In Quiambao v. Atty. Bamba, this Court emphasized that lawyers are expected 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.

Respondent argues that while complainant is a client of Davis & Sabling Law office, her case is actually handled only by his partner Atty. Sabling. He was not privy to any transaction between Atty. Sabling and complainant and has no knowledge of any information or legal matter complainant entrusted or confided to his law partner. He thus inveigles that he could not have taken advantage of information obtained by his law firm by virtue of the Retainer Agreement. We are not impressed.

In Hilado v. David, reiterated in Gonzales v. Atty. Cabucana, Jr.,this Court held that a lawyer who takes up the cause of the adversary of the party who has engaged the services of his law firm brings the law profession into public disrepute and suspicion and undermines the integrity of justice. Thus, respondent's argument that he never took advantage of any information acquired by his law firm in the course of its professional dealings with the complainant, even assuming it to be true, is of no moment. Undeniably aware of the fact that complainant is a client of his law firm, respondent should have immediately informed both the complainant and Balageo that he, as well as the other members of his law firm, cannot represent any of them in their legal tussle; otherwise, they would be representing conflicting interests and violate the Code of Professional Responsibility. Indeed, respondent could have simply advised both complainant and Balageo to instead engage the services of another lawyer.