ARTEZUELA v MADERAZO Facts: Echavia had a vehicular accident in Mandaue City.

Echavia was driving a Ford Telstar owned by a Japanese national but in the name of his brother-in-law Villapez. The car rammed into a small carinderia owned by Artezuela. Artezuela engaged the services of Atty. Maderazo in filing a damage suit against Echavia. Artezuela paid Maderazo the amount of P10,000 as attorneys fees and P2,000 as filing fee. Artezuela filed a suit for disbarment against Maderazo. She alleged that Maderazo grossly neglected his duties as a lawyer. According to Artezuela, atty. did not do anything to keep the case moving and atty. withdrew his services without obtaining Artezuelas consent. Artezuela also alleged that Atty. Maderazo engaged in activities inimical to her interests. She says that while acting as her counsel, Atty. Maderazo prepared Echavias answer. Atty. Maderazo claims that the document of Echavia was not prepared by him. According to him, the answer by Echavia was only printed in his office. Issue: W/N Atty. Maderazo represented conflicting interests. Held: Atty. Maderazo represented conflicting interests. Suspension of 6 months. To be guilty of representing conflicting interests, a counsel-of-record of one party need not also be the counsel-of-record of the adverse party. He does not have to hold himself as the counsel of the adverse party. It is enough that the counsel of one party had a hand in the preparation of the pleading of another party who is claiming adverse and conflicting interests with that of the original client. Because of the fiduciary relationship between the lawyer and the client, sound public policy dictates that the lawyer be prohibited from representing conflicting interests or discharging inconsistent duties.