BAUTISTA vs BARRIOS

A.M. No. 258

December 21, 1963
FACTS
In August 1955, Rufina Bautista engaged the services of Atty. Barrios to draft an
extra-judicial partition between Rufina Bautista and her siblings on one side and
Federico Rovero on the other.
Rovero later on refused to comply with the terms of the deed. Bautista sued him to
deliver the properties awarded to her in the said extra-judicial partition.
Bautista asked Atty. Barrios to represent her but the lawyer refused and represented
Rovero instead. Bautista now complains that Atty. Barrios committed malpractice in
that having drafted a deed of partition at her request, refused to appear for her
and worse, appeared as counsel for the other party, opposing her rights
thereunder. In his defense, Atty. Barrios declared that it was not Rufina Bautsta that
solicited his services in the preparation of the deed of partition, but that it was
Federico Rovero.
ISSUE
Whether or not Atty. Barrios, having employed by both Rovero and Bautista, could
appear for one as against the other in a subsequent litigation.
RULING
In the complaint for malpractice against Atty. Barrios, the Solicitor General finds
against respondent, for which the court also agrees.
It ruled that the inconsistent positions taken by Atty. Barrios do not favorably impress
the Court with his alleged good faith.
Even supposing that he was employed by both Rovero and Bautista to draft the
partition, it is doubtful whether he could appear for one as against the other in a
subsequent litigation. At most, if he could appear for one client, it should be for one
who seeks to enforce the partition as drafter. Yet he appeared for Rovero who
sought to avoid compliance with it.
Barrios is suspended from practice of his profession for a period of two years from
the time the decision becomes final.
In essence, we gather from the case of Bautista vs Barrios that a lawyer may not, as
counsel for a client, attack the validity of the instrument prepared by him. While he
may act as counsel for a party to enforce the agreement against
another not formerly his client in the drafting of the instrument, he may not do so as
against another party who was his client in the preparation thereof.
In the two cases, we saw the importance of the adherence of lawyers to Canon 15
which is the observance of candor, fairness, and loyalty to clients. Lawyers,
generally, owes absolute fidelity and full devotion to the causes and rights of his
clients. With this, arises the prohibition on representing conflicting interests.
So the general rule is against representation of conflicting interests. However, there
are instances where such prohibition does not apply.
0 Where no conflict of interests exists

A lawyer may properly represent a subsequent client against a former client in a

matter which is not, in any way, related to the previous controversy in which he
appeared for the former client.
0 Where clients knowingly consent

Generally, a lawyer may be allowed to represent conflicting interests, where the

parties consent to the representation apply only when one client is a former client
and not where both clients are current clients in the case, where each asserts an
interest adverse to the other.
0 Where no true attorney-client relationship is attendant

As previously laid out in the Hilado case, the rule forbidding a lawyer from representing an interest
adverse to that of a former client assumes a true attorney-client relationship previously existed.
Consequently, absence of such makes the prohibition inapplicable.