4. A.C No.

6174, November 16, 2011

LYDIA CASTRO –JUSTO vs. ATTY. RODOLFO T. GALING
FACTS:
1. This case is a complaint for disbarment filed by Lydia Castro –Justo against Atty. Galing.
2. Complainant alleged that she engaged the service of respondent, Atty. Galing in
connection with dishonored checks issued by Manila City Councilor Arlene W. Koa.
After the respondent paid his professional fees, the respondent drafted and sent a letter to
Ms. Koa demanding her to pay the checks and advised the complainant to wait for the
lapse of the period indicated in the demand letter before filling complaint.
3. Then, the complainant filed a complaint to Ms. Koa for estafa and violation of Batas
Pambansa Bldg. 22.
4. The complainant received a copy of Motion for Consolidation filed by the respondent on
behalf of Karen Torralba the daughter of Mrs. Koa, the respondent appeared as a counsel
for Ms. Koa.
5. Complainant stated that by representing conflicting interest, respondent violated the Code
of Responsibility.
6. In the comment of the respondent, he admitted that he drafted the complaint but he
argued that he only made it because of their long standing friendship and did not receive
any professional fee.
7. Respondent further argued that the filling of the Motion for Consolidation is a non-
adversarial pleading and will not be an evident for the existence of a lawyer-client
relationship between Ms. Koa and Ms. Torralba.
ISSUE:
W/N Mr. Galing should be administratively liable for violation of Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility by drafting the complaints and representing the two adverse
parties?
HELD:
YES.
Canon 15.03 – “A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interest except by written consent of all
concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts”
In this case, the respondent argued that there was no lawyer-client relationship existed between
him and the complainant because there was no professional fee. But, a lawyer-client relationship
exist notwithstanding the close between them, the relationship was established the moment
complainant sought legal advice regarding the dishonored checks.
Drafting the complaint for the complainant and drafting a complaint for consolidation for Ms.
Koa and Ms. Toralba and appearing as a counsel for them is a clear manifestation of respresnting
conflicting interest. The respondent after learning the facts connected to the case, the weak and
strong points of the complainant then appeared as a counsel of adverse part, violated his client’s
confidence. Therefore, the court resolved Atty. Galing SUSPENDED for 1 year and WARNING.
5. A.C. No. 6160, March 30, 2006
NESTOR PEREZ vs. ATTY. DANILO DE LA TORRE
FACTS:
1. This case is a letter-complaint of Nestor Perez to Atty. De la Torre for representing
conflicting interest.
2. Perez alleged that he is the barangay captain of Binanuaanan, Calabanga, Camarines Sur
and that the respondent went to the municipal building of Calabanga where the several
suspects for murder and kidnapping for ransom, among them is Sonny Boy Ilo and Diego
Avila was detained. He represented that he could secure the freedom of the suspects if
they would sign the extrajudicial confessions that was unknown to the accused.
3. He also alleged that the respondent was representing the heirs of the victims and the
extrajudicial confessions implicated that the suspects were the mastermind in the criminal
activities.
4. Respondent denied the accusation he stated that Avila while being detained he sought his
assistance to draft the extrajudicial confession and he also advised him that he should
inform his parents abouthis decision, and he also said that when ilo sought his assistance,
it was with his parents and was not under compulsion.
ISSUE:
W/N Atty. De La Torre guilty for violation of Canon 15, Rule 15.03 of Code of Professional
Responsibility by drafting the extrajudicial confession while being the counsel of the heir of the
murder victim?
HELD:
YES
Canon 15- A lawyer shall observe Candor, Fairness and Loyalty in all his dealings and
transactions with his clients
Rule 15.3 – A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interest except by written consent of all
concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts.
In the case at bar, the time respondent was representing Avil and Ilo, the two accuse in the
murder of the victim in which he drafted and advised them to execute a extrajudicial confession
admitting that they committed the crimes accused to them, he was also representing the family of
the murder victim. It was clearly a representation of opposing clients in the murder case invites
suspicion of double-dealing and infidelity to the clients. Even though respondent explained that
he did not offer his legal services, but it were the accused sought his assistance. It was still a
clear violation of Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Therefore, Atty. De La
Torre was found GUILTY, SUSPENDED for three years and WARNED.
6. A.C. No. 9860, September 11, 2013
JOSEPHINE L. OROLA, MYRNA L. OROLA, MANUEL L. OROLA, MARY
ANGELYN OROLA-BELARGA, MARJORIE MELBA OROLA-CALIP and
KARENOROLA vs. ATTY. JOSEPH ADOR RAMOS
FACTS:
1. This case is a disbarment complaint against Atty. Ramos.
2. The case stemmed in the settlement in the Trinidad’s estate, wherein the respondent was
the collaborating counsel to the heirs of the late Antonio.
3. In the proceeding, the Heirs of Trinidad and the Heirs of Antonio moved the removal of
Emilio as the administrator of the land, and instead sought the appointment of the latter’s
son, Manuel Orola, which was granted by the RTC.
4. Then, the respondent filed an Entry of Appearance as collaborating counsel for Emilio in
the same case and moved for the reconsideration of the RTC.
5. Due to the this new engagement of the respondent, the complainants filed a disbarment
complaint to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.
6. In the part of the respondent, he contended that he never appeared as counsel for the
Heirs of Trinidad nor Antonio. He averred that he only accommodated Maricar’s request
to temporarily appeared on her behalf as counsel of record and his appearances were free
of charge and also consulted Maricar before represented Emilio. He also added that there
was no knowledge of the facts and no information was disclosed to him by Maricar. He
clarified that his representation for Emilio was more of a mediator. In support to his
assertions, he submitted the affidavits of Maricar and Atty. Azarraga.
ISSUE:
W/N the respondent is guilty of violating Canon 15, Rule 15.03 of Code of Professional
Responsibility by representing subsequently the adverse parties in the same case?

W/N the respondent is guilty of violating Rule 15.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
by acting as a mediator to the settlement by just obtaining the consent of one person and not all
concerned?
HELD:
1. YES
Canon 15 – A lawyer shall observe Candor, Fairness and Loyalty in all his Dealings and
Transactions with his clients.
Rule 15.03 – A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interest except by written consent of all
concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts.
In the case at bar, records reveal that respondent was the collaborating counsel not only for
Maricar as claimed by him, but for all the Heirs of Antonio. A lawyer cannot change his
representation from one party to the latter’s opponent in the same case, even though his previous
appearance on behalf to the Heirs of Antonio was only a friendly accommodation. When
respondent proceeded to represent Emilio for the purpose of seeking his reinstatement as
administrator in the same case, is clearly against the very interest of the Heirs of Antonio and
violation of Canon 15, Rule 15.03 of CPR.
2. YES
Rule 15.04 – A lawyer may, with the written consent of all concerned, act as mediator,
conciliator or arbitrator in settling disputes.
In this case at bar, the respondent’s asserting that his engagement by Emilio was more of a
mediator than a litigator for the purpose of forging a settlement among the family members is
improper because he only obtained the written consent of Maricar and failed to obtain the
written consent of other family members for him to be a mediator. Besides, a lawyer who
acts settling the dispute cannot represent any of the parties.

THEREFORE, Atty. Ramos is hereby held GUILTY and SUSPENDED from practice of law for
3 months.