7/26/2019 19-Pormento Sr vs Pontevedra

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/19-pormento-sr-vs-pontevedra 1/7

ELESIO[1] C. PORMENTO, SR., complainant, vs. ATTY. ALIAS A.PONTEVEDRA, respondent .

R E S O L U T I O N

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.:

In a verified Complaint dated August 7, 1999, Elesio C. Pormento, Sr. charged Atty. Elias A.Pontevedra ith malpractice and misconduct, praying that on the !asis of the facts alleged therein,respondent !e dis!arred.

Complainant alleges that !eteen 19"# and 199#, respondent is his family$s legal counsel havingrepresented him and mem!ers of his family in all legal proceedings in hich they are involved.Complainant also claims that his family$s relationship ith respondent e%tends !eyond mere layer&client relations as they gave respondent moral, spiritual, physical and financial support in his differentendeavors.

'ased on the allegations in the complaint, the rift !eteen complainant and respondent !eganhen complainant$s counterclaim in Civil Case (o. 1"#) filed ith the *egional +rial Court of 'acolodCity as dismissed. Complainant claims that respondent, ho as his layer in the said casedeli!erately failed to inform him of the dismissal of his counterclaim despite receipt of the order ofdismissal !y the trial court, as a result of hich, complainant as deprived of his right to appeal saidorder. Complainant asserts that he only came to no of the e%istence of the trial court$s order henthe adverse party in the said case e%tra -udicially foreclosed the mortgage e%ecuted over the parcel ofland hich is the su!-ect matter of the suit. In order to recover his onership over the said parcel ofland, complainant as constrained to hire a ne layer as Atty. Pontevedra refused to institute anaction for the recovery of the su!-ect property.#/

Complainant also claims that in order to further protect his rights and interests over the saidparcel of land, he as forced to initiate a criminal case for 0ualified theft against the relatives of thealleged ne oner of the said land. *espondent is the counsel of the accused in said case.

Complainant claims that as part of his defense in said criminal case, respondent utilied pieces ofconfidential information he o!tained from complainant hile the latter is still his client.

In a separate incident, complainant claims that in 19"7, he !ought a parcel of land located atEscalante, (egros 2ccidental. +he 3eed of 3eclaration of 4eirship and Sale of said land asprepared and notaried !y respondent. Since there as another person ho claims onership of theproperty, complainant alleges that he heeded respondent$s advice to !uild a small house on theproperty and to allo his 5complainant$s6 nephe and his family to occupy the house in order forcomplainant to esta!lish his possession of the said property. Su!se0uently, complainant$s nepherefused to vacate the property prompting the former to file an e-ectment case ith the unicipal +riaCourt of Escalante, (egros 2ccidental, doceted as Civil Case (o. 8). *espondent acted as thecounsel of complainant$s nephe.

Complainant contends that respondent is guilty of malpractice and misconduct !y representingclients ith conflicting interests and should !e dis!arred !y reason thereof.

In his Comment, respondent contends that he as never a direct recipient of any monetarysupport coming from the complainant. *espondent denies complainant$s allegation that he5respondent6 did not inform complainant of the trial court$s order dismissing the latter$s counterclaimin Civil Case (o. 1"#). *espondent claims that ithin to days upon his receipt of the trial court$sorder of dismissal, he delivered to complainant a copy of the said order, apprising him of its contents.

 As to his representation of the persons against hom complainant filed criminal cases for theft,9/ respondent argues that he honestly !elieves that there e%ists no conflict !eteen his present and

7/26/2019 19-Pormento Sr vs Pontevedra

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/19-pormento-sr-vs-pontevedra 2/7

former clients$ interests as the cases he handled for these clients are separate and distinct from eachother. 4e further contends that he too up the cause of the accused in the criminal cases filed !ycomplainant for humanitarian considerations since said accused are poor and needy and !ecausethere is a dearth of layers in their community. :ith respect to the case for e-ectment filed !ycomplainant against his nephe, respondent admits that it as he ho notaried the deed of sale ofthe parcel of land sold to complainant. 4oever, he contends that hat is !eing contested in the saidcase is not the onership of the su!-ect land !ut the onership of the house !uilt on the said land. 1;/

2n 3ecem!er 1, 1999, complainant filed a *eply to respondent$s Comment.

11/

2n <anuary 19, ;;;, the Court referred the instant case to the Integrated 'ar of the Philippines5I'P6 for investigation, report and recommendation.1/

2n =e!ruary 1), ;;, respondent filed a *e-oinder to complainant$s *eply adding that theinstant complaint as orchestrated !y complainant$s son ho anted political vengeance !ecause helost the vice&mayoralty post to respondent during the 19)) local elections. 1>/

2n =e!ruary ;, ;;, complainant filed a Sur&*e-oinder to respondent$s *e-oinder. 1#/

+hereafter, the parties filed their respective Position Papers, 18/ after hich the case as deemedsu!mitted for resolution.

In his *eport and *ecommendation dated =e!ruary ;, ;;#, Investigating Commissioner Agustinus ?. @onaga found respondent guilty of violating *ule 18.;>, Canon 18 of the Code ofProfessional *esponsi!ility. 4e recommended that respondent !e meted the penalty of suspensionfor one month.

In a minute *esolution passed on <uly >;, ;;#, the I'P 'oard of @overnors resolved to annuland set aside the recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner and instead approved thedismissal of the complaint for lac of merit, to it

RESOLUTION NO. XVI-2004-387

Adm. Case No. 5128

Eleso C. !o"me#$o% S".% &s. A$$'. Elas A. !o#$e&ed"a

RESOLVED to ANNUL and SET ASIDED [sic], as it is hereby ANNULED and SET ASIDE, the

Recommendation of the Inesti!atin! "ommission, and to A##ROVE the (IS)ISSAL of the

aboe$entit%ed case for %ac& of merit of the com'%aint(

:e do not agree ith the dismissal of the complaint.

 At the outset, e reiterate the settled rule that in complaints for dis!arment, a formal investigationis a mandatory re0uirement hich may not !e dispensed ith e%cept for valid and compellingreasons.1"/ =ormal investigations entail notice and hearing. 4oever, the re0uirements of notice andhearing in administrative cases do not necessarily connote full adversarial proceedings, as actual

adversarial proceedings !ecome necessary only for clarification or hen there is a need to propoundsearching 0uestions to itnesses ho give vague testimonies. 17/  3ue process is fulfilled hen theparties ere given reasona!le opportunity to !e heard and to su!mit evidence in support of theirarguments.1)/

=rom the records e%tant in the present case, it appears that the Investigating Commissionerconducted a hearing on <anuary 1", ;; here it as agreed that the complainant and therespondent shall file their respective position papers, after hich the case shall !e deemed su!mittedfor resolution.19/  (o further hearings ere conducted.

7/26/2019 19-Pormento Sr vs Pontevedra

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/19-pormento-sr-vs-pontevedra 3/7

It is also distur!ing to note that the a!ovementioned *esolution of the I'P 'oard of @overnors,annulling and setting aside the recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner, is !ereft of anyfindings of facts or e%planation as to ho and hy it resolved to set aside the recommendation of theInvestigating Commissioner and instead dismissed the complaint against respondent.

Section 15a6, *ule 1>9&' of the *ules of Court provides

SE"( )*( Review and decision by the Board of Governors( + 

a- Eery case heard by an inesti!ator sha%% be reie.ed by the I/# /oard of 0oernors

1'on the record and eidence transmitted to it by the Inesti!ator .ith his re'ort( T*e

de+so# o, $*e oa"d /o# s+* "e&e s*all e # "$# a#d s*all +lea"l' a#d

ds$#+$l' s$a$e $*e ,a+$s a#d $*e "easo#s o# *+* $ s ased ( It sha%% be

 'rom1%!ated .ithin a 'eriod not e2ceedin! thirty 34- days from the ne2t meetin! of

the /oard fo%%o.in! the s1bmitta% of the Inesti!ator5s re'ort( Em'hasis s1''%ied-

In Cruz vs. Cabrera, e reiterated the importance of the re0uirement that the decision of the I'P'oard of @overnors must state the facts and the reasons on hich such decision is !ased, hich isain to hat is re0uired of the decisions of courts of record. :e held therein that

[A]side from informin! the 'arties the reason for the decision to enab%e them to 'oint o1t to the

a''e%%ate co1rt the findin!s .ith .hich they are not in a!reement, in case any of them decides to

a''ea% the decision, it is a%so an ass1rance that the 61d!e, or the /oard of 0oernors in this case,

reached his 61d!ment thro1!h the 'rocess of %e!a% reasonin!(

(oncompliance ith this re0uirement ould normally result in the remand of the case.

oreover, hile e may consider the act of the I'P 'oard of @overnors in simply adopting thereport of the Investigating Commissioner as su!stantial compliance ith said *ule, in this case, ecannot countenance the act of the I'P 'oard of @overnors in merely stating that it is annulling theCommissioner$s recommendation and then dismiss the complaint ithout stating the facts and thereasons for said dismissal.

4oever, considering that the present controversy has !een pending resolution for 0uite sometime, that no further factual determination is re0uired, and the issues !eing raised may !e determinedon the !asis of the numerous pleadings filed together ith the anne%es attached thereto, e resolveto proceed and decide the case on the !asis of the e%tensive pleadings on record, in the interest of

 -ustice and speedy disposition of the case./

Coming to the main issue in the present case, respondent is !eing accused of malpractice andmisconduct on three grounds first, for representing interests hich conflict ith those of his formerclient, herein complainantB second, for taing advantage of the information and noledge that heo!tained from complainantB and, third, for not notifying complainant of the dismissal of hiscounterclaim in Civil Case (o. 1"#).

:e shall concurrently discuss the first and second grounds as they are interrelated.

*ule 18.;>, Canon 18 of the Code of Professional *esponsi!ility provides

7A %a.yer sha%% not re'resent conf%ictin! interests e2ce't by .ritten consent of a%% concerned !ien

after a f1%% disc%os1re of the facts(8

7/26/2019 19-Pormento Sr vs Pontevedra

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/19-pormento-sr-vs-pontevedra 4/7

Corollary to this, Canon 1 of the same Code en-oins a layer to preserve the confidences andsecrets of his clients even after the attorney&client relation is terminated. *ule 1.;, Canon 1specifically re0uires that

A %a.yer sha%% not, to the disadanta!e of his c%ient, 1se information ac91ired in the co1rse of

em'%oyment, nor sha%% he 1se the same to his o.n adanta!e or that of a third 'erson, 1n%ess the

c%ient .ith f1%% &no.%ed!e of the circ1mstances consents thereto(

In addition, Canon " of the Canons of Professional Ethics states

It is the d1ty of a %a.yer at the time of retainer to disc%ose to the c%ient a%% the circ1mstances of his

re%ations to the 'arties and any interest in or connection .ith the controersy, .hich mi!ht

inf%1ence the c%ient in the se%ection of co1nse%(

It is 1n'rofessiona% to re'resent conf%ictin! interests, e2ce't by e2'ress consent of a%% concerned

!ien after a f1%% disc%os1re of the facts( :ithin the meanin! of this canon, a %a.yer re'resents

conf%ictin! interests .hen, in beha%f of one c%ient, it is his d1ty to contend for that .hich d1ty to

another c%ient re91ires him to o''ose(

The ob%i!ation to re'resent the c%ient .ith 1ndiided fide%ity and not to di1%!e his secrets or

confidences forbids a%so the s1bse91ent acce'tance of retainers or em'%oyment from others in

matters aderse%y affectin! any interest of the c%ient .ith res'ect to .hich confidence has been

re'osed(

<urisprudence instructs that there is a representation of conflicting interests if the acceptance ofthe ne retainer ill re0uire the attorney to do anything hich ill in-uriously affect his first client inany matter in hich he represents him and also hether he ill !e called upon in his ne relation, touse against his first client any noledge ac0uired through their connection.>/  Another test to

determine if there is a representation of conflicting interests is hether the acceptance of a nerelation ill prevent an attorney from the full discharge of his duty of undivided fidelity and loyalty tohis client or invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or dou!le dealing in the performance thereof. #/

 A layer is for!idden from representing a su!se0uent client against a former client hen thesu!-ect matter of the present controversy is related, directly or indirectly, to the su!-ect matter of theprevious litigation in hich he appeared for the former client. 8/ Conversely, he may properly act ascounsel for a ne client, ith full disclosure to the latter, against a former client in a matter hollyunrelated to that of the previous employment, there !eing in that instance no conflict of interests."/ :here, hoever, the su!-ect matter of the present suit !eteen the layer$s ne client and hisformer client is in some ay connected ith that of the former client$s action, the layer may have tocontend for his ne client that hich he previously opposed as counsel for the former client or to use

against the latter information confided to him as his counsel. 7/ As e have held in Maturan vs.Gonzales)/

The reason for the 'rohibition is fo1nd in the re%ation of attorney and c%ient, .hich is one of tr1st

and confidence of the hi!hest de!ree( A %a.yer becomes fami%iar .ith a%% the facts connected .ith

his c%ient5s case( ;e %earns from his c%ient the .ea& 'oints of the action as .e%% as the stron! ones(

S1ch &no.%ed!e m1st be considered sacred and !1arded .ith care( No o''ort1nity m1st be !ien

him to ta&e adanta!e of the c%ient5s secrets( A %a.yer m1st hae the f1%%est confidence of his

c%ient( <or if the confidence is ab1sed, the 'rofession .i%% s1ffer by the %oss thereof( 9/

7/26/2019 19-Pormento Sr vs Pontevedra

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/19-pormento-sr-vs-pontevedra 5/7

+he proscription against representation of conflicting interests finds application here theconflicting interests arise ith respect to the same general matter and is applica!le hoever slightsuch adverse interest may !e.>;/ In essence, hat a layer oes his former client is to maintaininviolate the client$s confidence or to refrain from doing anything hich ill in-uriously affect him in anymatter in hich he previously represented him.>1/

In the present case, e find no conflict of interests hen respondent represented hereincomplainant$s nephe and other mem!ers of his family in the e-ectment case, doceted as Civil Case

(o. 8), and in the criminal complaint, denominated as I.S. Case (o. 99&1)), filed !y hereincomplainant against them. +he only esta!lished participation respondent had ith respect to theparcel of land purchased !y complainant, is that he as the one ho notaried the deed of sale of thesaid land. 2n that !asis alone, it does not necessarily follo that respondent o!tained anyinformation from herein complainant that can !e used to the detriment of the latter in the e-ectmentcase he filed.

:hile complainant alleges that it as respondent ho advised him to allo his nephe totemporarily occupy the property in order to esta!lish complainant$s possession of said property asagainst another claimant, no corro!orating evidence as presented to prove this allegation.3efendant, in his anser to the complaint for e-ectment, raised the issue as to the right of the vendorto sell the said land in favor of complainant. >/ 4oever, e find this immaterial !ecause hat is

actually in issue in the e-ectment case is not the onership of the su!-ect lot !ut the onership of thehouse !uilt on the said lot. =urthermore, the su!-ect matter of I.S. Case (o. 99&1)) filed !ycomplainant against his nephe and other mem!ers of his family involves several parts of trucsoned !y herein complainant.>>/  +his case is not in any ay connected ith the controversy involvingsaid parcel of land. In fine, ith respect to Civil Case (o. 8) and I.S. Case (o. 99&1)), complainantfailed to present su!stantial evidence to hold respondent lia!le for violating the prohi!ition againstrepresentation of conflicting interests.

4oever, e find conflict of interests in respondent$s representation of herein complainant in CivilCase (o. 1"#) and his su!se0uent employment as counsel of the accused in Criminal Case (o.>189.

+he su!-ect matter in Civil Case (o. 1"#) is ot ";9 located at Escalante, (egros 2ccidental, thesame parcel of land involved in Criminal Case (o. >189 filed !y herein complainant against severalpersons, accusing them of theft for allegedly cutting and stealing coconut trees ithin the premises ofthe said lot. Complainant contends that it is in this criminal case that respondent used confidentiainformation hich the latter o!tained from the former in Civil Case (o. 1"#).

+o prove his contention, complainant su!mitted in evidence portions of the transcript ofstenographic notes taen during his cross&e%amination in Criminal Case (o. >189. 4oever, after areading of the said transcript, e find no direct evidence to prove that respondent too advantage ofany information that he may have !een ac0uired from complainant and used the same in the defenseof his clients in Criminal Case (o. >189. +he matter discussed !y respondent hen he cross&e%amined complainant is the onership of ot ";9 in its entirety, only a portion of hich aspurportedly sold to complainant. Part of the defense raised !y his clients is that herein complainantdoes not have the personality to file the criminal complaint as he is not the oner of the lot here thesupposed theft occurred. It is possi!le that the information as to the onership of the disputed lotused !y respondent in !ringing up this issue may have !een o!tained hile he still acted as counsefor complainant. It is also pro!a!le that such information may have !een taen from other sourceslie the *egistry of 3eeds, the and *egistration Authority or the respondent$s clients themselves.

(onetheless, !e that as it may, it cannot !e denied that hen respondent as the counsel ofcomplainant in Civil Case (o. 1"#), he !ecame privy to the documents and information thatcomplainant possessed ith respect to the said parcel of land. 4ence, hatever may !e said as tohether or not respondent utilied against complainant any information given to him in a professional

7/26/2019 19-Pormento Sr vs Pontevedra

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/19-pormento-sr-vs-pontevedra 6/7

capacity, the mere fact of their previous relationship should have precluded him from appearing ascounsel for the opposing side. As e have previously held

The re%ations of attorney and c%ient is [are] fo1nded on 'rinci'%es of '1b%ic 'o%icy, on !ood taste(

The 91estion is not necessari%y one of the ri!hts of the 'arties, b1t as to .hether the attorney has

adhered to 'ro'er 'rofessiona% standard( :ith these tho1!hts in mind, it behooes attorneys, %i&e

"aesar5s .ife, not on%y to &ee' inio%ate the c%ient5s confidence, b1t a%so to aoid the a''earance of 

treachery and do1b%e$dea%in!( On%y th1s can %iti!ants be enco1ra!ed to entr1st their secrets to theirattorneys .hich is of 'aramo1nt im'ortance in the administration of 61stice( >#/

oreover, e have held in Hilado vs. David >8/ that

"omm1nications bet.een attorney and c%ient are, in a !reat n1mber of %iti!ations, a com'%icated

affair, consistin! of entan!%ed re%eant and irre%eant, secret and .e%% &no.n facts( In the

com'%e2ity of .hat is said in the co1rse of dea%in!s bet.een an attorney and c%ient, in91iry of the

nat1re s1!!ested .o1%d %ead to the ree%ation, in adance of the tria%, of other matters that mi!ht

on%y f1rther 're61dice the com'%ainant5s ca1se(>"/

+hus, respondent should have declined employment in Criminal Case (o. >189 so as to avoidsuspicion that he used in the criminal action any information he may have ac0uired in Civil Case (o.1"#).

oreover, nothing on record ould sho that respondent fully apprised complainant and his neclients and secured or at least tried to secure their consent hen he too the defense of the accusedin Criminal Case (o. >189.

*espondent contends that he handled the defense of the accused in the su!-ect criminal case forhumanitarian reasons and ith the honest !elief that there e%ists no conflict of interests. 4oeverthe rule is settled that the prohi!ition against representation of conflicting interests applies althoughthe attorney$s intentions and motives ere honest and he acted in good faith. >7/ oreover, the factthat the conflict of interests is remote or merely pro!a!le does not mae the prohi!ition inoperative. >)/

*espondent also asserts that hen he accepted employment in Criminal Case (o. >189, theattorney&client relations !eteen him and complainant in Civil Case (o. 1"#) had already !eenterminated. +his defense does not hold ater !ecause the termination of the relation of attorney andclient provides no -ustification for a layer to represent an interest adverse to or in conflict ith that ofthe former client.>9/

+hus, e find respondent guilty of misconduct for representing conflicting interests.

 As to the third ground, e find that complainant failed to present su!stantial evidence to provethat respondent did not inform him of the dismissal of his counterclaim in Civil Case (o. 1"#). 2n the

contrary, e find sufficient evidence to prove that complainant has !een properly notified of the trialcourt$s order of dismissal. +he only proof presented !y complainant to support his claim is theaffidavit of his daughter confirming complainant$s contention that respondent indeed failed to informhim of the dismissal of his counterclaim. #;/ 4oever, in the same affidavit, complainant$s daughteradmits that it as on 3ecem!er #, 19)9 that respondent received the order of the trial courtdismissing complainant$s counterclaim. *espondent, presented a Dcertification dated 3ecem!er 1119)9, or one ee after his receipt of the trial court$s order, here complainant$s daughteracnoledged receipt of the entire records of Civil Case (o. 1"#) from complainant. #1/  +he sameDcertification relieved respondent of his o!ligation as counsel of complainant. =rom the foregoing, itcan !e inferred that respondent duly notified complainant of the dismissal of his counterclaim.2therise, complainant could not have ordered his daughter to ithdra the records of his case from

7/26/2019 19-Pormento Sr vs Pontevedra

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/19-pormento-sr-vs-pontevedra 7/7

respondent at the same time relieving the latter of responsi!ility arising from his o!ligation ascomplainant$s counsel in that particular case.

 As to the penalty to !e imposed, considering respondent$s honest !elief that there is no conflict ofinterests in handling Civil Case (o. 1"#) and Criminal Case (o. >189, and it appearing that this isrespondent$s first infraction of this nature, e find the penalty of suspension to !e disproportionate tothe offense committed. oreover, e tae into account respondent$s undisputed claim that there areonly three layers ho are actually engaged in private practice in Escalante, (egros 2ccidental,

here !oth complainant and respondent reside. 2ne of the layers is already handlingcomplainant$s case, hile the other layer is !elieved !y respondent$s clients to !e a relative ofcomplainant. 4ence, respondent$s clients !elieved that they had no choice !ut go to him for help.:e do not find this situation as an e%cuse for respondent to accept employment !ecause he couldhave referred his clients to the resident layer of the Pu!lic Attorney$s 2ffice or to other layers in theneigh!oring tons. (onetheless, in vie of respondent$s !elief that he simply adhered to his sornduty to defend the poor and the needy, e consider such situation as a circumstance that mitigateshis lia!ility. Considering the foregoing facts and circumstances, e find it proper to impose a fine onrespondent. In Sibulo vs. Cabrera, the respondent is fined for having !een found guilty of unethicalconduct in representing to conflicting interests.

*espondent is further reminded to !e more cautious in accepting professional employments, to

refrain from all appearances and acts of impropriety including circumstances indicating conflict ofinterests, and to !ehave at all times ith circumspection and dedication !efitting a mem!er of the 'ar,especially o!serving candor, fairness and loyalty in all transactions ith his clients.

WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Elias A. Pontevedra is found @FI+G of representing conflictinginterests and is here!y =I(E3 in the amount of +en +housand 5P1;,;;;.;;6 Pesos. 4e is :A*(E3that a repetition of the same or similar acts ill !e dealt ith more severely.

+he 'oard of @overnors of the Integrated 'ar of the Philippines is 3I*EC+E3 to !e heedful ofthe re0uirements provided for in Section 15a6, *ule 1>9&' of the *ules of Court as discussed in thete%t of herein decision.

SO ORDERED.

Puno, (Chairman), Callejo, Sr., Tinga, and Chio!"azario, ##., concur .

9/  A perusal of the records shos that there are to criminal complaints for theft filed !y herein complainant hererespondent represented the accused +he first is Criminal Case (o. >189, entitled, DPeople vs. Severina 'rin0ueet. al. 5E%hi!its D2 and DS, *ollo, ?olume III, pp. "" and 7#B hile the second is I.S. Case (o. 99&1)), entitled,DElesio C. Pormento, Sr., Complainant vs. *estituto Aligato, Sr., et. al., *espondents, pending !efore the 2ffice ofthe Provincial Prosecutor of (egros 2ccidental 5E%hi!its D", D"&a and D+, $ollo, ?olume III, pp. >#&>8 and 7"6.