Daging v. Davis
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Daria O. Daging operated Nashville Country Music Lounge. She entered into a Retainer Agreement dated March 7, 2005, with the law firm Davis & Sabling Law Office, represented by respondent Atty. Riz Tingalon L. Davis and his partner Atty. Amos Saganib Sabling. Due to delinquency in rent, the complainant's lease was terminated, and Benjie Pinlac, the lessor, along with Novie Balageo and respondent, inventoried the complainant's equipment. Balageo subsequently took over the operation of the bar under the complainant's business name, later renamed Amarillo Music Bar, with respondent allegedly acting as business partner. Complainant filed an ejectment case against Pinlac and Balageo while the Retainer Agreement with Davis & Sabling Law Office was still subsisting. Respondent appeared as counsel for Balageo in this ejectment case, filing an Answer with Opposition to the Prayer for the Issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Injunction. Procedural History: The Investigating Commissioner of the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline found respondent guilty of betrayal of client's trust and misuse of information, recommending a one-year suspension. The IBP Board of Governors adopted this, but reduced the penalty to six months suspension upon respondent's motion, considering the lack of proof that respondent handled previous legal matters involving the complainant. The case was elevated to the Supreme Court. The Petition: The administrative complaint sought the disbarment of respondent for representing conflicting interests.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Atty. Riz Tingalon L. Davis violated Rule 15.03 of Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility by representing Novie Balageo in an ejectment case filed by his client, Daria O. Daging. Whether respondent's claim of not being privy to information shared by the complainant with his law partner absolves him of liability for representing conflicting interests.
Ruling
The Supreme Court adopted and affirmed the Resolution of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Board of Governors. Atty. Riz Tingalon L. Davis was found guilty of violating Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and was suspended from the practice of law for a period of six (6) months.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of representing conflicting interests: The Court found it indubitable that respondent transgressed Rule 15.03 of Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. It is undisputed that the complainant entered into a Retainer Agreement with respondent's law firm, which was signed by the respondent. During the subsistence of this agreement, respondent represented and defended Balageo, who was a defendant in the ejectment case filed by the complainant. Respondent even filed an Answer with Opposition to the Prayer for the Issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Injunction on behalf of Balageo. This act clearly demonstrates the representation of conflicting interests, as the complainant was the plaintiff in the ejectment case and was a client of the respondent's law firm. On the issue of knowledge of information: The Court was not impressed by respondent's argument that he was not privy to any transaction between the complainant and his partner, Atty. Sabling, and thus had no knowledge of any information confided by the complainant to his law partner. The Court reiterated the ruling in Hilado v. David, which 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. Therefore, even assuming the respondent's claim of not taking advantage of any information acquired by his law firm to be true, it is of no moment. Undeniably aware that the complainant was 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, could not represent any of them in their legal tussle, as they would be representing conflicting interests and violating the Code of Professional Responsibility. He could have simply advised both parties to engage the services of another lawyer.
Main Doctrine
A lawyer who represents a client and subsequently represents another party whose interests conflict with the first client, without the latter's written consent after full disclosure, violates Rule 15.03 of Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, even if the lawyer claims no knowledge of information obtained from the first client.