Case Digest: Wilfredo Anglo, Complainant, v. Atty. Jose Ma. V. Valencia, Atty. Jose Ma. J. Ciocon, Atty. Philip Z. Dabao, Atty. Lily Uyv Alencia, Atty. Joey P. De La Paz, Atty. Cris G. Dionela, Atty. Raymundo T. Pandan, Jr., Atty. Rodney K. Rubica, and Atty. Wilfred Ramon M. Penalosa, Respondents | A.C. No. 10567, 25 February 2015
Wilfredo Anglo, Complainant, v. Atty. Jose Ma. V. Valencia, Atty. Jose Ma. J. Ciocon, Atty. Philip Z. Dabao, Atty. Lily Uyv Alencia, Atty. Joey P. De La Paz, Atty. Cris G. Dionela, Atty. Raymundo T. Pandan, Jr., Atty. Rodney K. Rubica, and Atty. Wilfred Ramon M. Penalosa, Respondents.
A.C. No. 10567, 25 February 2015
Facts:
Complainant alleged that he availed the services of the law firm of the respondents for labor cases. Atty. Dionela, a partner of the law firm, was assigned to represent the complainant. The labor cases were terminated upon the agreement of both parties. A criminal case for qualified theft was filed against the complainant and his wife by FEVE Farms, represented by the law which handled the complainant’s labor cases. Aggrieved. Complainant filed disbarment case against the respondents, alleging that they violated the rule on conflict of interest.
IBP Commissioner found the respondents to have violated the rule on conflict of interest and recommended that the respondents be reprimanded.
Issue:
Whether or not the respondents are guilty of representing conflicting interests in violation of the pertinent provisions of Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR).
Held:
There is conflict of interest when a lawyer represents inconsistent interests of two or more opposing parties. The Supreme Court found the respondents guilty of representing conflicting interests in violation of Rule 15.03, Canon 15 and Canon 21 of the CPR and are therefore Reprimanded for said violations, with a Stern Warning that a repetition of the same or similar infraction would be dealt with more severely. Meanwhile, the case against Atty. Philip Dabao is Dismissed in view of his death.
A.C. No. 10567, 25 February 2015
Facts:
Complainant alleged that he availed the services of the law firm of the respondents for labor cases. Atty. Dionela, a partner of the law firm, was assigned to represent the complainant. The labor cases were terminated upon the agreement of both parties. A criminal case for qualified theft was filed against the complainant and his wife by FEVE Farms, represented by the law which handled the complainant’s labor cases. Aggrieved. Complainant filed disbarment case against the respondents, alleging that they violated the rule on conflict of interest.
IBP Commissioner found the respondents to have violated the rule on conflict of interest and recommended that the respondents be reprimanded.
Issue:
Whether or not the respondents are guilty of representing conflicting interests in violation of the pertinent provisions of Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR).
Held:
There is conflict of interest when a lawyer represents inconsistent interests of two or more opposing parties. The Supreme Court found the respondents guilty of representing conflicting interests in violation of Rule 15.03, Canon 15 and Canon 21 of the CPR and are therefore Reprimanded for said violations, with a Stern Warning that a repetition of the same or similar infraction would be dealt with more severely. Meanwhile, the case against Atty. Philip Dabao is Dismissed in view of his death.
Comments
Post a Comment