Lawyer suspended a year for taking conflicting case

The Supreme Court en banc presided by Chief Justice Hilario Davide, Jr. slapped a lawyer with a one-year suspension for representing clients involved in a conflicting case.

The High Tribunal found Macario Arquillo guilty after he represented conflicting parties in a case before the National Labor Relations Commission in San Fernando, La Union.

Records showed that Arquillo acted as the counsels for eight of the 18 complainants of a case, but at the same time he is also the lawyer of one of the 10 respondents.

In one particular record, Arquillo who represented his client Jose Castro -one of the respondents in the case filed before the NLRC-La Union- on August 12, 1997 submitted a motion to dismiss the case filed against his client.

But 16 days later, he again filed a consolidated position paper on behalf of his eight clients -the ones who filed a case against Castro and nine others.

The Integrated Bar of the Philippines has conducted an investigation into the complaint filed against Arquillo, but the latter just ignored the order for him to submit his explanation.

Even after receiving five notices, he failed to appear in any of the scheduled hearings. Consequently, he was deemed to have waived his right to participate in the proceedings.

The IBP Board of Governors adopted the report and recommendation of the investigating officer, but modified period of suspension by increasing the penalty from only six months suspension to two years.

The SC has concurred with the findings of the IBP Board of Governors, but reduced the recommended period of suspension to only one year.

According to the SC, the Code of Professional Responsibility requires lawyers to observe candor, fairness and loyalty in all their dealings and transactions with their clients.

The SC ruled that when a lawyer represents two or more opposing parties, there is conflict of interest, the existence of which is determined by three separate tests:

(1) When, in representation of one client, a lawyer is required to fight for an issue or claim, but is also duty-bound to oppose it for another client;

(2) When the acceptance of the new retainer will require an attorney to perform an act that may injuriously affect the first client or, when called upon in a new relation, to use against the first one any knowledge acquired through their professional connection;

(3) When the acceptance of a new relation would prevent the full discharge of an attorney's duty to give undivided fidelity and loyalty to the client or would invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or double-dealing in the performance of that duty. - Rene U. Borromeo