Castro v. Galing (A.C. No.

6174 November 16, 2011)

FACTS:

In 2003, complainant Lydia Castro-Justo engaged the services of respondent Atty. Rodolfo Galing in connection with
dishonored checks issued by Manila City Councilor Arlene W. Koa (Ms. Koa). After she paid his professional fees, the
respondent drafted and sent a letter to Ms. Koa demanding payment of the checks.Respondent advised complainant to
wait for the lapse of the period indicated in the demand letter before filing her complaint. complainant filed a criminal
complaint against Ms. Koa for estafa and violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 before the Office of the City Prosecutor of
Manila. Complainant then received a copy of Motion for Consolidation that was filed for the respondent on behalf of the
opposing party. Complainant submits that by representing conflicting interests, respondent violated the Code of
Professional Responsibility.He admitted that he drafted a demand letter for complainant but argued that it was made only
in deference to their long standing friendship and not by reason of a professional engagement as professed by
complainant. He denied receiving any professional fee for the services he rendered. It was allegedly their understanding
that complainant would have to retain the services of another lawyer. He alleged that complainant, based on that
agreement, engaged the services of Atty. Manuel A. Ao.respondent stated that the movants in these cases are mother and
daughter while complainants are likewise mother and daughter and that these cases arose out from the same transaction.
Thus, movants and complainants will be adducing the same sets of evidence and witnesses. Respondent argued that no
lawyer-client relationship existed between him and complainant because there was no professional fee paid for the
services he rendered. Complainant filed filed the instant administrative complaint against Atty.Galing seeking his
disbarment from the practice of law for violation of Canon 15 of Code of Professional Responsibility and conflict of
interest.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the respondent violated Canon 15 Rule 15.03 of Code of Professional Responsibility.

HELD:

Yes,the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) found respondent guilty of violating Canon 15,
Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility by representing conflicting interests and for his daring audacity and
for the pronounced malignancy of his act. Under Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states that [a]
lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by written consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure
of the facts. Respondent was therefore bound to refrain from representing parties with conflicting interests in a
controversy. The prohibition against representing conflicting interest is founded on principles of public policy and good
taste. A lawyer-client relationship can exist notwithstanding the close friendship between complainant and respondent.
The relationship was established the moment complainant sought legal advice from respondent regarding the dishonored
checks. By drafting the demand letter respondent further affirmed such relationship. The fact that the demand letter was
not utilized in the criminal complaint filed and that respondent was not eventually engaged by complainant to represent
her in the criminal cases is of no moment. In the course of the lawyer-client relationship, the lawyer learns of the facts
connected with the clients case, including the weak and strong points of the case. The nature of the relationship is,
therefore, one of trust and confidence
of the highest degree.It behooves lawyers not only to keep inviolate the clients confidence, but also to avoid the
appearance of treachery and double-dealing for only then can litigants be encouraged to entrust their secrets to their
lawyers, which is of paramount importance in the administration of justice.The excuse proffered by respondent that it was
not him but Atty. Ao who was eventually engaged by complainant will not exonerate him from the clear violation of Rule
15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The take- over of a clients cause of action by another lawyer does not
give the former lawyer the right to represent the opposing party. It is not only malpractice but also constitutes a violation
of the confidence resulting from the attorney-client relationship.Considering that it is respondents first infraction, the
disbarment sought in the complaint is deemed to be too severe. As recommended by the Board of Governors of the
IBP,respondent is suspended from the practice of law for one (1) year.