Lydia Castro-Justo, Complainant v. Atty. Rodolfo T.

Galing, Respondent
(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. Año. 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 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 client’s 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. Año 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 respondent’s 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.