A.C. No. 3745 - OCTOBER 1995 - PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE CASE NUMBERCASE TITLE A.C. No. 3745October 2, 1995 Cynthia B. Rosacia vs. Benjamin B. Bulalacao G.R. No. 94702October 2, 1995 People of the Philippines vs. Carlito Acuña, et al. G.R. No. 97143October 2, 1995 People of the Philippines vs. Arturo Figueroa A.M. No. RTJ-95-1325October 4, 1995 Pablo Española vs. Vincent Eden C. Panay G.R. No. 102672October 4, 1995 Panay Electric Company, Inc. vs. National Labor Relations Commission, et al. G.R. No. 118533October 4, 1995 Pablo R. Olivarez vs. Sandiganbayan, et al. A.M. No. P-93-972October 6, 1995 Court Administrator vs. Ma. Gorgonia L. Flores A.M. No. P-94-1006October 6, 1995 Lerma Chua Martinez vs. aldo Muñoz G.R. No. 4405October 6, 1995 Bienvenido Sanchez vs. Galileo P. Brion G.R. No. 76490October 6, 1995 Isagani Sabiniano vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. 104604October 6, 1995 Narciso O. Jao, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. 110634October 6, 1995 Rufino O. Eslao vs. Commission On Audit G.R. Nos. 111206-08October 6, 1995 People of the Philippines vs. Claudio Teehankee, Jr. G.R. No. 116183October 6, 1995 Ricardo T. Gloria, et al. vs. Salvador P. De Guzman, Jr. et al. G.R. No. 117092October 6, 1995 People of the Philippines vs. Mario C. Lao G.R. No. 118712October 6, 1995 Land Bank of the Philippines vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. 120319October 6, 1995 Luzon Development Bank vs. Asso. of Luzon Dev't. Bank, et al. A.M. No. RTJ-93-1033October 10, 1995 Maribeth Cordova vs. Emma C. Labayen, et al. G.R. No. 117732October 10, 1995 People of the Philippines vs. Jesus C. Saliling G.R. No. 117009October 11, 1995 Security Bank & Trust Company, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. Nos. 118013-14October 11, 1995 People of the Philippines vs. Demosthenes L. Magallanes, et al. G.R. No. 93915October 11, 1995 Augusto Evangelista vs. National Labor Relations Commission, et al. G.R. No. 99049October 11, 1995 People of the Philippines vs. Rogelio A. Barquilla G.R. No. 99263October 12, 1995 People of the Philippines vs. Pacifico R. Lazaro G.R. Nos. 119987-88October 12, 1995 The People of the Philippines vs. Lorenzo B. Veneracion, et al. A.C. No. 4380October 13, 1995 Nicanor Gonzales, et al. vs. Miguel Sabacajan G.R. No. 103911October 13, 1995 Edgardo E. Lopez vs. Sandiganbayan (Second Division), et al. G.R. No. 109373October 13, 1995 Pacific Banking Corp. et al. vs. the Honorable Court of Appeals, et al G.R. No. 110015October 13, 1995 Manila Bay Club Corp. vs. the Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. 107101October 16, 1995 People of the Philippines vs. Marlo S. Rodico, et al. G.R. No. 108515October 16, 1995 Luis Balantakbo, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. 110053October 16, 1995 Development Bank of the Philippines vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. 110544October 17, 1995 Reynaldo V. Tuanda, et al. vs. the Honorable Sandiganbayan, et al. G.R. No. 105649October 18, 1995 Floro Enterprises, Inc., vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. 111634October 18, 1995 Komatsu Industries (Philippine), Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. 116062October 18, 1995 People of the Philippines vs. Berto Bantisil, et al. G.R. No. 116462October 18, 1995 Reno Foods, Inc. vs. National Labor Relations Commission, et al. G.R. No. 116910October 18, 1995 Int'l. Container Terminal., et al., vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. Nos. 114841-42October 20, 1995 Atlantic Gulf et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. 103915October 23, 1995 Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Telefunken Semiconductor Philippine, et al. G.R. No. 106477October 23, 1995 Globe General Services, et al. vs. National Labor Relations Commission (First Division), et al. G.R. No. 111837October 24, 1995 New York Marine Managers, Inc., vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. Nos. 112969-70October 24, 1995 People of the Philippines vs. Gregorio Padre-E G.R. No. 118584October 24, 1995 Aurelia S. Gomez vs. Presiding Judge, Rtc, et al. G.R. No. 120823October 24, 1995 Hadji Hamid Patoray vs. Commission On Elections, et al. A.M. No. MTJ-92-716October 25, 1995 Ma. Blyth B. Abadilla vs. Jose C. Tabiliran, Jr. et al. A.M. No. MTJ-93-892October 25, 1995 San Manuel Wood Products, Inc. vs. Ramon B. Tupas, et al. A.M. No. MTJ-94-907October 25, 1995 Bank of the Philippines Islands vs. Jose Sd. Generoso, et al. A.M. No. MTJ-94-979October 25, 1995 Emerito M. Agcaoili, vs. Adolfo B. Molina A.M. No. P-94-1081October 25, 1995 Virginia E. Burgos vs. Josefina R. Aquino G.R. No. 95573October 25, 1995 Government Service Insurance System [Gsis] vs. National Food Authority, et al. G.R. No. 99058October 25, 1995 People of the Philippines vs. Felixberto Francisco, et al. G.R. No. 102976October 25, 1995 Iron And Steel Authority vs. the Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. Nos. 110815-16October 25, 1995 People of the Philippines vs. Johnny Sinatao G.R. No. 111688October 25, 1995 The People of the Philippines vs. Agapito Briol G.R. No. 112713October 25, 1995 People of the Philippines vs. Jose Tamparong, Jr., et al. G.R. No. 108115October 27, 1995 Philippine Soap Box Derby, Inc. vs. the Honorable Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. 117083October 27, 1995 Lazaro V. Kavinta vs. Prudencio altre Castillo, Jr. G.R. No. 112448October 30, 1995 People of the Philippines vs. Agapito Lopez, et al. G.R. No. 115455October 30, 1995 Arturo M. Tolentino vs. the Secretary of Finance, et al. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc. Cynthia B. Rosacia vs. Benjamin B. Bulalacao People of the Philippines vs. Carlito Acuña, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Arturo Figueroa Pablo Española vs. Vincent Eden C. Panay Panay Electric Company, Inc. vs. National Labor Relations Commission, et al. Pablo R. Olivarez vs. Sandiganbayan, et al. Court Administrator vs. Ma. Gorgonia L. Flores Lerma Chua Martinez vs. aldo Muñoz Bienvenido Sanchez vs. Galileo P. Brion Isagani Sabiniano vs. Court of Appeals, et al. Narciso O. Jao, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. Rufino O. Eslao vs. Commission On Audit People of the Philippines vs. Claudio Teehankee, Jr. Ricardo T. Gloria, et al. vs. Salvador P. De Guzman, Jr. et al. People of the Philippines vs. Mario C. Lao Land Bank of the Philippines vs. Court of Appeals, et al. Luzon Development Bank vs. Asso. of Luzon Dev't. Bank, et al. Maribeth Cordova vs. Emma C. Labayen, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Jesus C. Saliling Security Bank & Trust Company, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Demosthenes L. Magallanes, et al. Augusto Evangelista vs. National Labor Relations Commission, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Rogelio A. Barquilla People of the Philippines vs. Pacifico R. Lazaro The People of the Philippines vs. Lorenzo B. Veneracion, et al. Nicanor Gonzales, et al. vs. Miguel Sabacajan Edgardo E. Lopez vs. Sandiganbayan (Second Division), et al. Pacific Banking Corp. et al. vs. the Honorable Court of Appeals, et al Manila Bay Club Corp. vs. the Court of Appeals, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Marlo S. Rodico, et al. Luis Balantakbo, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. Development Bank of the Philippines vs. Court of Appeals, et al. Reynaldo V. Tuanda, et al. vs. the Honorable Sandiganbayan, et al. Floro Enterprises, Inc., vs. Court of Appeals, et al. Komatsu Industries (Philippine), Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Berto Bantisil, et al. Reno Foods, Inc. vs. National Labor Relations Commission, et al. Int'l. Container Terminal., et al., vs. Court of Appeals, et al. Atlantic Gulf et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Telefunken Semiconductor Philippine, et al. Globe General Services, et al. vs. National Labor Relations Commission (First Division), et al. New York Marine Managers, Inc., vs. Court of Appeals, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Gregorio Padre-E Aurelia S. Gomez vs. Presiding Judge, Rtc, et al. Hadji Hamid Patoray vs. Commission On Elections, et al. Ma. Blyth B. Abadilla vs. Jose C. Tabiliran, Jr. et al. San Manuel Wood Products, Inc. vs. Ramon B. Tupas, et al. Bank of the Philippines Islands vs. Jose Sd. Generoso, et al. Emerito M. Agcaoili, vs. Adolfo B. Molina Virginia E. Burgos vs. Josefina R. Aquino Government Service Insurance System [Gsis] vs. National Food Authority, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Felixberto Francisco, et al. Iron And Steel Authority vs. the Court of Appeals, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Johnny Sinatao The People of the Philippines vs. Agapito Briol People of the Philippines vs. Jose Tamparong, Jr., et al. Philippine Soap Box Derby, Inc. vs. the Honorable Court of Appeals, et al. Lazaro V. Kavinta vs. Prudencio altre Castillo, Jr. People of the Philippines vs. Agapito Lopez, et al. Arturo M. Tolentino vs. the Secretary of Finance, et al. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc.
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
SECOND DIVISION
A.C. No. 3745 October 2, 1995
CYNTHIA B. ROSACIA,complainant,
vs.
ATTY. BENJAMIN B. BULALACAO,respondent.
R E S O L U T I O N
FRANCISCO,J.:
Complainant Cynthia B. Rosacia, president of Tacma, Phils., Inc., a duly registered corporation, filed a complaint for disbarment dated October 25, 1991, against herein respondent Atty. Benjamin B. Bulalacao. Acting on the complaint, the Court in a resolution dated February 24, 1992, resolved to refer the case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and recommendation. Commissioner Victor C. Fernandez, the IBP investigating commissioner, found that respondent breached his oath of office and accordingly recommended respondent's suspension from the practice of law for three (3) months.1In a resolution dated July 30, 1994, the IBP Board of Governors resolved to adopt and approve the commissioner's report and recommendation.2
As found by the IBP, the undisputed facts are as follows:
On June 1, 1990, by virtue of a written Agreement (Exh. "3-a"), respondent Atty. Benjamin B. Bulalacao was hired as retained counsel of a corporation by the name of Tacma Phils., Inc.
On October 31, 1990, the lawyer-client relationship between the respondent and Tacma Phils., Inc. was severed as shown by another agreement of even date (Exh. "3-b").
On July, 1991, or after almost nine (9) months from the date respondent's retainer agreement with Tacma, Phils., Inc. was terminated, several employees of the corporation consulted the respondent for the purpose of filing an action for illegal dismissal. Thereafter, he agreed to handle the case for the said employees as against Tacma, Phils., Inc. by filing a complaint before the National Labor Relations Commission, and appearing in their behalf.3
The sole issue to be addressed is whether or not respondent breached his oath of office for representing the employees of his former client, Tacma, Phils., Inc., after the termination of their attorney-client relationship. We agree with the findings of the IBP that respondent breached his oath of office. Respondent does not now dispute this. In fact, in his motion for reconsideration, respondent admitted that he "did commit an act bordering on grave misconduct, if not outright violation of his attorney's oath".4However, respondent is pleading for the Court's compassion and leniency to reduce the IBP recommended three months suspension to either fine or admonition with the following proffered grounds: that he is relatively new in the profession having been admitted to the Philippine Bar on April 10, 1990 at the age of 46 when the complained conduct was committed on August 1991; that he is of humble beginnings and his suspension will deprive his family of its only source of livelihood he being the sole bread winner in the family; that he has fully realized his mistake and the gravity of his offense for which he is fully repentant; that he has severed his attorney-client relationship with the employees of Tacma, Phils., Inc. by inhibiting himself and withdrawing his appearance as counsel in the labor case against Tacma, Phils., Inc.; and that he pledges not to commit the same mistake and to henceforth strictly adhere to the professional standards set forth by the Code of Professional Responsibility.
The Court reiterates that an attorney owes loyalty to his client not only in the case in which he has represented him but also after the relation of attorney and client has terminated as it is not good practice to permit him afterwards to defend in another case other person against his former client under the pretext that the case is distinct from, and independent of the former case.5It behooves respondent not only to keep inviolate the client's 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 attorneys which is of paramount importance in the administration of justice.6The relation of attorney and client is one of confidence and trust in the highest degree.7A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he ought to be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him.8An attorney not only becomes familiar with all the facts connected with his client's cause, but also learns from his client the weak and strong points of the case. No opportunity must be given attorneys to take advantage of the secrets of clients obtained while the confidential relation of attorney and client exists. Otherwise, the legal profession will suffer by the loss of the confidence of the people.9
Respondent's plea for leniency cannot be granted. We note that respondent is new in the profession as he was just admitted to the Philippine Bar on April 10, 1990, when the breach of his oath of office occurred more than a year after. Having just hurdled the bar examinations which included an examination in legal ethics, surely the precepts of the Code of Professional Responsibility to keep inviolate the client's trust and confidence even after the attorney-client relation is terminated10must have been still fresh in his mind. A lawyer starting to establish his stature in the legal profession must start right and dutifully abide by the norms of conduct of the profession. This will ineluctably redound to his benefit and to the upliftment of the legal profession as well.
ACCORDINGLY, respondent is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for three months. Let this resolution be attached to respondent's record in the Office of the Bar Confidant and copies thereof furnished to all courts and to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.
Regalado, Puno and Mendoza, JJ., concur.
Narvasa, C.J., is on leave.
Footnotes
1 Report and Recommendation, April 29, 1994.
2 Resolution No. XI-94-146.
3 Report,supra, pp. 1-2.
4 Motion for Reconsideration, October 10, 1994, p. 1.
5 Sumangil v. Santo Roman, 84 Phil. 777 (1949); San Jose v. Cruz, 57 Phil. 792 (1933).
6 Hilado v. David, 84 Phil. 569 (1949).
7 Tiania v. Ocampo, 200 SCRA 472 (1991); Griño v. Civil Service Commission, 194 SCRA 458 (1991).
8 Canon 17, Code of Professional Responsibility.
9 Hilado,supra; U.S. v. Laranja, 21 Phil. 500 (1912).
10 Canon 21, Code of Professional Responsibility.