Perez vs. De la Torre

A lawyer violates the prohibition against representing conflicting interests by acting as counsel for two accused in the execution of extrajudicial confessions while simultaneously representing the victim’s heirs in the prosecution of the same criminal case, absent written consent of all parties given after a full disclosure of the facts. The conflict is not removed by the fact that the lawyer was approached by the accused and apprised them of their constitutional rights; the duties owed to each set of clients are inherently opposed.

In December 2001, several suspects in the crimes of murder and kidnapping for ransom — including Sonny Boy Ilo and Diego Avila — were arrested and detained at the municipal jail of Calabanga, Camarines Sur. Atty. Danilo de la Torre had earlier been retained by the family of the murder victim, Resurreccion Barrios, to act as private prosecutor. While the two accused were in detention, respondent went to the municipal building, spoke with them, and assisted in the preparation and execution of their extrajudicial confessions. These confessions implicated complainant Nestor Perez, the barangay captain of Binanuaanan, as the mastermind of the criminal enterprise.

• The Complaint: Complainant Nestor Perez, barangay captain of Binanuaanan, Calabanga, Camarines Sur, alleged that in December 2001 several suspects in murder and kidnapping for ransom cases — including Sonny Boy Ilo and Diego Avila — were apprehended. Respondent Atty. Danilo de la Torre went to the municipal building where the two were detained, represented that he could secure their freedom if they signed prepared extrajudicial confessions, and assisted them in executing those confessions. Unknown to Ilo and Avila, respondent was already the retained counsel of the heirs of the murder victim, Resurreccion Barrios. The extrajudicial confessions implicated complainant as the mastermind, leading to charges against him.

• Respondent’s Version: Respondent denied soliciting the representation. He claimed that Avila, while in detention, sought his assistance in drafting an extrajudicial confession regarding his involvement in kidnapping for ransom, murder, and robbery. He advised Avila to inform his parents, apprised him of his constitutional rights, and told him of the possibility of being utilized as a state witness. When Ilo later asked for similar assistance, respondent conferred with Ilo in the presence of his parents and assisted only after being convinced that Ilo was acting freely.

• Evidence of Conflict: The IBP investigation established through substantial evidence — notably the testimony of the victim’s daughter, Vicky de Chavez, before Branch 63 of the Regional Trial Court of Camarines Sur — that her family had retained Atty. de la Torre to prosecute the case against her father’s killers. She further testified that she was personally present on one occasion when respondent met with and advised Avila and Ilo. Respondent neither denied nor refuted these facts despite ample opportunity.

• IBP Findings: The Investigating Commissioner concluded that respondent consciously offered his services to Avila and Ilo while already representing the victim’s family; that it was not improbable respondent purposely helped the accused to further his other clients’ interest; and that no written consent of the parties after full disclosure had been secured, in direct breach of Rule 15.03.

• Conflict of Interest: Complainant contended that respondent engaged in misconduct and conduct unbecoming a lawyer by simultaneously representing the heirs of the murder victim and assisting the accused in executing extrajudicial confessions that implicated complainant. He argued that such dual representation placed respondent in a position of double-dealing and warranted disciplinary action.

• No Solicitation and No Conflict: Respondent denied offering his legal services. He maintained that the accused voluntarily sought his assistance; that he complied only after apprising them of their constitutional rights and obtaining parental consent; and that he was convinced no compulsion attended the confessions. By this account, no prohibited conflict arose because he did not actively pursue the representation and believed he had taken adequate safeguards.

• Representation of Conflicting Interests: Whether respondent Atty. Danilo de la Torre violated Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility by assisting accused Ilo and Avila in executing extrajudicial confessions while already retained as counsel for the victim’s family in the same criminal matters.

• Representation of Conflicting Interests: Respondent was found guilty of representing conflicting interests. The test for conflict of interests is whether “in behalf of one client, it is the lawyer’s duty to fight for an issue or claim, but it is his duty to oppose it for the other client.” As counsel for the victim’s heirs, respondent was duty-bound to press for the prosecution and conviction of the accused; yet he simultaneously aided those same accused in making confessions that formed part of the case against them. His representation invited suspicion of double-dealing and infidelity. The prohibition covers not only situations where confidential information is exchanged, but any matter where acceptance of a new retainer would injuriously affect the first client or require the lawyer to use against the first client knowledge gained through their connection. Respondent’s excuse that the accused approached him and that he gave constitutional advisories did not cure the defect, because Rule 15.03 requires written consent of all concerned after a full disclosure of the facts — a requirement he failed to satisfy. His prior retainer should have prompted him to decline any role for the accused. Considering that the infraction was respondent’s first, disbarment was deemed too severe; however, the gravity warranted a suspension of three years, an increase from the IBP’s recommendation of two years.

• Test for Conflict of Interest — A lawyer represents conflicting interests “when a lawyer represents inconsistent interests of two or more opposing parties. The test is ‘whether or not in behalf of one client, it is the lawyer’s duty to fight for an issue or claim, but it is his duty to oppose it for the other client. In brief, if he argues for one client, this argument will be opposed by him when he argues for the other client.’” The rule applies even when no confidential communications have been confided, and whenever acceptance of a new retainer will require the attorney to injuriously affect the first client or to use against that client any knowledge acquired through their connection.

• Public Policy Foundation — The prohibition against representing conflicting interests rests on principles of public policy and good taste. The lawyer-client relationship is one of trust and confidence of the highest degree. Lawyers must not only keep inviolate the client’s confidences but also avoid the appearance of impropriety and double-dealing; only then will litigants be encouraged to entrust their secrets to their lawyers, which is of paramount importance in the administration of justice.

• “There is conflict of interests when a lawyer represents inconsistent interests of two or more opposing parties. The test is ‘whether or not in behalf of one client, it is the lawyer’s duty to fight for an issue or claim, but it is his duty to oppose it for the other client. In brief, if he argues for one client, this argument will be opposed by him when he argues for the other client.’ This rule covers not only cases in which confidential communications have been confided, but also those in which no confidence has been bestowed or will be used.”

• “The prohibition against representing conflicting interest is founded on principles of public policy and good taste. In the course of a lawyer-client relationship, the lawyer learns all the facts connected with the client’s case, including the weak and strong points of the case. The nature of that relationship is, therefore, one of trust and confidence of the highest degree. It behooves lawyers not only to keep inviolate the client’s confidence, but also to avoid the appearance of impropriety 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.”

• Hornilla v. Salunat, A.C. No. 5804, July 1, 2003, 405 SCRA 220 — Followed for the definition of conflict of interests and the governing test.
• Abaqueta v. Florido, A.C. No. 5948, January 22, 2003, 395 SCRA 569 — Followed for the rule that conflict of interest exists when the new retainer would injuriously affect the first client or require the use against that client of knowledge acquired in the prior relationship.
• Quiambao v. Bamba, Adm. Case No. 6708, August 25, 2005, 468 SCRA 1 — Followed for the public policy underpinnings of the prohibition and the high fiduciary standard imposed on lawyers.

• Rule 15.03, Code of Professional Responsibility — “A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by written consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts.” Applied to hold that respondent’s simultaneous representation of the victim’s heirs and the accused, without securing any such written consent, constituted a clear violation.

Panganiban, C.J., Puno, Quisumbing, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio, Austria-Martinez, Corona, Carpio-Morales, Callejo, Sr., Azcuna, Tinga, Chico-Nazario, and Garcia, JJ., concurred.