MABINI COLLEGES, INC. represented by MARCEL N.

LUKBAN,
ALBERTO I. GARCIA, JR., and MA. PAMELA ROSSANA A. APUYA,
complainant, vs. ATTY. JOSE D. PAJARILLO, respondent.
763 SCRA 288, A.C. No. 10687
Villamar Jr.
July 22, 2015

Doctrine:
Attorneys; Legal Ethics; Conflict of Interest; Respondent represented conflicting
interests in violation of Canon 15, Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility (CPR) which provides that “[a] lawyer shall not represent conflicting
interests except by written consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the
facts.”—We thus affirm the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating
Commissioner, and Resolution Nos. XX-2013-770 and XXI-2014-290 of the IBP
Board of Governors. Indeed, respondent represented conflicting interests in violation
of Canon 15, Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which provides
that “[a] lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by written consent of
all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts.” This rule prohibits a lawyer
from representing new clients whose interests oppose those of a former client in any
manner, whether or not they are parties in the same action or on totally unrelated
cases. Based on the principles of public policy and good taste, this prohibition on
representing conflicting interests enjoins lawyers 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 lawyers,
which is of paramount importance in the administration of justice.

Attorneys; Legal Ethics; Conflict of Interest; The rule prohibiting conflict of interest
applies to situations wherein a lawyer would be representing a client whose interest is
directly adverse to any of his present or former clients.—The rule prohibiting conflict
of interest applies to situations wherein a lawyer would be representing a client whose
interest is directly adverse to any of his present or former clients. It also applies when
the lawyer represents a client against a former client in a controversy that is related,
directly or indirectly, to the subject mater of the previous litigation in which he
appeared for the former client. This rule applies regardless of the degree of adverse
interests. What a lawyer owes his former client is to maintain inviolate the client’s
confidence or to refrain from doing anything which will injuriously affect him in any
matter in which he previously represented him. A lawyer may only be allowed to
represent a client involving the same or a substantially related matter that is materially
adverse to the former client only if the former client consents to it after consultation.
Attorneys; Legal Ethics; Conflict of Interest; The nature and extent of the information
received by the lawyer from his client is irrelevant in determining the existence of
conflict of interest.—The nature and extent of the information received by the lawyer
from his client is irrelevant in determining the existence of conflict of interest.

Attorneys; Disbarment; Suspension; Under Section 1, Rule 139-B of the Rules of

Court, “[p]roceedings for the disbarment, suspension or discipline of attorneys may be
taken by the Supreme Court (SC) motu proprio, or by the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP) upon the verified complaint of any person.”—We agree with the
Investigating Commissioner that a complaint for disbarment is imbued with public
interest which allows for a liberal rule on legal standing. Under Section 1, Rule 139-B
of the Rules of Court, “[p]roceedings for the disbarment, suspension or discipline of
attorneys may be taken by the Supreme Court motu proprio, or by the Integrated Bar
of the Philippines (IBP) upon the verified complaint of any person.” Thus, in the
present case, we find that Marcel N. Lukban, Alberto I. Garcia Jr., and Ma. Pamela
Rossana A. Apuya can institute the complaint for disbarment, even without authority
from the Board of Directors of the complainant.

Issue:
1. This is a case of disbarment against Atty. Pajarillo;
2. There are two opposing factions in the Mabini Colleges Inc., The Adeva group and
the Lukban group;
3. In 1996 the respondent was hired as a corporte secretary, but was reveled to be the
legal counsel of Adeva group based on the regular legal fees he is receieving;
4. Adeva group issued an unnumbered resolution allowing and authorizing Pilar I.
Andrade to secure a loan from Rural Bank of Paracale which was later opposed by the
Lukban faction but was declined since they failed to be recognized by the SEC.
5. The RBP received the SEC order and was referred to the legal counsel, the
respondent on this case;
6. The loan was secured on July 13, 1999 and was increased to 400,000 on April 18,
2000 using the real estate mortgage of the complainant;
7. On April 23, 2002, Atty. Pajarillo moved to foreclose the property of Mabini
College Inc., On May 28, 2002 complainant filed for the Annulment of Mortgage with
a prayer for Preliminary Injunction against RBP, the respondent entered his
appearance as counsel for RBP;
8. On September 02, 2011 the Lukban faction, here in as a complainant filed for a
disbarment against Atty. Pajarillo for allegedly representing conflicting interest.
9. Respondent response was, 1. The complainant has no legal standing because they
are not authorized by the board of Mabini Colleges Inc., 2. He is merely a corporate
secretary of Mabini Colleges Inc., and a legal counsel of Rural Bank of Paracale, thus,
there are no conflict of interest; 3. The loan is a public record, thus he could not have
taken advantage of his position as a mere secretary of the complainant.

Issue:
1. Weather Lukban group have a a legal standing to file a complaint against Atty.
Pajarillo;
2. Weather Attyy. Pajarillo served as a legal counsel for the conflicting interest of
RBP and Mabini Colleges Inc.

Ruling:
1. Yes, Lukabn group can file a complaint.
Following the guideline of Rule 139-B, Disbarment and Discipline of Attorneys,
the Supreme Court or the Integrated Bar of the Philippines may proceed with
discipline, suspension, or disbarment of attorneys upon receiving a verified complaint
of any person.
In this case Lukban group may be not the group of people that seek the services
of the respondent but such cause is immaterial for as long as they have the personal
knowledge, material and substantial facts of evidence for their allegation/s.

2. Yes, Atty. Pajarillo served as a legal counsel for two conflicting parties which is
prohibited in the practice of law.
In Canon 15, Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which
provides that “[a] lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by written
consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts.”
In this case, Atty. Pajarillo contrary to evidence served as a legal counsel for
Mabini Colleges Inc., proof is the three vouchers that was issued for his services as a
legal counsel. Being the legal counsel for the Rural Bank of Paracale he is reponsible
in securing the loan of the other party. Having this knowledge he would also know the
weakness and strength of both party specially when he moved for the foreclosure of
the petitioners property.

Therefore, evidence and circumstances considered the Resolution of the IBP

imposing penalty to Atty. Jose D. Pajarillo of suspension of practice of law for one
year is hereby affirmed.