76 NAKPIL v VALDES Facts: Jose Nakpil was interested in a piece of property which is a summer house situated in Moran, Baguio.

He went into an agreement with Atty. Carlos Valdes for the latter to buy the property in trust for Nakpil until he could buy it back. Valdes did buy the property by contracting 2 loans in the amounts of P75,000.00 and P65,000.00 which he used to purchase and renovate the property . The lands titles were transferred to Valdes name and the Nakpils were the ones who occupied the Property When Jose Nakpil died, respondent Valdes acted as legal counsel and accountant of the complainant his widow Imelda Nakpil for the settlement of the estate of Jose Nakpil. Later on, Valdes exclude the property in Baguio from the list of assets of Jose Nakpil and actually transferred the property to his company, the Caval Realty Corporation while including the loans he contracted. Imelda did was to filed a suit for reconveyance in the Court of First Instance (CFI). While the case was pending, Imelda also filed an administrative complaint for disbarment against Valdes. The CFI dismissed the action for reconveyance because the CFIs interpretation was that the complainant waived her right over the property. The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the CFI and held that the respondent was the absolute owner of the property . The complaint for reconveyance went up to the Supreme Court. Issue: Whether or not Atty. Valdes should be administratively sanctioned for his acts, namely: -Excluding the property in Baguio from the estate of Jose Nakpil; -Including his loans as claims on the estate; and -Apparently, representing conflicting interests when his accounting firm prepared the list of claims of creditors Angel Nakpil and ENORN against the estate of Jose Nakpil, which was represented by his law firm. Held: The SC found Valdes guilty of misconduct and suspends him for 1 year. The Court held that the first two acts clearly show that Valdes broke the trust reposed on him by Imelda Nakpil when the latter agreed to use his professional services as a lawyer and an accountant. It was clear that Jose Nakpil and Atty. Came to an agreement that the latter would be buying the property in trust for Jose. By his act of excluding the property from the estate and including the loans he contracted (and used for his own benefit) as claims, Valdes took for granted the trust formed between Jose and him (they had a close relationship since the 50s), which was the basis for Imeldas decision to use his services. As to the third charge, we hold respondent guilty of representing conflicting interests . An Attorney cannot represent adverse interests except when the parties consent to the representation which the client must give their informed consent too such representation, which in this case did not happen. Respondent's accounting firm prepared the list of assets and liabilities of the estate and, at the same time, computed the claims of two creditors of the estate. There is clearly a conflict between the interest of the estate which stands as the debtor, and that of the two claimants who are creditors of the estate.