EN BANC A.C. No. 6664 July 16, 2013 FERDINAND A. SAMSON, Complainant, SAMSON, Complainant, vs. ATTY. EDGARDO O. ERA, Respondent. The complainant and his relatives were among the inve invest stor ors s who who fell fell prey prey to the the pyra pyrami midi ding ng scam scam perpetrated by ICS Corporation led by Emilia Sison and severa severall others others.. They They engage engaged d the servi services ces of Atty. Atty. Era to represent and assist him and his relatives in the prosecution of criminal case against Sison and her group. ursuant to the engagement, Atty. Era prepared the demand demand letter demanding the return or refund refund of the money sub!ect of their complaints. "e also prepared the complaint#affidavit complaint#affidavit that Samson signed and swore to and subse$uently presented to the %ffice of the City rosecutor of &ue'on City (%C&C). After the prel prelim imin inar ary y inve invest stig igat atio ion, n, the the %C& %C&C C form formal ally ly charged Sison and the others with several counts of estafa in the Regional Trial Court, *ranch + (RTC), in &ue'on City. In April -/, Atty. Atty. Era called a meeting with Samson and his relativ relatives es to discus discuss s the possibil possibility ity of an amicable amicable settlement settlement with Sison Sison and her cohorts. cohorts. "e told Samson and the others that undergoing a trial of the cases would !ust be a waste of time, money and effort for them, and that they could settle the cases with Sison and her group, with him guaranteeing the turnov turnover er to them them of a certai certain n proper property ty locate located d in Antipolo City belonging to ICS Corporation in e0chang e0change e for their their desist desistanc ance. e. They They accede acceded d and e0ecuted the affidavit of desistance he prepared, and in turn they received a deed of assignment covering land registered under Transfer Certificate of Title 1o. R#223 #2234 4 e0ec e0ecu uted ted by Sison son in behal ehalff of ICS Corporation. After an amicable settlement and several negotiati negotiations ons with with Sison Sison and her cohorts, cohorts, Atty. Atty. Era e0pr e0pres esse sed d that that he alre alread ady y acco accomp mpli lish shed ed his his profession professional al responsibi responsibility lity towards towards Samson. Samson. They also later found out that they could not li$uidate the property sub!ect to the amicable settlement. 5uring the hearings in the RTC, Atty. Era did not anymore appear for Samson and his group. They found out that that Atty tty. Era Era had had alre alread ady y been been ente enteri ring ng his his appear appearanc ance e as the counse counsell for Sison Sison in her other other criminal cases involving the same pyramiding scam. %n 6anuary -, -4, Samson e0ecuted an affidavit alleging alleging the foregoing antecedents antecedents and prayed prayed for Atty. Atty. Era7s disbarment on the ground of his violation of the trust, confidence and respect reposed in him as their counsel.
Atty. Era was re$uired to file his Comment. After several e0tensions, Atty. Era finally filed his Comment on April April 88, 88, - - in the %*C. %*C. He lle!e" #$# #$e l%ye&'(l l%ye&'(l)e*# )e*# &el#)o* &el#)o*+$) +$) e*"e" e*"e" %$e* S-+o* S-+o* *" *" $)+ $)+ !&ou !&ou e*#e e*#e&e &e" " )*#o )*#o #$e #$e (o- (o-&o &o-) -)+e +e +e##le-e*#. The case was referred to I* for investigation, report and recommendation. IB Re(o--e*"#)o*/ the the Inve Invest stig igat atin ing g Commissioner found Atty. Atty. Era guilty of misconduct for representing conflicting interests, failing to serve his client client with competence competence and diligence diligence and champion champion the latter7s cause with wholehearted fidelity, care and devotion 9 +u+e*"e" &o- #$e &(#)(e o l% o& 6 -o*#$+ IB Bo&" o Goe&*o&+/ adopted and approved the I* recommendation with modification that Atty. Era be +u+ +u+e* e*"e "e" " &o&o- #$e #$e &( &(#) #)(e (e o l% l% o& o& 2 ye&+. I++ue/ :het :hethe herr or not not Atty tty. Era Era viol violat ated ed the the Code Code of rofessional Responsibility on conflict of interests. Rul)*!. YES. The Supreme Court affirmed the findings of the I*. The lawyer#client relationship did not terminate when the parties entered into a compromise settlement, for the fact remained that he still needed to oversee the impl implem emen enta tati tion on of the the sett settle leme ment nt as well well as to proc procee eed d with with the the crim crimin inal al case cases s unti untill they they were were dismissed or otherwise concluded by the trial court. It is also relevant to indicate that the e0ecution of a compromise settlement in the criminal cases did not ipso facto cause the termination of the cases not only because the approval of the compromise by the trial cour courtt was stil stilll re$u re$uir ired ed,, but but also also beca becaus use e the the compro compromis mise e would would have have appli applied ed only only to the civil civil aspect, and e0cluded the criminal aspect pursuant to Article -/2 of the Civil Code. Code. Rule 1.03, C*o* 1 o #$e Co"e o &oe++)o*l Re+o*+))l)#y provi provides des that; that;
Contrary to Atty. Era7s ill#conceived attempt to e0plain his disloyalty to Samson and his group, the termination of the attorney#client relationship does not !ustify a lawyer to represent an interest adverse to or in conflict with that of the former client. The spirit behind this rule is that the client7s confidence once given should not be stripped by the mere e0piration of the professional employment. Even after the severance of the relation, a lawyer should not do anything that will in!uriously affect his former client in any matter in which the lawyer previously represented the client. 1or should the lawyer disclose or use any of the client7s confidences ac$uired in the previous relation. In this regard, Canon 83 of the Code of rofessional Responsibility e0pressly declares that; nfortunately, he did neither, and should now suffer the proper sanction. HEREFORE, the Court ?I15S and R%1%>1CES Atty. E5@AR5% %. ERA guilty of violating Rule 84./ of Canon 84, and Canon 83 of the Code of rofessional Responsibility and S5SENDS $)- &o- #$e &(#)(e o l% o& #%o ye&+ effective upon his receipt of this decision, with a warning that his commission of a similar offense will be dealt with more severely.
NOTES/ &o$))#)o* !)*+# (o*l)(# o )*#e&e+# &e+#+ o* &#)o*le+, &e*"e&e" + ollo%+/ 1+# / the law see=s to assure clients that their lawyers will represent them with undivided loyalty 2*" / the prohibition against conflicts of interest see=s to enhance the effectiveness of legal representation
3&" / a client has a legal right to have the lawyer safeguard the client7s confidential information #$ 4 / conflicts rules help ensure that lawyers will not e0ploit clients, such as by inducing a client to ma=e a gift to the lawyer #$ / some conflict#of#interest rules protect interests of the legal system in obtaining ade$uate presentations to tribunals. Re+o*/ the rule is grounded in the fiduciary obligation of loyalty. The nature of their relationship is, therefore, one of trust and confidence of the highest degree.
