Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 133 views

    Rosacia v. Bulalacao, A.C. No. 3745, 2 October 1995

    Uploaded by

    JanWacnang
    The Supreme Court of the Philippines suspended an attorney, Benjamin B. Bulalacao, from practice for 3 months. Bulalacao had previously represented Tacma Phils., Inc. as retained counsel but later represented employees of Tacma in a case against the company after the attorney-client relationship ended. This violated Bulalacao's oath of office by representing clients against a former client. While new to practice, attorneys must abide by ethics rules requiring inviolate client trust and confidence even after representation ends. The suspension upheld the integrity of the legal profession.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Rosacia v. Bulalacao, A.C. No. 3745, 2 October 1995

    Uploaded by

    JanWacnang
    133 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court of the Philippines suspended an attorney, Benjamin B. Bulalacao, from practice for 3 months. Bulalacao had previously represented Tacma Phils., Inc. as retained counsel but later represented employees of Tacma in a case against the company after the attorney-client relationship ended. This violated Bulalacao's oath of office by representing clients against a former client. While new to practice, attorneys must abide by ethics rules requiring inviolate client trust and confidence even after representation ends. The suspension upheld the integrity of the legal profession.

    Original Description:

    rosacia

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court of the Philippines suspended an attorney, Benjamin B. Bulalacao, from practice for 3 months. Bulalacao had previously represented Tacma Phils., Inc. as retained counsel but later represented employees of Tacma in a case against the company after the attorney-client relationship ended. This violated Bulalacao's oath of office by representing clients against a former client. While new to practice, attorneys must abide by ethics rules requiring inviolate client trust and confidence even after representation ends. The suspension upheld the integrity of the legal profession.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    133 views2 pages

    Rosacia v. Bulalacao, A.C. No. 3745, 2 October 1995

    Uploaded by

    JanWacnang
    The Supreme Court of the Philippines suspended an attorney, Benjamin B. Bulalacao, from practice for 3 months. Bulalacao had previously represented Tacma Phils., Inc. as retained counsel but later represented employees of Tacma in a case against the company after the attorney-client relationship ended. This violated Bulalacao's oath of office by representing clients against a former client. While new to practice, attorneys must abide by ethics rules requiring inviolate client trust and confidence even after representation ends. The suspension upheld the integrity of the legal profession.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 2

    5/4/2017 A.C.No.

    3745

    TodayisThursday,May04,2017

    CustomSearch

    RepublicofthePhilippines
    SUPREMECOURT
    Manila

    SECONDDIVISION

    A.C.No.3745October2,1995

    CYNTHIAB.ROSACIA,complainant,
    vs.
    ATTY.BENJAMINB.BULALACAO,respondent.

    RESOLUTION

    FRANCISCO,J.:

    ComplainantCynthiaB.Rosacia,presidentofTacma,Phils.,Inc.,adulyregisteredcorporation,filedacomplaint
    for disbarment dated October 25, 1991, against herein respondent Atty. Benjamin B. Bulalacao. Acting on the
    complaint,theCourtinaresolutiondatedFebruary24,1992,resolvedtoreferthecasetotheIntegratedBarof
    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'ssuspensionfromthepracticeoflawforthree(3)months.1InaresolutiondatedJuly30,1994,theIBP
    BoardofGovernorsresolvedtoadoptandapprovethecommissioner'sreportandrecommendation.2

    AsfoundbytheIBP,theundisputedfactsareasfollows:

    On June 1, 1990, by virtue of a written Agreement (Exh. "3a"), respondent Atty. Benjamin B.
    BulalacaowashiredasretainedcounselofacorporationbythenameofTacmaPhils.,Inc.

    OnOctober31,1990,thelawyerclientrelationshipbetweentherespondentandTacmaPhils.,Inc.
    wasseveredasshownbyanotheragreementofevendate(Exh."3b").

    OnJuly,1991,orafteralmostnine(9)monthsfromthedaterespondent'sretaineragreementwith
    Tacma,Phils.,Inc.wasterminated,severalemployeesofthecorporationconsultedtherespondent
    forthepurposeoffilinganactionforillegaldismissal.Thereafter,heagreedtohandlethecasefor
    the said employees as against Tacma, Phils., Inc. by filing a complaint before the National Labor
    RelationsCommission,andappearingintheirbehalf.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 attorneyclient relationship. We
    agreewiththefindingsoftheIBPthatrespondentbreachedhisoathofoffice.Respondentdoesnotnowdispute
    this.Infact,inhismotionforreconsideration,respondentadmittedthathe"didcommitanactborderingongrave
    misconduct, if not outright violation of his attorney's oath". 4 However, 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
    followingprofferedgrounds:thatheisrelativelynewintheprofessionhavingbeenadmittedtothePhilippineBaronApril10,
    1990 at the age of 46 when the complained conduct was committed on August 1991 that he is of humble beginnings and
    hissuspensionwilldeprivehisfamilyofitsonlysourceoflivelihoodhebeingthesolebreadwinnerinthefamilythathehas
    fully realized his mistake and the gravity of his offense for which he is fully repentant that he has severed his attorney
    clientrelationshipwiththeemployeesofTacma,Phils.,Inc.byinhibitinghimselfandwithdrawinghisappearanceascounsel
    inthelaborcaseagainstTacma,Phils.,Inc.andthathepledgesnottocommitthesamemistakeandtohenceforthstrictly
    adheretotheprofessionalstandardssetforthbytheCodeofProfessionalResponsibility.

    TheCourtreiteratesthatanattorneyowesloyaltytohisclientnotonlyinthecaseinwhichhehasrepresented
    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

    http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1995/oct1995/ac_3745_1995.html 1/2
    5/4/2017 A.C.No.3745

    distinct from, and independent of the former case. 5 It 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.6 The relation of
    attorneyandclientisoneofconfidenceandtrustinthehighestdegree.7 A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client
    andheoughttobemindfulofthetrustandconfidencereposedinhim.8Anattorneynotonlybecomesfamiliarwithallthe
    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
    attorneyandclientexists.Otherwise,thelegalprofessionwillsufferbythelossoftheconfidenceofthepeople.9

    Respondent'spleaforleniencycannotbegranted.Wenotethatrespondentisnewintheprofessionashewas
    justadmittedtothePhilippineBaronApril10,1990,whenthebreachofhisoathofofficeoccurredmorethana
    year after. Having just hurdled the bar examinations which included an examination in legal ethics, surely the
    preceptsoftheCodeofProfessionalResponsibilitytokeepinviolatetheclient'strustandconfidenceevenafter
    the attorneyclient relation is terminated 10 must 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
    ineluctablyredoundtohisbenefitandtotheupliftmentofthelegalprofessionaswell.

    ACCORDINGLY,respondentisherebySUSPENDEDfromthepracticeoflawforthreemonths.Letthisresolution
    be attached to respondent's record in the Office of the Bar Confidant and copies thereof furnished to all courts
    andtotheIntegratedBarofthePhilippines.

    Regalado,PunoandMendoza,JJ.,concur.

    Narvasa,C.J.,isonleave.

    Footnotes

    1ReportandRecommendation,April29,1994.

    2ResolutionNo.XI94146.

    3Report,supra,pp.12.

    4MotionforReconsideration,October10,1994,p.1.

    5Sumangilv.SantoRoman,84Phil.777(1949)SanJosev.Cruz,57Phil.792(1933).

    6Hiladov.David,84Phil.569(1949).

    7Tianiav.Ocampo,200SCRA472(1991)Griov.CivilServiceCommission,194SCRA458
    (1991).

    8Canon17,CodeofProfessionalResponsibility.

    9Hilado,supraU.S.v.Laranja,21Phil.500(1912).

    10Canon21,CodeofProfessionalResponsibility.

    TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation

    http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1995/oct1995/ac_3745_1995.html 2/2

    You might also like