Heirs Falame v. Baguio (2008) (Fernandez, J)

Heirs of Falame v. Baguio | A. C. No. 6876 | March 7, 2008 | Ponente : Tinga, J.
SUMMARY: Atty. Edgar Baguio was charged for violating Canon 15.03 by representing a party
with which he has conflicting interests, for knowingly making false statements and for filing a
baseless and fabricated suit. He had originally represented Lydio Falame as a defendant in a civil
case involving land disputes. A few years later, a civil suit was filed against the heirs of the
deceased Lydio Falame on behalf of Raleigh Falame (Brother of Lydio Falame) regarding the
same land.
Doctrine:
Canon 15 – A lawyer shall observe candor, fairness and loyalty in all his dealings and
transactions with his client.
Rule 15.03 – A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by written consent of all
concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts.
FACTS:
 A disbarment complaint was filed by the Heirs of Lydio Jerry Falame against Atty. Edgar
Baguio
 July 15, 1991 – Atty. Baguio was counsel for Lydio Falame as a defendant in a civil case
regarding forcible entry.
o He submitted in evidence the ff:
 Special Power of Attorney for his BROTHER, Raleigh Falame
 Affidavit dated 23 July 1988 which stated that Lydio had owned the
property.
o The court ruled in favor of defendants.
 Lydio Falame dies.
 Oct. 23, 2000 – Representing Raleigh, Atty. Baguio filed a complaint against the heirs of
Lydio Falame.
o The action sough to declare null and void the sale of the property and the
subsequent mortgage. Raleigh likewise prayed for specific performance,
reconveyance and damages.
 Complainants allege the ff:
o Respondent had conflicting interests as the case he is pursuing now is adverse
to his former client’s interest.
o He had made false statements in violation of Sec. 20(d), Rule 138 of the Rules of
Court
 Sec 20(d) – To employ, for the purpose of maintaining the causes
confided to him, such means only as are consistent with truth and
honor, and never seek to mislead the judge or any judicial officer by an
artifice or false statement of fact or law.
o The civil case against the heirs is baseless and fabricated.
o Complainants alleged that respondent Baguio only wanted to retain property
from the heirs in violation of Sec. 20(g), Rule 138
 Sec. 20(g) – Not to encourage either the commencement or the
continuance of an action or proceeding, or delay any man’s cause, from
corrupt motive or interest.
o Allege a violation of Rule 15.03 of the CPR. (See doctrine)
 Respondent claims the ff:
o Raleigh had engaged his services and paid the legal fees.
o The power of attorney was signed and adhered to in good faith (That he did not
reveal or use any knowledge acquired from representing the late Lydio Falame)
o He had not knowingly made any misleading or untruthful statements.
o He also argued that Lydio had not retained him as counsel.
 That he was no longer bound to the acts committed by the heirs after
Lydio’s death.
o He also stated that since a second civil case is pending before the court, the IBP
cannot acquire jurisdiction over the administrative case.
o Raleigh Falame had died and could not testify in his favor.
 The board of governors issued a resolution recommending dismissal of the administrative
case.
o The charged lacks specification as to where the point of conflict of interest arose
(What information was disclosed).
o There is no specific charge for violating Canon 15, Rule 15.03 and prohibition of
conflicting interest. (Due process is violated if one is charged with more than
was a complaint contains)
o Lack of bases to provie violations of Sec. 20(d), Rule 138 of ROC.
o IMPORTANT: Dismissal on grounds of prescription as it has been 4 years since
the alleged misconduct had taken place.
 Complainants file this petition for review.
ISSUES + RULING:
WoN the complaint was filed out of time? -- NO
 Administrative cases do not prescribe
o Calo jr. v. Degamo – “The ordinary statutes of limitation have no application to
disbarment proceedings…”
o In Frias v. Bautista-Lozada – A sec. 1 of Rule 7, Rules of Procedure of IBP was
deemed void since it had provided a prescriptive period for filing administrative
cases.
WoN dismissal of the administrative case is warranted? -- NO
 Although some of the charges remain unsubstantiated, there is sufficient basis that Atty.
Baguio had violated Rule 15.03 (See Doctrine)
o Although, respondent denied being the Attorney of Lydio Falame in his motion
to dismiss.
o Absence of this attorney-client relationship is an essential element of defense
to the charge of conflict of interest.
o Moreover, respondent had been properly apprised on the issue, due process
has been adhered to.
 However, Rule 15.03 mainly means that a lawyer may not act as counsel for a person
whose interest conflicts with that of his present or former client.
 Such rule does not only cover confidential information but also that information which no
confidence has been used.
 The general rule is that if there are adverse effects by representing a particular party, the
fiduciary obligation of loyalty to one’s client is violated.
 Termination of the attorney-client relationship does not justify representing a party with
conflicting interests or adverse interest.
 Canon 17 provides that a lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he shall be
mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him.
o A lawyer’s highest and most unquestioned duty is to protect the client at all
hazards and costs even to himself.
o Such protection is perpetual and does not cease upon cessation of employment
of attorney or even death of client
 Attorney Baguio should have diligently anticipated the conflict of interest.
WoN Atty Baguio should be disbarred? -- NO

 It is the first offense of respondent.
 Court resolves to reprimand, with admonition to observe a higher degree of fidelity in the
practice of his profession.
Disposition: Atty. Edgar Baguio is found guilty of representing conflicting interest. He is

reprimanded and admonished to observe a higher degree of fidelity in the practice of his
profession.

Heirs Falame v. Baguio (2008) (Fernandez, J)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Heirs Falame v. Baguio (2008) (Fernandez, J)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Heirs Falame v. Baguio (2008) (Fernandez, J)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Heirs of Falame v. Baguio | A. C. No. 6876 | March 7, 2008 | Ponente : Tinga, J.

WoN Atty Baguio should be disbarred? -- NO

Disposition: Atty. Edgar Baguio is found guilty of representing conflicting interest. He is

You might also like