FILIPINAS O. CELEDONIO, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. JAIME F.

ESTRABILLO, RESPONDENT.
A.C. No. 10553, July 05, 2017
TIJAM, J.:

FACTS

In 2006, Mr. Alfrito D. Mah (Mah) filed a criminal case of estafa against the
husband of Filipinas O. Celedonio (Celedonio) for allegedly embezzling a substantial
amount from Mah’s company. Atty. Jaime F. Estabillo is Mr. Mah’s legal counsel in
the above estafa case. Celedonio approached Mr. Mah’s wife, being one of their
wedding sponsors, and pleaded for the dropping of the case but Mrs. Mah replied that
the case is already with their lawyer. This led the Spouses Celedonio to consult
Estabillo who in turn assured the couple that he will talk to Mah for the possibility of
settling the case and prevent the filing of the case in court. A negotiation for the
settlement of the case ensued where Estabillo advised Celedonio to execute a deed
of sale over their house and lot covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No.
502969-R. This, according to Estabillo, will be used as a collateral for the settlement
of the case. Estabillo furthered that the said deed of sale will merely be a security
while the Celedonios are paying the embezzled money in installments. He also
assured the Celedonio couple that the said deed of sale will not be registered nor
annotated in the title. Consequently, the criminal case against Mr. Celedonio was
then dismissed. Afterwards, Celedonio decided to sell the house and lot but failed to
do so because she later learned that the property is subject to a complaint for specific
performance with prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction (WPI)
and temporary restraining order (TRO) filed by Spouses Mah. Celedonio found out
that Estabillo requested the Register of Deeds (RD) of Pampanga to register and
annotate the said deed of sale on the title on November 27, 2008.

Celedonio confronted Estabillo on this matter. In response, Estabillo merely

advised complainant to again negotiate with his client and assured her that he would
back her up, said negotiation however failed. Celedonio, at the same time, had to
prepare a responsive pleading in the said civil case. She returned to Estabillo who in
turn prepared a Motion for Extension of Time and Urgent Motion to Postpone for the
complainant dated December 22, 2008 and January 8, 2009, respectively. Confident
that the hearing was indeed postponed Celedonio did not appear in the January 9,
2009 hearing which actually proceeded as scheduled. Moreover, Celedonio also found
out that Estabillo filed a Motion to Declare Defendants in Default in the said case
dated February 4, 2009, which was granted by the court on February 27, 2009. On
March 31, 2009, a decision was rendered in the said case in favor of Mah. As a result,
Celedonio filed this administrative complaint, asking for the Estabillo's disbarment.

In his defense, Estabillo denied Celedonio's accusations though he

acknowledged he told Celedonio that he would help her out in negotiating with Mah.
Estabillo furthered that he suggested a deed of second mortgage be made on the
property, as it was still mortgaged with the bank, for the purpose of settling the
criminal case. He then admitted preparing such deed of second mortgage but Mah
did not sign the same as the he preferred a deed of sale with a promissory note. The
Celedonios then executed the preferred deed of sale. Consequently, Mr. Mah
executed an affidavit of desistance relative to the estafa case against complainant's
husband. To this end, Estabillo claimed that that he never compromised his
relationship with Mah as counsel. Estabillo also denied that he was serving conflicting
interests when he instructed his secretary to draft the motions for extension of time
and postponement for Celedonio.

After investigation, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP)-Commission on

Bar Discipline (CBD) found Estabillo guilty of violating Rule 15.03 and Canon 17 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR). As to the other allegations in the
complaint imputing deceit and other violations of the CPR against Estabillo the IBP-
CBD found no proof to these. Thus, it recommended that Estabillo be suspended from
the practice of law for six (6) months. The IBP Board of Governors adopted and
approved the above findings. However, since the violation was made unintentionally
the IBP Board of Governors lowered the penalty and ordered that Estabillo be
reprimanded. Upon appeal, the IBP reinstated the earlier finding of the IBP-CBD
suspending Estabillo from the practice of law for six (6) months.

ISSUE

Whether or not Estabillo should be administratively disciplined based on the

allegations in the complaint.

RULING

The Court held Estabillo administratively liable for violating Rule 15.03 and
Canon 17 of the CPR. It cited Rule 15.03 of the CPR stating that “a lawyer shall not
represent conflicting interests except by written consent of all concerned given after
a full disclosure of the facts.” The Court also emphasized Canon 17 which 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.”
The High Court dismissed Estabillo’s reason that his act of instructing his
secretary to draft and file motions for Celedonio in the civil case filed by his client,
Mah, against Celedonio is a humanitarian act. Estabillo also insisted that he has no
intention to violate the trust reposed upon him by his client because it was his client's
interest that he had in mind when he prepared the motions as this would extend the
chance of getting a settlement with Celedonio, which is the end favored by his client.
The Court held said actions Estabillo made to be contrary to Rule 15.03 and Canon
17 of the CPR and his reasons, in any way, absolve him from liability.
The Supreme Court, in this case, pointed out that Estabillo’s act of preparing
and filing motions on behalf of Celedonio, the adverse party in the case filed by him
for his client (Mah), conflicts with Mah's interest. Moreover, Rule 15.03 of the CPR
expressly requires a written consent of all parties concerned after full disclosure of
the facts if ever, for whatever reason, a lawyer will be involved in conflicting interests.
Consequently, Rule 15.04 of the CPR substantially states that if a lawyer would act
as a mediator, or a negotiator for that matter, a written consent of all concerned is
also required. In this case no such written consent from any of the parties involved
in this case was presented.
The Court also held that Esatabillo's acts leading Celedonio to lost her day in
court is a clear case of an unfair act on the part of Estabillo. While it is true that
Celedonio cannot put the entire blame on Estabillo, she also cannot be blamed totally
for relying upon the motions prepared by Estabillo for her. This is because she was
made to assume that the said motions will give her more time file an answer and
more importantly, that there was no more hearing on the scheduled date for her to
attend. As it turned out, Estabillo even appeared on the date of the hearing that was
supposedly sought to be postponed. While Estabillo may not have an obligation to
apprise the Celedonio of the hearing as the she is not his client, but his knowledge of
the motion for postponement, drafted by his secretary upon his instruction, calls for
his fair judgment as a defender of justice and officer of the court, to inform the
complainant that the hearing was not postponed.
These complications, according to the Court is exactly the reason why dealing
with conflicting interests in the legal profession is prohibited. Said prohibition is not
only because the relation of attorney and client is one of trust and confidence of the
highest degree, but also because of the principles of public policy and good taste.
The Court then concluded by underscoring that the relationship between a
lawyer and his/her client should ideally be imbued with the highest level of trust and
confidence. The legal profession dictates that it is not a mere duty, but an obligation,
of a lawyer to 'accord the highest degree of fidelity, zeal and fervor in the protection
of the client's interest. Thus, part of the lawyer's duty in this regard is to avoid
representing conflicting interests. Jurisprudence is to the effect that a lawyer's act
which invites suspicion of unfaithfulness or double-dealing in the performance of his
duty already evinces inconsistency of interests. In broad terms, lawyers are deemed
to represent conflicting interests when, in behalf of one client, it is their duty to
contend for that which duty to another client requires them to oppose.
The Court then resolves to adopt the final ruling of the IBP thus suspended
Atty. Jaime F. Estrabillo from the practice of Law for six (6) months with a
warning that a repetition of the same or similar offense will warrant a more severe
penalty.