A.C. No. 9860 - JOSEPHINE L. OROLA, MYRNA L. OROLA, MANUEL L. OROLA, MARY ANGELYN OROLA-BELARGA, MARJORIE MELBA OROLA-CALIP, AND KAREN OROLA, COMPLAINANTS, VS. ATTY. JOSEPH ADOR RAMOS.R E S O L U T I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, for respondents violation of the aforestated rules, disciplinary sanction is warranted. In this case, the penalty recommended by the Investigating Commissioner was increased from severe reprimand to a suspension of six (6) months by the IBP Board of Governors in its Resolution No. XVIII-2008-641. However, the Court observes that the said resolution is bereft of any explanation showing the bases of the IBP Board of Governors modification; as such, it contravened Section 12(a), Rule 139-B of the Rules which specifically mandates that [t]he decision of the Board upon such review shall be in writing and shall clearly and distinctly state the facts and the reasons on which it is based. [34] Verily, the Court looks with disfavor the change in the recommended penalty without any ample justification therefor. To this end, the Court is wont to remind the IBP Board of Governors of the importance of the requirement to announce in plain terms its legal reasoning, since the requirement that its decision in disciplinary proceedings must state the facts and the reasons on which the same is based is akin to what is required of courts in promulgating their decisions. The reasons for handing down a penalty occupy no lesser station than any other portion of the ratio . [35] In the foregoing light, the Court finds the penalty of suspension from the practice of law for a period of three (3) months to be more appropriate taking into consideration the following factors: first , respondent is a first time offender; second , it is undisputed that respondent merely accommodated Maricars request out of gratis to temporarily represent her only during the June 16 and July 14, 2006 hearings due to her lawyers unavailability; third , it is likewise undisputed that respondent had no knowledge that the late Antonio had any other heirs aside from Maricar whose consent he actually acquired (albeit shortly after his first appearance as counsel for and in behalf of Emilio), hence, it can be said that he acted in good faith; and fourth , complainants admit that respondent did not acquire confidential information from the Heirs of Antonio nor did he use against them any knowledge obtained in the course of his previous employment, hence, the said heirs were not in any manner prejudiced by his subsequent engagement with Emilio. Notably, in Ilusorio-Bildner v. Lokin , Jr., [36] the Court similarly imposed the penalty of suspension from the practice of law for a period of three months to the counsel therein who represented parties whose interests are hostile to his other clients in another case. WHEREFORE , respondent Atty. Joseph Ador Ramos is hereby held GUILTY of representing conflicting interests in violation of Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Accordingly, he is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of three (3) months, with WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar acts in the future will be dealt with more s