A.C. No. 5098 - JOSEFINA M. ANIÑON, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. CLEMENCIO SABITSANA, JR..D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, we find as the IBP Board of Governors did Atty. Sabitsana guilty of misconduct for representing conflicting interests. We likewise agree with the penalty of suspension for one (1) year from the practice of law recommended by the IBP Board of Governors. This penalty is consistent with existing jurisprudence on the administrative offense of representing conflicting interests. [12] We note that Atty. Sabitsana takes exception to the IBP recommendation on the ground that the charge in the complaint was only for his alleged disclosure of confidential information, not for representation of conflicting interests. To Atty. Sabitsana, finding him liable for the latter offense is a violation of his due process rights since he only answered the designated charge. We find no violation of Atty. Sabitsanas due process rights. Although there was indeed a specific charge in the complaint, we are not unmindful that the complaint itself contained allegations of acts sufficient to constitute a violation of the rule on the prohibition against representing conflicting interests. As stated in paragraph 8 of the complaint: Atty. Sabitsana, Jr. accepted the commission as a Lawyer of ZENAIDA CANEJA, now Zenaida Cañete, to recover lands from Complainant, including this land where lawyer Atty. Sabitsana, Jr. has advised his client [complainant] to execute the second sale[.] Interestingly, Atty. Sabitsana even admitted these allegations in his answer. [13] He also averred in his Answer that: 6b. Because the defendant-to-be in the complaint (Civil Case No. B-1060) that he would file on behalf of Zenaida Caneja-Cañete was his former client (herein complainant), respondent asked [the] permission of Mrs. Cañete (which she granted) that he would first write a letter (Annex 4) to the complainant proposing to settle the case amicably between them but complainant ignored it. Neither did she object to respondents handling the case in behalf of Mrs. Cañete on the ground she is now invoking in her instant complaint. So respondent felt free to file the complaint against her. [14] We have consistently held that the essence of due process is simply the opportunity to be informed of the charge against oneself and to be heard or, as applied to administrative proceedings, the opportunity to explain ones side or the opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of. [15] These opportunities were all afforded to Atty. Sabitsana, as shown by the above circumstances. All told, disciplinary proceedings against lawyers are sui generis . [16] In the exercise of its disciplinary powers, the Court merely calls upon a member of the Bar to account for his actuations as an officer of the Court with the end in view of preserving the purity of the legal profession. We likewise aim to ensure the proper and honest administration of justice by purging the profession of members who, by their misconduct, have proven themselves no longer worthy to be entrusted wi