A.C. No. 10933 - WILSON B. TAN, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. JAMES ROULYN R. ALVARICO.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, there is neither a plaintiff nor a prosecutor therein. It may be initiated by the Court motu proprio . Public interest is its primary objective, and the real question for determination is whether or not the attorney is still a fit person to be allowed the privileges as such. Hence, 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 and the proper and honest administration of justice by purging the profession of members who by their misconduct have proved themselves no longer worthy to be entrusted with the duties and responsibilities pertaining to the office of an attorney. In such posture, there can thus be no occasion to speak of a complainant or a prosecutor.' [46] A survey of administrative cases recently promulgated in the year 2020 affirms that the Court has been applying substantial evidence as the quantum of proof in disbarment proceedings. [47] Guided by the foregoing, the Court finds that complainant failed to discharge his burden of proof as he did not establish his claims through relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support the conclusion that Atty. Alvarico is guilty of representing conflicting interests and betrayal of trust and confidence reposed in him by his client Manco. Complainant alleges that Atty. Alvarico violated Rule 15.03 and Canon 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. 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." Canon 17 "A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he shall be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him." Under these rules, a lawyer is prohibited from representing other persons whose interests oppose those of a former client in any manner, whether or not they are parties in the same action or on totally unrelated cases. Conflict of interest exists when a lawyer represents inconsistent interests of two or more opposing parties. [48] In Paces Industrial Corporation v. Atty. Salandanan , [49] the Court emphasized that the rule prohibiting conflict of interests is grounded in the fiduciary obligation of loyalty, recognizing that the nature of the attorney-client relationship is one of trust and confidence of the highest degree: The rule prohibiting conflict of interest was fashioned to prevent situations wherein a lawyer would be representing a client whose interest is directly adverse to any of his present or former clients. In the same way, a lawyer may only be allowed to represent a client involving the same or a substantially related matter that is materially adverse to the former client only if the former client consents to it after consultation. The rule is grounded in the fiduciary obligation of loyalty. Throughout the course of a lawyer-client relationship, t