[A.C. No. 6174 : November 16, 2011]
LYDIA CASTRO-JUSTO, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. RODOLFO T. GALING, RESPONDENT.
D E C I S I O N
PEREZ, J.:
Before us for consideration is Resolution No. XVIII-2007-1961 of the Board of Governors, Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), relative to the complaint2 for disbarment filed by Lydia Castro-Justo against Atty. Rodolfo T. Galing.
Complainant Justo alleged that sometime in April 2003, she engaged the services of respondent Atty. Galing in connection with dishonored checks issued by Manila City Councilor Arlene W. Koa (Ms. Koa). After she paid his professional fees, the respondent drafted and sent a letter to Ms. Koa demanding payment of the checks.3 Respondent advised complainant to wait for the lapse of the period indicated in the demand letter before filing her complaint.
On 10 July 2003, complainant filed a criminal complaint against Ms. Koa for estafa and violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Manila.4
On 27 July 2003, she received a copy of a Motion for Consolidation5 filed by respondent for and on behalf of Ms. Koa, the accused in the criminal cases, and the latter's daughter Karen Torralba (Ms. Torralba). Further, on 8 August 2003, respondent appeared as counsel for Ms. Koa before the prosecutor of Manila.
Complainant submits that by representing conflicting interests, respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibility.
In his Comment,6 respondent denied the allegations against him. He admitted that he drafted a demand letter for complainant but argued that it was made only in deference to their long standing friendship and not by reason of a professional engagement as professed by complainant. He denied receiving any professional fee for the services he rendered. It was allegedly their understanding that complainant would have to retain the services of another lawyer. He alleged that complainant, based on that agreement, engaged the services of Atty. Manuel A. Año.
To bolster this claim, respondent pointed out that the complaint filed by complainant against Ms. Koa for estafa and violation of B.P. Blg. 22 was based not on the demand letter he drafted but on the demand letter prepared by Atty. Manuel A. Año.
Respondent contended that he is a close friend of the opposing parties in the criminal cases. He further contended that complainant Justo and Ms. Koa are likewise long time friends, as in fact, they are comares
Complainant Justo alleged that sometime in April 2003, she engaged the services of respondent Atty. Galing in connection with dishonored checks issued by Manila City Councilor Arlene W. Koa (Ms. Koa). After she paid his professional fees, the respondent drafted and sent a letter to Ms. Koa demanding payment of the checks.3 Respondent advised complainant to wait for the lapse of the period indicated in the demand letter before filing her complaint.
On 10 July 2003, complainant filed a criminal complaint against Ms. Koa for estafa and violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Manila.4
On 27 July 2003, she received a copy of a Motion for Consolidation5 filed by respondent for and on behalf of Ms. Koa, the accused in the criminal cases, and the latter's daughter Karen Torralba (Ms. Torralba). Further, on 8 August 2003, respondent appeared as counsel for Ms. Koa before the prosecutor of Manila.
Complainant submits that by representing conflicting interests, respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibility.
In his Comment,6 respondent denied the allegations against him. He admitted that he drafted a demand letter for complainant but argued that it was made only in deference to their long standing friendship and not by reason of a professional engagement as professed by complainant. He denied receiving any professional fee for the services he rendered. It was allegedly their understanding that complainant would have to retain the services of another lawyer. He alleged that complainant, based on that agreement, engaged the services of Atty. Manuel A. Año.
To bolster this claim, respondent pointed out that the complaint filed by complainant against Ms. Koa for estafa and violation of B.P. Blg. 22 was based not on the demand letter he drafted but on the demand letter prepared by Atty. Manuel A. Año.
Respondent contended that he is a close friend of the opposing parties in the criminal cases. He further contended that complainant Justo and Ms. Koa are likewise long time friends, as in fact, they are comares
