24 GEORGE C. SOLATAN v. ATTYS. OSCAR A.INOCENTES and JOSE C. CAMANOA.C. No. 6504,9 August 2005, SECONDDIVISION(Tinga,J.)

FACTS:Atty. JoseA. Camanowas anassociatein thefirm ofAtty. OscarInocentes. The Oscar Inocentes and Associates Law Office was retained by spouses Genito, owners of an apartment complex when theGenito Apartments were placed under sequestration by the PCGG. They represented the spouses Genitobefore the PCGG and the Sandiganbayan and in ejectment cases against non-paying tenants occupying theGenito Apartments.Solatans sister was a tenant of the Genito Apartments. She left the apartment to Solatan and othermembers of her family. A complaint for ejectment for non-payment of rentals was filed against her and adecision was rendered in a judgment by default ordering her to vacate the premises. Solatan was occupying said apartment when he learned of the judgment. He informed Atty. Inocentes of his desire to arrangeexecution of a new lease contract by virtue of which he would be the new lessee of the apartment. Atty.

Inocentes referred him to Atty. Camano, the attorney in charge of ejectment cases against tenants of theGenito Apartments.During the meeting with Atty. Camano, an verbal agreement was made in which complainantagreed to pay the entire judgment debt of his sister, including awarded attorneys fees and costs of suit.Complainant issued a check in the name of Atty. Camano representing half of the attorneys fees.Complainant failed to make any other payment. The sheriff in coordination with Atty. Camanoenforced the writ of execution and levied the properties found in the subject apartment. Complainantrenegotiated and Atty.Camano agreed to release thelevied properties and allow complainant to remain atthe apartment. Acting on Atty. Camanos advice, complainant presented an affidavit of ownership to thesheriff who released the levied items. However, a gas stove was not returned to the complainant but waskept by Atty. Camano in the unit of the Genito Apartments where he was temporarily staying.Complainant filed the instant administrative case for disbarment against Atty. Camano and Atty.Inocentes. The IBP Board of Governors resolved to suspend Atty. Camano from the practice of law for 1 yearand to reprimand Atty. Inocentes for exercising command responsibility.

ISSUE:1)Whetheror notAtty. Camano violatedthe Code ofProfessionalResponsibility2)Whetheror not Atty. Inocentesviolatedthe Codeof ProfessionalResponsibility

HELD:

All lawyers must observe loyalty in all transactions and dealings with theirclients.Anattorneyhasnorighttoactascounselorlegalrepresentativeforapersonwithoutbeingretained. No employment relation was offered or accepted in the instant case.Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility requires all lawyers to observe loyalty in alltransactions and dealings with their clients. Unquestionably, an attorney giving legal advice to a party withan interest conflicting with that of his client may be held guilty of disloyalty. However, the advice given byAtty.Camanointhecontextwherethecomplainantwastherightfulowneroftheincorrectlyleviedproperties was in consonance with his duty as an officer of the court. It should not be construed as being inconflict with the interest of the spouses Genito as they have no interest over the properties. The act ofinforming complainant that his properties would be returned upon showing proof of his ownership may hintat infidelity to his clients but lacks the essence of double dealing and betrayal.2.Atty. Inocentes failure to exercise certain responsibilities over matters under the charge of hislaw firm is a blameworthy shortcoming. As name practitioner of the law office, Atty. Inocentes is tasked withthe responsibility tomake reasonable efforts toensure that all lawyers in thefirm should act inconformityto the Code of ProfessionalResponsibility.Atty.InocentesreceivedperiodicreportsfromAtty.Camanoonthelattersdealingswithcomplainant. This is the linchpin of his supervisory capacity over Atty. Camano and liability by virtuethereof. Partners and practitioners who hold supervisory capacities are legally responsible to exert ordinarydiligence in apprising themselves of the comings and goings of the cases handled by persons over which theyare exercising supervisory authority and in exerting necessary efforts to foreclose violations of the Code ofProfessional Responsibility by persons under their charge