Scribd
Upload
132 views1 page

Samala Vs Atty. Valencia

In the case of Samala vs Atty. Valencia, the court found Atty. Valencia guilty of violating the Code of Professional Responsibility by representing conflicting interests without proper consent and misleading the court with false evidence. The initial penalty of six months suspension was increased to one year by the IBP Board of Governors. The court dismissed the claim regarding initiating cases for nonpayment of rental fees due to insufficient evidence.

Uploaded by

chrystel
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
132 views1 page

Samala Vs Atty. Valencia

In the case of Samala vs Atty. Valencia, the court found Atty. Valencia guilty of violating the Code of Professional Responsibility by representing conflicting interests without proper consent and misleading the court with false evidence. The initial penalty of six months suspension was increased to one year by the IBP Board of Governors. The court dismissed the claim regarding initiating cases for nonpayment of rental fees due to insufficient evidence.

Uploaded by

chrystel
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

Citation: A.C. NO.

5439 ; JANUARY 22, 2007


Title: SAMALA VS ATTY. VALENCIA
Principle: a lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by written consent of all
concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts

Facts:
This is a complaint filed by Clarita J. Samala against Atty. Luciano D. Valencia for Disbarment
on the following grounds: (a) serving on two separate occasions as counsel for contending
parties; (b) knowingly misleading the court by submitting false documentary evidence; (c)
initiating numerous cases in exchange for nonpayment of rental fees; and (d) having a
reputation of being immoral by siring illegitimate children.

Issue:
WON respondent violated his Code of Professional Responsibility

Ruling:
Yes. Commissioner Wilfredo E.J.E. Reyes found respondent guilty of violating Canons 15
and21 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and recommended the penalty of suspension
for six months.The IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the report and
recommendation of Commissioner Reyes but increased the penalty of suspension from six
months to one year.

The Court held:

A. On serving as counsel for contending parties – Canon 21

The fact that respondent filed a case entitled "Valdez and Alba v. Bustamante and her
husband," is a clear indication that respondent is protecting the interests of both Valdez and
Albain the said case. Respondent cannot just claim that the lawyer-client relationship between
him and Alba has long been severed without observing Section 26, Rule 138 of the Rules of
Court wherein the written consent of his client is required. Respondent's representation of
Valdez and Alba against Bustamante and her husband, in one case, and Valdez against Alba, in
another case, is a clear case of conflict of interests which merits a corresponding sanction from
this Court.

B. On knowingly misleading the court by submitting false documentary evidence – Canon 10

Respondent cannot feign ignorance of the fact that the title he submitted was already cancelled
in lieu of a new title issued in the name of Alba in 1995 yet, as proof of the latter's ownership.
What is decisive in this case is respondent's intent in trying to mislead the court by presenting
TCT No. 273020 despite the fact that said title was already cancelled and a new one, TCT No.
275500, was already issued in the name of Alba.c. On initiating numerous cases in exchange
for nonpayment of rental fees – Dismissed for lack of sufficient basis

You might also like