petitioner was represented by respondent's law firm in a civil case, a decision for said case was then

rendered ordering the losing party to pay petitioner a total of 18, 310pesos. however, the sheriff
(gatcheco) failed to fully implement the writ of execution, thus, petitioner filed a case against him and
alleges that the sheriff and his wife harassed her to execute an affidavit of desistance regarding her
complaint. thereafter, petitioner filed a criminal complaint against the sheriff.

notwithstanding the pendency of the civil case handled by respondent's law firm, herein respondent
represented the gatchecos in the cases filed by the petitioner. Hence, petitioner filed for respondent's
disbarment from the practice of law for violating the atty-client rel.

respondent argues, among others, that he never appeared and represented the petitioner bec it was
his brother who handles petitioner's case and claimed that his representation of the sps gatcheco is
pro bono as there was no other counsel was willing to take their case.

ISSUE: WON there was represntation fo conflicting interest

IBP- there was no malice and bad faith in respondents acceptance of the admin case, shown by
petitioner's w/drawal of the case. reminded respondent to be more careful in accepting cases as
conflict of interest might arise. STERNLY WARNED AND REPRIMANDED.

RULING: court found respondent guilty of violating c15- representing conflict of interest, when
respondent represented the sps in the civil and criminal case filed against them, even if said cases
were unrelated. the court further noted, that even if it was respondent's brother who represented
petitioner in the civil case, nevertheless it was under their law firm, thus, conflict of interest applies.

respondent cannot claim that he could not turn down the sps bec he could have just presented the
sps to a another lawyer or he could have obtained the written consent of all the involve parties after
full disclosure of facts. however, the court considered as mitigating circumstances the fact the he si
representing the sps pro bono and it was his firm who handled the petitioner's case. therefore, he is
fined for P2K only.

SC noted the affidavit of desistance = they're not bound bec it involves public interest.