24 GEORGE C. SOLATAN v. ATTYS. OSCAR A. INOCENTES and JOSE C.

CAMANO
A.C. No. 6504, 9 August 2005, SECOND DIVISION (Tinga,J .)
FACTS:
Atty. Jose A. Camano was an associate in the firm of Atty.
Oscar Inocentes. 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 Genito before 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 nonpayment 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
arrange execution 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 the levied 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)Whether or not Atty. Camano violated the Code
of Professional Responsibility
2)Whether or not Atty. Inocentes violated the Code of
Professional Responsibility
HELD:
All lawyers must observe loyalty in all transactions and dealings with
their clients.
An attorney has no right to act as counsel or legal representative for
a person without beingretained. 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
by Atty. Camano in the context where the complainant was the right
ful owner of the incorrectly leviedproperties 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 of informing 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 to make
reasonable efforts to ensure that all lawyers in the firm should act
in conformity to the Code of
ProfessionalResponsibility. Atty. Inocentes received periodic reports f
rom Atty. Camano on the latters dealings withcomplainant. 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
ordinary diligence in apprising themselves of the comings and
goings of the cases handled by persons over which they are
exercising supervisory authority and in exerting necessary efforts to
foreclose violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility by
persons under their charge