In a manifestation filed before the SC last Wednesday, lawyers Arthur Lim and Victor Concepcion said the law office of Romulo Mabanta Buenaventura Sayoc and Delos Angeles was the former external legal advisor to a consortium engaged by AEDC to provide financial advisory and investment banking services when it was arranging the financial requirements of NAIA 3.
They said that in the course of the law firm’s engagement, it performed legal services directly to AEDC and billed the consortium for services rendered.
Piatco’s lawyers, including lead counsel Eduardo delos Angeles, were even reminded that they, themselves, sought the inhibition of Justice Antonio Carpio on the same argument that the High Court magistrate’s law firm Carpio Villaraza and Cruz represented AEDC in the case it lodged against the Department of Transportation and Communications.
"A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by written consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of fact," the AEDC lawyers pointed out. The law firm was asked to desist from further representing Piatco in the cases filed by Ilocos Sur Rep. Salacnib Baterina and Demosthenes Agan against Piatco.
Lim and Concepcion told the Court that the fees of the law firm Romulo Mabanta covered services regarding the adversarial positions of AEDC and Piatco in connection with the controversial Terminal 3 project.
"During your engagement, Piatco, as the ‘challenge bidder’ to AEDC’s officer in regard the NAIA 3 project, was the ‘adverse party,‘" the two wrote Piatco’s lawyers. "You were aware of this fact and advised on that basis."
The two informed the Court that Delos Angeles and Co. advised AEDC regarding the pre-qualification and the award of the contract to Piatco, which was the subject of AEDC’s case against DOTC.
AEDC lawyers called the attention of Piatco’s counsel to their own "motion to inhibit," which the latter acknowledged that in the event the Court declares the NAIA 3 contract void, the bid of AEDC would remain unchallenged and AEDC could logically demand to be awarded the contract of Terminal 3.
"Based on your statements, you affirm that in representing Piatco as respondent before the Supreme Court in the two cases, you represent an interest adverse to AEDC who was formerly your client," Lim and Concepcion said.
The two added although the Piatco counsel’s professional ties with AEDC had ended, the lawyers’ obligation not to represent any party, particularly Piatco, with interest adverse to, or in conflict with those of AEDC, in connection with the NAIA 3 project remains. Their representation (Romulo Mabanta Buenaventura Sayoc & Delos Angeles) of respondent Piatco in the cases of Rep. Baterina and Agan against the NAIA 3 operator, AEDC counsels argued, was in violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility.