their lawyers, which is paramount in the administration of justice. The nature of that relationship is, therefore, one of trust and confidence of the highest degree . .... . . . The spirit behind this rule is that the client's confidence once given should not be stripped by the mere expiration of the professional employment. Even after the severance of the relation, a lawyer should not do anything that will injuriously affect his former client in any matter in which the lawyer previously represented the client. Nor should the lawyer disclose or use any of the client's confidences acquired in the previous relation. In this regard, Canon 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility expressly declares that: "A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he shall be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him." 1âwphi1 The lawyer's highest and most unquestioned duty is to protect the client at all hazards and costs even to himself. The protection given to the client is perpetual and does not cease with the termination of the litigation, nor is it affected by the client's ceasing to employ the attorney and retaining another, or by any other change of relation between them. It even survives the death of the client.71 The test to determine whether conflict of interest exists was discussed in Hornilla v. Salunat:72 There is conflict of interest when a lawyer represents inconsistent interests of two or more opposing parties. The test is "whether or not in behalf of one client, it is the lawyer's duty to fight for an issue or claim, but it is his duty to oppose it for the other client. In brief, if he argues for one client, this argument will be opposed by him when he argues for the other client." This rule covers not only cases in which confidential communications have been confided, but also those in which no confidence has been bestowed or will be used. Also, there is conflict of interests if the acceptance of the new retainer will require the attorney to perform an act which will injuriously affect his first client in any matter in which he represents him and also whether he will be called upon in his new relation to use against his first client any knowledge acquired through their connection. Another test of the inconsistency of interests is whether the acceptance of a new relation will prevent an attorney from the full discharge of his duty of undivided fidelity and loyalty to his client or invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or double dealing in the performance thereof.73 (Emphasis supplied, citations omitted) Respondent was engaged by Leomarte Tamaray to be his counsel.74 When the Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage was filed, respondent signed the Petition as counsel for complainant.75 If respondent was indeed engaged as counsel by complainant, then there is conflict of interest, in violation of Canon 15, Rule 15.03. However, there is nothing on record to show that respondent was engaged as counsel by complainant. Hence, this court finds that respondent did not commit conflict of interest. V On a final note, Rule 139-B has been amended by Bar Matter No. 1645 dated October 13, 2015. Section 12 of Rule 139-B now provides that: Rule 139-B. Disbarment and Discipline of Attorneys ....