R119, S20 - R139-B, S2 - Art. 209 RPC - R138 S20e Rules of Court

FERRER // 2A ETHICS DIGESTS
ALARCON • ANDRES • AQUINO • ARCAINA • AUSTRIA • BAINTO • BANADERA • BANTA • BELLO • BUGAY • CARAAN • COLOQUIO • CUALOPING • DAYAO • DE GUZMAN • DE LUIS • DIPLOMA • FAJARDO, M
FAJARDO, R • GO • GUZMAN • JAVIER • LAYNO • LIM, J • LIM, Q • ONG • ORQUINAZA • PASCUAL • PEREZ • REGIS • REYES • ROCILLO • TRIAS • TUAZON • VANSLEMBROUCK • VILLARIN, P • VILLARIVERA
R119, S20 | R139-B, S2 | Art. 209 RPC| R138 S20e in his professional capacity.
[additional act] *part emphasized in class*

RULES OF COURT The same penalty shall be imposed upon
RULE 119 (Trial) , Section 20 1. an attorney-at-law or solicitor (procurador judicial) who,
Section 20. Appointment of acting prosecutor. — a. having undertaken the defense of a client or
When b. having received confidential information from said client in a case,
a prosecutor, his assistant or deputy 2. shall undertake the defense of the opposing party in the same case,
is disqualified to act 3. without the consent of his first client.
due to
any of the grounds stated in section 1 of Rule 137 OR
for any other reasons,
RULES OF COURT
RULE 138 (Attorneys and Admission to Bar)
the judge or the prosecutor shall communicate with the Secretary of Justice
Section 20. Duties of attorneys. — It is the duty of an attorney: {CSC}
in order that the latter may appoint an acting prosecutor.
xxx
(e) …
RULE 139-B
a. To maintain inviolate the confidence, and
Disbarment and Discipline of Attorneys
b. at every peril to himself, to preserve the secrets of his client, and
A. PROCEEDINGS IN THE INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES
c. to accept no compensation in connection with his client's business
Section 2. National Grievance Investigators. —
except from him or with his knowledge and approval;
xxx
An Investigator may be disqualified by reason of: {PP 4 counsel}

a. relationship within the fourth degree of consanguinity or affinity to Uy Chico v. The Union Life Assurance Society, Limited, et al., (Bañadera)
a. any of the parties or [(14=500); GR. No. L-9231; January 6, 1915]
b. their counsel, “Confidentially beautiful with a heart [Ms. Universe]”
b. pecuniary interest,
c. personal bias, or
d. his having acted as counsel to his acting as such Investigator. Doctrine: A communication intended by the client to be sent to a third person through his
attorney loses its confidential character after it has reached the third party.
Where the Investigator does not disqualify himself,
a party may appeal to the IBP Board of Governors, Facts:
which by majority vote of the members present, there being a quorum,  Plaintiff Uy Chico took over the business of his father after he passed away
may order his disqualification.
 The name of the business was Uy Layco, named after Uy Chico’s father.
xxx
REVISED PENAL CODE o Uy Layco was heavily indebted to its creditors at that time
Chapter Two o Uy Chico’s father was also heavily indebted
MALFEASANCE AND MISFEASANCE IN OFFICE  Uy Layco was razed by a fire
Section One. — Dereliction of duty o Luckily it was covered by two insurance policies under defendant Union Life
Art. 209. Betrayal of trust by an attorney or solicitor. — Revelation of secrets. —
Assurance (Union Life)
[penalties]
1. In addition to the proper administrative action,  However, plaintiff's attorney surrendered the policies of insurance to the administrator
2. the penalty of of the estate of Uy Chico’s father.
a. prision correccional in its minimum period, OR o The administrator compromised with the insurance company for one-half
b. a fine ranging from 200 to 1,000 pesos, OR their face value, or P6,000.
c. both,
 Uy Chico then sought to obtain the money claiming that it was his and not his father
[offender]
1. shall be imposed upon any attorney-at-law or  At the trial, defendant insurance company Union Life sought to prove that there was
2. solicitor (procurador judicial) indeed a compromise agreement by presenting their evidence showing that Uy
[act – how committed] Chico’s lawyer surrendered the policies to the administrator to have a compromise.
1. who, by any malicious breach of professional duty or  When it was Uy Chico’s turn to present however, he consented to have his lawyer
2. of inexcusable negligence or ignorance, testify to the truthfulness of the facts.
[result of act]
 The attorney then objected to such idea claiming that what transpired before him and
1. shall prejudice his client, or reveal any of the secrets of the latter learned by him
1
his client (Uy Chico) is covered by privilege communication.  When Atty. Jones was asked if such promissory notes were in his
possession, he stated that such question could not be answered because it
Issue: referred to a privileged communication, and were he to answer same, the
WON privilege communication was violated secret which existed between the deposing attorney and his client, Prising,
would be divulged.
Held: No, the general rule is: “A lawyer must strictly maintain the confidence and preserve
 Jones was found guilty of contempt for refusing to answer the question of the
the secrets of his client. He shall not be permitted in any court, without the consent of his
court.
client, given in open court, to testify to any facts imparted to him by his client in
 He was detained until he was willing to cooperate.
professional consultation, or for the purpose of obtaining advice upon legal matters.” The
very essence of this rule is secrecy. Its purpose is that communication NOT MEANT for
Issue/s
third person shall be protected.
Whether Jones was illegally arrested for contempt.
On the other hand, it is evident then that a communication made by a client to his attorney
Held:
for the express purpose of its being communicated to a third person is essentially
NO. On this assumption the decision of the judge punishing the contempt committed
inconsistent with the confidential relation. It is plain that such a communication, after
by the witness, who, persistently and without any reason whatever, refused to testify,
reaching the party for whom it was intended at least, is a communication between the client
and a third person, and that the attorney simply occupies the role of intermediary or is in keeping with the provisions of section 237 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The
agent. Thus the objection of the attorney to testify is overruled. nature and character of an act which is the subject of judicial investigation, does not
Conflict Attorney vs. Client depend on the more or less interested qualification or consideration given it by a
Penalty N/A witness or litigant whom the discovery of the truth sought for the litigation might effect.
It has already been shown that whatever might have been the answer given by either
JONES v. HARDING (Bainto) of the two lawyers of Prising, whether affirming or denying his statement, no secret or
[24 = 264; 9 Phil. 279, December 2, 1907] privileged information, given by the client to his answer, would have been thereby
“Pakipot ka pa, puwede naman pala.” revealed.
Doctrine: The nature of the suit, the circumstances and conditions of the question or
of the affirmative or negative answer thereto are what in each case determined if the Inconsistent duties
information or communication made by a client to his attorney is of the character of a Penalty Imprisonment for contempt
privilege or a secret.
BAUTISTA v. BARRIOS (Banta)
Facts: [37=392; A.M. No. 258; December 21, 1963]
 Mariano Cauilan, Francisco Cauilan, Maria Asuncion Maggay, and Maria “Deed of partition for the right one, pero biglang kinampihan ang kalaban”
Maggay, through their attorney in fact, Robert S. MacDougall, sold and
conveyed to Fred W. Prising eight-fifteenths of their interest in the hacienda Doctrine: A lawyer may not handle a case to nullify a contract he prepared.
named "Calabbacao," in Cagayan.
Facts:
 Domingo Maggay, who owned two-fifteenths of the undivided land which
 RUFINA BAUTISTA engaged the services of respondent ATTY. BENJAMIN
forms the said hacienda, had no knowledge of the sale made by his
BARRIOS to draft an extra-judicial partition between her (and her siblings) on one
coowners therein to said Prising.
side, and Federico Rover on the other.
 For this reason he filed a petition with the court of first instance.
o The deed distributed the conjugal properties of Rovero and his deceased
 Domingo asked to be subrogated to the same conditions stipulated between
wife Maria Bautista, who was a sister of the Bautistas.
the purchaser and the defendant vendors.
 Because Rovero refused to comply with the obligations under the deed, Bautista filed
 McDougall and Prising refused to answer the questions put to them. a civil case against him.
 However, Prising stated that the three promissory notes signed by N. T. o Bautista tried to get Atty. Barrios to represent her, but the latter refused.
Hashim & Co, each for the sum of P30,000, had been delivered to them for  He merely told her that she had no cause, and that he did not
safe-keeping and collection. want to take up a “lost cause.”
2
o Hence, Bautista was compelled to employ the services of another lawyer, o In return, Atty. Silapan issued 6 postdated checks and mortgaged his
Atty. Sarmiento. house in QC, but he did not surrender the title because he’s claiming
 Thereafter, Atty. Barrios appeared for Rovero and opposed the demand of that it’s under reconstitution proceedings.
 Atty. Silapan failed to pay the amortization on the car. Hence, financing firm sent
Bautista.
demand letters to Genato1.
o In an attempt to defend himself, Atty. Barrios explained that it was Federico o Genato demanded Atty. Silapan to pay but he didn’t.
Rovero who solicited his services in the preparation of the deed, not Rufina o Then, Genato tried to encash the 6 postdated checks, but it was
Bautista. dishonored as Atty. Silapan’s account therein was already closed.
 His claim however, cannot stand because he himself, in his Answer to the Complaint,  Genato filed a criminal case of BP 22 and a civil case for the extrajudicial
admitted that he had prepared the deed “upon the joint request of Federico Rovero, foreclosure of the mortgaged house in QC.
Rufina Bautista and Francisco Bautista.” o During the foreclosure case, Atty. Silapan made the following
o Indeed, he never informed her that Rovero had likewise engaged him to allegation in his Answer: (mahaba siya so yung gist) He was saying
that one of the case of Genato that he handled, Genato asked him to
draft the partition.
offer bribe money to the members of the review committee of the
 Having said the foregoing, the Solicitor-General finds against Atty. Barrios. Department of Justice where a petition for review of the resolution of
the Investigating Prosecutor was pending at the time. In the event that
Issue/s: the said petition for review is denied, he wanted Essex L. Silapan to
WON Atty. Barrios should be held liable offer bribe money to the prosecutor assigned.
 Genato filed a admin case against Atty. Silapan for guilty of breaking their
Held: YES. The Court agrees with the Solicitor-General. Even assuming that he was confidential lawyer-client relationship and should be held administratively liable.

employed by both Rovero and the Bautistas to draft the partition, it is doubtful whether
Issue/s:
he could appear for one as against the other in a subsequent litigation. At most, if he WON Atty. Silapan was guilty of breaking their confidential lawyer-client privilege?
could appear for one client, it should be for him who seeks to enforce the partition
as drafter. Yet he appeared for Rovero who sought to avoid compliance with it, asserting Held: No, but the allegations and disclosures made by Atty. Silapan in the foreclosure
that it did not contain all the terms of the agreement, that it was subject to certain case amount to a breach of fidelity sufficient to warrant the imposition of disciplinary
modifications, etc. sanction
It must be stressed, however, that the privilege against disclosure of confidential

communications or information is limited only to communications which are legitimately and
Moreover, in his defense of Rovero, he raised issues which obviously violated Rufina's
properly within the scope of a lawful employment of a lawyer. It does not extend to those
confidence, because he alleged — in behalf of Rovero — that the undisclosed made in contemplation of a crime or perpetration of a fraud. If the unlawful purpose is
modifications were known to Rufina at the time of execution of the partition. avowed, as in this case, the complainants alleged intention to bribe government officials in
relation to his case, the communication is not covered by the privilege as the client does
Conflict Client vs. Client = Present: Same Case not consult the lawyer professionally. It is not within the profession of a lawyer to advise a
Penalty Suspended for two years client as to how he may commit a crime as a lawyer is not a gun for hire. Thus, the
attorney-client privilege does not attach, there being no professional employment in the
GENATO v. Silapan (Bello) strict sense.
[43=9; AC No. 4078; July 13, 2003]
SUPPLEMENTORY CASE Conflict Atty vs. Client
“Ahasin mo na ako sa kama, huwag lang po sa harap ng husgado” BUT, I have my reservations because
1. The disclosures by atty. Silapan were not privileged communication. = Not
Doctrine: It is well-settled that in order that a communication between a lawyer and his guilty of attorney-client privilege.
client may be privileged, it must be for a lawful purpose or in furtherance of a lawful end.
2. But, the SC argued that the disclosures in the foreclosure case amount to
a breach of fidelity. = disciplinary action.
Facts: Penalty 6 months suspension from the practice of law
BACKGROUND: Atty. Essex L. Silapan asked William Ong Genato if he rent a small office
space in complainants building in Quezon City for his law practice. Genato, acceded and in
some point made Atty. Silapan handle some of Genato’s cases.
1
 Atty. Silapan borrowed from Genato 200k as downpayment for the purchase of a Question: Why to Genato? And not directly to atty. Silapan?
new car. Ans: The document of the sale of the car was under the name of Genato.
Bakit pinangalan sa kanya? Ans: hindi sinabi sa case.
3
and against its occupant, SANTIAGO SY JUCO.

o The peace officers to whom it was directed for execution were required to
BARTON v. Leyte Asphalt Mineral Oil Co. (Austria) seize the above-stated articles for the purpose of delivering them to the
[60=44; G46 Phil. 938 (1924)] court, for the proper action to be taken in due time.
 The officers seized, among other things, an art metal filing cabinet claimed by
Doctrine: As to a third person who may have overheard a confidential communication, the ATTY. TEOPISTO B. REMO to be his and to contain some letters, documents, and
privilege does not as a rule apply (Agpalo) papers belonging to his clients.
 Since the officers refused to return the filing cabinet to him, he filed a petition praying
Facts: that the CIR be prohibited from opening said art metal filing cabinet and that the
 Barton sued Leyte for damages for breach of contract sheriff of Manila be ordered to take charge of the property in the meantime.
 Leyte presented as evidence a carbon copy of letter written by Barton to his  The CFI of Manila through Judge Jaranilla denied the petition, and ruled that the
attorney cabinet would be returned as soon as it be proven, by means of an examination
o Petitioner had no objection to the said evidence if Respondent would be thereof in the presence of the interested parties, that they contain nothing showing
able to explain where he secured the copy, but Petitioner failed to do so. that they have been used to commit fraud against the Government.
 the judge excluded the letter on the ground that it was privileged communication
between the client and attorney Issue/s:
WON opening the cabinet was valid, assuming that it was owned by Atty. Remo and it
Issue/s: whether the letter is a privileged communication contined privileged documents of his clients
Held: NO. The court will not take notice of how the letter was obtained nor will it form a Held: NO. In ruling for Atty. Remo, the Court found that such an act would be a qualified
collateral issue to try the question. violation of Section 383, No. 4,2 and Section 313 of Act No. 190. The order to open the
Even if the letter was privileged, this privilege was lost when the letter came to cabinet cannot be executed because, it having been proven that it belongs to appellant
the hands of the adverse party. lawyer and that in it he keeps the records and documents of his clients, to do so would be
in violation of his right as such attorney, since it would be tantamount to compelling
Doctrine: The law protects the client from the effect of disclosure made by him to his him to disclose or divulge facts or things belonging to his clients, which should be
attorney in the confidence of the legal relation, but when the document, containing kept secret, unless authorized by them to make such disclosure. Clearly, this is a duty
admissions of the client, reaches the adversary, it is admissible in evidence. imposed by law upon an attorney to strictly preserve the secrets or communications made
to him.
Conflict inconsistent duties (re: privileged communication) Conflict No Conflict of Interest

Penalty n/a Penalty -
PEOPLE v. SY JUCO (Banta) ORIENT INSURANCE CO. vs. REVILLA and TEAL MOTOR CO. (Bugay)
[78=393; GR. No. L-41957; August 28, 1937] [137=352; GR. No. 32098; September 17, 1930]
“Cabinet ko iyan, ‘wag niyong buksan!” “Hindi pwedeng silip lang, ipakita mo na lahat”
Doctrine: His file cabinet containing his client’s records and documents may not be Doctrine: A party cannot waive such privileged communication partially.
ordered opened because that would be tantamount to compelling him to divulge the client’s
confidence in violation of the law imposing upon him the duty to strictly preserve the client’s 2
secret. An attorney can not, without the consent of his client, be examined as to any communication made by
the client to him, or his advice given thereon in the course of professional employment; nor can an
attorney's secretary stenographer, or clerk be examined, without the consent of client and his
Facts: employer, concerning any fact, the knowledge of which has been acquired in such capacity.
 An agent of the BIR (Narciso Mendiola) alleged that he received information that
certain fraudulent bookletters and papers or records were being kept in the building 3
A lawyer must strictly maintain inviolate the confidence and preserve the secrets of his client. He shall
(“Building 482”) in Binondo, Manila.
not be permitted in any court without the consent of his client, given in open court, to testify to any
 Thus, Judge Mariano Albert (CFI of Manila) issued a a search warrant for the building, facts imparted to him by his client in professional consultation, or for the purpose of obtaining advice
upon legal matters.
4
o Atty. Sansaet disclosed that such was the truth and that Paredes had asked
Facts: him to be present while the latter and Honrada falsified said documents
 Teal Motor filed a suit against Orient Insurance to recover two fire insurance policies  The State moved to discharge Atty. Sansaet to be a State Witness
issued by the latter o The Sandiganbayan argued that this cannot be done due to attorney-client
 Orient Insurance entered into a compromise agreement with Teal Motor to defer the privilege
filing of the suit for a possible settlement
 However, Teal Motor’s President was advised by its counsel through letter to institute Issue/s:
a suit for recovery of sum of money Whether the falsification done was covered by attorney-client privilege
 Orient Insurance moved to have the letter presented and recorded as evidence
 During the hearing, the President only wanted to show certain parts of the letter to Held: No.
prove that he was indeed instructed to institute the suit, and claims the rest of the Only past crimes are covered by the attorney-client privilege. If the client intends to
letter as privileged communication as this refers to lawyer’s fees commit a crime wherein he employs the service of a lawyer and / or actually commits the
crime in front of the lawyer, these are no longer covered by the privilege. In the case at
Issue/s: WON Teal Motor Co., can refuse to show Orient Insurance the letter in full hand, Paredes had committed the crime in front of Atty. Sansaet; the Court ruled that this is
no longer covered by the privilege. The Court allowed Atty. Sansaet to be discharged as a
Held: NO. Orient Insurance can examine the letter in its entirety. Under Section 283 of state witness.
the Code of Civil Procedure, when part of the letter has been introduced, the whole of the
letter could be examined. Although the general rule is that contracts between a lawyer and Conflict Atty. vs. (Previous) Client
his or her client are deemed privilege communication, matters concerning fees are not. Penalty None, the lawyer was allowed to be a State Witness
Assuming arguendo that said part is actually privilege communication, there has already
been a waiver when the President introduces the letter to evidence. Comparison Between the Provisions of the
New and Old CPR on Conflict of Interest
Conflict No Conflict of Interest A. NEW CPR
Penalty None
Rule 15.01. - A lawyer, in conferring with a prospective client, shall ascertain as soon
PEOPLE v. SANDIGANBAYAN (Caraan) as practicable whether the matter would involve a conflict with another client or his
[156=390; GR. No. 115439-41; July 16, 1997] own interest, and if so, shall forthwith inform the prospective client.
“Now you’re just somebody that I used to know”
Rule 15.02.- A lawyer shall be bound by the rule on privilege communication in
respect of matters disclosed to him by a prospective client.
Doctrine: Attorney-client privilege only applies to past crimes. If the client intends to
commit a crime and / or commits the crime in front of the lawyer, it is not Rule 15.03. - A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by written
covered by the privilege. consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts.
The duty of the lawyer is first and foremost to the court.
Rule 15.04. - A lawyer may, with the written consent of all concerned, act as
Facts: mediator, conciliator or arbitrator in settling disputes.
 Paredes was previously involved in three criminal cases regarding a land patent that Rule 15.08. - A lawyer who is engaged in another profession or occupation
was granted to him even though it was reserved to be a school site concurrently with the practice of law shall make clear to his client whether he is acting
o Atty. Sansaet served as his counsel in all three cases as a lawyer or in another capacity.
 When the time came to face the preliminary investigation of the third case, Paredes
argued that it would constitute double jeopardy for there had already been Rule 21.01 - A lawyer shall not reveal the confidences or secrets of his client except:
ALN
arraignment in the second case
(a) When authorized by the client after acquainting him of the consequences of the
o He presented a Transcript of Stenographic Notes as well as a Notice of disclosure;
Arraignment, duly certified by Honrada, the Clerk of Court (b) When required by law;
 Taxpayer Gelacio filed a case against Paredes, together with Atty. Sansaet and (c) When necessary to collect his fees or to defend himself, his employees or
Honrada, and said that the Transcript and Notice of Arraignment were falsified public associates or by judicial action.
documents
5
Rule 21.02 - A lawyer shall not, to the disadvantage of his client, use information the case, which she approved without reading.
acquired in the course of employment, nor shall he use the same to his own o 2 years from the signing of the documents she was then surprised when
advantage or that of a third person, unless the client with full knowledge of the she was ordered to vacate.
circumstances consents thereto.
 Spouses Angel case:
Rule 21.04 - A lawyer may disclose the affairs of a client of the firm to partners or o In 1972 as well, the spouses sold their house in favor of the same Mrs.
associates thereof unless prohibited by the client. Blaylock. Atty. Ocampo acted as their counsel and executed the sale.
o With the money paid by Blaylock, the spouses bought a new land, which
Rule 21.05 - A lawyer shall adopt such measures as may be required to prevent those Atty. Ocampo executed again and made them sign documents. Eventually
whose services are utilized by him, from disclosing or using confidences or secrets of
they found out that the documents were executed to: (1) mortgage the new
the clients.
land (2) assign a promissory note in favor of Blaylock.
Rule 21.07 - A lawyer shall not reveal that he has been consulted about a particular o In the collection case filed against the spouses by Blaylock through her
case except to avoid possible conflict of interest. corporation, Atty. Ocampo acted as the counsel of the latter.
 The SolGen charged Atty. Ocampo with malpractice and gross misconduct under Sec.
B. OLD CPR which I didn’t find in the new one and I think are Important. 27 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court and violation of his oath of office.
Canon 37. Confidences of a Client. (37c)
The announced intention of a client to commit a crime is not included within the Issue/s:
confidences which he is bound to respect. He may properly make such disclosures as WON Atty. Ocampo is administratively liable for representing conflicting interests.
may be necessary to prevent the act or protect those against whom it is threatened.
Held: YES. The Court invoked Rule 15.03 of the CPR that a lawyer shall not represent
Canon 37. Confidences of a Client. (37a) conflicting interest except by written consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of
It is the duty of a lawyer to preserve his client’s confidences. This duty outlasts the facts. The relation of attorney and client is one of trust and confidence of the highest
lawyer’s employment, and extends as well to his employees; and neither of them
should accept employment which involves or may involve the disclosure or use of degree. An attorney has the duty to deserve the fullest confidence of his client and
these confidences, either for the private advantage of the lawyer or his employees represent him with undivided loyalty. The test of conflict is: Whether or not the acceptance
or to the disadvantage of the client, without his knowledge and consent, and even of a new relation will prevent an attorney from the full discharge of his duty to his client or
though there are other available sources of such information. A lawyer should not invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or double dealing. The respondent, for representing the
continue employment when he discovers that this obligation prevents the performance petitioners and the opposing party, Blaylock, at the same time, committed serious
of his full duty to his former or to his new client. misconduct. But since the respondent is already 73 years old, the penalty must be
mitigated.
TIANIA V. OCAMPO (Coloquio)
[23=480; AC No. 2285; August 12, 1991] Conflict Client vs. Client = Present: Same Case
“Bakit ka pa nagabogado kung dalawa naman pala ang puso mo” Penalty Suspension from the practice of law for 1 year.
Doctrine: A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interest except by written consent of all Samala vs. Valencia (Cualoping)
concerned given after a full disclosure of facts. The test of conflict is: Whether or not the [27=21*; A.C. No. 5439; January 22, 2007]
acceptance of a new relation will prevent an attorney from the full discharge of his duty to “Playing both sides”
his client or invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or double dealing.
Doctrine:
Facts: An attorney owes loyalty to his client not only in the case in which he has represented him
 This involved the disbarment proceedings against Atty. Ocampo filed separately by 2 but also after the relation of attorney and client has terminated.
parties: Maria Tiania and Spouses Angel.
 Maria Tiania case: Facts:
o Alleged that Atty. Ocampo is her retaining counsel but in 1972, one Mrs.  Samala filed a complaint against Atty. Valencia for Disbarment on the following
Blaylock represented by Atty. Ocampo sued her for ejectment from her grounds, alleging that the latter served on two separate occasions as counsel for
land. contending parties
o Maria Tiania confronted Atty. Ocampo who assured her that he will fix  In Civil Case No. 98-6804 filed in the MTC, entitled "Editha S. Valdez and Joseph J.
everything, and made her sign documents allegedly for the settlement of Alba, Jr. v. Salve Bustamante and her husband" for ejectment, respondent
6
represented Valdez against Bustamante - one of the tenants in the property subject of relationship precludes an attorney from representing a new client whose interest is
the controversy. Defendants appealed to the RTC. In his decision dated May 2, 2000, adverse to his former client. Alba may not be his original client but the fact that he
Presiding Judge dela Cruz warned respondent to refrain from repeating the act of filed a case entitled "Valdez and Alba v. Bustamante and her husband," is a clear
being counsel of record of both parties in Civil Case No. 95-105-MK. indication that respondent is protecting the interests of both Valdez and Alba in the
 But in Civil Case No. 2000-657-MK, entitled "Editha S. Valdez v. Joseph J. Alba, Jr. said case. Respondent cannot just claim that the lawyer-client relationship between
and Register of Deeds of Marikina City," respondent, as counsel for Valdez, filed a him and Alba has long been severed without observing Section 26, Rule 138 of the
Complaint for Rescission of Contract with Damages and Cancellation of Transfer Rules of Court wherein the written consent of his client is required.
Certificate of Title No. 275500 against Alba, respondent's former client in Civil Case
No. 98-6804 and SCA Case No. 99-341-MK. Conflict Client vs. Client = New vs. Former
 Records further reveal that respondent admitted that in Civil Case No. 95-105-MK, he Penalty Suspended for 3 years from practicing law
was the lawyer for Lagmay (one of the tenants) but not for Bustamante and Bayuga
albeit he filed the Explanation and Compliance for and in behalf of the tenants. Pormento vs. Pontevedra (Cualoping)
Respondent also admitted that he represented Valdez in Civil Case No. 98-6804 and [29=19*; A.C. No. 5128; March 31, 2005]
SCA Case No. 99-341-MK against Bustamante and her husband but denied being the “The road to hell is paved with good intentions”
counsel for Alba although the case is entitled "Valdez and Alba v. Bustamante and her
husband," because Valdez told him to include Alba as the two were the owners of the Doctrine:
property and it was only Valdez who signed the complaint for ejectment. A lawyer is forbidden from representing a subsequent client against a former client when
 But, while claiming that respondent did not represent Alba, respondent, however, the subject matter of the present controversy is related, directly or indirectly, to the subject
avers that he already severed his representation for Alba when the latter charged matter of the previous litigation in which he appeared for the former client. Conversely, he
respondent with estafa. may properly act as counsel for a new client, with full disclosure to the latter, against a
 IBP found Valencia guilty and recommended suspension for 6 months. This was former client in a matter wholly unrelated to that of the previous employment, there being in
approved by the IBP board of Governors, but they increased the penalty to 1 year. that instance no conflict of interests.
Issue/s: Facts:
WON Atty. Valencia is guilty of misconduct?  Pontevedra was the family counsel of Pormento and had close relations.
 Case 1: Civil case 1648
Held: YES. o The counterclaim filed by Pormento was dismissed and atty. Pontevedra
 An attorney owes loyalty to his client not only in the case in which he has represented deliberately failed to inform him of this so he lost the right to appeal
him but also after the relation of attorney and client has terminated. The bare o Subsequently Pormento was forced to institute a criminal case, and Atty.
attorney-client relationship with a client precludes an attorney from accepting Pontevedra appeared as counsel for the accused.
professional employment from the client's adversary either in the same case or in a  Case 2:
different but related action. A lawyer is forbidden from representing a subsequent o Pormento bought a parel of land, and the documents were prepared by Atty
client against a former client when the subject matter of the present controversy is POntevedra.
related, directly or indirectly, to the subject matter of the previous litigation in which he o Pormento allowed his nephew to use the property but later filed an
appeared for the former client. ejectement case when the latter refused to vacate.
 We held in Nombrado v. Hernandez that the termination of the relation of attorney o Pontevedra appeared as counsel for the nephew.
and client provides no justification for a lawyer to represent an interest adverse to or  Pontevedra is alleged guilty of malpractice and misconduct by representing clients
in conflict with that of the former client. The reason for the rule is that the client's with conflicting interests
confidence once reposed cannot be divested by the expiration of the professional  IBP found Pontevedra guilty and recommended suspension for 1 month, but this was
employment. 25 Consequently, a lawyer should not, even after the severance of the reversed by the IBP board of governors (and they did not state the basis for reversal).
relation with his client, do anything which will injuriously affect his former client in any
matter in which he previously represented him nor should he disclose or use any of
the client's confidences acquired in the previous relation. Issue/s:
 Valencia’s averment that his relationship with Alba has long been severed by the act WON Atty. Pontevedra is guilty of misconduct?
of the latter of not turning over the proceeds collected in Civil Case No. 98-6804, in
connivance with the complainant, is unavailing. Termination of the attorney-client Held: Yes, but for case 1 only.
7
Case 1 involved a conflict of interest. Pontevedra was privy to documents and information Issue/s:
was counsel of Pormento in the civil case which he may potentially use in the subsequent WON Atty. Hernando had a conflict of interest in the 2nd and 3rd case
criminal case.
Held: Yes. Hernando defended the right of ownership of Benito over the subject lot in the
Case 2 there was no conflict of interest since the lawyer was only involved in notarization 2nd case only to assail the same right of ownership when he subsequently filed a petition for
of the deed of sale. It does not follow that the lawyer obtained any information that can be cancellation of Benito’s TCT. The fact that he never saw or held the TCT nor that he
used to the detriment of Pormento. obtained no confidential information regarding the 2nd case is not a defense Atty. Hernando
can raise. Applying the general rule, the mere fact that he acted as counsel for Benito in
the 2nd case should have precluded him from acting or appearing as counsel for the other
side in the 3rd case. There is no need to prove the actual transmission of confidential
Conflict Atty vs. Client
information. The communications between attorney and client are a complicated affair.
Penalty P10, 000 Fine and warning that the next occurrence will be dealt with more
severely.
Conflict Client vs. Client = New vs. Former
Penalty Suspension (5 months) + Warning.
BUTED v. HERNANDO (Dayao)
[34=62; A.C. 1359; October 17, 1991]
VDA. ZUBIRI V. ZUBIRI (De Guzman)
“E tu, Hernando?”
[54=507; G.R. No. L-16745; December 17, 1966]
“Taksil na byuda. Taksil na Abogado.”
Doctrine: The obligation to represent a client with undivided fidelity and not to divulge his
secrets forbids also subsequent acceptance of retainer from others in matters adversely
Doctrine: Lawyer may not prepare pleadings for adverse party and make them sign it
affecting any interest of the client with respect to which that confidence has been reposed.
without their consent.
Facts:
 Spouses Generosa and Benito filed this administrative complaint for malpractice Facts:
against Atty. Hernando  On April 17, 1959, the plaintiff-appellee, Aurora Camara Vda. de Zubiri, filed with the
o For allegedly abusing professional secrets or information obtained by him Court of First Instance of Lanao del Norte a complaint for the recovery of her alleged
as their counsel share in two commercial lots situated in Iligan City against the herein defendant-
appellant, Wenceslao Ben Zubiri (her late husband’s “alleged” son!!) , and the
 Atty. Hernando was a participant as counsel in the on-going legal battle for a certain
Standard Vacuum Oil Co., the occupant of portions of the said properties.
parcel of land as follows:
o The plaintiff alleged that the said lots were conjugal, having been
 1st Action: Action for partition filed by Generosa as heir of Teofilo Buted
purchased by her and her late husband during their marriage, so that
o Case involved a parcel of land
at least one-half of the same belonged to her "plus the equal share of
o Hernando was counsel for Luciana Abadilla, opposing party
the heir or heirs of the decedent." Moreover, the plaintiff claimed that
o Hernando successfully defended Luciana’s claim of exclusive ownership
the said parcels were in the possession of the defendant who, "unless
o But before Luciana died, she sold the lot to Benito and a new TCT over the
he can prove before this Honorable Court that he is a duly recognized
lot was issued in the name of the Spouses natural child of the late Jesus Zubiri, [he] has no right, interest, and
 2nd Action: Action for Specific performance filed by Spouses Sy against Benito participation whatsoever over the abovementioned two lots."
o Hernando acted as Benito’s counsel but claims that he gave his services for On May 5, 1959, four (4) pleadings were the following: Answer, Stipulation of Facts, Motion
free to render judgment on the pleadings, and the company’s answer to the complaint
o Spouses Sy were ordered to vacate the lot which were all signed by Ben Zubiri (defendant) without counsel. As a result of such,
 3rd Action: Cancellation of TCT of Generosa and Benito filed by Atty. Hernando in the trial court rendered judgment for the plaintiff.
behalf of the heirs of Luciana Abadilla On June 5, 1959, the defendant-appellant, for the first time thru counsel, filed with the trial
o Filed without the consent of the Spouses Generosa and Benito court a petition to set aside judgment since the pleadings he signed were without
 Atty. Hernando admitted his involvement in the 3rd case as counsel for the Abadillas assistance of counsel and it was done when he was ill and, therefore, incapable of
o He denied having seen or taken hold of the controversial TCT or availing realizing the full consequences of the act.
himself of any confidential Information Now, Wenceslao Zubiri seeks annulment of judgment based on the following allegations:
first, it was plaintiff who prepared and induced the defendant to sign all the pleadings
8
upon which the assailed pleading was biased including and particularly his answer  The Spouses Isaac appealed the case to the Court of Appeals and the Supreme
Court. In the hearing of the case on appeal in both the said courts, Atty. Nazario no
Issue/s: longer represented San Jose.
WON the lawyer of the plaintiff can communicate with the defendant in preparing and  The Supreme Court ruled in favor of San Jose. Subsequently, a writ of execution of
signing of documents judgment was issued and the lands were attached by the sheriff.
 However, Spouses Matienzo, relatives of Spouses Isaac, filed a thirdy party claim
Held: The active participation of a lawyer in one party's affairs relating to a pending case in through their counsel ATTY. NAZARIO CRUZ. In the said claim, Spouses Matienzo
which the said lawyer is the counsel for the opposing party is brazenly unethical to say the contended to be the real owners of the lands. Due to the third party claim, the public
least. The Canons of Legal Ethics very explicitly declare that "it is unprofessional to
sale of the lands was suspended.
represent conflicting interests" (No. 6), and command that —
A lawyer should not in any way communicate upon the subject of controversy with a party  San Jose filed a charge for malpractice against Atty. Cruz.
represented by counsel; much less should he undertake to negotiate or compromise the
matter with him, but should deal only with his counsel. It is incumbent upon the lawyer most Issue/s:
particularly to avoid everything that may tend to mislead a party not represented by counsel WON Atty. Cruz is guilty of malpractice
and he should not undertake to advise him as to the law. (No. 9)
As we have already said in the case of Cantorne v. Ducusin, 57 Phil. 23, the simultaneous
Held: YES. Atty. Cruz’s conduct is unbecoming of an attorney. A lawyer’s loyalty to his
representation by a lawyer of both parties to a suit constitutes malpractice which should be
clients extends after the attorney-client relationship has been terminated. It is not good
severely condemned and the lawyer corrected by disciplinary action. If but for this
practice for lawyers to represent persons against their former client, even if it is distinct and
consideration alone, the court below should have allowed the motion for postponement
independent of the former case. An attorney cannot use any knowledge or information
pleaded by the appellant and heard the merits of the latter's petition to set aside judgment.
gained through his former connection with a client against that said client.
Ground Conflict of interest Ground Conflict of Interest-Same Case

Penalty None Penalty Reprimand only because he was a neophyte
Charge None Charge Malpractice
SAN JOSE v. CRUZ (De Luis) PASAY LAW v. PAZ (Diploma)

[159=449;*no GR number; February 1, 1933] [(85=367); A. M. No. 1008; January 22, 1980]
“Attorneys are forever; walang kaliwaan.” “’Pag ginamit ka na ng isa, bawal ka na magpagamit sa kabila”
Doctrine: An attorney owes loyalty to his client not only in the case in which he has Doctrine: A lawyer may not undertake to discharge conflicting duties any more than may
represented him but also after the relation of attorney and client has terminated. It is not a he represent antagonistic interests. Pursuant to this rule, he may not, as an employee of a
good practice to permit him to defend in another case other persons against his former
corporation whose duty is to attend to its legal affairs, join a labor union of employees in
client even if it is distinct from and independent of the former case.
that corporation because the exercise of the union’s right is incompatible with his duty as a
lawyer for his corporate client.
Facts:
 The Spouses Isaac obtained a loan from Dr. Calupitan. Said loan was secured by real
Facts:
estate mortgages on three parcels of land in Santa Cruz Laguna.
 Pasay Law and Conscience Union, Inc. (PLACU) filed a disbarment case against
 The spouses defaulted on the loan. Consequently, Dr. Calupitan sold his rights on the
David D.C. Paz, a member of the Philippine Bar.
loan and on the mortgages to Guadalupe San Jose (petitioner).
o Paz was charged with malpractice, gross misconduct in office, gross
 San Jose demanded payment from the spouses, but still they failed to pay their
immoral conduct and/or disloyalty to the Republic of the Philippines.
obligations on the loan.
o The Solicitor General charged Atty. D.C. Paz with representing clients
 San Jose engaged the services of Atty. Nazario Cruz and they filed a collection case
against the spouses. with conflicting interests and gross misconduct in office.
o They filed a collection case because the sale of rights between Dr.  There was an investigation by the "Charlie Division" of the Presidential Agency on
Reforms and Government Operations (PARGO) on the complaint for anti-graft against
Calupitan and San Jose was not recorded in the title of the lands
the then ex-Mayor Pablo Cuneta of Pasay City.
mortgaged. Hence, only Dr. Calupitan can foreclose on the mortgages.
 Atty. Paz was then PARGO's Legal Officer and Chief Prosecutor, as well as the head
 The trial court rendered a favorable judgment to San Jose in the collection case.
9
of the aforesaid "Charlie Division";

o He administered oaths to some persons who had given written statements
before the PARGO investigators DEWEY DEE v. CA (Fajardo, RK)
o After some time, Atty. Paz resigned from the PARGO on the basis of the [103=121 GR. No. 77439; August 24, 1989]
investigation conducted by the PARGO on the aforementioned anti-graft “Ginamit ko man kayong dalawa, eh nagawa ko na, kaya ibigay mo na”
against Mayor Cuneta
 During the preliminary investigation, Atty. Paz entered his appearance, participated Doctrine: Generally, an attorney is prohibited from representing parties with contending
and orally argued therein as one of the counsels of ex-Mayor Pablo Cuneta but did positions. However, at a certain stage of the controversy, before it reaches the court, a
not appear in subsequent hearings lawyer may represent conflicting interests with the consent of the parties.
o Because his appearance was questioned by the opposing counsel
 Atty. Paz violated Section 6 of the Canons of Legal Ethics and Section 20 (e) of FACTS:
Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court  This case involves Petitioner Dee and his father who went to the residence of private
 The alleged withdrawal of Atty. Paz as counsel for Pablo Cuneta is of no moment respondent-lawyer Amelito Mutuc to seek his advice regarding petitioner’s brother
since he had already violated the aforesaid Canons of Legal Ethics Dewey Dee’s indebtedness to Caesar’s palace, a well-known gambling casino at Las
Vegas Nevada.
Issue/s:  They were apprehensive over the safety Dewey as the mafia was linked with the
WON Atty. Paz is guilty for misrepresenting clients with conflicting interests Casino place. Mutuc assured petitioner that he would inquire into the matter after
which he was contracted for 100,000 PHP for his services.
Held: Yes, Atty. Paz is guilty for misrepresenting clients with conflicting interests.  After several long distance calls and two trips to Las Vegas he elicited at Dewey’s
outstanding account was around 1,000,000 USD and that the account was incurred
Evidence is duly established that Atty. Paz, as PARGO's Legal Officer and Legal by Ramon Sy.
Prosecutor and head of the "Charlie Division", took part in the investigation of the anti-graft
 Respondent personally talked to the President of the Casino place and advised the
case against ex-Mayor Cuneta by administering oaths to witnesses and gathering
president—for the sake and in the interest of the casino—it would be better to make
evidence. He acquired knowledge of the facts and circumstances surrounding the anti-graft
Ramon Sy answer for the indebtedness.
case. The respondent obtained confidential information and learned of the evidence of the
PARGO against ex-Mayor Cuneta. There was undoubtedly a relationship of attorney and  The president agreed with Mutuc but in the condition the he be the one to convince
client between Atty. Paz and the PARGO. Ramon Sy.
 Upon respondent’s return to Manila, he convinced Ramon Sy to acknowledge the
It is also a fact that at the early stages of the preliminary investigation conducted by the indebtedness—by sending a letter of Ramon Sy owning the debt to Caesar’s Palace.
City Fiscal of Pasay of the anti-graft case against ex-Mayor Pablo Cuneta, the respondent  Having settle the account of petitioner’s brother, respondent sent several demand
appeared as counsel for said Cuneta. This is the same anti-graft case investigated by the letter to petitioner demanding the balance of 50,000 PHP as attorney’s fees.
PARGO when the respondent was head of the "Charlie Division" thereof. That the  Petitioner ignored the letters, prompting respondent to file in the RTC of Makati a
respondent later withdrew his appearances as counsel of Cuneta is of no moment. He had complaint for collection of attorney’s fees and refund the transport fare and other
already violated the Canons of Legal Ethics and Sec. 20(e) of Rule 138, Revised Rules of expenses.
Court which provides: Sec. 20  Respondent claimed that petitioner formally engaged his services for a fee of 100,000
 It is the duty of an attorney: (e) To maintain inviolate the confidence, and at PHP while Petitioner denied existence of any professional relationship—that it was
a every peril to himself, to preserve the secrets of his client, and to accept merely an informal one, Mutuc volunteering his services as a friend of defendant’s
no compensation in connection with his client's business except from him or family.
with his knowledge and approval;
 The court ordered petitioner to pay respondent the 50,000 PHP with interest and the
The respondent has displayed a lack concern for his duties as a lawyer and an office of the
said order was affirmed by the Intermediate Appellate Court.
court. Under the circumstances, the respondent should be punished by suspension from
 Petitioner then filed an MR stating that (1) at the time they procured of respondent’s
the practice of law for two (2) months, with a warning that a repetition of the same
services he was actually working “in the interest” and “to the advantage” of Caesar’s
offense wig be dealt with more drastically.
Palace of which he was an agent and a consultant, hence, the interests of the casino
Conflict Atty. v. Client and respondent were united in their objective (2) Mutuc was not justified in claiming
Penalty Suspension from practice of law for 2 months the he rendered legal services to petitioner in view of the conflicting interest.
10
 Respondent court rendered a decision stating that the initial 50,000 paid by petitioner oHowever, Hamilton did not sign said papers as Andrada’s counsel.
sufficed seeing that there was a conflict of interest between petitioner and respondent oLater, he entered his appearance as counsel for the defendant, Andrada.
(acting as an agent of Caesar’s palace) however upon appeal by respondent the oHamilton claimed that he only gave advice to Andrada as a favor but was
judgment was reversed, hence, this petition not really his counsel.
 SECOND:
ISSUE: Whether or not the court erred in deciding that respondent was entitled to o Hamilton wrote a letter to Mr. Joseph of Joseph Lumber Yard, offering his
attorney’s fees despite the conflict of interest involved services as but with an implied threat that should Mr. Joseph refuse, an
investigation will be had as to why the Government used the said lumber
HELD: yard as supplier. (Shady siguro)
 It is not accurate to judge private respondent’s position by petitioner’s assumption that o Basta blackmail.
the interests of Caesar’s Palace were adverse to those of Dewey Dee.
 True, the creditor was the casino but it was revealed that Dee was not the debtor—his Issue/s: WON Hamilton is guilty of profession misconduct
representation was geared toward proving the real identity of the debtor.
 Generally, an attorney is prohibited from representing parties with contending Held:
positions. However, at a certain stage of the controversy, before it reaches the court,  Yes. The conduct of defendant was a violation of the confidence which naturally resulted
a lawyer may represent conflicting interests with the consent of the parties. from their relationship. It was violation of his oath as an attorney and officer of the
 A common representation may work to the advantage of said parties since a mutual court in that he did not offer his services in good faith to his client and failed to serve
lawyer, with honest motivations and impartially cognizant of the parties’ disparate his client’s interest as it was his sworn duty to do.
positions, may well be better situated to work out an acceptable settlement of their  Professional communications are privileged, but statements made by a client to his
differences being free of partisan inclinations and acting with the cooperation and attorney, or the statements of an attorney to his client fall within this rule only when it
confidence of said parties. is shown that the relation of attorney and client existed with reference to the matter to
 Also, petitioner was not unaware and hence actually consented to and cannot now which the communication relates.
decry the dual representation that he postulates.
 A lawyer it entitled to have and receive just and reasonable compensation for services Conflict Atty. vs. Client
rendered as long as he is honest and in good faith trying to serve and represent the Penalty Suspension for 6 years
interest of his client.
Conflict Attorney vs. Client = Present: Unrelated Cases PEOPLE v. SLEEPER (Go)
Penalty None [180 = 45; GR. No. L-22783 December 3, 1924]
“Di mo ako abogado, so hindi to pwedeng isikreto”
IN RE: HAMILTON (Fajardo, M) Doctrine: If there is an attorney-client relationship, communications are privileged. If there
[179=219; GR. No. 7725; January 17, 1913] is no attorney-client relationship, then communications aren’t privileged, and can be used
“Akala mo kayo, yun pala manloloko” as evidence in court proceedings.
Doctrine: Where the alleged client himself is not insisting on the privilege, counsel cannot Facts:
be permitted to shield himself behind the privilege.  Charles Sleeper was the acting secretary-treasurer of the Manila Building and Loan
Association. A.L. Ammen Transportation Co. deposited P30,000 with the Association.
Facts: Sleeper, instead of applying the sum for its intended purpose, misappropriated the
 Disbarment procedures were instituted against Atty. Porter Hamilton based on 2 said amount for his personal use.
instances.  A complaint for estafa was filed against Sleeper in the CFI of Manila and thereafter he
 FIRST: was convicted.
o He advised and counseled Andrada in regard to a claim against Alburo.  Sleeper appealed to the CA.
o Hamilton prepared and filed the necessary documents for the institution of o He contends that EXHIBIT M (which was used for his conviction) should
attachment proceedings NOT have been admitted as evidence, because it was PRIVILEGED
COMMUNICATION between him and Fisher, his LAWYER.
11
o Exhibit M  Sleeper admitted that he did misappropriate funds; that he is to Conflict Atty vs. Client
resign from his position; and that he is to leave the Philippines permanently Penalty Admonished
Issue:
WON Exhibit M was privileged communication NOMBRADO v. HERNANDEZ (Fajardo, RK)
[183=345; A.C. No. 555; November 25, 1968]
Held: NO. The SC noted that Fisher was Sleeper’s friend, who happened to be a lawyer. It “Dati ako, ngayon iba, kanino ka ba talaga?”
is admitted that it was Fisher who prepared the document (Exhibit M), which Sleeper
signed. HOWEVER, there is NO EVIDENCE which shows that in preparing this document, Doctrine: Whatever may be said as to whether or not respondent utilized against his
Fisher was acting as an attorney for Sleeper. Fisher never represented himself to Sleeper former client information given to him in a professional capacity, the mere fact of their
that he was acting as his attorney; Sleeper also never asked questions prior to signing the previous relationship should have precluded him from appearing as counsel for the other
document. With these facts, it is clear that there was no attorney-client relationship side in the forcible entry case..
between Sleeper and Fisher. Hence, Exhibit M is not privileged communication, and was
rightfully admitted as evidence. Facts:
 Disbarment case charging respondent with malpractice on two counts namely for
having appeared as (1) counsel for Crispin Nazareno in a civil case for forcible entry
Conflict No conflict of interest against Aresenio Pansaon, his former client and (2) for having appeared as counsel
for the accused and also for the complaining witness in a criminal case.
Penalty -
 With respect to the first count, respondent was engaged by Arsenio Pansaon as his
counsel in the prosecution of a criminal case against Crispin Nazareno.
 However, the case was dismissed due to the absence of complainant during trial.
MEJIA v. REYES (Guzman)  Years later, Nazareno filed a complaint for forcible entry against Pansaon through
[180=318; A.C. No. 378; March 30, 1962] Atty. Hernandez. Pansaon and moved for the disqualification of Hernandez as
“Pwede naman pala ang dalawa, basta mas devoted ka sa isa” counsel but the motion was withdrawn.
 When the disbarment case was heard, Pansaon testified for petitioner and said that
Doctrine: Attorney should not be disbarred if it is shown that he was devoted to his client’s he perhaps lost the case since respondent Attorney was privy to valuable information
from Pansaon.
case.
 Respondent denied the claim and averred that he did not receive any valuable
document from Pansaon in connection with the case.
Facts:
 Atty. Reyes was appointed bank attorney and notary public for the Baguio ISSUE: Whether or NOT Respondent should be disbarred for Malpractice
Branch of PNB.
 While still holding such position, his professional services were engaged by Held:
Mejia and Abrera to bring an action in court against PNB for the cancellation of  Communication between attorney and client are a complicated affair consisting of
mortgage of a parcel of land. entangled relevant and irrelevant secret and well-known facts.
o The Court ruled that Mejia and Abrera have not yet fully satisfied their debt  In the complexity of what is said in the course of dealings between an attorney and
 According to Mejia, they intended to file an appeal but Atty. Reyes suggested client, inquiry of the nature suggested would lead to the revelation, in advance of the
otherwise. trial, of other matters that might only further prejudice the complainant's cause.
 Pursuant to this, Mejia and Abrera filed a disbarment case against Atty. Reyes  Whatever may be said as to whether or not respondent utilized against his former
claiming that they were not aware that Atty. Reyes was connected with PNB. client information given to him in a professional capacity, the mere fact of their
o According to Atty. Reyes he was not a retainer lawyer of PNB and there previous relationship should have precluded him from appearing as counsel for the
was no conflicting interest. other side in the forcible entry case.
Issue/s: Whether or not Atty. Reyes should be disbarred Conflict Attorney v. Client
Penalty REPRIMAND
Held: No. The court ruled that Atty. Reyes was deeply devoted as counsel of Mejia and
Abrera. He also collected a very small fee of P90. The malpractice was not so serious;
hence, he is admonished and warned not to repeat it. NATAN v. CAPULE (Javier)
[184=342]
12
be paid to Pfleider, and that the remainder would be delivered by Palanca to Pfleider's
IN RE: DE LA ROSA (Orquinaza) listed creditors.
[189=209; 027 Phil 258; March 21, 1914]  The arrangement worked until Pfleider filed a civil suit against Palanca for rescission
”Puwede dalawa, basta parehas (payag) sila” of the contract of lease on the ground of alleged default in the payment of rentals.
 Pfleider also filed administrative charges of gross misconduct against Palanca.
Doctrine: A lawyer who acts on behalf of both opposing parties, but who does so with the o The ground against Palanca alleges that the list of creditors which Pfleider
full knowledge and consent of both is not guilty of malpractice. had "confidentially" supplied Palanca for the purpose of carrying out the
terms of payment contained in the lease contract was disclosed by Palanca.
o Pfleider contends that this act is a violation of their lawyer-client relation.
Facts:
 De La Rosa was the counsel of Bayubay. Issue/s: WON Palanca violated their lawyer-client relation
 Bayubay wanted to buy the 90 hectares of sugar land in Batangas owned by Caoibes.
 De La Rosa drafted the deed of sale. However, the sugar land was only 60 hectares. Held: NO, Pfleider furnished Palanca with the confidential list of creditors not because of
 Bayubay requested for the reduction of the purchase price. She sent De La Rosa to the professional lawyer-client relation existing between them but on account of the lease
negotiate the deal. agreement. A violation therefore of the confidence that accompanied the delivery of the list
 While negotiating, Caoibes asked De La Rosa to intervene and convince Bayubay to is more of a private and civil wrong than of a breach of the fidelity owing from a
still pay the full amount. De La Rosa complied. lawyer to his client. In sum, the Court holds that nothing in written complaint for
 De La Rosa successfully convinced Bayubay to pay the full amount. disbarment against Palanca supports a prima facie finding of such misconduct in office by
 Hence, this special proceeding against De La Rosa for malpractice. Palanca as would warrant further proceedings.
Issue/s: Conflict Atty vs. Client

Penalty None
W/N De La Rosa is guilty of malpractice for acting as counsel for both opposing parties
Held: NO, De La Rosa is NOT guilty of malpractice. Although it appears from the evidence
that De La Rosa was acting on behalf of both parties to the controversy, the SC held that
this does not constitute malpractice under the law. It is undisputed in the facts that he acted
with the knowledge and consent of both parties interested. This being the case, neither
party was deceived by respondent, and neither one suffered involuntary damages by
reason of his actions. No malpractice was proven.
Conflict Attorney vs. Client

Penalty None, malpractice was not proven.
PFLEIDER v. PALANCA (Lim)

[174=400; Adm. Case No. 927; September 28, 1970]
“Commission of civil wrong is not breach of lawyer’s fidelity”
Doctrine: Breach of fidelity owing from a lawyer to his client as ground for disbarment.
Facts:
 The respondent, Atty. Potenciano A. Palanca, was for sometime the legal counsel of
the complainant, William C. Pfleider.
 Pfleider and his wife leased to Palanca an agricultural land in Negros Occidental, the
Hacienda Asia.
 In their contract, the parties agreed that a specified portion of the lease rentals would
13

R119, S20 - R139-B, S2 - Art. 209 RPC - R138 S20e Rules of Court

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

R119, S20 - R139-B, S2 - Art. 209 RPC - R138 S20e Rules of Court

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

R119, S20 - R139-B, S2 - Art. 209 RPC - R138 S20e Rules of Court

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FERRER // 2A ETHICS DIGESTS

[additional act] part emphasized in class

An Investigator may be disqualified by reason of: {PP 4 counsel}

It must be stressed, however, that the privilege against disclosure of confidential

and against its occupant, SANTIAGO SY JUCO.

Conflict inconsistent duties (re: privileged communication) Conflict No Conflict of Interest

Ground Conflict of interest Ground Conflict of Interest-Same Case

SAN JOSE v. CRUZ (De Luis) PASAY LAW v. PAZ (Diploma)

of the aforesaid "Charlie Division";

Issue/s: Conflict Atty vs. Client

Conflict Attorney vs. Client

PFLEIDER v. PALANCA (Lim)

You might also like