Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Issue:
Whether or not a lawyer may not represent conflicting interests of a client,
although the cases are not related.
Ruling:
The prescription against representation of conflicting interests applies
to a situation where the opposing parties are present clients in the same
case are all partners in ACCRA. Regala, Angara, Cruz, Concepcion, Vinluan,
Lazatin, Escueta and Hayudini (hereinafter ACCRA LAWYERS). Likewise,
private respondent ROCO is also a partner in ACCRA. ACCRA Law Firm
performed legal services for its clients, which included, among others, the
organization and acquisition of business associations and/or organizations,
with the correlative and incidental services where its members acted as
incorporators, or simply, as stockholders. The complaint in PCGG Case No.
0033 alleged that the ACCRA LAWYERS and Eduardo Cojuangco, Jr. conspired
with each other in setting up through the use of coconut levy funds the
financial and corporate framework and structures that led to the
establishment of UCPB, UNICOM and others and that through insidious
means and machinations, ACCRA, using its wholly-owned investment arm,
ACCRA Investments Corporation, became the holder of approximately fifteen
million shares representing roughly 3.3% of the total capital stock of UCPB as
of 31 March 1987. The PCGG wanted to establish through the ACCRA lawyers
that Mr. Cojuangco is their client and it was Cojuangco who furnished all the
monies to the subscription payment; hence, ACCRA LAWYERS acted as
dummies, nominees and/or agents by allowing themselves, among others, to
be used as instrument in accumulating ill-gotten wealth through government
concessions, etc., which acts constitute gross abuse of official position and
authority, flagrant breach of public trust, unjust enrichment, violation of the
Constitution and laws of the Republic of the Philippines. On August 20, 1991,
PCGG filed a Motion to Admit Third Amended Complaint which EXCLUDED
private respondent ROCO from the complaint in PCGG Case No. 33 as partydefendant, whereas ACCRA LAWYERS still were included still as defendants.
ACCRA LAWYERS subsequently filed their Comment/Opposition with CounterMotion that respondent PCGG similarly grant the same treatment to them
(exclusion as parties-defendants) as accorded private respondent ROCO.
PCGG in its comment agreed to exclude the ACCRA LAWYERS on the ff
conditions: (a) the disclosure of the identity of its clients; (b) submission of
documents substantiating the lawyer-client relationship; and (c) the
submission of the deeds of assignments ACCRA LAWYERS executed in favor
of its clients covering their respective shareholdings. SANDIGANBAYAN
RULING: DENIED the exclusion of ACCRA LAWYERS in PCGG Case No. 33 for
their refusal to comply with the conditions required by respondent PCGG.
ACCRA LAWYERS argue they are prohibited from revealing the identity of
their principal under their sworn mandate and fiduciary duty as lawyers to
uphold at all times the confidentiality of information obtained during such
lawyer-client relationship.
Issue:
confided, but also those in which no confidence has been bestowed or will be
used. (PEREZ VS DELATORRE) There is a representation of conflicting
interests if the acceptance of the new retainer will require the attorney to do
anything 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
(PEREZ VS DELATORRE)
Perez Vs. De la Torre
Facts:
Issue:
Whether or not Atty. De la Torre represented conflicting interest?
Ruling:
Yes, Atty. De la torre represented conflicting interest, as found by the IBP, at
the time respondent was representing Avila and Ilo, two of the accused in the
murder of the victim Resurreccion Barrios, he was representing the family of
the murder victim. Atty. Danilo de la Torre is found GUILTY of violation of Rule
15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility for representing conflicting
interests. He is SUSPENDED for THREE YEARS from the practice of law,
effective upon his receipt of this Decision. He is WARNED that a repetition of
the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely.
Heirs of Falame VS Atty. Baguio
Facts:
Respondent Atty. Baguio jointly represented Lydio and Raleigh as defendants
in the first civil case. As defense counsel in the first civil case, respondent
advocated the stance that Lydio solely owned the property subject of the
case. In the second civil case involving the same property, respondent, as
counsel for Raleigh and his spouse, has pursued the inconsistent position
that Raleigh owned the same property in common with Lydio, with
complainants, who inherited the property, committing acts which debase
respondent's rights as a co-owner.
Issue:
Whether or not Atty. Baguio is guilty of representing conflicting interest
between his clients?
Ruling:
Yes, Atty. Baguio is guilty. The fact that the attorney-client relation had
ceased by reason of Lydios death or through the completion of the specific
task for which respondent was employed is not reason for respondent to
advocate a position opposed to that of Lydio. Precedents tell us that even
after the termination of his employment, an attorney may not act as counsel
against his client in the same general matter, even though, while acting for
his former client, he acquired no knowledge which could operate to his
clients disadvantage in the subsequent adverse employment.
Atty. Baguio meted out the penalty of REPRIMAND. He is further admonished
to observe a higher degree of fidelity in the practice of his profession and to
bear in mind that a repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with
more severely.
Canon 16. Hold in Trust Clients Moneys and Properties
RULE 16.02 Keep Clients Fund Separate A lawyer shall hold in trust all
moneys and properties of his client that may come into his possession.
Hernandez v. Go A.C No. 1526 January 31, 2005
Facts:
Nazaria Hernandezs husband abandoned her and her son, Luciano S.
Hernandez, Jr. Shortly thereafter, her husbands numerous creditors
demanded payments of his loans. Fearful that the various mortgage
contracts involving her properties will be foreclosed and aware of impending
suits for sums of money against her, complainant engaged the legal services
of Atty. Jose C. Go. Respondent instilled in complainant a feeling of
helplessness, fear, embarrassment, and social humiliation. He advised her to
give him her land titles so he could sell them to enable her to pay her
creditors. He then persuaded her to execute deeds of sale in his favor
without any monetary or valuable consideration. Complainant agreed on
condition that he would sell the lots and from the proceeds pay her creditors.
Complainant also owned Lots which were mortgaged to her creditors. When
the mortgages fell due, respondent redeemed the lots. Again, he convinced
her to execute deeds of sale involving those lots in his favor. As a result,
respondent became the registered owner of all the lots belonging to
complainant. Sometime in 1974, complainant came to know that respondent
did not sell her lots as agreed upon. Instead, he paid her creditors with his
own funds and had her land titles registered in his name, depriving her of her
real properties worth millions.
In his answer, respondent denied the
allegations and that he sold, in good faith, complainants lots to various
buyers, including himself, for valuable consideration. On several occasions,
he extended financial assistance to complainant and even invited her to live
with his family. His children used to call her "Lola" due to her frequent visits
to his residence. He prayed that the complaint be dismissed for failure to
the Court a motion to withdraw the complaint for disbarment and an affidavit
of desistance.
Issue:
Whether or not respondent is guilty of gross violation of the Code of
Professional Responsibility?
Held:
Yes, His vain attempt to salvage his malicious acts was too flimsy to gain
belief and acceptance. It is unbelievable that a buyer would entrust his
money intended for payment of a property but allowed that said property be
registered under the name of another, specifically his lawyer, simply runs
counter to ordinary human nature.
Canon 17 states that lawyers shall be mindful of the trust and confidence
reposed in them. Respondent should have been mindful of the trust and
confidence complainants reposed in him. Complainants allege that they are
illiterate and that the Spouses Eustaquio took advantage of them.
Complainants engaged the services of respondent in the hope that he would
help them recover their property. Instead of protecting the interests of
complainants, respondent took advantage of complainants and transferred
the title of the property to his name.
In Re: Maquera B.M. No. 793. July 30, 2004
Facts:
In a Letter dated August 20, 1996, the District Court of Guam informed this
Court of the suspension of Atty. Leon G. Maquera (Maquera) from the
practice of law in Guam. He was suspended from the practice of law in Guam
for misconduct, as he acquired his client's property as payment for his legal
services, then sold it and as a consequence obtained an unreasonably high
fee for handling his client's case.
Under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court, the disbarment or
suspension of a member of the Philippine Bar in a foreign jurisdiction, where
he has also been admitted as an attorney, is also a ground for his disbarment
or suspension in this realm, provided the foreign court's action is by reason
of an act or omission constituting deceit, malpractice or other gross
misconduct, grossly immoral conduct, or a violation of the lawyer's oath.
The case was referred by the Court to the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP) for investigation report and recommendation. In its decision,
the Superior Court of Guam stated that Maquera was the counsel of a certain
Castro. Benavente the creditor Castro, obtained a judgement against Castro,
this jurisdiction, at that only if the basis of the foreign courts action includes
any of the grounds for disbarment or suspension in this jurisdiction.
CANON 18 - A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT WITH COMPETENCE
AND DILIGENCE.
Rules 18.01 - A lawyer shall not undertake a legal service which he knows or
should know that he is not qualified to render. However, he may render such
service if, with the consent of his client, he can obtain as collaborating
counsel a lawyer who is competent on the matter.
Rule 18.02 - A lawyer shall not handle any legal matter without adequate
preparation.
Rule 18.03 - A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and
his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.
Rule 18.04 - A lawyer shall keep the client informed of the status of his case
and shall respond within a reasonable time to the client's request for
information.
CASES:
LEGARDA vs. CA, NEW CATHAY HOUSE, INC.G.R. No. 94457
18, 1991
March
ISSUE:
Whether or not the petitioner can recover his property
And Whether or not the counsel is negligent in handling the case of her client
HELD:
The Court finds that the negligence of the counsel in this case appears to be
so gross and inexcusable. This was compounded by the fact, that after
petitioner gave said counsel another chance to make up for his omissions by
asking him to file a petition for annulment of the judgment in the appellate
court, again counsel abandoned the case of petitioner in that after he
received a copy of adverse judgment of appellate court, he did not do
anything to save the situation or inform his client of the judgment. Such
reckless and gross negligence should not be allowed to bind the petitioner.
Because of this, she lost the case as well as the title and ownership of the
property, which is worth millions. As member of the Philippine Bar he owes
complete fidelity to the cause of his client. He should give adequate
attention, care and time to his cases. And once he agrees to handle a case,
he should undertake the task with dedication and care. If he should do any
less, then he is not true to his oath as a lawyer. In this case, the Sheriffs Cert
of Sale and the subsequent final deed of sale covering the same property are
null and void. Respondent is directed to convey said property to the
petitioner and the register of Deeds is ordered to cancel the registration of
the said property in the name of respondent and issue a new one in the
name of the petitioner.
ENDAYA V. OCA
A.C. No. 3967. September 3, 2003
Facts:
A complaint for unlawful detainer was filed against Artemio Endaya and
his wife. An answer was prepared by a Mr. Ramirez for the spouses. At the
beginning of the preliminary conference, spouses appeared without counsel.
Endaya sought the services of the Public Attorneys Office. Atty. Oca was
assigned to handle the case. At the continuation of the prelim conference,
Oca filed motion for amendment of answer. Motion was denied. The judge
then ordered all parties to submit their affidavits and position papers. The
court also said that 30 days after the submission of the last paper or upon
expiration of the period for filing, judgment shall be rendered on the case.
Oca failed to submit any affidavit or position paper. Nonetheless, the
complaint for unlawful detainer was dismissed because those who filed the
case were not really parties-in-interest. The case was appealed to RTC. Oca
failed to submit anything again. RTC reversed the MTC decision. Spouses
were ordered to vacate the property and pay a certain amount for rentals.
Endaya confronted Oca about the decision. Oca feigned that he did not
receive anything. Upon checking with the clerk of court, Oca did indeed
receive a copy of the decision. Hence this administrative complaint.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Wilfredo Oca committed professional misconduct
HELD:
Yes. Suspended for 2 months from practice of law. In his comment, Oca put
up the defense that he did not file any paper in the MCTC because it would
just be a repetition of the answer. SC ordered Oca to file a rejoinder and once
again, he failed to file anything. Oca explained that he failed to file a
rejoinder because he believed in good faith that it was no longer necessary.
In the IBP investigation, Oca once again failed to submit anything. Oca only
appeared once in the MCTC and practically abandoned the spouses
thereafter. The facts show that Oca failed to employ every legal and
honorable means to advance the cause of his client. For intentionally failing
to submit the pleadings required by the court, respondent practically closed
the door to the possibility of putting up a fair fight for his client. Oca cannot
just appear only once for the spouses. A lawyer continues to be a counsel of
record until the lawyer-client relationship is terminated. Ocas story shows his
appalling indifference to his clients cause, deplorable lack of respect for the
courts and a brazen disregard of his duties as a lawyer. However Endaya
misrepresented that the original answer was prepared by a non-lawyer when
in fact it was prepared by a lawyer. Endaya never gave anything to Oca to
support their claim and the PAO is burdened with a heavy caseload. Given
these circumstances the professional conduct, Oca does not warrant
disbarment but only suspension.
CARANDANG VS. OBMINA
A.C. No. 7813 April 21, 2009
Facts:
This is a complaint filed by Carlito P. Carandang against Atty. Gilbert S.
Obmina. Atty. Obmina was counsel for Carandang in an Ejectment case he
filed. Carandang brought suit for Atty. Obminas failure to inform Carandang
of the adverse decision in said case and for failure to appeal the decision.
The Commission on Bar Discipline, issued an Order directing respondent Atty.
Gilbert S. Obmina to submit his Answer. However, what the Commission
received was a Manifestation by a certain Atty. Ma. Carmencita C. ObminaMuaa, allegedly daughter of respondent. She further alleged that her father
is already a permanent resident of the United States of America since March
2001 and had already retired from the practice of law.
On the scheduled Mandatory Conference, Commission directed Atty. Muaa
to produce and present before the Court the alleged withdrawal of
appearance filed by her father and proof that her father is now really a
permanent resident of the United States of America.
Issue:
Whether or not Atty. Obmina is liable for failure serve his client with
competence and diligence as pursuant to Canon 18 of the Code of
Professional Ethics and to inform his client as to the status of his case
pursuant to Rule 18.03 of Canon 18.
Ruling:
There is nothing on record that will show that Atty. Obmina notified
complainant in any manner about the decision. Blame should not be
Canon 19 A lawyer shall represent his client with zeal within the
bounds of the law.
Rule 19.01 A lawyer shall employ only fair and honest means to attain the
lawful objectives of his client and shall not present, participate in presenting
or threaten to present unfounded criminal charges to obtain an
improper advantage in any case or proceeding.
Rule 19.02 A lawyer who has received information that his client has, in the
course of the representation, perpetuated a fraud upon a person or tribunal,
shall promptly call upon the client to rectify the same, and failing which he
ha to terminate the relationship with such client in accordance with the Rules
of Court.
Rule 19.03 A lawyer shall not allow his client to dictate the procedure on
handling the case.
Canon 20 Attorneys Fee
Canon 20.01 Fee Guide
A lawyer shall be guided by the following factors in determining his
fees:nroblesvirtuallawlibrary
(a) the time spent and the extent of the service rendered or required;
(b) the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved;
(c) The importance of the subject matter;
Zuzuarreguis was expropriated at a total price of P34, 916, 122. The total
amount released by the NHA was P54, 500, 00. The difference of P19, 583,
878 is, undoubtedly, the yield of the bonds.The amount turned over to the
Zuzuarreguis by Atty. Roxas amounted to P30, 520, 000 in NHA bonds. On
August 25, 1987, a letter was sent by the Zuzuarreguis new counsel to
Attys. Roxas and Pastor demanding that the latter deliver to the Zuzuarreguis
the yield corresponding to bonds paid by the NHA within a period of 10 days
from receipt, under pain of administrative, civil and/or criminal action
Attys. Roxas and Pastor answered stating that the amount that they go
seems huge from the surface but it just actually passed their hands. On
September 29, 1987, a letter was again sent to Attys. Roxas and Pastor
formally terminating their services. The Zuzuarreguis then filed a civil action
for Sum of Money and Damages, they demanded that the yield on the NHA
bonds be turned over to them.
ISSUES
1. WON the letter-agreement executed by the parties should stand as law
between them
2. WON the contingent fees were reasonable
HELD
1. Yes. A contract is a meeting of the minds between two persons whereby
one binds himself, with respect to the other, to give something or to render
some service. The Zuzuarreguis, in entering into the Letter-Agreement, fully
gave their consent thereto. In fact, it was them who sent the said letter to
Attys. Roxas and Pastor, for the purpose of confirming all matters which they
had agreed upon previously. There is absolutely no evidence to show that
anybody was forced into entering into the Letter-Agreement. It is basic that
a contract is the law between the parties.
2. No. Under the contract in question, Attys. Roxas and Pastor are to receive
contingent fees for their professional services.
Canon 13 of the Canons of Professional Ethics states: a contract for
contingent fee, where sanctioned by law, should be reasonable under all the
circumstances of the case including the risk and uncertainty of the
compensation, but should always be subject t o the supervision of a court, as
to its reasonableness
Canon 20, Rule 20.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states the
guidelines by which a lawyer should determine his fees (see original)
- Indubitably entwined with the lawyers duty to charge only reasonable fees
is the power of this Court to reduce the amount of attorneys fees if the same
is excessive and unconscionable (Section 24, Rule 138, Rules of Court).
Attorneys fees are unconscionable if they affront ones sense of justice,
decency or reasonableness. Therefore, the power to determine the
reasonableness of attorneys fees stipulated by the parties is a matter falling
within the regulatory prerogative of the courts.
- In the instant case, Attys. Roxas and Pastor received an amount which is
equal to 44% of the just compensation paid by the NHA to the Zuzuarreguis.
Considering that there was no full blown hearing in the expropriation case,
ending as it did in a Compromise Agreement, the 44% is undeniably
excessive. In the opinion of the Court, 87.17% of the yields of the bond
should go to the Zuzuarreguis computing from the amounts stipulated in the
Letter-Agreement. The remaining amount is what is due to Attys. Roxas and
Pastor. The SC affirms the decision of CA with modification in the
computation of the attorneys contingent fees.
Canon 21 Preserve Clients Confidence
Hilado vs. David
FACTS:
In April 1945, Blandina Hilado filed a complaint to have some deeds of
sale annulled against Selim Assad. Attorney Delgado Dizon represented
Hilado. Assad was represented by a certain Atty. Ohnick. In January 1946,
Atty. Vicente Francisco replaced Atty. Ohnick as counsel for Assad and he
thenafter entered his appearance in court. In May 1946 or four months later,
Atty. Dizon filed a motion to have Atty. Francisco be disqualified because Atty.
Dizon found out that in June 1945, Hilado approached Atty. Francisco to ask
for additional legal opinion regarding her case and for which Atty. Francisco
sent Hilado a legal opinion letter. Atty. Francisco opposed the motion for his
disqualification. In his opposition, he said that no material information was
relayed to him by Hilado; that in fact, upon hearing Hilados story, Atty.
Francisco advised her that her case will not win in court; but that later,
Hilado returned with a copy of the Complaint prepared by Atty. Dizon; that
however, when Hilado returned, Atty. Francisco was not around but an
associate in his firm was there (a certain Atty. Federico Agrava); that Atty.
Agrava attended to Hilado; that after Hilado left, leaving behind the legal
documents, Atty. Agrava then prepared a legal opinion letter where it was
stated that Hilado has no cause of action to file suit; that Atty. Agrava had
Atty. Francisco sign the letter; that Atty. Francisco did not read the letter as
Atty. Agrava said that it was merely a letter explaining why the firm cannot
take on Hilados case. Atty. Francisco also pointed out that he was not paid
for his advice; that no confidential information was relayed because all
Hilado brought was a copy of the Complaint which was already filed in court;
and that, if any, Hilado already waived her right to disqualify Atty. Francisco
because he was already representing Assad in court for four months in the
said case. Judge Jose Gutierrez David ruled in favor of Atty. Francisco.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Francisco should be disqualified in the said civil case.
HELD:
Yes. There already existed an attorney-client relationship between
Hilado and Atty. Francisco. Hence, Atty. Francisco cannot act as counsel
against Hilado without the latters consent. As ruled by the Supreme Court,
to constitute an attorney-client relationship, it is not necessary that any
retainer should have been paid, promised, or charged for; neither is it
material that the attorney consulted did not afterward undertake the case
about which the consultation was had. If a person, in respect to his business
affairs or troubles of any kind, consults with his attorney in his professional
capacity with the view to obtaining professional advice or assistance, and the
attorney voluntarily permits or acquiesces in such consultation, then the
professional employment must be regarded as established. Further: An
attorney is employed-that is, he is engaged in his professional capacity as a
lawyer or counselor-when he is listening to his clients preliminary statement
of his case, or when he is giving advice thereon, just as truly as when he is
drawing his clients pleadings, or advocating his clients cause in open court.
Anent the issue of what information was relayed by Hilado to Atty. Francisco:
It does not matter if the information relayed is confidential or not. So long as
the attorney-client relationship is established, the lawyer is proscribed from
taking other representations against the client. Anent the issue that the legal
opinion was not actually written by Atty. Francisco but was only signed by
him: It still binds him because Atty. Agrava, assuming that he was the real
author, was part of the same law firm. An information obtained from a client
by a member or assistant of a law firm is information imparted to the firm,
his associates or his employers. Anent the issue of the fact that it took Hilado
four months from the time Atty. Francisco filed his entry of appearance to file
a disqualification: It does not matter. The length of time is not a waiver of her
right. The right of a client to have a lawyer be disqualified, based on previous
atty-client relationship, as counsel against her does not prescribe.
The complainant herein filed a motion praying for the imposition of the
maximum penalty of disbarment for the conduct shown by the
that one of the lawyer-movants therein was no longer the counsel of record
for respondent Figueras at the time the motion was filed.
Held:
Representation continues until the court dispenses with the services of
counsel in accordance with Section 26, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court.
Counsel may be validly substituted only if the following requisites are
complied with: (1) new counsel files a written application for substitution; (2)
the client's written consent is obtained; and (3) the written consent of the
lawyer to be substituted is secured, if it can still be; if the written consent
can no longer be obtained, then the application for substitution must carry
proof that notice of the motion has been served on the attorney to be
substituted in the manner required by the Rules.
In the case at bar, Eduardo did not dismiss Attorney Yuseco. In fact, the
former manifested that he had been tricked by Petitioner Obando into
signing the aforesaid Manifestation and Motion and Compromise Agreement.
Besides, the filing of the Motion to Dismiss was not prejudicial but beneficial
to the said respondent; hence, he had no reason to complain. At the
discretion of the court, an attorney who has already been dismissed by the
client is allowed to intervene in a case in order to protect the client's rights.
In the present case, it should have been raised by the respondents, if any
irregularity, not the petitioners.