Legal Ethics

Attorney and Client Relationship:

Concept of Retainer

Case 1: Hilado v David

Facts:

Blandina Gambao Hilado brought an action against Selim Jacob Assad to annul a sale of several
houses and lot executed during the Japanese Occupation by Mrs. Hilado’s now deceased husband.

Atty. Francisco out of substitution for the original attorneys of defendant—Assad while Atty. Dizon
as the attorney of Hilado. Through the name of his firm, Atty. Dizon wrote Atty. Francisco a letter
in which he was urging him to discontinue to represent Assad on the ground that their client had
consulted with him about her case. It was alleged that “she turned over her papers” to Atty.
Francisco in which he responded with a written opinion. After sending this letter to Atty. Francisco
who did not bother responding to their letter, Atty Dizon et. Al filed a formal motion with the
Court to disqualify Atty. Francisco.

The allegation of Atty. Francisco is that there was a real estate broker who came by his office in
connection with the legal separation of a woman who had been deserted by her husband and
told Atty. Francisco that there was a pending suit brought by Mrs. Hilado against a Syrian to annul
the sale of a real estate which Mr. Hilado had made to the Syrian during the Japanese Occupation.
It was alleged that the woman asked him if he was willing to accept the case if the Syrian should
give it to him, in which he responded that the sales of real property during the Japanese regime
were valid even though it was paid for in Japanese notes. Atty. Francisco stated that this is merely
his opinion he told his visitor and added that he would have no objection defending the Syrian.

On January 1946, Assad was in Atty. Francisco was in his office to request for him to handle the
case stating that his American Lawyers had gone back to US and left the case. With this, Atty.
Francisco accepted the retainer and made his appearance on the latter date of the same month.
The judge trying the case, Honorable David, later promoted to the CA, dismissed the complaint
on the ground that no information other than the alleged complaint of Hilado was the main cause
of the accusations against Atty. Francisco, however, their interaction did not create a attorney-
client relationship hence this case.

Issue: Whether Atty. Francisco and Mrs. Hilado had an atty-client relationship when Mrs. Hilado
turned over her papers to him

Ruling: Yes, Atty. Francisco and Mrs. Hilado had established a atty-client relationship. According
to Atkinson v Howlett, in order to constitute a relation that is beyond a principal and an agent,
the attorneys must be employed either to give advice upon a legal point to prosecute or defend
action in court of Justice or to prepare and draft such paper as deeds, bills, contract etc. Here,
from the letter that Atty. Agrava sent Atty. Francisco’s firm, the fact remains that his firm did give
Mrs. Hilado a professional advice which emerged an atty-client relationship.

JGC
Legal Ethics

Notes:

Retaining fee: The purpose of which stems from the realization that the atty is disabled from
acting as a counsel for the other side after he has given professional advice to the opposite party,
even if he should decline to perform the contemplated services on behalf of the latter.

- It is to prevent undue hardship on the atty resulting from the rigid observance of the rule
that a separate and independent fee for consultation and advice was conceived and
authorized.

Associate: “Knowledge of one is the knowledge of everybody”

- Presumed that all lawyers in the firm know the case: Practical reason
- Knowledge of it is imputable.

Case 2: Tumbagahan v CA

FACTS: The case stems from a civil case in which involves ownership of two lots and the
cancellation of her titles with regard to the two lots. When the cases were called for the joint trials,
Tumbagahan relieved Atty. Salise as her counsel. Atty. Salise filed his withdrawal of appearance
which was approved by the court. As the trails were called for, this time, the petitioner personally
appeared and filed a written motion for postponement on the ground that he still had no counsel
and was not ready for trial. With this, the opposing party filed for postponement and dismissal
of the motion in which this was sent to Atty. Amarga and as well as to Atty. Salise.

The pleadings filed with the trial court bear the names of Atty. Salise and Atty. Amarga as counsels
for the petitioner. Copies of some of the pleadings of the opposing party were furnished to Atty.
Amarga who received the same and signed for Atty. Salise. Such being the case, the Court of
Appeals committed no reversible error in agreeing with the trial court in its rejection of the claim
that the petitioner had not even authorized the said counsel to represent him and to take part in
the conduct of the case.

ISSUE: Whether the petitioner validly terminated the services of his counsels of record-Attys.
Melvyn Salise and Jose Amarga — such that service on them of processes and notices would no
longer bind him

RULING: There is a need to observe the legal formalities before a counsel of record may be
considered relieved of his responsibility as such counsel (Cubar vs. Mendoza, 120 SCRA 768). The
withdrawal as counsel of a client, or the dismissal by the client of his counsel, must be made in a
formal petition filed in the case Baquiran vs. Court of Appeals, 2 SCRA 873, 878). In this case, the
termination of the attorney-client relationship between the petitioner and Atty. Salise does not

JGC
Legal Ethics

automatically severe the same relations between the petitioner and Atty. Amarga. Only Atty.
Salise's dismissal was made of record. None was made with regard to the other counsel.

Case 3: Donald Dee v CA and Amelito Mutuc

FACTS: This is a resolution reinstating the decision that was made that the services rendered by
Mutuc was on a professional and not on a gratis et amore basis and ordering Dee to pay Mutuc’s
legal fees. Dee and his father went to the resident of of Mutuc a

ISSUE:

RULING:

Case 5: Hadjula v Madianda

FACTS: This is an affidavit-complaint against Atty. Madianda for violation of Canon 15 and Rule
21.02 of the COPR.

Complainant (Hadjula) alleged that she and respondent used to be friends as they both worked
at the Bureau of Fire Protection (BFP) whereat Atty. Madianda was the Chief Legal Officer while
she was the Chief Nurse of the Medical, Dental and Nursing Services. Complainant claimed that,
sometime in 1998, she approached respondent for some legal advice. Complainant further alleged
that, in the course of their conversation which was supposed to be kept confidential, she disclosed
personal secrets and produced copies of a marriage contract, a birth certificate and a baptismal
certificate, only to be informed later by the respondent that she (respondent) would refer the
matter to a lawyer friend. It was malicious, so complainant states, of respondent to have refused
handling her case only after she had already heard her secrets.

ISSUE: Whether Atty. Madianda violate Canons 15 and 21.02 of COPR

RULING: Atty. Madianda is reprimanded. A lawyer who incidentally was also then a friend, to bare
what she considered personal secrets and sensitive documents for the purpose of obtaining legal
advice and assistance. The moment complainant approached the then receptive respondent to
seek legal advice, a veritable lawyer-client relationship evolved between the two. Such relationship
imposes upon the lawyer certain restrictions circumscribed by the ethics of the profession. Among
the burdens of the relationship is that which enjoins the lawyer, respondent in this instance, to
keep inviolate confidential information acquired or revealed during legal consultations. The
purpose of the rule of confidentiality is actually to protect the client from possible breach of
confidence as a result of a consultation with a lawyer.

Notes:

To establish the existence of the attorney-client privilege communication:

JGC
Legal Ethics

(1) Where legal advice of any kind is sought

(2) from a professional legal adviser in his capacity as such,

(3) the communications relating to that purpose,

(4) made in confidence

(5) by the client,

(6) are at his instance permanently protected

(7) from disclosure by himself or by the legal advisor,

(8) except the protection be waived.

JGC