DEE vs.

CA
Rule 15.04 – Mediator, Conciliator or Arbiter | August 24, 1989 | Regalado, J. ISSUE/S & RATIO:
1. WON there was a lawyer-client relationship between Dee and Mutuc – YES
Nature of Case: Certiorari a. A written contract is not essential in the employment of an atty. It is only
sufficient that advice and assistance is sought and received when the
SUMMARY: Petitioner, with concern for his brother’s supposed indebtedness to a US casino lawyer acts on the behalf of the client upon his request, the contract being
availed the services of Respondent. Respondent then helped the casino secure the true express or implied
debtor, thus releasing the brother. He then asked for payment for his services but Petitioner b. The receipts acknowledged by petitioner show that Mutuc was hired, there
alleges that Respondent acted as a friend, not as a professional and also that Respondent was prior agreement on atty’s fees and there was still a balance due
had a conflict of interest so Petitioner need not pay any lawyer’s fees
DOCTRINE: A lawyer may represent both parties before it reaches court in an impartial 2. WON there was a conflict of interest – NO
manner that would benefit both parties a. Mutuc represented the casino in order to establish liability of the true
debtor, thus the casino interests were not actually adverse to those of
FACTS: Petitioner’s brother (it would actually help the brother)
• January 1981, Petitioner Donald Dee and his father went to seek advice from b. Even if there was a conflict of interest, a lawyer is generally prohibited from
respondent Atty. Mutuc about the indebtedness of Petitioner’s brother, Dewey, to the representing both. “However, at a certain stage of the controversy before it
casino Caesar’s Palace in Las Vegas. They were worried that the casino had ties with reaches the court, a lawyer may represent conflicting interests with the
the mafia. Mutuc’s services were reportedly contracted for P100k consent of the parties.” This may benefit both parties because of the
• Mutuc inquired by calling and by travelling twice to the casino, finding through impartiality in acceptably settling differences with cooperation and
investigations that the debt of $1M was actually incurred by a Ramon Sy and confidence of both parties
Petitioner’s brother merely signed the chits. He communicated this to petitioner’s c. Assuming that Mutuc was an agent of the casino, petitioner was not
father, also assuring that the casino was not linked to the mafia. unaware according to his testimony, so he consented to the situation
• June 1981, Mutuc went to Las Vegas, talked to the casino’s president and convinced
him to exculpate Petitioner’s brother’s liability if he could get Ramon Sy to RULING: WHEREFORE, the resolution of respondent Court of Appeals, dated February 12,1987,
acknowledge the debt, which he did after returning to Manila reinstating its original decision of May 9, 1986 is hereby AFFIRMED, with costs against l petitioner.
• July 1981, Dee paid the initial payment of P30k for professional services, leaving P70k SO ORDERED.
remaining balance (according to the receipt)
• August 1981, Mutuc went back to the casino with Ramon Sy’s letter acknowledging
the debt, thus Petitioner’s brother was cleared
• By this time, Dee still had a remaining balance of P50k so Mutuc sent demand letters
for the Atty’s fees and refund for transport fare and other expenses
• Dee claims that the visit in January was only an informal one and that Mutuc
volunteered his services as a family friend. He said that the given P50k was not
Atty’s fees, but merely pocket money for the voluntary services and trips to Vegas
• The RTC ordered Dee to pay the P50k and was affirmed by the IAC
• Dee raised in his MR that Mutuc was his counsel while being collecting agent and
consultant of, and receiving compensation from Caesar’s Palace (getting Ramon Sy to
acknowledge the debt). The IAC thus held that the P50k already paid was fair
• Upon MR of Mutuc, the CA (formerly IAC) reinstated its former decision, clarifying:
o Mutuc’s testimony in 1983 that he was counsel for Dee July-September 1981
and employed under the casino from December 1981-October 1982 should
not have been disregarded for saying that he represented the casino ‘two or
three years ago’ because the approximation of two years is correct
o Working ‘in the interest’ and ‘to the advantage’ of the casino does not mean
that he was employed by it but that he merely accepted its condition to find
the true debtor for the release of Petitioner’s brother
o Just because the casino listened to Mutuc’s suggestions does not mean he
was a consultant. As former ambassador to the US, he had negotiation
abilities. Likewise, saying that P50k was reasonable had no basis assuming
that he was employed because there was no evidence presented on his
actual spending