Hilado vs David

GR L-961
September 24, 1949

 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

 IBP ruled that he should be

disqualified. 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.

 Anent the issue of what information was

relayed by Hilado to Atty. Francisco:Itdoes
not matter if the information relayed is
confidential or not. So long as the attorneyclient relationship is established, the
lawyer is proscribed from taking other
representations against the client.