Legal Ethics Digests Hofilena 2c pdg

Canon 14 a lawyer shall not refuse his servies to the needy

1.

Rule 14.01 A lawyer shall not decline to represent a person solely on account of the
latters race, sex, creed or status of life, or because of his own opinion regarding the
guilt of said person.
Rule 14.02 A lawyer shall not decline, except for serious and sufficient cause, an
appointment as counsel de officio or as amicus curiae, or a request from the integrated
bar of the Philippines or any of its chapters for rendition of free legal aid.

2.

Rule 14.03 A lawyer may refuse to accept representation of an indigent client if: a) he is
not in a position to carry out the work effectively or completely; b) he labors under a
conflict of interest between him and the prospective client or between a present client
and the prospective client.
Rule 14.04 a lawyer who accepts the cause of a person unable to pay his professional
feels shall observe the same standard of conduct governing his relations with paying
clients.

3.

NO CASES
Canon 15 A lawyer shall observe candor, fairness and loyalty in all his dealings and
transactions with his clients.
4.
Rule 15.01 A lawyer, in conferring with a prospective client, shall as soon as
practicable whether the matter would involve a conflict with another client or his own
interest, and if so, shall forthwith inform the prospective client.
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.
Rule 15.03 A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by written consent
of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts.
Rule 15.04 A lawyer may, with the written consent of all concerned, act as mediator,
conciliator or arbitrator in settling disputes.
Rule 15.05 A lawyer when advising his client, shall give a candid and honest opinion on
the merits and probable results of the clients case. Neither overstating nor
underestimating the prospects of the case.
Rule 15.06 A lawyer shall not state or imply that he is able to influence any public
official, tribunal or legislative body.

HIlado brought against Assad to annul the sales of several houses and corresponding
lots which were executed during the Japanese occupation. These sales were
executed Hilados late husband, allegedly without her knowledge. Counsel for Hilado:
Delgado, Dizon, Flores, Rodrigo. Counsel for Assad Ohnic, Velilla and Balonkita, they
were replaced by Francisco. (in case youre wondering David is the judge who tried
the case)
Dizon in the name of his firm, wrote to Francisco, urging him to cease representing
Assad on the ground that HILADO had consulted with FRANCISCO regarding
her case. It was alleged that she turned over papers to Francisco and that he sent
her a written opinion. When they did not receive an answer to this suggestion, counsel
for Hilado filed a motion in court to disqualify Francisco. The letter to Hilado from
Francisco was presented as evidence. In the letter Francisco described the basic
facts which brought about the controversy, gave his opinion that the action would not
prosper because of the circumstances (title was already transferred, price was not
grossly inadequate, the allegation that Assad is not the real purchaser is difficult to
prove and that Mr Hilado is dead)
He therefore declined to appear as counsel and returned the records. The letter was
dated July 13, 1945. Francisco alleges that in May 1945, a real estate broker, came to
his office to approach him about representing a Syrian national embroiled in real
estate case (Assad). He alleges that he accepted this case and that it was only a
month later that Hilado appeared and brought her case to him. It was however only in
1946 that Assad formally requested him to handle the case because Assads
American lawyer had gone to the states.
Judge David dismissed the case because the interchange between Francisco and
Hilado had not created a attorney-client relation.

Issue: was there an attorney-client relationshio between Francisco and Hilado? If so, was
there a breach?
Held:

In order to constitute professional employment it is not essential the client should

have employed the attorney professionally on any previous occasion. Nor, that
any retainer paid, promised, charged, nor that the attorney did not undertake the
case after the consultation.
An attorney is employed in his professional capacity when he is giving advice
thereon, just as if he were writing a pleading or litigating in open court.
Precedent supports the doctrine that mere relation of attorney and client
should preclude the attorney from accepting the opposite partys retainer
in the same litigation regardless of what information was received.
While it cannot be said that Francisco was acting in bad faith, his action of taking
up the cause of an adverse party, cannot be sanctioned. In any case he has
retainer fee hehe

Nakpil v Valdez
1. Nakpil and Valdez had been friends ever since their school days in La Salle. Because
of this closeness, Valdes became the lawyer and accountant of Nakpil. When nakpil
desired to buy property in Baguio, but was lacking in funds to purchase it, he asked
Rule 15.08 A lawyer who is engaged in another profession or occupation concurrently
Valdes to buy it and hold it in trust for him (nakpil). Valdes obtained the money to buy
with the practice of law shall make clear to his client whether he is acting as a lawyer or
the said lot from loans in the aggregate amount of 140k and used this to buy and
in another capacity.
renovate the Moran Property.
2. It was Nakpil who occupied the house, when Nakpil died in 1973, Valdes acted as
Hilado v David
counsel for Imelda Nakpil (wife). It was his firm that handled the settlement of the
estate of Nakpil. Ownership of the property became an issue because Valdes had
Rule 15.07 A lawyer shall impress upon his client compliance with the laws and the
principles of fairness.

Legal Ethics Digests Hofilena 2c pdg

transferred title to his company, the Caval Realty Corp. Nakpil sought to recover
new retainer will require the attorney to perform an act which will injure his first client
ownership of the property by filing an action for reconveyance. Valdes claimed
in any matter in which he represents him and also whether he will be called upon in
absolute ownership and denied that there was a trust created over it.
his new relation to use against his first client any knowledge acquired through their
3. Hence the disbarment case. Valdes was charged with violating the CPR by assigning
connection.
to his family corp the property which belonged to the estate he was settling as its

iN this case: Where corporate directors have committed a breach of trust either by
lawyer and auditor and for excluding from the inventory of the real estate properties
fraud, ultra vires acts etc the stockholders may sue on their own behalf and for the
said lot. He had also charged the loans obtained by him against the estate of nakpil
benefit of the corp. (derivative suit! Cross application oh yeah) The corporation is the
4. Valdes says that since nakpil never bought the property from him, he is the absolute
real party in interest and the stockholder is just a nominal party. Where the lawyer
owner. He denied preparing the list of claims against the Nakpil estate (which included
represents both the corporation and the assailed directors this is a conflict of
the 140k loan he obtained to buy the house). CFI bagui ruled that the property was
interest.
held in trust, but that the Nakpils waived their right over it. CA reversed and declared

Lawyer engaged as counsel for the corp cannot represent the BOD in a
that moran absolute owner.
derivative suit against them. He is guilty of representing conflicting interests, but
Issue: Should Valdes be disbarred?
since it is first offense ADMONISHMENT ONLY.

This is a novel case because it involves the demeanor of Moran with regard to his
accounting profession and law practice in connection with the property of his client.
Northwestern v Arquillo

As a rule a lawyer is not bared from dealing with his client but the transaction must be
1. Northwestern accuses Arquillo of engaging in conflicting interests before the NLRC.
characterized by the utmost honesty and good faith. The measure of good faith an
He appeared as counsel for complainants (8/18 of the complainants) and respondent
atty is to exercise is much higher than the standard required in business dealings, as
(1/10). Submitted as evidence is the Motion to dismiss filed by Arquillo for the
these are disfavored and discouraged by the policy of law.
respondents and a position paper on behalf of the complainants.
2. IBP found him guilty of violating the conflict of interests rule and recommended his

The courts watch closely that no advantage is taken by the lawyer over his client.
suspension for 6 months. IBP later raised it to two years.
Nakpil and Valdes agreed that Valdes would hold the property in trust for his family. In
violation of the trust agreement respondent claimed absolute ownership of the Issue: is he guilty?
property and refused to sell the property to Nakpil after her husbands death. He even Held: Yes.

There is conflict of interest when in representation of one client he is required to fight

placed the property beyond the reach of the Nakpils and the court by transferring it to
his corporation.
for an issue but is also duty bound to oppose for the other. When the acceptance of a
new retainer will require him to perform an act which will injure his first client. When

AT the very least, Valdes should have informed Nakpil of his adverse claim instead of
the acceptance of the new relation will prevent the full discharge of the undivided
just claiming it and concealing the transfer. This misuse of legal expertise is unethical.
fidelity and loyalty to the client or would invite suspicion of double dealing in the
Further he tried to charge the loans he obtained by him against Nakpils estate. He
performance of the duty.
wanted to have his Cake and eat it too! Suspended 1 year!

In this case as counsel for the complainants he had the duty to oppose the motion to
Hornilla v Salunat
dismiss, BUT COULD not because he is the one who prepared the motion to dismiss.
1. Hornilla filed a complaint against Salunat for unethical practice and for conflict of
It was his duty to prove the complaint wrong but at the same time he is representing
interest. Salunat is a member of ASSA Law and associates which was counsel for
the complainants.
Philippine public school teachers association (PPSTA). Salunats brother was a

Suspended 1 year
member of the teachers assoc board which approved Salunat being retained as
counsel. Hornilla is a member of the association and he filed a case against the BOD Quiambao v Bamba
in the SEC for unlawful spending and the under valued sale of real property of
1. Bamba was representing Quiambao in a case, and while this was in litigation he filed
PPSTA.
a case against her. Quiambao was the President of Allied Investigation, a family
2. When Salunat entered his appearance as counsel for PPSTA BOD in the said case
corporation providing security and investigation services. Bamba was counsel for
PPSTA members complained. They claimed that he was guilty of conflict of interest
corporate affairs and her personal affairs.
because he was engaged as counsel of the PPSTA of which they were members and
2. Particularly he was counsel of record in an ejectment case against the spouse
that he was being paid out of funds from which the complainants contributed.
Torroba. A few months later, after Quiambao resigned as president of AIB, Bamba
3. Salunat refused to withdraw his appearance. They claim he violated 15.06 when he
filed on AIBs behalf a complaint for replevin and damages to recover the car assigned
assured BOD that he will win the cases. And that he violated 15.03 a lawyer shall
to Quiambao as her service vehicle. He did not withdraw as counsel in the ejectment
not represent conflicting interests
case which was still pending.
Issue: Whether or not he violated canon 15?
3. Quiambao even claimed that it was Bamba that caused her to resign, telling her that
Held:
he would assist her in organizing her own security agency. Bamba was a silent

There is a conflict of interest when a lawyer represents inconsistent interests of two or

partner in the new agency. He also convinced Quiambaos brother to create another
more opposing parties. The test is whether or not in behalf of one client it is the
security agency where he was incorporator, director and president. The two then
lawyers duty to fight for an issue or claim, but at the same time it is his duty to oppose
illegally diverted funds from AIB to the new company.
for the other client.
4. The IBP found that he was guilty and suspended him for 1 year. Later reduced to
stern reprimand.

This covers not only cases where confidential communications were exchanged, but
also where no confidence has been bestowed or used. When the acceptance of the

Legal Ethics Digests Hofilena 2c pdg

Issue:
Held:

whether

or

not

he

was

guilty

of

representing

conflicting

interests?

In this case it is undisputed that at the time he filed the replevin case he was still
counsel of record in the ejectment case. It is immaterial that the ejectment case and
replevin case are unrelated (different issues, parties subject matters). His
representation of opposing clients in both cases, though unrelated, constitutes conflict
of interest or at the very least suspicion of double dealing.
He failed to show that he fully disclosed to both parties the facts and failed to present
written consent as required by the CPR.
He also violated the law by allowing Quiambao to own more than one security agency
(yep, apparently theres a law governing it! RA 5487 private security agency law. Love
this country) This is a violation of Rule 1.02 Canon 1 which mandates that a lawyer
shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the law.
Suspended 1 year.

Falame v Baguio
1. Falame filed a disbarment case against Baguio. In their complaint, Falame alleges
their father engaged Baguio to represent him in a forcible entry case against Sy.
Falame was respondent. Baguio filed the answer to the complaint and went on to win
the case in the trial court. However later, in representation of Rally Felame and his
wife (other respondents in the first case), he filed a case involving the same property.
The complaint sought to have the deed of sale declared null and void.
2. It is claimed that acting as counsel for the spouse falame in the second civil case, he
violated his oath of office and duty as an attorney. They contended that the interests of
Rally are adverse to that of his former client.
3. Baguio claims that he was not retained as counsel in any case after the first civil case.
Second that there was an interval of 12 years between the two cases and that the
litigation in the two cases is between entirely different parties.
4. IBP Dismissed the admin case on the ground of prescription and for lack of merit.
Issue: did he violate the CPR?
Held:

The statutes of limitation have no application in disbarment proceedings.

Administrative proceedings against lawyers have no prescriptive period. Ruled on as
early as 1947, reiterated in Frias v Bautista.

There is sufficient basis to hold Baguio liable. The termination of the attorney-client
relation does not justify him representing an adverse interest to that of the former
client. Once a clients confidence is reposed, it should not be divested by mere
expiration of the professionally employment.

The lawyer should not thereafter do anything that will injuriously affect his former
client with respect to a matter he previously represented him nor disclose any of the
clients confidences acquired in the previous relation.

Here baguio admitted that he jointly represented the Plaintiffs father and Rally in the
first civil case. Reprimand only.
Pacana v Pascual-Lopez

1.

Pacana is the operations director for Multitel Communications corp (MCC). MCC was
besieged by demand letters by members and investors due to failure of its investment
schemes. He was appointed trustee of a fund worth 30m. He sought the advice of
Pascual-Lopez, whom he knew through Couples for Christ. Lopez gave him advice
and helped him prepare quitclaims for creditors.
2. He avers that there was a lawyer-client relationship established between the two of
them though no formal document was executed. They agreed on a retainer but he did
not sign the agreement because respondent verbally asked for 100k as acceptance
and 15% contingency fee. He found the fee too high and therefore did not sign.
3. He received a demand letter a few weeks later asking for the immediate return of
funds invested in Multitel by Lopezs clients. When confronted, Lopez assured him
there was nothing to worry about, and that this was just to show her clients she was
doing something. They worked closely together and Lopez was even given money in
the amount of 900k to be used only for his case when necessary. She later received
another 1m. When Pacana left for the US he received messages not to return
because MCC president had been arrested.
4. There were 10 warrants for arrest and a hold-departure order issued against him.
Lopez promised that she would settle the matter discreetly with gov officials but that
she needed 200k and another 700k to be given to the NBI. He even signed several
deeds of assignment and a deed of sale to sell property he owned (isuzu trooper) to
settle the legal problems. He was advised by his family to hire another lawyer.
5. After finding out she wrote him a letter. Basically the letter said that she had all the
bases covered through her connections. She said she needed 3 months to make it all
disappear and that if he hired Coco Pimentel she would back off. But she asked him
to trust her because this is her expertise and that she would make him a hero in the
scandal.He returned to the country despite advice against it by the respondent.
Respondent conveniently informed him on the eve of his departure that he had
already been cleared by the NBI. A month later Lopez claimed she had accumulated
12.5m as attorneys fees and was willing to give 2m in appreciation for the help. She
reneged to invest this in a business venture on his behalf. She later refused to talk to
him or return his calls. Hence the disbarment complaint!
Issue: did Lopez represent conflicting interests?
HElD:

IBP found that a lawyer client relationship was established despite the lack of a
written contract. She had violated her duty to be candid, fair and loyal to her
client because she allowed herself to represent conflicting interests and failed to
render a full accounting of cash and properties entrusted to her.
She was representing the investors of MCC (complainants against Pacana) and
pacana aat the same time.
The decent and ethical thing to do would have been to advise Pacana to avail of
the services of another lawyer. She took advantage of the situation by soliciting
money and property from him. Simultaneously she was telling MCC that she was
doing everything she could to reclaim their money.
Disbarred.