Hilado Vs David

Hilado vs David
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 then after entered his appearance in court.
4 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.
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.
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.
Yao vs. Aurelio
Facts:
Bun Siong Yao is a majority stockholder of Solar Farms & Livelihood
Corporation and Solar Textile Finishing Corporation and since 1987, he
retained the services of another stockholder, Atty. Leonardo Aurelio, as his
personal lawyer and also the brother-in-law of Yaos wife. In 1999, they had a
disagreement. Aurelio then filed cases against Yao and his wife. Yao alleged
that the series of suits filed against him and his wife constitute an abuse of
the confidential information which Aurelio obtained by virtue of his
employment as counsel. Aurelio, on the other hand, claimed that he filed
those which he obtained by virtue of his being a stockholder of Solar Textile
Finishing Corporation.
The investigating commissioner found that Yao discontinued paying
dividends to Aurelio which compelled the latter to file multiple criminal and
civil cases in the exercise of his rights as a stockholder. He recommended
that Aurelio be suspended from practice of law. The IBP approved and
adopted the said recommendation.
Issue:
Whether or not Aurelio violated the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Held:
Yes, Atty. Leonardo Aurelio is ordered suspended from the practice of
law for a period of six months. He took advantage of his being a lawyer in
order to get back at Yao and in doing so, he has inevitably utilized
information he has obtained from his dealings with Yao and his companies for
his own end.
It is essential to note that the relationship between an attorney and his
client is a fiduciary one. An attorney is not permitted to disclose
communications made to him in his professional character by a client, unless
the latter consents. It is to preserve the confidences and secrets of a client
arise at the inception of their relationship. It does not cease with the
termination of the litigation, nor is it affected by the party's ceasing to
employ the attorney and retaining another, or by any other change of
relation between them. It even survives the death of the client.
GENATO V SILAPAN
In this complaint for disbarment filed by William Ong Genato against

respondent Atty. Essex L. Silapan, Silapan handled cases for Genato. The
conflict between the parties started when respondent borrowed P200,000.00
to use as downpayment for the purchase of a new car. Respondent issued to
complainant a postdated check in the amount of P176,528.00. With the
money borrowed from complainant, respondent purchased a new car.
However, the document of sale of the car was issued in complainants name
and financed through City Trust Company.
In January 1993, respondent introduced to complainant a certain Emmanuel
Romero. Romero likewise wanted to borrow money from complainant.
Complainant lent Romero the money and, from this transaction, respondent
earned commission in the amount of P52,289.90. Complainant used the
commission to pay respondents arrears with the car financing firm.
Subsequently, respondent failed to pay the amortization on the car and the
financing firm sent demand letters to complainant. Complainant tried to
encash respondents postdated check with the drawee bank but it was
dishonored as respondents account therein was already closed.
Respondent failed to heed complainants repeated demands for payment.
Complainant then filed a criminal case against respondent for violation of
Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 and a civil case for judicial foreclosure of real estate
mortgage.
In the foreclosure case, respondent made the following allegation in his
Answer:
That complainant is a businessman who is engaged in the real estate
business, trading and buy and sell of deficiency taxed imported cars, shark
loans and other shady deals and has many cases pending in court;
And that he wanted Essex L. Silapan to offer bribe money to the prosecutor
assigned and even to the presiding Judge, for his eventual acquittal.
Complainant gripes that the foregoing allegations are false, immaterial to the
foreclosure case and maliciously designed to defame him. He charged that in
making such allegations, respondent is guilty of breaking their confidential
lawyer-client relationship and should be held administratively liable therefor.
Consequently, he filed this complaint for disbarment, praying also that an
administrative sanction be meted against respondent for his issuance of a
bouncing check.
He claimed to have made these statements in the course of judicial
proceedings to defend his case and discredit complainants credibility by
establishing his criminal propensity to commit fraud, tell lies and violate
laws. He argued that he is not guilty of breaking his confidential lawyer-client
relationship with complainant as he made the disclosure in defense of his

honor and reputation.
We affirm the findings and recommendation of the IBP.
ISSUE: whether respondent committed a breach of trust and confidence.
Canon 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that a lawyer
owes fidelity to the cause of his client and shall be mindful of the trust and
confidence reposed on him. The long-established rule is that an attorney is
not permitted to disclose communications made to him in his professional
character by a client, unless the latter consents. This obligation to preserve
the confidences and secrets of a client arises at the inception of their
relationship. The protection given to the client is perpetual and does not
cease with the termination of the litigation, nor is it affected by the partys
ceasing to employ the attorney and retaining another, or by any other
change of relation between them. It even survives the death of the client.
It must be stressed, however, that the privilege against disclosure of
confidential communications or information is limited only to
communications which are legitimately and properly within the scope of a
lawful employment of a lawyer. It does not extend to those made in
contemplation of a crime or perpetration of a fraud.
6 months suspension.
Junio v Grupo
Facts:
Rosario Junio entrusted to Atty. Salvador Grupo, P25,000 to be used in the
redemption of a property in Bohol. For no reason at all, Atty. Grupo did not
redeem the property so the property was forfeited. Because of this, Junio
wanted the money back but Grupo refused to refund. Instead, Grupo
requested that he use the money to help defray his childrens educational
expenses. It was a personal request to which Grupo executed a Promissory
note. He maintains that the family of the Junio and Grupo were very close
since Junios sisters served as Grupos household helpers for many years.
Grupo also stated that the basis of his rendering legal services was purely
gratuitous or an act of a friend for a friend with consideration involved.
He concluded that there was no atty-client relationship existing between
them.
The case was referred to the IBP and found Grupo liable for violation of Rule
16.04 of the Code of Profesisonal Responsibility which forbids lawyers from
borrowing money from their clients. The IBP Board of Governors

recommended that he be suspended indefinitely from the practice of law.
Grupo filed a motion for reconsideration.
Issue: Whether or not there was an atty-client relationship.
Held: Yes. If a person, in respect to his business affairs, consults with an
attorney in his professional capacity and the attorney voluntarily permits in
such consultation, then the professional employment must be regarded as
established.
Having gained dominance over Junio by virtue of such long relation of master
and servant, Grupo took advantage of his influence by not returning the
money. Grupo has committed an act which falls short of the standard
conduct of an attorney. If an ordinary borrower of money is required by law to
repay his loan, it is more so in the case of a lawyer whose conduct serves as
an example.
*SC orders Grupo suspended from the practice of law for a month and to pay
Junio within 30 days with interest at the legal rate.
* Note: 5 yrs. has already passed since the loan.

Hilado Vs David - Junio V Grupo

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Hilado Vs David - Junio V Grupo

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Hilado Vs David - Junio V Grupo

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

An attorney is employed-that is, he is engaged in his professional capacity as

In this complaint for disbarment filed by William Ong Genato against

relationship with complainant as he made the disclosure in defense of his

borrowing money from their clients. The IBP Board of Governors

You might also like