6 Hilado V David
6 Hilado V David
6 Hilado V David
GR No. L-961 | September 21, 1949 the complaint, which was already filed
GAYARES in Court.
Hilado already waived her right to
PETITIONER: disqualify Atty. Francisco because he
Blandina Gamboa Hilado was already representing Assad in court
for four months.
RESPONDENT:
Jose David, Vicente Francisco, Jacob Assad, and ISSUE:
Selim Assad W/N Atty. Francisco should be disqualified in
the civil case between Hilado and Assad due to
DOCTRINE: reasons presented by the former?
A client’s right to have a lawyer be disqualified
due to previous relationship does not prescribe. HELD:
YES – An attorney-client relationship existed
FACTS: between Hilado and Atty. Francisco, which bars
Hilado filed a complaint to have a his functions as a counsel against the former
number of deeds of sale annulled without the necessary consent.
against Selim Assad.
Atty. Dizon represented Hilado, while RATIO:
Atty. Ohnick represented Assad. To constitute an attorney-client relationship, it is
Atty. Francisco eventually replaced not necessary that any retainer should have been
Atty. Ohnick as counsel for Assad and paid, promised, or charged. Neither is it material
entered his appearance in court. that the attorney consulted did not undertake the
Four months after, Atty. Dizon filed a case. If a person consults with his attorney in his
motion to have Atty. Francisco be professional capacity with the intention of
disqualified due to the reason that in obtaining advice or assistance, the attorney
June 1945, Hilado approached Atty. voluntarily permits or acquiesces in such
Francisco for legal opinion regarding consultation, then the employment must be
her case and for which he sent a legal regarded as established.
opinion letter.
Atty. Francisco opposed the motion, In other words, an attorney is employed when he
asserting that the petitioner relayed no is engaged in his professional capacity as a
material information to him; than in lawyer and is listening to his client’s preliminary
fact, upon hearing Hilado’s statement, statement of the case or when he is giving
he advised her that her case would not advice.
win in court.
After their first encounter, Hilado It does not matter if Hilado relayed confidential
returned with a copy of the complaint issue or not. As long as the relationship is
prepared by Atty. Dizon but Atty. established, the lawyer is barred from taking
Francisco was not around. representations against his client.
In his place, an associate in his firm,
Atty. Agrava attented to Hilado. She Additionally, even if Atty. Francisco did not
left the legal documents behind and write the legal opinion given to Hilado, he is still
Atty. Agrava prepared a legal opinion part of the law firm that gave the material to
letter for her, which stated that Hilado Hilado. Hence, he is still bound to it.
has no cause of action to file suit and
that he had Atty. Francisco sign the Lastly, it also does not matter if the issue of their
letter. Also, Atty. Francisco did not rea relationship was only brought up four months
the letter as Atty. Agrava said that it after since the length of time is not a waiver of
was a simply a letter explaining why the Hilado’s right. A client’s right to have a lawyer
firm cannot take on the case. be disqualified due to previous relationship does
Atty. Francisco added that he was not not prescribe.
paid for his advice and that no
confidential information was relayed