Professional Documents
Culture Documents
PALE Digests
PALE Digests
Frias v. Bautista-Lozada....................................................................2
CONFLICT OF INTEREST....................................................................3
Angara v. Sandiganbayan.................................................................3
Sadik v. Casar...................................................................................7
Aninon v. Sabitsana.........................................................................10
Samson v. Era.................................................................................12
Hadjula v. Madianda........................................................................17
Mercado v. Vitriolo...........................................................................19
Angara v. Sandiganbayan...............................................................21
Genato v. Silapan............................................................................25
Saura v. Agdeppa............................................................................27
Maturan v. Gonzales.......................................................................28
Issue:
Ruling:
As early as 1967, it was held that the defense of prescription does not
lie in administrative proceedings against lawyers. Likewise, in a 2004
case, it was declared that an administrative complaint against a
member of the bar does not prescribe.
Problematic Areas in Legal Ethics CASES
Based on the Syllabus of Atty. Arnold C. Abejaron 3
CONFLICT OF INTEREST and (c) the submission of the deeds of assignments petitioners
executed in favor of its client covering their respective shareholdings.
Angara v. Sandiganbayan
The ACCRA Lawyers however contend that revealing the identity of
G.R. No. 105938 September 20, 1996 their client and the other information requested by the PCGG is
prohibited by the attorney-client privilege.
TEODORO R. REGALA, EDGARDO J. ANGARA, AVELINO V.
CRUZ, JOSE C. CONCEPCION, ROGELIO A. VINLUAN, VICTOR P. Issue:
LAZATIN and EDUARDO U. ESCUETA, petitioners,
vs. WON the identity of the client is covered by the attorney-client privilege.
THE HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN, First Division, REPUBLIC Yes!
OF THE PHILIPPINES, ACTING THROUGH THE PRESIDENTIAL
COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENT, and RAUL S. Significance of the issue:
ROCO, respondents.
The duty to keep as confidential all matters obtained through the
G.R. No. 108113 September 20, 1996 attorney-client relationship is explicitly mandated in Canon 17 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility which provides that:
PARAJA G. HAYUDINI, petitioner,
vs. Canon 17. A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he shall
THE SANDIGANBAYAN and THE REPUBLIC OF THE be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him.
PHILIPPINES, respondents.
Canon 15 of the Canons of Professional Ethics also demands a
Facts: lawyer's fidelity to client.
Petitioners Teodoro Regala, Edgardo J. Angara, Avelino V. Cruz, Jose Encouraging full disclosure to a lawyer by one seeking legal services
C. Concepcion, Rogelio A. Vinluan, Victor P. Lazatin, Eduardo U. opens the door to a whole spectrum of legal options which would
Escueta and Paraja G. Hayudini, and herein private respondent Raul S. otherwise be circumscribed by limited information engendered by a fear
Roco, who all were then partners of the ACCRA Law firm were included of disclosure. An effective lawyer-client relationship is largely
as defendants in a case for recovery of alleged ill-gotten wealth filed dependent upon the degree of confidence which exists between lawyer
before the Sandiganbayan by the Republic of the Philippines. and client which in turn requires a situation which encourages a
dynamic and fruitful exchange and flow of information. It necessarily
From the facts of the case, it seems that the ACCRA Lawyers were follows that in order to attain effective representation; the lawyer must
impleaded as co-defendants in the case because they performed legal invoke the privilege not as a matter of option but as a matter of duty
services for certain clients involving the organization and acquisition of and professional responsibility.
business associations which allegedly used coconut levy funds.
Ruling:
The PCGG then set the following conditions precedent for the exclusion
of petitioners, namely: (a) the disclosure of the identity of its clients; (b)
submission of documents substantiating the lawyer-client relationship;
Problematic Areas in Legal Ethics CASES
Based on the Syllabus of Atty. Arnold C. Abejaron 4
The identity of the client in the present case is considered as a From these conditions, particularly the third, we can readily deduce that
privileged communication although as a matter of public policy, a the clients indeed consulted the petitioners, in their capacity as lawyers,
client’s identity, in general, is not privileged. regarding the financial and corporate structure, framework and set-up
of the corporations in question. In turn, petitioners gave their
The General rule that a client’s identity is not privileged is qualified by professional advice in the form of, among others, the aforementioned
the following exceptions: deeds of assignment covering their client's shareholdings.
1) Client identity is privileged where a strong probability exists that There is no question that the preparation of the aforestated documents
revealing the client's name would implicate that client in the very activity was part and parcel of petitioners' legal service to their clients. More
for which he sought the lawyer's advice. important, it constituted an integral part of their duties as lawyers.
Petitioners, therefore, have a legitimate fear that identifying their clients
2) Where disclosure would open the client to civil liability; his identity is would implicate them in the very activity for which legal advice had
privileged. been sought, i.e., the alleged accumulation of ill-gotten wealth in the
aforementioned corporations.
3) Where the government's lawyers have no case against an attorney's
client unless, by revealing the client's name, the said name would Furthermore, under the third main exception, revelation of the client's
furnish the only link that would form the chain of testimony necessary to name would obviously provide the necessary link for the prosecution to
convict an individual of a crime, the client's name is privileged. build its case, where none otherwise exists. It is the link, in the words of
Baird, "that would inevitably form the chain of testimony necessary to
The circumstances involving the engagement of lawyers in the case at convict the (client) of a . . . crime."
bench, therefore, clearly reveal that the instant case falls under at least
two exceptions to the general rule. First, disclosure of the alleged We have no choice but to uphold petitioners' right not to reveal the
client's name would lead to establish said client's connection with the identity of their clients under pain of the breach of fiduciary duty owing
very fact in issue of the case, which is privileged information. to their clients, because the facts of the instant case clearly fall within
recognized exceptions to the rule that the client's name is not privileged
The link between the alleged criminal offense and the legal advice or information.
legal service sought was duly establishes in the case at bar, by no less
than the PCGG itself. The key lies in the three specific conditions laid If we were to sustain respondent PCGG that the lawyer-client
down by the PCGG which constitutes petitioners' ticket to non- confidential privilege under the circumstances obtaining here does not
prosecution should they accede thereto: cover the identity of the client, then it would expose the lawyers
themselves to possible litigation by their clients in view of the strict
(a) the disclosure of the identity of its clients; fiduciary responsibility imposed on them in the exercise of their duties.
PANGANIBAN, J.: Ruling:
Atty. Arquillo’s acts cannot be justified by the fact that, in the end,
Castro was proven to be not personally liable for the claims of the
dismissed employees. Having agreed to represent one of the opposing
Facts:
parties first, the lawyer should have known that there was an obvious
conflict of interests, regardless of his alleged belief that they were all on
Atty. Macario D. Arquillo was chargedwith deceit malpractice, gross the same side.
misconduct and/or violation of his oath as attorney by representing
conflicting interests. From the facts of the case, it appears that Atty.
When a lawyer represents two or more opposing parties, there is a
Arquillo appeared and acted as counsel for both complainants (eight
conflict of interests, the existence of which is determined by three
out of the eighteen complainants therein) and respondent (one out of
separate tests:
the ten respondents therein) in an NLRC consolidated case.
(1) when, in representation of one client, a lawyer is required to fight for
Atty. Arquillo on his defense however, alleges that there was no conflict
an issue or claim, but is also duty-bound to oppose it for another client;
of interest in his representation as the respondent that he represented
was absolved by the labor arbiter of any personal liability for the illegal
dismissal of the complainants; thus it shows that all of the parties that (2) when the acceptance of the new retainer will require an attorney to
he represented were really on the same side. perform an act that may injuriously affect the first client or, when called
upon in a new relation, to use against the first one any knowledge
acquired through their professional connection; or
Issue:
(3) when the acceptance of a new relation would prevent the full
Whether or not there is conflict in interest in the present case. Yes!
discharge of an attorney’s duty to give undivided fidelity and loyalty to
the client or would invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or double dealing in
Significance of the issue: the performance of that duty.
Problematic Areas in Legal Ethics CASES
Based on the Syllabus of Atty. Arnold C. Abejaron 6
In the present case, Atty. Macario D. Arquillo, as counsel for
Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss the NLRC Cases, for which
shortly thereafter, he filed position papers in behalf of the several
complainants. Clearly, there is inconsistency of interests here and as a
rule an attorney cannot represent adverse interests.
EN BANC Ruling:
G.R. No. MTJ-95-1053 January 2, 1997 On the issue of misconduct, there is no dispute that respondent Judge
represented the complainants long before he became a member of the
SPOUSES MAKADAYA SADIK and USODAN SADIK, complainants, Judiciary. However, from the facts of the case, it was discovered that
vs. respondent continued to act as counsel for the complainants on appeal
JUDGE ABDALLAH CASAR, respondent. to the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court even after he became a
municipal judge. By actively handling the case on appeal, he clearly
violated Rule 5.07 of the Code of Judicial Conduct. The least which he
should have done was to secure permission from the Supreme Court
PER CURIAM: before proceeding with the case on appeal. But this he failed to do, thus
making him guilty of the charge of misconduct.
Facts:
On the issue of misappropriation, the court held that if indeed he was
claiming attorney’s lien, then he should have known that to be entitled
The present case is an offshoot of a complaint for Specific Performance
thereto he must comply with certain pre-conditions. The pertinent
by Makadaya and Malinang Sadik, the beneficiaries of the life
section provides that with respect to judgments for payment of money,
insurance policy of one Lekiya Paito against Grepalife. In the said civil
a lawyer shall have a lien thereto "from and after the time when he shall
case, they sought the assistance of herein respondent Judge Casar.
have caused a statement of his claim of such lien to be entered upon
the records of the court rendering such judgment . . . and shall have
Now, in the present case, Judge Casar was charged with misconduct caused written notice thereof to be delivered to his client and the
for representing the complainants in a case after he became a adverse party." Now it appears that from 1993 until now, Judge Casar
municipal judge thus violating Rule 5.07 of the Code of Judicial did not file the necessary pleadings to enforce his alleged lien. That
Conduct which states that “A judge shall not engage in the private being the case, Judge Casar has no right to retain the judgment award.
practice of law.” To make matters worse, he was also charged for
misappropriation for refusing to turn over the judgment award to the
In a desperate attempt to justify his retention of the judgment award,
complainants contending that he has the right to retain the same until
Judge Casar raised the defense that herein complainants are not
he is paid for his expenses.
entitled to claim the same as they are merely impostors. Judge Casar
states that the said complainants are just substitute witnesses procured
On the issue of violating Rule 5.07, Judge Casar intimates that he is not to pose as claimant Makadaya Sadik as the real Makadaya Sadik
guilty of any misconduct because he accepted the case long before he cannot appear before the court.
became a judge. He also denies the issue of misappropriating the
judgment award, with the defense that he has the right to retain the
He also declared that even before he filed the complaint in behalf of
same until he is paid for his expenses pursuant to Section 37 of Rule
Sadik, he was already informed that the insurance policy of Lekiya
38 of the Rules of Court.
Paito was fraudulent. In his intent to keep the insurance proceeds for
himself respondent Judge dug a hole for himself. His cure is worse than
Issue: Whether or not Judge Casar’s acts constitutes misconduct? Yes. the disease.
Problematic Areas in Legal Ethics CASES
Based on the Syllabus of Atty. Arnold C. Abejaron 8
Due to the facts established of the judge’s propensity to transgress the
very law he is sworn to uphold makes him not only liable for the
charges of misconduct and misappropriation but also unfit to discharge
the functions of a judge. Hence, Judge Casar was dismissed from
service.
The integrity of the Judiciary rests not only upon the fact that it is able
to administer justice but also upon the perception and confidence of the
community that the people who run the system have done justice. At
times, the strict manner by which we apply the law may, in fact, do
justice but may not necessarily create confidence among the people
that justice, indeed, is served. Hence, in order to create such
confidence, the people who run the judiciary, particularly judges and
justices, must not only be proficient in both the substantive and
procedural aspects of the law, but more importantly, they must possess
the highest integrity, probity, and unquestionable moral uprightness,
both in their public and private lives. Only then can the people be
reassured that the wheels of justice in this country run with fairness and
equity, thus creating confidence in the judicial system.
Problematic Areas in Legal Ethics CASES
Based on the Syllabus of Atty. Arnold C. Abejaron 9
RULE 15.03. – A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except
Hornilla & Ricafort v. Salunat by written consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the
facts.
FIRST DIVISION
There is conflict of interest when a lawyer represents inconsistent
A.C. No. 5804 July 1, 2003 interests of two or more opposing parties. The test is "whether or not in
behalf of one client, it is the lawyer’s duty to fight for an issue or claim,
BENEDICTO HORNILLA and ATTY. FEDERICO D. but it is his duty to oppose it for the other client.
RICAFORT, complainants,
vs. Also, there is conflict of interests if the lawyer would be called upon in
ATTY. ERNESTO S. SALUNAT, respondent. the new relation to use against a former client any confidential
information acquired through their connection or previous employment.
RESOLUTION
Another test of the inconsistency of interests is whether the acceptance
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.: of a new relation will prevent an attorney from the full discharge of his
duty of undivided fidelity and loyalty to his client or invite suspicion of
Facts: unfaithfulness or double dealing in the performance thereof.
Significance of the Issue: The Code of Professional Responsibility Atty. Salunat therefore is found guilty of representing conflicting
provides: interest.
Problematic Areas in Legal Ethics CASES
Based on the Syllabus of Atty. Arnold C. Abejaron 10
In Bautista vs. Barrios, it was held that a lawyer may not handle a case
Aninon v. Sabitsana to nullify a contract which he prepared and thereby take up inconsistent
positions.
SECOND DIVISION
In re De la Rosa clearly suggests that a lawyer may not represent
A.C. No. 5098 April 11, 2012 conflicting interests in the absence of the written consent of all parties
concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts. In the present case,
JOSEFINA M. ANIÑON, Complainant, no such written consent was secured by respondent before accepting
vs. employment as Mrs. Cañete’s counsel-of-record.
ATTY. CLEMENCIO SABITSANA, JR., Respondent.
Complainant and respondent’s present client, being contending
DECISION claimants to the same property, the conflict of interest are obviously
present. There is said to be inconsistency of interest when on behalf of
BRION, J.: one client, it is the attorney’s duty to contend for that which his duty to
another client requires him to oppose. In the present case, not only did
Atty. Sabitsana agree to represent one client against another client in
Facts:
the same action; he also accepted a new engagement that entailed him
to contend and oppose the interest of his other client in a property in
In her complaint, Josefina M. Aniñon (complainant) related that she which his legal services had been previously retained.
previously engaged the legal services of Atty. Sabitsana in the
preparation and execution in her favor of a Deed of Sale over a parcel
Based on the established facts, Atty. Sabisana is found guilty of
of land owned by her late common-law husband Brigido Caneja, Jr.
misconduct for represention conflicting interests in violation of Rule
Atty. Sabitsana allegedly violated her confidence when he subsequently
15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and is hereby
filed a civil case against her for the annulment of the Deed of Sale in
suspended for 1 year from the practice of law.
behalf of Zenaida L. Cañete, the legal wife of Brigido Caneja, Jr.
Complainant Aniñon accused Atty. Sabitsana of using the confidential
information he obtained from her in filing the civil case. Significance of the Issue:
Atty. Sabitsana on the otherhand admitted having advised the Aniñon in The relationship between a lawyer and his/her client should ideally be
the preparation and execution of the Deed of Sale. However, he denied imbued with the highest level of trust and confidence. This is the
having received any confidential information. standard of confidentiality that must prevail to promote a full disclosure
of the client’s most confidential information to his/her lawyer for an
unhampered exchange of information between them. Needless to state,
Issue:
a client can only entrust confidential information to his/her lawyer based
on an expectation from the lawyer of utmost secrecy and discretion; the
Whether or not Atty. Sabisana can be held administratively liable for lawyer, for his part, is duty-bound to observe candor, fairness and
representing conflicting interests. Yes! loyalty in all dealings and transactions with the client.Part of the
lawyer’s duty in this regard is to avoid representing conflicting interests,
Ruling: a matter covered by Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility quoted below:
Problematic Areas in Legal Ethics CASES
Based on the Syllabus of Atty. Arnold C. Abejaron 11
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.
Problematic Areas in Legal Ethics CASES
Based on the Syllabus of Atty. Arnold C. Abejaron 12
They were shocked to find out later on, however, that Atty. Era had
Samson v. Era already been entering his appearance as the counsel for Sison in her
other criminal cases involving the same pyramiding scam that she and
EN BANC her ICS Corporation had perpetrated.
A.C. No. 6664 July 16, 2013 Samson then filed a disbarment case against Atty. Era on the ground of
his violation of the trust, confidence and respect reposed in him as their
FERDINAND A. SAMSON, Complainant, counsel and for violating Canon 15 of the Code of Professional
vs. Responsibility for representing conflicting interests.
ATTY. EDGARDO O. ERA, Respondent.
For his defense, Atty Era contends that the Attorney-Client relationship
DECISION had already ended upon the execution of the compromise settlement of
the criminal cases.
BERSAMIN, J.:
2) Issue: Whether or not a compromise settlement ends a lawyer-client
Facts: relationship which therefore allows the lawyer to represent the opposing
party in another case.
Ferdinand A. Samson has brought this complaint for disbarment
charging respondent Atty. Edgardo O. Era with violation of his trust and 3) Ruling: No. Atty. Era’s contention that the lawyer-client relationship
confidence of a client by representing the interest of Emilia C. Sison,
ended when Samson and his group entered into the compromise
his present client, in a manner that blatantly conflicted with his
(Samson’s) interest. settlement with Sison on April 23, 2002 was unwarranted. The lawyer-
client relationship did not terminate as of then, for the fact remained
It was established Samson and his relatives were among the investors that he still needed to oversee the implementation of the settlement as
who fell prey to the pyramiding scam perpetrated by ICS Corporation, well as to proceed with the criminal cases until they were dismissed or
whose corporate officers were led by Sison. otherwise concluded by the trial court. It is also relevant to indicate that
the execution of a compromise settlement in the criminal cases did not
Samson engaged Atty. Era to represent and assist him and his relatives ipso facto cause the termination of the cases not only because the
in the criminal prosecution of Sison and her group. Through the course approval of the compromise by the trial court was still required, but also
of the engagement, Atty. Era called a meeting with Samson to discuss because the compromise would have applied only to the civil aspect,
the possibility of an amicable settlement with Sison and her cohorts. and excluded the criminal aspect pursuant to Article 2034 of the Civil
Samson’s party in turn acceded and executed the affidavit of Code.
desistance that Atty. Era prepared. Due to the amicable settlement, a
deed of absolute sale over a property was given to them. However, There is conflict of interest when a lawyer represents inconsistent
when Samson and his-complainants verified the title of the property, interests of two or more opposing parties. The test is "whether or not in
they learned that they could not liquidate the property because it was behalf of one client, it is the lawyer’s duty to fight for an issue or claim,
no longer registered under the name of ICS Corporation. and for this but it is his duty to oppose it for the other client. In brief, if he argues for
they contacted Atty. Era to negotiate with the Sison group once more. one client, this argument will be opposed by him when he argues for
Problematic Areas in Legal Ethics CASES
Based on the Syllabus of Atty. Arnold C. Abejaron 13
the other client." This rule covers not only cases in which confidential litigation, complicating the process of taking proof and compromise
communications have been confided, but also those in which no adversary argumentation.
confidence has been bestowed or will be used. Also, there is conflict of
interests if the acceptance of the new retainer will require the attorney
to perform an act which will injuriously affect his first client in any matter
in which he represents him and also whether he will be called upon in
his new relation to use against his first client any knowledge acquired
through their connection. Another test of the inconsistency of interests
is whether the acceptance of a new relation will prevent an attorney
from the full discharge of his duty of undivided fidelity and loyalty to his
client or invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or double dealing in the
performance thereof.
4) Rationale for the rule: First, the law seeks to assure clients that their
lawyers will represent them with undivided loyalty. A client is entitled to
be represented by a lawyer whom the client can trust. Instilling such
confidence is an objective important in itself.
Third, a client has a legal right to have the lawyer safeguard the client’s
confidential information. Preventing use of confidential client
information against the interests of the client, either to benefit the
lawyer’s personal interest, in aid of some other client, or to foster an
assumed public purpose is facilitated through conflicts rules that reduce
the opportunity for such abuse.
Fourth, conflicts rules help ensure that lawyers will not exploit clients,
such as by inducing a client to make a gift to the lawyer.
Buted & Bolisay v. Hernando Benito was then asserting ownership over the realty by virtue of a Deed
of Sale executed by Luciana Abadilla in his favor. Eventually, the Sy's
THIRD DIVISION were ordered to vacate the house subject of the lease. Respondent
avers that the relationship between himself and Benito Bolisay as
A.C. No. 1359 October 17, 1991 regards this case was terminated on 4 December 1969. 3
GENEROSA BUTED and BENITO BOLISAY, petitioners, On 23 February 1974, respondent Hernando filed a petition on behalf
vs. of the heirs of Carlos, Dionisia and Francisco all surnamed Abadilla,
ATTY. HAROLD M. HERNANDO, respondent. seeking the cancellation of the Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) of
complainants Buted and Bolisay over the lot.
Jorge A. Dolorfino for petitioners.
Complainant spouses, upon learning of respondent's appearance
against them in the cadastral proceeding, manifested their disapproval
R E S O L thereof in a letter dated 30 July 1974. Respondent however, pursued
UTION the case until it was eventually dismissed by the trial court on 2
September 1974 on the ground of prescription.
Respondent Hernando admitted his involvement in the cadastral case
PER CURIAM:p as counsel for the Abadillas but denied having seen or taken hold of
the controversial Transfer Certificate of Title, and having availed
Generosa Buted and Benito Bolisay filed an administrative complaint himself of any confidential information relating to Lot 9439-B.
for malpractice against respondent Atty. Harold M. Hernando, charging
the latter with having wantonly abused professional secrets or Solicitor General recommends that respondent be suspended from the
information obtained by him as their counsel. practice of law for three (3) months for violation of the Canons of
Professional Ethics by representing clients with conflicting interests,
Respondent was counsel for Luciana Abadilla and a certain Angela and filed before this Court the corresponding Complaint 8 dated 30
Buted in an action for partition instituted by Generosa as compulsory March 1990.
heir of the deceased Teofilo Buted. Respondent ultimately succeeded
in defending Luciana Abadilla's claim of exclusive ownership over Lot ISSUE: a. whether or not respondent Hernando had a conflict of
9439-B. When Luciana died, respondent withdrew his appearance from interests under the circumstances described above. YES.
that partition case. b. WON there is necessity of proving actual transmission of
confidential information. No
It appears that Luciana Abadilla sold the lot to Benito Bolisay and a
new Transfer Certificate of Title over the lot was issued in the name of a. The Canons of Professional Ethics, the then prevailing parameters of
complainant spouses. behavior of members of the bar, defines a conflict of interests situation
in the following manner:
When an action for specific performance was lodged by a couple
named Luis Sy and Elena Sy against Benito Bolisay as one of the 6. Adverse influence and conflicting interests.—
defendants, 2 the latter retained the services of respondent Atty. xxx xxx xxx
Hernando.
Problematic Areas in Legal Ethics CASES
Based on the Syllabus of Atty. Arnold C. Abejaron 15
employment by the second or subsequent client where there are
It is unprofessional to represent conflicting interests, except by express conflicting interests between the first and the subsequent clients.
consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts. Within
the meaning of this canon, a lawyer represents conflicting interests Reason: Hilado v. David
when, in behalf of one client, it is his duty to contend for that which duty This stern rule is designed not alone to prevent the dishonest
to another client requires him to oppose. practitioner from fraudulent conduct, but as well to protect the honest
lawyer from unfounded suspicion of unprofessional practice. (Strong
The obligation to represent the client with undivided fidelity and not to vs. Int. Bldg., etc.; Ass'n. 183 III., 97; 47 L.R.A., 792) It is founded on
divulge his secrets or confidence forbids also the principles of public policy, on good taste. As has been said another
subsequent acceptance of retainers or employment from others in case, the question is not necessarily one of the rights of the parties, but
matters adversely affecting any interest of the client with respect to as to whether the attorney has adhered to proper professional
which confidence has been reposed.(Emphasis supplied) standard. With these thoughts in mind, it behooves attorneys, like
Caesar's wife, not only to keep inviolate the client's confidence, but
Though as regards the first and second cases handled by respondent, also to avoid the appearance of treachery and double-dealing. Only
no conflict of interest existed, the same cannot be said with respect to thus can litigants be encouraged to entrust their secrets to their
the action for specific performance and the cadastral proceeding. attorneys which is of paramount importance in the administration of
justice. 13 (Emphasis supplied)
It is clear from the above-quoted portion of the Canons of Professional
Ethics that in cases where a conflict of interests may exist, full This Court went further in San Jose v. Cruz, 14 where the lawyer was
disclosure of the facts and express consent of all the parties concerned charged with malpractice for having represented a new client whose
are necessary. 9The present Code of Professional Responsibility is interest was opposed to those of his former clients in another case:
stricter on this matter considering that consent of the parties is now An attorney owes loyalty to his client not only in the case in which he
required to be in written form. 10 In the case at bar, such consent was has represented him but also after the relation of attorney and client
wanting. has terminated and it is not a good practice to permit him afterwards to
defend in another case other persons against his former client under
Respondent persistently argues that contrary to the claims of the pretext that the case is distinct from, and independent of the former
complainant spouses, he had never seen nor taken hold of the Transfer case. 15 (Emphasis supplied)
Certificate of Title covering Lot No. 9439-B nor obtained any
confidential information in handling the action for specific The appropriate rule has been expressed by Justice Malcolm in the
performance. 11 following manner:
The rule here is, rather, that the mere fact that respondent had acted as An attorney is not permitted, in serving a new client as against a former
counsel for Benito Bolisay in the action for specific performance should one, to do anything which will injuriously affect the former client in any
have precluded respondent from acting or appearing as counsel for the manner in which the attorney formerly represented him, though the
other side in the subsequent petition for cancellation of the Transfer relation of attorney and client has terminated, and the new employment
Certificate of Title of the spouses Generosa and Benito Bolisay. is in a different case; nor can the attorney use against his former client
any knowledge or information gained through their former
b. There is no necessity for proving the actual transmission of connection. 16(Emphasis supplied)
confidential information to an attorney in the course of his employment
by his first client in order that he may be precluded from accepting
Problematic Areas in Legal Ethics CASES
Based on the Syllabus of Atty. Arnold C. Abejaron 16
The absence of monetary consideration does not exempt the lawyer
from complying with the prohibition against pursuing cases where a
conflict of interest exists. The prohibition attaches from the moment the
attorney-client relationship is established and extends beyond the
duration of the professional relationship.
FIRST DIVISION
MA. LUISA HADJULA, complainant, The pressing issue in the present case is whether or not as between
vs. Hadjula and Madianda there exists an attorney-client relationship
ATTY. ROCELES F. MADIANDA, respondent. although Atty. Madianda did not actually handle the case for which his
legal advice was sought. Yes!
DECISION
Held:
GARCIA, J.:
The Court held in the present case that “the moment complainant
Facts: approached the then receptive respondent to seek legal advice, a
veritable lawyer-client relationship evolved between the two. Such
Complainant Hadjula claimed that sometime in 1998, she approached relationship imposes upon the lawyer certain restrictions circumscribed
respondent Atty. Madianda for some legal advice. In the course of their by the ethics of the profession. Among the burdens of the relationship is
conversation which was supposed to be kept confidential, she that which enjoins the lawyer, respondent in this instance, to keep
disclosed personal secrets and produced copies of a marriage contract, inviolate confidential information acquired or revealed during legal
a birth certificate and a baptismal certificate, only to be informed later consultations. The fact that one is, at the end of the day, not inclined to
by the respondent that she (respondent) would refer the matter to a
handle the client's case is hardly of consequence. Of little moment, too,
lawyer friend. It was malicious, so complainant states, of respondent to
have refused handling her case only after she had already heard her is the fact that no formal professional engagement follows the
secrets and so she filed criminal and disciplinary actions against the consultation. Nor will it make any difference that no contract
respondent. whatsoever was executed by the parties to memorialize the
relationship.”
According to Hadjula, Atty. Madianda in retaliation to the filing of the
aforesaid actions filed a COUNTER COMPLAINT with the Ombudsman Dean Wigmore lists the essential factors to establish the existence of
charging her (complainant) with falsification of public documents and the attorney-client privilege communication, viz:
immorality. The said charges are said to be based on the disclosures
earlier made by the Hadjula to Atty. Madianda. On the basis of the (1) Where legal advice of any kind is sought (2) from a
same disclosures, a disciplinary case was also instituted against professional legal adviser in his capacity as such, (3) the
Hadjula before the Professional Regulation Commission. communications relating to that purpose, (4) made in confidence
(5) by the client, (6) are at his instance permanently protected
Problematic Areas in Legal Ethics CASES
Based on the Syllabus of Atty. Arnold C. Abejaron 18
(7) from disclosure by himself or by the legal advisor, (8) except
the protection be waived.7
ROSA F. MERCADO, complainant, Whether or not Atty. Vitriolo violated the rule on privileged
vs. communication? No.
ATTY. JULITO D. VITRIOLO, respondent.
Held:
DECISION
The Supreme Court provided the following factors to establish the
PUNO, J.: existence of the attorney-client privilege:
Atty. Vitriolo on the other hand maintains that his filing of the criminal The Supreme Court thus held that applying the aforestated rules to the
complaint for falsification of public documents does not violate the rule case at bar, the evidence on record fails to substantiate complainant's
on privileged communication between attorney and client because the allegations. Complainant did not even specify the alleged
bases of the falsification case are two certificates of live birth which are communication in confidence disclosed by respondent as she merely
public documents and in no way connected with the confidence taken alleged that “the filing of the said criminal complaint disclosed facts and
during the engagement of respondent as counsel. According to
Problematic Areas in Legal Ethics CASES
Based on the Syllabus of Atty. Arnold C. Abejaron 20
information relating to the civil case for annulment.” Due to the
foregoing, the case filed was dismissed for lack of merit.
However, after a careful perusal of the case it is evident that the Ruling:
ACCRA Lawyers were merely impleaded to force them to disclose the
identity of their clients. PCGG in reality is not after the petitioners but The identity of the client in the present case is considered as a
the “bigger fish.” This ploy is clear with the following conditions privileged communication although as a matter of public policy, a
precedent set by the PCGG for the exclusion of petitioners from the client’s identity, in general, is not privileged.
case, namely: (a) the disclosure of the identity of its clients; (b)
submission of documents substantiating the lawyer-client relationship; The circumstances involving the engagement of lawyers in the case at
and (c) the submission of the deeds of assignments petitioners bench reveal that the instant case falls under at least two exceptions to
executed in favor of its client covering their respective shareholdings. the general rule. First, disclosure of the alleged client's name would
lead to establish said client's connection with the very fact in issue of
The ACCRA Lawyers however contend that revealing the identity of the case, which is privileged information. The services of the ACCRA
their client and the other information requested by the PCGG is Lawyers were availed of to organize the organizations which are
prohibited by the attorney-client privilege. suspected to have been set up through the use of coconut levy funds,
by revealing therefore the identity of their client would establish a
The duty to keep as confidential all matters obtained through the connection between him and the establishment of the companies which
attorney-client relationship is explicitly mandated in Canon 17 and are the subject matter of the controversy.
Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Furthermore, under the third main exception, revelation of the client's
Despite the said rules, it is important to note that as a General rule, a name would obviously provide the necessary link for the prosecution to
client’s identity is not privileged. This general rule however is not build its case, where none otherwise exists. It is the link, in the words of
without any exceptions, to wit: Baird, "that would inevitably form the chain of testimony necessary to
convict the (client) of a . . . crime."
1) Client identity is privileged where a strong probability exists that
revealing the client's name would implicate that client in the very activity Due to the foregoing, the court has no choice but to uphold petitioners'
for which he sought the lawyer's advice. right not to reveal the identity of their clients under pain of the breach of
fiduciary duty owing to their clients, because the facts of the instant
Problematic Areas in Legal Ethics CASES
Based on the Syllabus of Atty. Arnold C. Abejaron 22
case clearly fall within recognized exceptions to the rule that the client's
name is not privileged information.
WILLIAM ONG GENATO, complainant, The issue therefore is Whether or not Atty. SIlapan committed breach
vs. of trust and confidence by imputing to complainant illegal practices and
ATTY. ESSEX L. SILAPAN, respondent. disclosing complainant’s alleged intention to bribe government officials
in connection with a pending case. Yes!
PUNO, J.:
Ruling:
Facts:
Canon 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that:
Herein respondent Atty. Silapan is formerly the counsel of complainant
Genato. Their relationship however turned sour when Atty. Silapan “ a lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and shall be mindful of
failed to pay his loans from Genato and the checks he issued were the trust and confidence reposed on him.”
subsequently dishonoured. This led to the filing of a criminal case by
Genato against the respondent for violation of BP 22 and a civil case An attorney is not permitted to disclose communications made to him in
for judicial foreclosure of real estate mortgage. his professional character by a client, unless the latter consents. This
obligation to preserve the confidences and secrets of a client arises at
In his answer in the foreclosure case, Atty. Silapan in essence made the inception of their relationship and is perpetual. It does not cease
the following allegations: with the termination of the litigation, nor is it affected by cessation of the
attorney-client relationship. It even survives the death of the client.
1. That complainant is a businessman who is engaged in the real estate
business, trading and buy and sell of deficiency taxed imported cars, It must be stressed, however, that the privilege against disclosure of
shark loans and other shady deals and has many cases pending in confidential communications or information is limited only to
communications which are legitimately and properly within the scope of
court; and
a lawful employment of a lawyer. It does not extend to those made in
contemplation of a crime or perpetration of a fraud. As in this case, the
2. Genato, his former client, wanted him (Atty. Silapan), to offer bribe
complainant's alleged intention to bribe government officials in relation
money to the review committee of the DOJ, the prosecutor and the to his case, is not covered by the privilege as the client does not consult
presiding judge in a pending case against him, for his eventual the lawyer professionally for it is not within the profession of a lawyer to
acquittal. Atty. Silapan further alleged that complainant confided to him advise a client as to how he may commit a crime. The attorney-client
that he was really involved in the commission of the crime that was he privilege does not attach, there being no professional employment in
charged of. the strict sense.
Problematic Areas in Legal Ethics CASES
Based on the Syllabus of Atty. Arnold C. Abejaron 26
Be that as it may, it is of the view of the court that the disclosures made
by Atty. Silapan were not indispensable to protect his rights as they
were not pertinent to the foreclosure case. It was improper for the
respondent Atty. to use it against the complainant in the foreclosure
case as it was not the subject matter of litigation therein and
respondent's professional competence and legal advice were not being
attacked in the foreclosure case. Thus, the Court found Atty. Silapan
guilty of breach of fidelity.
SECOND DIVISION Atty. Agdeppa on her defense said that she could not answer the
charges against her without violating the attorney-client privilege rule.
ADM. CASE No. 4426 February 17, 2000
Issue:
RAMON SAURA, JR., complainant,
vs. Whether or not the request for the information regarding the sale of the
ATTY. LALAINE LILIBETH AGDEPPA, respondent. property and to account for the proceeds thereof is a violation of the
attorney-client privilege? No!
x-----------------------------x
Ruling:
ADM. CASE No. 4429 February 17, 2000
The court ruled as follows:
HELEN BALDORIA and RAYMUNDO SAURA, complainants,
“The information requested by petitioners is not privileged. The
vs.
ATTY. LALAINE LILIBETH AGDEPPA, respondent. petitioners are only asking for the disclosure of the amount of the sale
or account for the proceeds. Petitioners certainly have the right to ask
RESOLUTION for such information since they own the property as co-heirs to and as
co-administrators of the property. Hence, respondent cannot refuse to
DE LEON, JR., J.: divulge such information to them and hide behind the cloak of the
attorney-client relationship.”
Facts:
Significance of the Issue:
Atty. Lalaine Lilibeth Agdeppa was charged for violation of her lawyer’s
oath and disregard of Sections 15, 22, 25, 29, 31 and 32 of the Canons PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION RULE IS NOT AN IMPENETRABLE
of Professional Ethics. CLOAK
The said complaint is related to a settlement case handled by Atty. This is Problem Area in Legal Ethics because of the well-established
Agdeppa involving a piece of property owned in common by herein rule that communications between the lawyer and his client is
petitioners and other siblings. privileged. However, this privilege cannot be used as a device to shield
fraud or to refuse disclosure of information which is clearly not within
The dispute arose, when the petitioners learned that the subject the attorney-client privileged communication.
property was sold with the assistance of Atty. Agdeppa, who notarized
the deed of sale herself without the petitioners’ knowledge and
participation. Petitioners therefore demanded the disclosure of the
Problematic Areas in Legal Ethics CASES
Based on the Syllabus of Atty. Arnold C. Abejaron 28
The present dispute however arose when Atty. Gonzales undertook to
Maturan v. Gonzales represent Celestino Yokingco, et al., and filed several cases on his
behalf including a Civil Case, which seeks to annul the judgment
EN BANC rendered in Civil Case No. 2067. The said act led to the filing of the
present case.
Atty. Gonzales on his defense reasoned that he is not guilty of any
A.C. No. 2597 March 12, 1998 malicious, unethical or anomalous act as the filing of a motion for
issuance of writ of execution was the last and final act in the lawyer-
GLORITO V. MATURAN, petitioner, client relationship and a formal withdrawal as counsel for the Casquejos
vs.
ATTY. CONRADO S. GONZALES, respondent. was unnecessary in order to sever the lawyer-client relationship
between them.
RESOLUTION
Issue:
ROMERO, J.: Whether or not the lawyer-client relationship has already been severed
as Atty. Gonzales so insists? No!
Facts:
Ruling:
Sps. Antonio Casquejo instituted herein petitioner, Glorito Maturon as
their attorney-in-fact throught a Special Power of Attorney authorizing A lawyer-client relationship is not terminated by the filing of motion for
the latter to file ejectment cases and for violation of PD 772 against writ of execution. His acceptance of a case implies that he will
squatters occupying their property. The said SPA was prepared and prosecute the case to its conclusion. He may not be permitted to
notarized by hereing respondent Atty. Gonzales. unilaterally terminate the same to the prejudice of his client.
Now, Maturan engaged the services of Atty. Gonzales in ejecting the
That being the case, the court found Atty. Gonzales guilty of
squatters and because the subject property is registered in the name of representing conflicting interests. The court further explained:
a certain Celestino Yokingco, Antonio Casquejo instituted a case for
reconveyance of property and declaration of nullity against the former “It is improper for a lawyer to appear as counsel for one party against
docketed as Civil Case No. 2067. the adverse party who is his client in a related suit, as a lawyer is
prohibited from representing conflicting interests or discharging
Through the course of Atty. Gonzales’ engagement with Maturan, the inconsistent duties. He may not, without being guilty of professional
former represented the latter inseveral cases for forcible entry and misconduct, act as counsel for a person whose interest conflicts with
damages and by virtue of the same, favourable judgments were that of his present or former client.”
rendered in favor of Maturan and so Atty. Gonzales filed a motion for
issuance of a writ of execution. Atty. Gonzales was thus found guilty of the charges against him and is
suspended from the practice of law for 2 years.
Problematic Areas in Legal Ethics CASES
Based on the Syllabus of Atty. Arnold C. Abejaron 29