PALE Digests

Problematic Areas in Legal Ethics CASES
Based on the Syllabus of Atty. Arnold C.
Abejaron
IMPRESCRIPTIBILITY OF DISBARMENT PROCEEDINGS.................2
People v. Sandiganbayan and Honorada et. al................................30
Frias v. Bautista-Lozada....................................................................2
PAPER REQUIREMENT...........ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST....................................................................3
Angara v. Sandiganbayan..................................................................3
Northwestern University and Nicolas v. Arquillo.................................5
Sadik v. Casar...................................................................................7
Hornilla & Ricafort v. Salunat.............................................................9
Aninon v. Sabitsana.........................................................................10
Samson v. Era.................................................................................12
Buted & Bolisay v. Hernando...........................................................14
LAWYER-CLIENT
PRIVILEGE
RULE
ON
PRIVILEGED
COMMUNICATION..............................................................................17
Hadjula v. Madianda........................................................................17
Mercado v. Vitriolo...........................................................................19
Angara v. Sandiganbayan................................................................21
Chico v. Union Life Assurance Society............................................23
Genato v. Silapan............................................................................25
Saura v. Agdeppa............................................................................27
Maturan v. Gonzales........................................................................28

Abejaron
IMPRESCRIPTIBILITY OF DISBARMENT PROCEEDINGS
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.
Frias v. Bautista-Lozada
EN BANC
A.C.
No.
6656
[Formerly CBD-98-591]
May
4,
2006
BOBIE
ROSE
V.
FRIAS, Complainant,
vs.
ATTY. CARMELITA S. BAUTISTA-LOZADA,* Respondent.
RESOLUTION
CORONA, J.:
Facts:
Atty. Carmelita Bautista-Lozada was suspended from the practice of
law. She however contends that the complaint against her has already
prescribed pursuant to Rule VIII of the Rules of Procedure of the
Commission on Bar Discipline of the IBP which provide:
SECTION 1. Prescription. A complaint for disbarment, suspension or
discipline of attorneys prescribes in two (2) years from the date of the
professional misconduct.
Issue:
Whether or not administrative cases against lawyers are prescriptible.
No!
Ruling:
Furthermore Rule VIII Section 1 of the Rules of Procedure of the CBDIBP was declared null and void. The CBD-IBP derives its authority to
take cognizance of administrative complaints against lawyers from the
court, therefore its rules should be consistent to that of the latter. The
aforementioned rule runs afoul of the settled ruling of the Court , that
being the case, it is void and of no legal effect for being ultra vires.
Ratio:
To allow prescription of administrative cases against lawyers, the
members of the bar would be emboldened to disregard the very oath
they took as lawyers, prescinding from the fact that as long as no
private complainant would immediately come forward, they stand a
chance of being completely exonerated from whatever administrative
liability they ought to answer for. It is the duty of this Court to protect the
integrity of the practice of law as well as the administration of
justice. No matter how much time has elapsed from the time of the
commission of the act complained of and the time of the institution of
the complaint, erring members of the bench and bar cannot escape the
disciplining arm of the Court. This categorical pronouncement is aimed
at unscrupulous members of the bench and bar, to deter them from
committing acts which violate the Code of Professional Responsibility,
the Code of Judicial Conduct, or the Lawyers Oath.

Abejaron
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
services for certain clients involving the organization and acquisition of

business associations which allegedly used coconut levy funds.
Angara v. Sandiganbayan
G.R. No. 105938 September 20, 1996
TEODORO R. REGALA, EDGARDO J. ANGARA, AVELINO V. CRUZ,
JOSE C. CONCEPCION, ROGELIO A. VINLUAN, VICTOR P.
LAZATIN
and
EDUARDO
U.
ESCUETA, petitioners,
vs.
THE HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN, First Division, REPUBLIC
OF THE PHILIPPINES, ACTING THROUGH THE PRESIDENTIAL
COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENT, and RAUL S.
ROCO, respondents.
G.R. No. 108113 September 20, 1996
PARAJA
G.
vs.
THE SANDIGANBAYAN and
PHILIPPINES, respondents.
HAYUDINI, petitioner,
THE
REPUBLIC
OF
THE
Facts:
Petitioners Teodoro Regala, Edgardo J. Angara, Avelino V. Cruz, Jose
C. Concepcion, Rogelio A. Vinluan, Victor P. Lazatin, Eduardo U.
Escueta and Paraja G. Hayudini, and herein private respondent Raul S.
Roco, who all were then partners of the ACCRA Law firm were included
as defendants in a case for recovery of alleged ill-gotten wealth filed
before the Sandiganbayan by the Republic of the Philippines.
From the facts of the case, it seems that the ACCRA Lawyers were
impleaded as co-defendants in the case because they performed legal
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;
and (c) the submission of the deeds of assignments petitioners
executed in favor of its client covering their respective shareholdings.
The ACCRA Lawyers however contend that revealing the identity of
their client and the other information requested by the PCGG is
prohibited by the attorney-client privilege.
Issue:
WON the identity of the client is covered by the attorney-client privilege.
Yes!
Significance of the issue:
The duty to keep as confidential all matters obtained through the
attorney-client relationship is explicitly mandated in Canon 17 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility which provides that:
Canon 17. A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he shall
be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him.
Canon 15 of the Canons of Professional Ethics also demands a
lawyer's fidelity to client.
Encouraging full disclosure to a lawyer by one seeking legal services
opens the door to a whole spectrum of legal options which would
otherwise be circumscribed by limited information engendered by a fear

Abejaron
of disclosure. An effective lawyer-client relationship is largely dependent
upon the degree of confidence which exists between lawyer and client
which in turn requires a situation which encourages a dynamic and
fruitful exchange and flow of information. It necessarily follows that in
order to attain effective representation; the lawyer must invoke the
privilege not as a matter of option but as a matter of duty and
professional responsibility.
Ruling:
The identity of the client in the present case is considered as a
privileged communication although as a matter of public policy, a
clients identity, in general, is not privileged.
The General rule that a clients identity is not privileged is qualified by
the following exceptions:
1) Client identity is privileged where a strong probability exists that
revealing the client's name would implicate that client in the very activity
for which he sought the lawyer's advice.
2) Where disclosure would open the client to civil liability; his identity is
privileged.
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
furnish the only link that would form the chain of testimony necessary to
convict an individual of a crime, the client's name is privileged.
The circumstances involving the engagement of lawyers in the case at
bench, therefore, clearly reveal that the instant case falls under at least
two exceptions to 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 case, which is privileged information.
The link between the alleged criminal offense and the legal advice or
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
down by the PCGG which constitutes petitioners' ticket to nonprosecution should they accede thereto:
(a) the disclosure of the identity of its clients;
(b) submission of documents substantiating the lawyerclient relationship; and
(c) the submission of the deeds of assignment
petitioners executed in favor of their clients covering their
respective shareholdings.
From these conditions, particularly the third, we can readily deduce that
the clients indeed consulted the petitioners, in their capacity as lawyers,
regarding the financial and corporate structure, framework and set-up of
the corporations in question. In turn, petitioners gave their professional
advice in the form of, among others, the aforementioned deeds of
assignment covering their client's shareholdings.
There is no question that the preparation of the aforestated documents
was part and parcel of petitioners' legal service to their clients. More
important, it constituted an integral part of their duties as lawyers.
Petitioners, therefore, have a legitimate fear that identifying their clients
would implicate them in the very activity for which legal advice had
been sought, i.e., the alleged accumulation of ill-gotten wealth in the
aforementioned corporations.

Abejaron
Furthermore, under the third main exception, revelation of the client's
name would obviously provide the necessary link for the prosecution to
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
convict the (client) of a . . . crime."
We have no choice but to uphold petitioners' 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 case clearly fall within
recognized exceptions to the rule that the client's name is not privileged
information.
If we were to sustain respondent PCGG that the lawyer-client
confidential privilege under the circumstances obtaining here does not
cover the identity of the client, then it would expose the lawyers
themselves to possible litigation by their clients in view of the strict
fiduciary responsibility imposed on them in the exercise of their duties.

Abejaron
Whether or not there is conflict in interest in the present case. Yes!
Northwestern University and Nicolas v. Arquillo
EN BANC
A.C. No. 6632. August 2, 2005
NORTHWESTERN
UNIVERSITY,
INC.,
NICOLAS, Complainant,
vs.
Atty. MACARIO D. ARQUILLO, Respondent.
and
BEN
A.
DECISION
PANGANIBAN, J.:
Facts:
Atty. Macario D. Arquillo was chargedwith deceit malpractice, gross
misconduct and/or violation of his oath as attorney by representing
conflicting interests. From the facts of the case, it appears that Atty.
Arquillo appeared and acted as counsel for both complainants (eight
out of the eighteen complainants therein) and respondent (one out of
the ten respondents therein) in an NLRC consolidated case.
Atty. Arquillo on his defense however, alleges that there was no conflict
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
he represented were really on the same side.
Issue:
The Code of Professional Responsibility requires lawyers to observe

candor, fairness and loyalty in all their dealings and transactions with
their clients. Corollary to this duty, lawyers shall not represent
conflicting interests, except with all the concerned clients written
consent, given after a full disclosure of the facts.
The attorney in that (conflicting) situation will not be able to pursue, with
vigor and zeal, the clients claim against the other and to properly
represent the latter in the unrelated action, or, if he can do so, he
cannot avoid being suspected by the defeated client of disloyalty or
partiality in favor of the successful client. The foregoing considerations
will strongly tend to deprive the relation of attorney and client of those
special elements which make it one of trust and confidence.
Ruling:
Atty. Arquillos 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
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
the same side.
When a lawyer represents two or more opposing parties, there is a
conflict of interests, the existence of which is determined by three
separate tests:
(1) when, in representation of one client, a lawyer is required to fight for
an issue or claim, but is also duty-bound to oppose it for another client;

Abejaron
(2) when the acceptance of the new retainer will require an attorney to
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
(3) when the acceptance of a new relation would prevent the full
discharge of an attorneys duty to give undivided fidelity and loyalty to
the client or would invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or double dealing in
the performance of that duty.
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.
It is a hornbook doctrine grounded on public policy that a lawyers
representation of both sides of an issue is highly improper. The
proscription applies when the conflicting interests arise with respect to
the same general matter, however slight such conflict may be. It applies
even when the attorney acts from honest intentions or in good faith.

Abejaron
Sadik v. Casar
EN BANC
G.R. No. MTJ-95-1053 January 2, 1997
SPOUSES MAKADAYA SADIK and USODAN SADIK, complainants,
vs.
JUDGE ABDALLAH CASAR, respondent.
PER CURIAM:
Facts:
The present case is an offshoot of a complaint for Specific Performance
by Makadaya and Malinang Sadik, the beneficiaries of the life insurance
policy of one Lekiya Paito against Grepalife. In the said civil case, they
sought the assistance of herein respondent Judge Casar.
Now, in the present case, Judge Casar was charged with misconduct
for representing the complainants in a case after he became a
municipal judge thus violating Rule 5.07 of the Code of Judicial
Conduct which states that A judge shall not engage in the private
practice of law. To make matters worse, he was also charged for
misappropriation for refusing to turn over the judgment award to the
complainants contending that he has the right to retain the same until
he is paid for his expenses.
On the issue of violating Rule 5.07, Judge Casar intimates that he is not
guilty of any misconduct because he accepted the case long before he
became a judge. He also denies the issue of misappropriating the
judgment award, with the defense that he has the right to retain the
same until he is paid for his expenses pursuant to Section 37 of Rule 38
of the Rules of Court.
Issue: Whether or not Judge Casars acts constitutes misconduct? Yes.
Whether or not Judge Casar has the right to retain the judgment
award? No.
Ruling:
On the issue of misconduct, there is no dispute that respondent Judge
represented the complainants long before he became a member of the
Judiciary. However, from the facts of the case, it was discovered that
respondent continued to act as counsel for the complainants on appeal
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
before proceeding with the case on appeal. But this he failed to do, thus
making him guilty of the charge of misconduct.
On the issue of misappropriation, the court held that if indeed he was
claiming attorneys lien, then he should have known that to be entitled
thereto he must comply with certain pre-conditions. The pertinent
section provides that with respect to judgments for payment of money, a
lawyer shall have a lien thereto "from and after the time when he shall
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
caused written notice thereof to be delivered to his client and the
adverse party." Now it appears that from 1993 until now, Judge Casar
did not file the necessary pleadings to enforce his alleged lien. That
being the case, Judge Casar has no right to retain the judgment award.

Abejaron
In a desperate attempt to justify his retention of the judgment award,
Judge Casar raised the defense that herein complainants are not
entitled to claim the same as they are merely impostors. Judge Casar
states that the said complainants are just substitute witnesses procured
to pose as claimant Makadaya Sadik as the real Makadaya Sadik
cannot appear before the court.
He also declared that even before he filed the complaint in behalf of
Sadik, he was already informed that the insurance policy of Lekiya 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 the
disease.
Due to the facts established of the judges 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.
It must be borne in mind that courts exist to dispense and to promote
justice. However, the reality of justice depends, above all, on the
intellectual, moral and personal quality of the men and women who are
called to serve as our judges.Justice is an alloy of men and
mechanisms in which, as Roscoe Pound remarked, "men count more
than machinery." Assume the clearest rules, the most enlightened
procedures, the most sophisticated court techniques; the key factor is
still the judge. In the long run, "There is no guarantee of justice except
the personality of the judge. The reason the judge makes or breaks the
system of justice is that rules are not self-declaring or self-applying.
Even in a government of laws, men make the decisions."
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.

Abejaron
Whether or not Salunat is guilty of representing conflicting interest?

Yes!
Hornilla & Ricafort v. Salunat

FIRST DIVISION
A.C. No. 5804
Significance of the Issue: The Code of Professional Responsibility

provides:
July 1, 2003
BENEDICTO
HORNILLA
and
ATTY.
RICAFORT, complainants,
vs.
ATTY. ERNESTO S. SALUNAT, respondent.
FEDERICO
D.
RESOLUTION
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
Facts:
An administrative complaint was filed against Respondent Atty. Ernesto
Salunat for illegal and unethical practice and conflict of interest. From
the facts of the case, it appears that Respondent Salunant is a member
of the ASSA Law and Associates which was the retained counse of the
Philippine Public School Teachers Association (PPSTA). Herein
complainants who are members of the PPSTA filed an intra-corporate
case against the Board of Directors (BOD) of the PPSTA for unlawful
spending and the undervalued sale of the real property of the
Association. Now despite being told that representing the Board
members in the case filed by the PPSTA members is a conflict of
interest, Salunat still proceeded in representing the Board Members
thus leading to the present administrative case against him.
Issue:
10
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.
There is conflict of interest when a lawyer represents inconsistent
interests of two or more opposing parties. The test is "whether or not in
behalf of one client, it is the lawyers duty to fight for an issue or claim,
but it is his duty to oppose it for the other client.
Also, there is conflict of interests if the lawyer would be called upon in
the new relation to use against a former client any confidential
information acquired through their connection or previous employment.
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.
Ruling:
In our jurisdiction, the prevailing rule is that a situation wherein a lawyer
represents both the corporation and its assailed directors unavoidably
gives rise to a conflict of interest. A lawyer engaged as counsel for a
corporation cannot represent members of the same corporations board
of directors in a derivative suit brought against them. To do so would be
tantamount to representing conflicting interests, which is prohibited by
the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Abejaron
In the case at bar, the records show a SEC Case was filed by the
PPSTA against its own Board of Directors. Respondent admits that the
ASSA Law Firm, of which he is the Managing Partner, was the retained
counsel of PPSTA. Yet, he appeared as counsel of record for the
respondent Board of Directors in the said case. Clearly, respondent was
guilty of conflict of interest when he represented the parties against
whom his other client, the PPSTA, filed suit.
Atty. Salunat therefore is found guilty of representing conflicting interest.
11

Abejaron
Aninon v. Sabitsana
SECOND DIVISION
A.C. No. 5098
Whether or not Atty. Sabisana can be held administratively liable for

representing conflicting interests. Yes!
Ruling:
April 11, 2012
JOSEFINA
M.
ANION, Complainant,
vs.
ATTY. CLEMENCIO SABITSANA, JR., Respondent.
DECISION
BRION, J.:
Facts:
In her complaint, Josefina M. Anion (complainant) related that she
previously engaged the legal services of Atty. Sabitsana in the
preparation and execution in her favor of a Deed of Sale over a parcel
of land owned by her late common-law husband Brigido Caneja, Jr.
Atty. Sabitsana allegedly violated her confidence when he subsequently
filed a civil case against her for the annulment of the Deed of Sale in
behalf of Zenaida L. Caete, the legal wife of Brigido Caneja, Jr.
Complainant Anion accused Atty. Sabitsana of using the confidential
information he obtained from her in filing the civil case.
Atty. Sabitsana on the otherhand admitted having advised the Anion in
the preparation and execution of the Deed of Sale. However, he denied
having received any confidential information.
Issue:
12
In Bautista vs. Barrios, it was held that a lawyer may not handle a case
to nullify a contract which he prepared and thereby take up inconsistent
positions.
In re De la Rosa clearly suggests that a lawyer may not represent
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,
no such written consent was secured by respondent before accepting
employment as Mrs. Caetes counsel-of-record.
Complainant and respondents present client, being contending
claimants to the same property, the conflict of interest are obviously
present. There is said to be inconsistency of interest when on behalf of
one client, it is the attorneys 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
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
which his legal services had been previously retained.
Based on the established facts, Atty. Sabisana is found guilty of
misconduct for represention conflicting interests in violation of Rule
15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and is hereby
suspended for 1 year from the practice of law.
Significance of the Issue:

Abejaron
The relationship between a lawyer and his/her client should ideally be
imbued with the highest level of trust and confidence. This is the
standard of confidentiality that must prevail to promote a full disclosure
of the clients most confidential information to his/her lawyer for an
unhampered exchange of information between them. Needless to state,
a client can only entrust confidential information to his/her lawyer based
on an expectation from the lawyer of utmost secrecy and discretion; the
lawyer, for his part, is duty-bound to observe candor, fairness and
loyalty in all dealings and transactions with the client.Part of the
lawyers duty in this regard is to avoid representing conflicting interests,
a matter covered by Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility quoted below:
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.
13

Abejaron
absolute sale over a property was given to them. However, when
Samson v. Era
Samson and his-complainants verified the title of the property, they

learned that they could not liquidate the property because it was no
EN BANC
A.C. No. 6664
14
longer registered under the name of ICS Corporation. and for this they
contacted Atty. Era to negotiate with the Sison group once more. They
July 16, 2013
FERDINAND
A.
vs.
ATTY. EDGARDO O. ERA, Respondent.
SAMSON, Complainant,
DECISION
were shocked to find out later on, however, that Atty. Era had already
been entering his appearance as the counsel for Sison in her other
criminal cases involving the same pyramiding scam that she and her
ICS Corporation had perpetrated.
Samson then filed a disbarment case against Atty. Era on the ground of
BERSAMIN, J.:
his violation of the trust, confidence and respect reposed in him as their
Facts:
Responsibility for representing conflicting interests.
Ferdinand A. Samson has brought this complaint for disbarment

charging respondent Atty. Edgardo O. Era with violation of his trust and
confidence of a client by representing the interest of Emilia C. Sison, his
present client, in a manner that blatantly conflicted with his (Samsons)
interest.
It was established Samson and his relatives were among the investors
who fell prey to the pyramiding scam perpetrated by ICS Corporation,
whose corporate officers were led by Sison.
Samson engaged Atty. Era to represent and assist him and his relatives
in the criminal prosecution of Sison and her group. Through the course
of the engagement, Atty. Era called a meeting with Samson to discuss
the possibility of an amicable settlement with Sison and her cohorts.
Samsons party in turn acceded and executed the affidavit of desistance
that Atty. Era prepared. Due to the amicable settlement, a deed of
counsel and for violating Canon 15 of the Code of Professional
For his defense, Atty Era contends that the Attorney-Client relationship
had already ended upon the execution of the compromise settlement of
the criminal cases.
2) Issue: Whether or not a compromise settlement ends a lawyer-client
relationship which therefore allows the lawyer to represent the opposing
party in another case.
3) Ruling: No. Atty. Eras contention that the lawyer-client relationship
ended when Samson and his group entered into the compromise
settlement with Sison on April 23, 2002 was unwarranted. The lawyerclient relationship did not terminate as of then, for the fact remained that
he still needed to oversee the implementation of the settlement as well
as to proceed with the criminal cases until they were dismissed or
otherwise concluded by the trial court. It is also relevant to indicate that

Abejaron
the execution of a compromise settlement in the criminal cases did not
ipso facto cause the termination of the cases not only because the
approval of the compromise by the trial court was still required, but also
because the compromise would have applied only to the civil aspect,
and excluded the criminal aspect pursuant to Article 2034 of the Civil
Code.
There is conflict of interest when a lawyer represents inconsistent
interests of two or more opposing parties. The test is "whether or not in
behalf of one client, it is the lawyers duty to fight for an issue or claim,
but it is his duty to oppose it for the other client. In brief, if he argues for
one client, this argument will be opposed by him when he argues for
the other client." This rule covers not only cases in which confidential
communications have been confided, but also those in which no
confidence has been bestowed or will be used. Also, there is conflict of
15
Second, the prohibition against conflicts of interest seeks to enhance

the effectiveness of legal representation. To the extent that a conflict of
interest undermines the independence of the lawyers professional
judgment or inhibits a lawyer from working with appropriate vigor in the
clients behalf, the clients expectation of effective representation could
be compromised.
Third, a client has a legal right to have the lawyer safeguard the clients
confidential information. Preventing use of confidential client information
against the interests of the client, either to benefit the lawyers 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.
interests if the acceptance of the new retainer will require the attorney
Finally, some conflict-of-interest rules protect interests of the legal
to perform an act which will injuriously affect his first client in any matter
system in obtaining adequate presentations to tribunals. In the absence
in which he represents him and also whether he will be called upon in
of such rules, for example, a lawyer might appear on both sides of the
his new relation to use against his first client any knowledge acquired
litigation, complicating the process of taking proof and compromise
through their connection. Another test of the inconsistency of interests
adversary argumentation.
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.

Abejaron
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
complainant spouses.
Buted & Bolisay v. Hernando

THIRD DIVISION
A.C. No. 1359 October 17, 1991
GENEROSA
BUTED
and
BENITO
vs.
ATTY. HAROLD M. HERNANDO, respondent.
16
BOLISAY, petitioners,
Jorge A. Dolorfino for petitioners.

R E S O L
UTION
PER CURIAM:p
Generosa Buted and Benito Bolisay filed an administrative complaint for
malpractice against respondent Atty. Harold M. Hernando, charging the
latter with having wantonly abused professional secrets or information
obtained by him as their counsel.
Respondent was counsel for Luciana Abadilla and a certain Angela
Buted in an action for partition instituted by Generosa as compulsory
heir of the deceased Teofilo Buted. Respondent ultimately succeeded
in defending Luciana Abadilla's claim of exclusive ownership over Lot
9439-B. When Luciana died, respondent withdrew his appearance from
that partition case.
When an action for specific performance was lodged by a couple

named Luis Sy and Elena Sy against Benito Bolisay as one of the
defendants, 2 the latter retained the services of respondent Atty.
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
were ordered to vacate the house subject of the lease. Respondent
avers that the relationship between himself and Benito Bolisay as
regards this case was terminated on 4 December 1969. 3
On 23 February 1974, respondent Hernando filed a petition on behalf of
the heirs of Carlos, Dionisia and Francisco all surnamed Abadilla,
seeking the cancellation of the Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) of
complainants Buted and Bolisay over the lot.
Complainant spouses, upon learning of respondent's appearance
against them in the cadastral proceeding, manifested their disapproval
thereof in a letter dated 30 July 1974. Respondent however, pursued
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
as counsel for the Abadillas but denied having seen or taken hold of the
controversial Transfer Certificate of Title, and having availed himself of
any confidential information relating to Lot 9439-B.
Solicitor General recommends that respondent be suspended from the
practice of law for three (3) months for violation of the Canons of

Abejaron
Professional Ethics by representing clients with conflicting interests,
and filed before this Court the corresponding Complaint 8 dated 30
March 1990.
ISSUE: a. whether or not respondent Hernando had a conflict of
interests under the circumstances described above. YES.
b. WON there is necessity of proving actual transmission of
confidential information. No
a. The Canons of Professional Ethics, the then prevailing parameters of
behavior of members of the bar, defines a conflict of interests situation
in the following manner:
6. Adverse influence and conflicting interests.
xxx xxx xxx
It is unprofessional to represent conflicting interests, except by express
consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts. Within
the meaning of this canon, a lawyer represents conflicting interests
when, in behalf of one client, it is his duty to contend for that which duty
to another client requires him to oppose.
The obligation to represent the client with undivided fidelity and not to
divulge
his
secrets
or
confidence
forbids
also
the
subsequent acceptance of retainers or employment from others in
matters adversely affecting any interest of the client with respect to
which confidence has been reposed.(Emphasis supplied)
Though as regards the first and second cases handled by respondent,
no conflict of interest existed, the same cannot be said with respect to
the action for specific performance and the cadastral proceeding.
17
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
disclosure of the facts and express consent of all the parties concerned
are necessary. 9The present Code of Professional Responsibility is
stricter on this matter considering that consent of the parties is now
required to be in written form. 10 In the case at bar, such consent was
wanting.
Respondent persistently argues that contrary to the claims of
complainant spouses, he had never seen nor taken hold of the Transfer
Certificate of Title covering Lot No. 9439-B nor obtained any
confidential information in handling the action for specific
performance. 11
The rule here is, rather, that the mere fact that respondent had acted as
counsel for Benito Bolisay in the action for specific performance should
have precluded respondent from acting or appearing as counsel for the
other side in the subsequent petition for cancellation of the Transfer
Certificate of Title of the spouses Generosa and Benito Bolisay.
b. There is no necessity for proving the actual transmission of
confidential information to an attorney in the course of his employment
by his first client in order that he may be precluded from accepting
employment by the second or subsequent client where there are
conflicting interests between the first and the subsequent clients.
Reason: Hilado v. David
This stern rule is designed not alone to prevent the dishonest
practitioner from fraudulent conduct, but as well to protect the honest
lawyer from unfounded suspicion of unprofessional practice. (Strong vs.
Int. Bldg., etc.; Ass'n. 183 III., 97; 47 L.R.A., 792) It is founded on
principles of public policy, on good taste. As has been said another
case, the question is not necessarily one of the rights of the parties, but

Abejaron
18
as to whether the attorney has adhered to proper professional standard.

With these thoughts in mind, it behooves attorneys, like Caesar's wife,
not only to keep inviolate the client's confidence, but also to avoid the
appearance of treachery and double-dealing. Only thus can litigants be
encouraged to entrust their secrets to their attorneys which is of
paramount importance in the administration of justice. 13 (Emphasis
supplied)
attorney-client relationship is established and extends beyond the

duration of the professional relationship.
This Court went further in San Jose v. Cruz, 14 where the lawyer was
charged with malpractice for having represented a new client whose
interest was opposed to those of his former clients in another case:
An attorney owes loyalty to his client not only in the case in which he
has represented him but also after the relation of attorney and client
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
the pretext that the case is distinct from, and independent of the former
case. 15 (Emphasis supplied)
ACCORDINGLY, the Court Resolved to SUSPEND Atty. Harold

M. Hernando from the practice of law for a period of five (5) months,
with a WARNING that repetition of the same or similar offense will
warrant a more severe penalty. A copy of this Resolution shall be
furnished to all courts and to the Office of the Bar Confidant and spread
on the personal record of respondent.
The appropriate rule has been expressed by Justice Malcolm in the

following manner:
An attorney is not permitted, in serving a new client as against a former
one, to do anything which will injuriously affect the former client in any
manner in which the attorney formerly represented him, though the
relation of attorney and client has terminated, and the new employment
is in a different case; nor can the attorney use against his former client
any knowledge or information gained through their former
connection. 16(Emphasis supplied)
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
The Court therefore agrees with the Solicitor-General that respondent

Hernando is guilty of violation of the Canons of Professional Ethics by
representing clients with conflicting interests. We believe, however, that
a heavier penalty is appropriate.

Abejaron
LAWYER-CLIENT PRIVILEGE / RULE ON PRIVILEGED
COMMUNICATION
Hadjula v. Madianda
FIRST DIVISION
A.C. No. 6711
19
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
same disclosures, a disciplinary case was also instituted against
Hadjula before the Professional Regulation Commission.
Hadjula therefore seeks the suspension and/or disbarment of Atty.
July 3, 2007
MA.
LUISA
HADJULA, complainant,
vs.
ATTY. ROCELES F. MADIANDA, respondent.
DECISION
GARCIA, J.:
Facts:
Complainant Hadjula claimed that sometime in 1998, she approached
respondent Atty. Madianda for some legal advice. In the course of their
conversation which was supposed to be kept confidential, she disclosed
personal secrets and produced copies of a marriage contract, a birth
certificate and a baptismal certificate, only to be informed later by the
respondent that she (respondent) would refer the matter to a lawyer
friend. It was malicious, so complainant states, of respondent to have
refused handling her case only after she had already heard her secrets
and so she filed criminal and disciplinary actions against the
respondent.
According to Hadjula, Atty. Madianda in retaliation to the filing of the
aforesaid actions filed a COUNTER COMPLAINT with the Ombudsman
charging her (complainant) with falsification of public documents and
Madianda for the latter's act of disclosing personal secrets and

confidential information she revealed in the course of seeking
respondent's legal advice.
Issue:
The pressing issue in the present case is whether or not as between
Hadjula and Madianda there exists an attorney-client relationship
although Atty. Madianda did not actually handle the case for which his
legal advice was sought. Yes!
Held:
The Court held in the present case that the moment complainant
approached the then receptive respondent to seek legal advice, a
veritable lawyer-client relationship evolved between the two. Such
relationship imposes upon the lawyer certain restrictions circumscribed
by the ethics of the profession. Among the burdens of the relationship is
that which enjoins the lawyer, respondent in this instance, to keep
inviolate confidential information acquired or revealed during legal
consultations. The fact that one is, at the end of the day, not inclined to
handle the client's case is hardly of consequence. Of little moment, too,
is the fact that no formal professional engagement follows the

Abejaron
consultation. Nor will it make any difference that no contract whatsoever
was executed by the parties to memorialize the relationship.
Dean Wigmore lists the essential factors to establish the existence of
the attorney-client privilege communication, viz:
(1) Where legal advice of any kind is sought (2) from a
professional legal adviser in his capacity as such, (3) the
communications relating to that purpose, (4) made in confidence
(5) by the client, (6) are at his instance permanently protected
(7) from disclosure by himself or by the legal advisor, (8) except
the protection be waived.7
In view of the foregoing, respondent indeed breached his duty of
preserving the confidence of a client.

WHEN DOES A LAWYER-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP ARISE
The question of when a lawyer-client relationship arises is a problem
area in legal ethics because after the establishment of such
relationship, the attorney-client privilege communication also attaches.
That being the case, anything that a client divulges to his lawyer after
the lawyer-client relationship has commenced is covered by the
privileged communication rule even if the attorney consulted did not
afterward handle the case for which his service or advice had been
sought.
20

Abejaron
Mercado v. Vitriolo
Atty. Vitriolo on the other hand maintains that his filing of the criminal
complaint for falsification of public documents does not violate the rule
on privileged communication between attorney and client because the
SECOND DIVISION
A.C. No. 5108
21
bases of the falsification case are two certificates of live birth which are
public documents and in no way connected with the confidence taken
May 26, 2005
ROSA
F.
vs.
ATTY. JULITO D. VITRIOLO, respondent.
MERCADO, complainant,
during the engagement of respondent as counsel. According to

respondent, the complainant confided to him as then counsel only
matters of facts relating to the annulment case and nothing was said
about the alleged falsification of the entries in the birth certificates of
DECISION
her two daughters.
PUNO, J.:
Issue:
Facts:
Whether or not Atty. Vitriolo violated the rule on privileged
In 1994, respondent Atty. Vitriolo represented complainant Rosa

Mercado in an annulment case filed by the latters husband. Now it
appears that on 1999, Atty. Vitriolo filed a criminal action against Rosa
Mercado for falsification of public document. It was alleged therein that
Rosa Mercado made false entries in the Certificates of Live Birth of her
children.
Due to the foregoing, Mercado filed a case for disbarment against Atty.
Vitriolo alleging that the filing of the said criminal complaint disclosed
facts and information relating to the civil case for annulment, then
handled by respondent Vitriolo as her counsel. Mercado now claims
that, in filing the criminal case for falsification, respondent is guilty of
breaching their privileged and confidential lawyer-client relationship,
and should be disbarred.
communication? No.
Held:
The Supreme Court provided the following factors to establish the
existence of the attorney-client privilege:
(1) There exists an attorney-client relationship, or a prospective
attorney-client relationship, and it is by reason of this relationship that
the client made the communication.
Matters disclosed by a prospective client to a lawyer are protected by
the rule on privileged communication even if the prospective client does
not thereafter retain the lawyer or the latter declines the employment.
(2) The client made the communication in confidence.

Abejaron
The mere relation of attorney and client does not raise a presumption of
confidentiality. The client must intend the communication to be
confidential.
(3) The legal advice must be sought from the attorney in his
professional capacity.
The Supreme Court thus held that applying the aforestated rules to the
case at bar, the evidence on record fails to substantiate complainant's
allegations.
Complainant
did
not
even
specify
the
alleged
communication in confidence disclosed by respondent as she merely

alleged that the filing of the said criminal complaint disclosed facts and
information relating to the civil case for annulment. Due to the
foregoing, the case filed was dismissed for lack of merit.
WHAT CONSTITUTES PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION
This is a Problem Area in Legal Ethics because although the privileged
communication rule is set-up to protect the clients, the right of a lawyer
to practice his profession within the limits of legal ethics should also be
protected.
Therefore,
the
boundaries
of
when
privileged
communication exists must be clearly defined so as to protect not only

the clients but also the lawyers from wrongful prosecution. Another
importance of the guideline for determining whether or not there arises
an attorney-client privileged communication is to prevent the lawyer
from committing violations against the said privileged communication
rule.
22

Abejaron
Angara v. Sandiganbayan
Facts:
Herein petitioners were partners of the ACCRA Law firm who were
impleaded as co-defendants in a case filed by the Republic of the
Philippines through the PCGG before the Sandiganbayan. The ACCRA
Lawyers were involved in the present case by virtue of rendering legal
services in the organization and acquisition of companies which are
included in a Civil Case for recovery of alleged ill gotten wealth. The
companies which the ACCRA Lawyers organized were allegedly set up
through the use of coconut levy funds.
However, after a careful perusal of the case it is evident that the
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 bigger fish. This ploy is clear with the following conditions
precedent set by the PCGG for the exclusion of petitioners from the
case, namely: (a) the disclosure of the identity of its clients; (b)
submission of documents substantiating the lawyer-client relationship;
and (c) the submission of the deeds of assignments petitioners
executed in favor of its client covering their respective shareholdings.
23
Despite the said rules, it is important to note that as a General rule, a

clients identity is not privileged. This general rule however is not
without any exceptions, to wit:
1) Client identity is privileged where a strong probability exists that
revealing the client's name would implicate that client in the very activity
for which he sought the lawyer's advice.
2) Where disclosure would open the client to civil liability; his identity is
privileged.
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
furnish the only link that would form the chain of testimony necessary to
convict an individual of a crime, the client's name is privileged.
Issue:
Now the pertinent issue in the present case therefore is whether or not
the revealing of the identity of the petitioners client is covered by the
attorney-client privilege rule. Yes!
Ruling:
The ACCRA Lawyers however contend that revealing the identity of

their client and the other information requested by the PCGG is
prohibited by the attorney-client privilege.
The identity of the client in the present case is considered as a

privileged communication although as a matter of public policy, a
clients identity, in general, is not privileged.
The duty to keep as confidential all matters obtained through the

attorney-client relationship is explicitly mandated in Canon 17 and
Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
The circumstances involving the engagement of lawyers in the case at

bench reveal that the instant case falls under at least two exceptions to
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 case, which is privileged information. The services of the ACCRA

Abejaron
Lawyers were availed of to organize the organizations which are
suspected to have been set up through the use of coconut levy funds,
by revealing therefore the identity of their client would establish a
connection between him and the establishment of the companies which
are the subject matter of the controversy.
Furthermore, under the third main exception, revelation of the client's
name would obviously provide the necessary link for the prosecution to
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
convict the (client) of a . . . crime."
Due to the foregoing, the court has no choice but to uphold petitioners'
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
case clearly fall within recognized exceptions to the rule that the client's
name is not privileged information.
WHETHER THE IDENTITY OF A CLIENT CONSTITUTES
PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION
The issue of whether the identity of a client constitutes privileged
communication is a Problem Area in Legal Ethics because as said
earlier, the clients identity in general is not to be considered as
privileged. However, a lawyer so as to avoid prosecution must be aware
that this is not always the case. A lawyer by being aware of such
exception to the general rule is put on his guard when it comes to
divulging any information regarding his client. Even information as trivial
as a name must be disclosed with prudence so as to avoid possible
disbarment cases for violating the well-enshrined rule on lawyer-client
privileged communication.
24

Abejaron
The issue therefore is whether or not the privilege communication rule

applies in the present case.No!
Chico v. Union Life Assurance Society

EN BANC
G.R. No. L-9231
Ruling:
January 6, 1915
UY
vs.
THE UNION LIFE ASSURANCE
AL., defendants-appellees.
The court ratiocinated as follows:

CHICO, plaintiff-appellant,
SOCIETY,
Beaumont
and
Tenney
for
Bruce, Lawrence, Ross and Block for appellees.
LIMITED,
ET
appellant.
TRENT, J.:
Facts:
This case is an offshoot of a case which involves a dispute over two
insurance policies. The parties involved in the original case are the
insurance company and Uy Chico. Uy Chico seeks to recover the face
value of the two insurance policies. The insurance company however
contended that Uy Chico already agreed to a compromise settlement of
the policies and for that purpose introduced evidence showing that the
Uy Chicos attorney had already surrendered the policies with the
understanding that such is submitted for compromise.
Uy Chicos counsel was thus called to testify regarding the matter
however the former objected thereto on the ground that the testimony of
his counsel was privileged.
Issue:
25
Of the very essence of the veil of secrecy which surrounds

communications made between attorney and client, is that such
communications are not intended for the information of third persons or
to be acted upon by them, put of the purpose of advising the client as to
his rights. It is evident that a communication made by a client to his
attorney for the express purpose of its being communicated to a third
person is essentially inconsistent with the confidential relation. When
the attorney has faithfully carried out his instructions be
delivering the communication to the third person for whom it was
intended and the latter acts upon it, it cannot, by any reasoning
whatever, be classified in a legal sense as a privileged
communication between the attorney and his client. It is plain that
such a communication, after reaching the party for whom it was
intended at least, is a communication between the client and a
third person, and that the attorney simply occupies the role of
intermediary or agent.
Simply stated, communications made between attorney and clients,
which are intended for the information of third persons, cannot be later
on classified under the scope of a privileged communication. That being
so, in the present case there should be no bar in calling the lawyer to
the witness stand or admitting in evidence his statement on the grounds
of the attorney-client privileged communication rule.

Abejaron
COMMUNICATIONS INTENDED FOR THE INFORMATION OF THIRD
PERSONS NOT PRIVILEGED
This is a problem area in legal ethics, because a lawyer should know
the extent of the coverage of the privileged communication rule so he
could practice his legal profession within the bounds of legal ethics. It is
important to note that as a safe measure, communications made
between a client and his lawyer is considered to be within the scope of
the privileged communication rule. However, a client who
communicated information to his lawyer with the intent of
communicating it to a third person, cannot thereafter claim that such
communication is privileged merely because it was related during the
existence of a lawyer-client relationship. As much as the rights of the
client should be protected with zeal, so are the rights of a lawyer to
practice his profession free from any wrongful prosecution.
26

Abejaron
presiding judge in a pending case against him, for his eventual
Genato v. Silapan
acquittal. Atty. Silapan further alleged that complainant confided to him

that he was really involved in the commission of the crime that was he
THIRD DIVISION
A.C. No. 4078
27
charged of.
July 14, 2003
WILLIAM
ONG
vs.
ATTY. ESSEX L. SILAPAN, respondent.
Due to the foregoing allegations made by Atty. Silapan in the

GENATO, complainant,
foreclosure case, Genato filed the present administrative case against

his former counsel for breaking their confidential lawyer-client
relationship.
PUNO, J.:
Issue:
Facts:
The issue therefore is Whether or not Atty. SIlapan committed breach of
Herein respondent Atty. Silapan is formerly the counsel of complainant

Genato. Their relationship however turned sour when Atty. Silapan
failed to pay his loans from Genato and the checks he issued were
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 for
judicial foreclosure of real estate mortgage.
In his answer in the foreclosure case, Atty. Silapan in essence made
the following allegations:
1. 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
2. Genato, his former client, wanted him (Atty. Silapan), to offer bribe
money to the review committee of the DOJ, the prosecutor and the
trust and confidence by imputing to complainant illegal practices and

disclosing complainants alleged intention to bribe government officials
in connection with a pending case. Yes!
Ruling:
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.
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 and is perpetual. It does not cease
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.

Abejaron
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. As in this case, the
complainant's alleged intention to bribe government officials in relation
to his case, is not covered by the privilege as the client does not consult
the lawyer professionally for it is not within the profession of a lawyer to
advise a client as to how he may commit a crime. The attorney-client
privilege does not attach, there being no professional employment in
the strict sense.
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.
PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION DOES NOT EXTEND TO THOSE
NOT WITHIN THE LAWFUL EMPLOYMENT OF A LAWYER
This is a Problem Area in Legal Ethics, because under numerous rules
in the Code of Professional Responsibility, a lawyer is mandated to be
faithful and mindful to the trust and confidence reposed on him by his
client. However, such mandate ends when what is being communicated
to a lawyer is with the purpose of perpetrating a crime or fraud. The
privileged communication rule cannot be used as an impenetrable
28
shield and a means to restrict a lawyer from disclosing information

which is not properly within his lawful employment.

Abejaron
Saura v. Agdeppa
property was sold with the assistance of Atty. Agdeppa, who notarized
participation. Petitioners therefore demanded the disclosure of the
February 17, 2000
RAMON
SAURA,
JR., complainant,
vs.
ATTY. LALAINE LILIBETH AGDEPPA, respondent.
amount of the sale but the vendor or their counsel refused to do so,
hence the filing of the present case.
Atty. Agdeppa on her defense said that she could not answer the
charges against her without violating the attorney-client privilege rule.
Issue:
x-----------------------------x
ADM. CASE No. 4429
The dispute arose, when the petitioners learned that the subject
the deed of sale herself without the petitioners knowledge and
SECOND DIVISION
ADM. CASE No. 4426
29
February 17, 2000
HELEN BALDORIA and RAYMUNDO SAURA, complainants,

vs.
ATTY. LALAINE LILIBETH AGDEPPA, respondent.
Whether or not the request for the information regarding the sale of the
property and to account for the proceeds thereof is a violation of the
attorney-client privilege? No!
Ruling:
RESOLUTION
The court ruled as follows:
DE LEON, JR., J.:
The information requested by petitioners is not privileged. The
Facts:
or account for the proceeds. Petitioners certainly have the right to ask
Atty. Lalaine Lilibeth Agdeppa was charged for violation of her lawyers
oath and disregard of Sections 15, 22, 25, 29, 31 and 32 of the Canons
of Professional Ethics.
petitioners are only asking for the disclosure of the amount of the sale
for such information since they own the property as co-heirs to and as
co-administrators of the property. Hence, respondent cannot refuse to
divulge such information to them and hide behind the cloak of the
attorney-client relationship.
The said complaint is related to a settlement case handled by Atty.

Agdeppa involving a piece of property owned in common by herein
petitioners and other siblings.

PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION RULE IS NOT AN IMPENETRABLE
CLOAK

Abejaron
This is Problem Area in Legal Ethics because of the well-established
rule that communications between the lawyer and his client is
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 attorney-client privileged communication.
30

Abejaron
Maturan v. Gonzales
EN BANC
31
damages and by virtue of the same, favourable judgments were

rendered in favor of Maturan and so Atty. Gonzales filed a motion for
issuance of a writ of execution.
The present dispute however arose when Atty. Gonzales undertook to
represent Celestino Yokingco, et al., and filed several cases on his
A.C. No. 2597 March 12, 1998
behalf including a Civil Case, which seeks to annul the judgment
GLORITO
V.
MATURAN, petitioner,
vs.
ATTY. CONRADO S. GONZALES, respondent.
present case.
RESOLUTION
rendered in Civil Case No. 2067. The said act led to the filing of the
Atty. Gonzales on his defense reasoned that he is not guilty of any

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-
ROMERO, J.:
client relationship and a formal withdrawal as counsel for the Casquejos
Facts:
between them.
Sps. Antonio Casquejo instituted herein petitioner, Glorito Maturon as
Issue:
their attorney-in-fact throught a Special Power of Attorney authorizing

the latter to file ejectment cases and for violation of PD 772 against
squatters occupying their property. The said SPA was prepared and
was unnecessary in order to sever the lawyer-client relationship
Whether or not the lawyer-client relationship has already been severed

as Atty. Gonzales so insists? No!
notarized by hereing respondent Atty. Gonzales.
Ruling:
Now, Maturan engaged the services of Atty. Gonzales in ejecting the
A lawyer-client relationship is not terminated by the filing of motion for
squatters and because the subject property is registered in the name of

a certain Celestino Yokingco, Antonio Casquejo instituted a case for
reconveyance of property and declaration of nullity against the former
docketed as Civil Case No. 2067.
Through the course of Atty. Gonzales engagement with Maturan, the
former represented the latter inseveral cases for forcible entry and
writ of execution. His acceptance of a case implies that he will

prosecute the case to its conclusion. He may not be permitted to
unilaterally terminate the same to the prejudice of his client.
That being the case, the court found Atty. Gonzales guilty of
representing conflicting interests. The court further explained:

Abejaron
It is improper for a lawyer to appear as counsel for one party against
the adverse party who is his client in a related suit, as a lawyer is
prohibited from representing conflicting interests or discharging
inconsistent duties. He may not, without being guilty of professional
misconduct, act as counsel for a person whose interest conflicts with
that of his present or former client.
Atty. Gonzales was thus found guilty of the charges against him and is
suspended from the practice of law for 2 years.

RATIONALE FOR THE PROHIBITION ON REPRESENTING
CONFLICTING INTERESTS
The reason for the prohibition (on representing conflicting interests) is
found in the relation of attorney and client, which is one of trust and
confidence of the highest degree. A lawyer becomes familiar with all the
facts connected with his client's case. He learns from his client the
weak points of the action as well as the strong ones. Such knowledge
must be considered sacred and guarded with care. No opportunity must
be given him to take advantage of the client's secrets.
Simply stated, if a lawyer is allowed to represent conflicting interests,
the temptation to use information previously acquired from a client
against him is so great that he should not be given any opportunity to
do so.
32

Abejaron
People v. Sandiganbayan and Honorada et. al
EN BANC
G.R. Nos. 115439-41 July 16, 1997
PEOPLE
OF
THE
PHILIPPINES, petitioner,
vs.
HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN, MANSUETO V. HONRADA,
CEFERINO
S.
PAREDES,
JR.
and
GENEROSO
S.
SANSAET, respondents.
REGALADO, J.:
Facts:
Paredes, was the Provincial Attorney of Agusan del Sur, then Governor
of the same province and is at present a Congressman. Atty. Sansaet is
a practicing attorney who served as counsel for Paredes in several
instances. In 1976, Paredes applied for a free patent over a piece of
land and it was granted to him. But later, the Director of Lands found out
that Paredes obtained the same through fraudulent misrepresentations
in his application. A civil case was filed and Sansaet served as counsel
of Paredes. A criminal case for perjury was subsequently filed against
Paredes and Sansaet also served as counsel.
Later, Teofilo Gelacio, a taxpayer, initiated perjury and graft charges
against Paredes and Sansaet, claiming that they acted in conspiracy, by
not filing an arraignment in the criminal case. To evade responsibility
for his own participation, he claimed that he did so upon the instigation
and inducement of Paredes, and to discharge himself as a government
33
witness. The Sandiganbayan claimed that there was an attorney-client

privilege and resolved to deny the discharge.
ISSUES: Whether or not the testimony of Atty. Sanset is barred by the
attorney-client privilege.
HELD:
No. Statements and communications regarding the commission of a
crime already committed, made by a party who committed it, to an
attorney, consulted as such, are privileged communications. However,
the communication between an attorney and client having to do with the
client's contemplated criminal acts, or in aid or furtherance thereof, are
not covered by the cloak of privilege ordinarily existing in reference to
communications between an attorney and a client. The falsification not
having been committed yet, these communications are outside the pale
of the attorney client privilege.
Moreover, Sansaet himself was a conspirator in the commission of the
falsification. For the communication to be privileged, it must be for a
lawful purpose or in furtherance of a lawful end. The existence of an
unlawful purpose prevents the privilege from attaching.

PALE Digests

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

PALE Digests

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Problematic Areas in Legal Ethics CASES

Based on the Syllabus of Atty. Arnold C.

IMPRESCRIPTIBILITY OF DISBARMENT PROCEEDINGS.................2

People v. Sandiganbayan and Honorada et. al................................30

PAPER REQUIREMENT...........ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.

Problematic Areas in Legal Ethics CASES

Problematic Areas in Legal Ethics CASES

services for certain clients involving the organization and acquisition of

Problematic Areas in Legal Ethics CASES

Problematic Areas in Legal Ethics CASES

Problematic Areas in Legal Ethics CASES

Northwestern University and Nicolas v. Arquillo

Significance of the issue:

The Code of Professional Responsibility requires lawyers to observe

Problematic Areas in Legal Ethics CASES

Problematic Areas in Legal Ethics CASES

Problematic Areas in Legal Ethics CASES

Problematic Areas in Legal Ethics CASES

Whether or not Salunat is guilty of representing conflicting interest?

Hornilla & Ricafort v. Salunat

Significance of the Issue: The Code of Professional Responsibility

RULE 15.03. A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except

Problematic Areas in Legal Ethics CASES

Problematic Areas in Legal Ethics CASES

Whether or not Atty. Sabisana can be held administratively liable for

April 11, 2012

Problematic Areas in Legal Ethics CASES

Problematic Areas in Legal Ethics CASES

absolute sale over a property was given to them. However, when

Samson and his-complainants verified the title of the property, they

July 16, 2013

Responsibility for representing conflicting interests.

Ferdinand A. Samson has brought this complaint for disbarment

counsel and for violating Canon 15 of the Code of Professional

Problematic Areas in Legal Ethics CASES

Second, the prohibition against conflicts of interest seeks to enhance

Finally, some conflict-of-interest rules protect interests of the legal

system in obtaining adequate presentations to tribunals. In the absence

in which he represents him and also whether he will be called upon in

litigation, complicating the process of taking proof and compromise

through their connection. Another test of the inconsistency of interests

is whether the acceptance of a new relation will prevent an attorney

Problematic Areas in Legal Ethics CASES

Buted & Bolisay v. Hernando

Jorge A. Dolorfino for petitioners.

When an action for specific performance was lodged by a couple

Problematic Areas in Legal Ethics CASES

It is clear from the above-quoted portion of the Canons of Professional

Problematic Areas in Legal Ethics CASES

as to whether the attorney has adhered to proper professional standard.

attorney-client relationship is established and extends beyond the

ACCORDINGLY, the Court Resolved to SUSPEND Atty. Harold

The appropriate rule has been expressed by Justice Malcolm in the

The Court therefore agrees with the Solicitor-General that respondent

Problematic Areas in Legal Ethics CASES

immorality. The said charges are said to be based on the disclosures

Madianda for the latter's act of disclosing personal secrets and

Problematic Areas in Legal Ethics CASES

Significance of the Issue:

Problematic Areas in Legal Ethics CASES

May 26, 2005

during the engagement of respondent as counsel. According to

her two daughters.

Whether or not Atty. Vitriolo violated the rule on privileged