Santos Ventura Hocorma Foundation, Inc. v Atty. Richard Funk A.C. No. 9094 Au!

ust "#, $0"$% FAC&S' Hocorma Foundation filed a complaint for disbarment against respondent. It alleged that respondent used to work as corporate secretary, counsel, chief executive officer, and trustee of the foundation from 19 ! to 19 ". He also served as its counsel in several criminal and civil cases. #omplainant alleged that respondent filed an action for $uieting of title and damages against Hocorma on behalf of %abalacat institute using information he ac$uired while with the foundation. &s a defense, &tty. Funk contended that he was hired by %abalacat Institute by 'on (eodoro )antos in 19 * to serve as director and legal counsel. He emphasi+ed that, in all these, the attorney,client relationship was always between )antos and him. He was more of )antospersonal lawyer than the lawyer of Hocorma Foundation. )antos left for &merica to get medical treatment. (he former and &tty. Funk agreed that the latter would be paid for his legal services out of the properties that )antos donated or sold to the Hocorma Foundation. &tty. Funk also claimed that he was authori+ed to advise Hocorma and follow up with it )antos- sale or donation of a ",hectare land in .ampanga to %abalacat Institute. &tty. Funk was to collect all expenses for the property transfer from Hocorma Foundation out of funds that )antos provided. It was )antos- intention since 19"/ to give the land to %abalacat Institute free of rent and expenses. &ccording to &tty. Funk, )antos suggested to the complainant his inclusion in that board, a suggestion that the foundation followed. &fter )antos died, respondent was elected .resident of %abalacat Institute. (he foundation later refused to pay &tty. Funk-s fees, thus he severed his ties with Hocorma. Four years later, he filed a suit against Hocorma. (he trial court, #& and )# decided in favor of the respondent. &fter hearing, the #ommittee on 0ar 'iscipline 1#0'2 found &tty. Funk to have violated #anon 1", 3ule 1"./! of the 1#.32 with the aggravating circumstance of a pattern of misconduct consisting of four court appearances against his former client, the Hocorma Foundation. (he #0' recommended &tty. Funk-s suspension from the practice of law for one year. 3espondent moved for reconsideration but was denied. ISS()' 4hether or not &tty. Funk betrayed the trust and confidence of a former client in violation of the #.3 when he filed several actions against such client on behalf of a new one. H)*+' #anon 1", 3ule 1"./! of the #.3 provides that a lawyer cannot represent conflicting interests except by written consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts. Here, it is undeniable that &tty. Funk was formerly the legal counsel of Hocorma Foundation. 5ears after terminating his relationship with the foundation, he filed a complaint against it on behalf of another client without the foundation-s written consent. &n attorney owes his client undivided allegiance. 0ecause of the highly fiduciary nature of their relationship, sound public policy dictates that he be prohibited from representing conflicting interests or discharging inconsistent duties. (he reason for this is that a lawyer ac$uires

knowledge of his former client-s doings, whether documented or not, that he would ordinarily not have ac$uired were it not for the trust and confidence that his client placed on him in the light of their relationship. 3espondent collected attorney-s fees from the foundation. (hus, he had an obligation not to use any knowledge he ac$uired during that relationship, including the fact that the property under litigation existed at all, when he sued the foundation. 4H636F736, the #ourt &FFI3%) the resolution of the 0oard of the I0. )8).69') &tty. 3ichard Funk from the practice of law for one year effective immediately.