Blandina Hilado vs Jose Gutierrez David

84 Phil 569 Legal Ethics Existence of Attorney-Client Relationship

In April 1945, Blandina Hilado filed a complaint to have some deeds of sale
annulled against Selim Assad. Attorney Delgado Dizon represented Hilado.
Assad was represented by a certain Atty. Ohnick.
In January 1946, Atty. Vicente Francisco replaced Atty. Ohnick as counsel
for Assad and he thenafter entered his appearance in court.
In May 1946 or four months later, Atty. Dizon filed a motion to have Atty.
Francisco be disqualified because Atty. Dizon found out that in June 1945,
Hilado approached Atty. Francisco to ask for additional legal opinion
regarding her case and for which Atty. Francisco sent Hilado a legal opinion
letter.
Atty. Francisco opposed the motion for his disqualification. In his opposition,
he said that no material information was relayed to him by Hilado; that in fact,
upon hearing Hilados story, Atty. Francisco advised her that her case will
not win in court; but that later, Hilado returned with a copy of
the Complaint prepared by Atty. Dizon; that however, when Hilado returned,
Atty. Francisco was not around but an associate in his firm was there (a
certain Atty. Federico Agrava); that Atty. Agrava attended to Hilado; that after
Hilado left, leaving behind the legal documents, Atty. Agrava then prepared
a legal opinion letter where it was stated that Hilado has no cause of action
to file suit; that Atty. Agrava had Atty. Francisco sign the letter; that Atty.
Francisco did not read the letter as Atty. Agrava said that it was merely a
letter explaining why the firm cannot take on Hilados case.
Atty. Francisco also pointed out that he was not paid for his advice; that no
confidential information was relayed because all Hilado brought was a copy
of the Complaint which was already filed in court; and that, if any, Hilado
already waived her right to disqualify Atty. Francisco because he was already
representing Assad in court for four months in the said case.
Judge Jose Gutierrez David ruled in favor of Atty. Francisco.
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Francisco should be disqualified in the said civil
case.
HELD: Yes. There already existed an attorney-client relationship between
Hilado and Atty. Francisco. Hence, Atty. Francisco cannot act as counsel
against Hilado without the latters consent.
As ruled by the Supreme Court, to constitute an attorney-client relationship,
it is not necessary that any retainer should have been paid, promised, or
charged for; neither is it material that the attorney consulted did not afterward
undertake the case about which the consultation was had. If a person, in
respect to his business affairs or troubles of any kind, consults with his
attorney in his professional capacity with the view to obtaining professional
advice or assistance, and the attorney voluntarily permits or acquiesces in
such consultation, then the professional employment must be regarded as
established.
Further:
An attorney is employed-that is, he is engaged in his professional capacity
as a lawyer or counselor-when he is listening to his clients preliminary
statement of his case, or when he is giving advice thereon, just as truly as
when he is drawing his clients pleadings, or advocating his clients cause in
open court.
Anent the issue of what information was relayed by Hilado to Atty.
Francisco: It does not matter if the information relayed is confidential or not.
So long as the attorney-client relationship is established, the lawyer is
proscribed from taking other representations against the client.
Anent the issue that the legal opinion was not actually written by Atty.
Francisco but was only signed by him: It still binds him because Atty. Agrava,
assuming that he was the real author, was part of the same law firm. An
information obtained from a client by a member or assistant of a law firm is
information imparted to the firm, his associates or his employers.
Anent the issue of the fact that it took Hilado four months from the time Atty.
Francisco filed his entry of appearance to file a disqualification: It does not
matter. The length of time is not a waiver of her right. The right of a client to
have a lawyer be disqualified, based on previous atty-client relationship, as
counsel against her does not prescribe. Professional confidence once
reposed can never be divested by expiration of professional employment.