Sei sulla pagina 1di 17

Lambert Pawnbrokers vs. Binamira G.R. No.

170464 July 12, 2010

Facts

Petitioner Lambert Lim (Lim) is a Malaysian national operating various businesses in


Cebu and Bohol one of which is Lambert Pawnbrokers and Jewelry Corporation. Lim is married
to Rhodora Binamira, daughter of Atty. Boler Binamira, Sr., (Atty. Binamira), who is also the
counsel and father-in-law of respondent Helen Binamira (Helen). Lambert Pawnbrokers and
Jewelry Corporation Tagbilaran Branch hired Helen as an appraiser in July 1995 and designated
her as Vault Custodian in 1996.

This is a case of illegal dismissal filed by Helen against Lim for terminating her
employment citing business losses necessitating retrenchment as the reason for the termination.
Helen won the case in the Supreme Court.

Issue

Whether or not there is violation of attorney-client relationship by Atty. Binamira by


representing Helen in the present case

Held

There is no violation of attorney-client relationship.

Atty. Binamira did not gravely breach and abuse the rule on privileged communication
under the Rules of Court and the Code of Professional Responsibility of Lawyers when he
represented Helen in the present case. Records show that although petitioners previously
employed Atty. Binamira to manage several businesses, there is no showing that they likewise
engaged his professional services as a lawyer. Likewise, at the time the instant complaint was
filed, Atty. Binamira was no longer under the employ of petitioners.
Dela Cueva vs. Omaga A.M. NO. P-08-2590 July 5, 2010

Facts

Complainant Julie Ann C. dela Cueva is the legal wife of P/Supt. Nestor dela Cueva.
They got married in 1984 and separated in 1994. In 2007, P/Supt. Nestor dela Cueva filed a
Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage alleging as ground his own psychological
incapacity. This angered and prompted his wife, the complainant, to file a criminal complaint
against him for bigamy and concubinage. Her complaint alleged that he and respondent, Selima
B. Omaga, got married and were living together as husband and wife despite the subsistence of
his marriage with her. Complainant dela Cueva also filed an administrative complaint against
both her husband and the respondent. In her defense, respondent averred that she did not know
that Dela Cueva was married until she received notice of the bigamy and concubinage case filed
against him. Complainant later manifested that she was withdrawing her complaint after learning
that respondent and her husband never lived together as husband and wife. Complainant
confessed that she was prompted to file the complaint simply because her husband had filed a
petition for declaration of nullity of their marriage.

Issue

Whether or not respondent is guilty of immoral conduct

Held

Complainant’s change of heart in deciding not to pursue the case against respondent is of
no moment as it has no controlling significance in this administrative case. Administrative
actions cannot depend on the will or pleasure of the complainant. Public interest is at stake in the
conduct and actuations of officials and employees of the judiciary.

There is no doubt that engaging in sexual relations with a married man is not only a
violation of the moral standards expected of employees of the judiciary but is also a desecration
of the sanctity of the institution of marriage which this Court abhors and is, thus, punishable.

Respondent claims, however, that she had no knowledge that P/Supt. dela Cueva was
married and that she ended their relationship as soon as she was made aware of his true civil
status. If her contention were true, this would serve to exculpate her from the accusation of
immorality.
It is a well-settled rule that administrative penalties must be supported by substantial
evidence for the imposition thereof. In this case, the Court finds the evidence against respondent
insufficient to warrant the imposition of an administrative penalty.

In the absence of clear and convincing evidence, it would be insensitive to condemn the
respondent for simply being an unmarried mother of three. There has been no showing that she
has lived her life in a scandalous and disgraceful manner which, by any means, has affected her
standing in the community.
Julian Penilla vs. Atty. Quintin Alcid A.C. No. 9149 September 4, 2013

Facts

Complainant Julian Penilla entered into an agreement with Spouses Rey and Evelyn
Garin (the spouses) for the repair of his Volkswagen automobile. Despite full payment, the
spouses defaulted in their obligation. Thus, complainant decided to file a case for breach of
contract against the spouses where he engaged the services of respondent as counsel.

Respondent sent a demand letter to the spouses and asked for the refund of complainant’s
payment. When the spouses failed to return the payment, respondent advised complainant that he
would file a criminal case for estafa against said spouses. Respondent charged P30,000 as
attorney’s fees and P10,000 as filing fees. . Respondent then filed the complaint for estafa before
the Office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City. Respondent attended the hearing with
complainant but the spouses did not appear. After the hearing, complainant paid another P1,000
to respondent as appearance fee.

The prosecutor later issued a resolution dismissing the estafa case against the spouses.
Respondent allegedly told complainant that a motion for reconsideration was "needed to have the
resolution reversed.” The respondent filed the motion which was denied for lack of merit.
Respondent then told complainant that he could not do anything about the adverse decision and
presented the option of filing a civil case for specific performance against the spouses for the
refund of the money plus damages. Complainant paid an additional P10,000 to respondent which
he asked for the payment of filing fees.

Complainant made numerous and unsuccessful attempts to follow-up the status of the
case and meet with respondent at his office. Complainant claims not hearing from respondent
again despite his several letters conveying his disappointment and requesting for the return of the
money and the documents in respondent’s possession.

Complainant learned that a civil case for Specific Performance and Damages was filed on
June 6, 2002 but was dismissed on June 13, 2002. He also found out that the filing fee was
only P2,440 and not P10,000 as earlier stated by respondent.

On January 9, 2006, complainant filed before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines-
Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD) the instant administrative case praying that
respondent be found guilty of gross misconduct for violating the Lawyer’s Oath and the Code of
Professional Responsibility, and for appropriate administrative sanctions to be imposed.
Issue

Whether or not Atty. Alcid’s acots and omissions constitute gross misconduct

Held

Yes.

The Supreme Court sustained the findings of the IBP that respondent committed
professional negligence under Canon 18 and Rule 18.04 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, with a modification that respondent is also guilty of violating Canon 17 and Rule
18.03 of the Code and the Lawyer’s Oath.

Complainant correctly alleged that respondent violated his oath under Canon 18 to "serve
his client with competence and diligence" when respondent filed a criminal case for estafa when
the facts of the case would have warranted the filing of a civil case for breach of contract. After
the complaint for estafa was dismissed, respondent committed another similar blunder by filing a
civil case for specific performance and damages before the RTC. The complaint, having an
alternative prayer for the payment of damages, should have been filed with the Municipal Trial
Court which has jurisdiction over complainant’s claim which amounts to only P36,000.

Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility enjoins a lawyer not to ‘neglect a
legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.’
He must constantly keep in mind that his actions or omissions or nonfeasance would be binding
upon his client. He is expected to be acquainted with the rudiments of law and legal procedure,
and a client who deals with him has the right to expect not just a good amount of professional
learning and competence but also a whole-hearted fealty to the client’s cause." Similarly, under
Rule 18.04, a lawyer has the duty to apprise his client of the status and developments of the case
and all other information relevant thereto. He must be consistently mindful of his obligation to
respond promptly should there be queries or requests for information from the client.

Canon 17 of the Code which states that [a lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client
and he shall be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him." The legal profession dictates
that it is not a mere duty, but an obligation, of a lawyer to accord the highest degree of fidelity,
zeal and fervor in the protection of the client’s interest. The most thorough groundwork and
study must be undertaken in order to safeguard the interest of the client. The honor bestowed on
his person to carry the title of a lawyer does not end upon taking the Lawyer’s Oath and signing
the Roll of Attorneys. Rather, such honor attaches to him for the entire duration of his practice of
law and carries with it the consequent responsibility of not only satisfying the basic requirements
but also going the extra mile in the protection of the interests of the client and the pursuit of
justice. Respondent has defied and failed to perform such duty and his omission is tantamount to
a desecration of the Lawyer’s Oath.
Orola vs. Atty. Ramos A.C. No. 9860 September 11, 2013

Facts

Complainants Josephine, Myrna, Manuel, (all surnamed Orola), Mary Angelyn Orola-
Belarga (Mary Angelyn), and Marjorie Melba Orola-Calip (Marjorie) are the children of the late
Trinidad Laserna-Orola (Trinidad), married to Emilio Q. Orola (Emilio).

Meanwhile, complainant Karen Orola (Karen) is the daughter of Maricar Alba-Orola


(Maricar) and Antonio L. Orola (Antonio), the deceased brother of the above-named
complainants and the son of Emilio.
In the settlement of Trinidad’s estate, pending before the Regional Trial Court of Roxas City,
respondent was the collaborating counsel of Karen. In the course of the proceedings, the Heirs of
Trinidad and the Heirs of Antonio moved for the removal of Emilio as administrator and, in his
stead, sought the appointment of the latter’s son, Manuel Orola, which the RTC granted.
Subsequently, respondent filed an Entry of Appearance as collaborating counsel for Emilio in the
same case and moved for the reconsideration of the RTC Order.

Due to the respondent’s new engagement, complainants filed the instant disbarment
complaint before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines

(IBP), claiming that he violated: (a) Rule 15.03 of the Code, as he undertook to represent
conflicting interests in the subject case; Complainants further claimed that while Maricar, the
surviving spouse of Antonio and the mother of Karen, consented to the withdrawal of
respondent’s appearance, the same was obtained only on October 18, 2007, or after he had
already entered his appearance for Emilio on October 10, 2007.9 In this accord, respondent
failed to disclose such fact to all the affected heirs and, as such, was not able to obtain their
written consent as required under the Rules.

In the Report and Recommendation19 dated September 15, 2008 submitted by IBP
Investigating Commissioner Jose I. De La Rama, Jr. (Investigating Commissioner), respondent
was found guilty of representing conflicting interests only with respect to Karen as the records of
the case show that he never acted as counsel for the other complainants. The Investigating
Commissioner observed that while respondent's withdrawal of appearance was with the express
conformity of Maricar, respondent nonetheless failed to obtain the consent of Karen, who was
already of age and one of the Heirs of Antonio, as mandated under Rule 15.03 of the Code.

The IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved with modification the
aforementioned report and imposed against respondent the penalty of six (6) months suspension
from the practice of law.
Issue

Whether or not respondent is guilty of representing conflicting interests in violation of


Rule 15.03 of the Code

Held

The Court concurs with the IBP’s finding that respondent violated Rule 15.03 of the
Code, but reduced the recommended period of suspension to three (3) months.

Rule 15.03 of the Code reads:

CANON 15 – A LAWYER SHALL OBSERVE CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND LOYALTY IN


ALL HIS DEALINGS AND TRANSACTIONS WITH HIS CLIENTS.

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.

Under the afore-cited rule, it is explicit that a lawyer is prohibited from representing new clients
whose interests oppose those of a former client in any manner, whether or not they are parties in
the same action or on totally unrelated cases. 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 lawyer's duty to fight for an issue or claim, but it is his duty to
oppose it for the other client.

Applying the above-stated principles, the Court agrees with the IBP’s finding that
respondent represented conflicting interests and, perforce, must be held administratively liable
therefor.

Records reveal that respondent was the collaborating counsel not only for Maricar as
claimed by him, but for all the Heirs of Antonio in Special Proceeding No. V-3639. In the course
thereof, the Heirs of Trinidad and the Heirs of Antonio succeeded in removing Emilio as
administrator for having committed acts prejudicial to their interests. Hence, when respondent
proceeded to represent Emilio for the purpose of seeking his reinstatement as administrator in the
same case, he clearly worked against the very interest of the Heirs of Antonio – particularly,
Karen – in violation of the above-stated rule.
Hornilla vs. Salunat

Facts

Hornilla filed a complaint against Atty. Salunat with the IBP Commission on Bar
Discipline for unethical practice regarding conflict of interests. Said counsel is a member of the
ASSA Law Office and acted as the lawyer for the Philippine Public School Teacher’s
Association.

In a squabble between the PPSTA and some of its board members pending SEC
resolution for unlawful spending and undervalued sale of real properties, Atty. Salunat appeared
as counsel for said board members.

Respondent says he only appeared in behalf of ASSA since he was a partner. Moreover,
he only filed a Manifestation for extreme urgency.

Issue

Whether or not Salunat is guilty of unethical behavior as a member of the IBP.

Held

Yes. Respondent Atty. Ernesto Salunat is found GUILTY of representing conflicting


interests and is ADMONISHED to observe a higher degree of fidelity in the practice of his
profession. He is further WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with
more severely.

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. 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
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 testof 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.

Where corporate directors have committed a breach of trust either by their frauds, ultra
vires acts, or negligence, and the corporation is unable or unwilling to institute suit to remedy the
wrong, a stockholder may sue on behalf of himself and other stockholders and for the benefit of
the corporation, to bring about a redress of the wrong done directly to the corporation and
indirectly to the stockholders. This is what is known as a derivative suit, and settled is the
doctrine that in a derivative suit, the corporation is the real party in interest while the stockholder
filing suit for the corporations behalf is only nominal party. The corporation should be included
as a party in the suit.

In the case at bar, the records show that SEC Case No. 05-97-5657, entitled
Philippine Public School Teachers Assn., Inc., et al. v. 1992-1995 Board of Directors of the
Philippine Public School Teachers Assn. (PPSTA), et al., 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 conflictof
interest when he represented the parties against whom his other client, the PPSTA, filed suit.
Nakpil vs Valdes A.C. No. 2040 March 4, 1998

FACTS

Jose Nakpil, husband of the complainant, became interested in purchasing a summer


residence in Moran Street, Baguio City. For lack of funds, he requested respondent to purchase
the Moran property for him. They agreed that respondent would keep the property in thrust for
the Nakpils until the latter could buy it back. Pursuant to their agreement, respondent obtained
two (2) loans from a bank which he used to purchase and renovate the property. Title was then
issued in respondent’s name.

The ownership of the Moran property became an issue in the intestate proceedings when
Jose Nakpil died. Respondent acted as the legal counsel and accountant of his widow.
Respondent excluded the Moran property from the inventory of Jose’s estate and transferred his
title to the Moran property to his company, the Caval Realty Corporation.

ISSUE

Whether or not there was conflict of interest between the respondent Atty. Valdes and the
complainant.

HELD

YES. Respondent was suspended from practice of law for one (1) year.

There is no question that the interests of the estate and that of its creditors are adverse to
each other. Respondent’s accounting firm prepared the list of assets and liabilities of the estate
and, at the same time, computed the claims of two creditors of the estate. There is clearly a
conflict between the interest of the estate which stands as the debtor, and that of the two
claimants who are creditors of the estate.

Respondent undoubtedly placed his law firm in a position where his loyalty to his client
could be doubted. In the estate proceedings, the duty of respondent’s law firm was to contest the
claims of these two creditors but which claims were prepared by respondent’s accounting firm.
Even if the claims were valid and did not prejudice the estate, the set-up is still undesirable. The
test to determine whether there is a conflict of interest in the representation is probability, not
certainty of conflict. It was respondent’s duty to inhibit either of his firms from said proceedings
to avoid the probability of conflict of interest.

Public confidence in law and lawyers may be eroded by the irresponsible and improper
conduct of a member of the bar. Thus, a lawyer should determine his conduct by acting in a
manner that would promote public confidence in the integrity of the legal profession. Members
of the bar are expected to always live up to the standards embodied in the Code of Professional
Responsibility as the relationship between an attorney and his client is highly fiduciary in nature
and demands utmost fidelity and good faith. In the case at bar, respondent exhibited less than full
fidelity to his duty to observe candor, fairness and loyalty in his dealings and transactions with
his clients.
Hilado vs David 84 Phil 569

Facts

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 Hilado’s 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 Hilado’s 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 latter’s
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.

An attorney is employed-that is, he is engaged in his professional capacity as a lawyer or


counselor-when he is listening to his client’s preliminary statement of his case, or when he is
giving advice thereon, just as truly as when he is drawing his client’s pleadings, or advocating
his client’s 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.
Northwestern University vs Atty. Arquillo A.C. No. 6632. August 2, 2005

Facts

Ben Nicolas submitted a letter-complaint with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
against Atty. Macario Arquillo for deceit,malpractice,gross misconduct and violation of his oath
as Atty by representing conflicting interest.

It is alleged that in a case before the NLRC Atty Arquillo represented both complainants
& defendants.He is represented 7 complainants & also represented 1 of the
respondents/ defendants, Jose Castroin the same consolidated case.

Commissioner Dennis Funa found Atty. Arquillo guilty & recommended suspension for 6
months. The Board of Governors of IBP modified the suspension to 2 years.

Issue

Whether or not Atty. Arquillo is guilty to warrant the suspension

Held

Yes. The Code of Professional Responsibility requires lawyers to observe candor,


fairness & loyalty in all their dealings with their clients. Corollary to his duty,they should not
represent conflicting interests, except with all the concerned client’s written consent, given after
a full disclosure of facts.

When a lawyer represents 2 or more opposing parties, there is a conflict of interests , the
existence of which determined by 3 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; (2) when the acceptance of the newretainer will require an attorney to perform an act that
may injuriously that affect the 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 attorney’s 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 this case, Atty. Arquillo represented both parties. He even filed a motion to dismiss in
behalf of 1 respondent, Jose Castro and drafted a position paper in behalf of 7 complainants. His
acts cannot be justified even by the fact that Jose Castro was absolved from the complaints. It
cannot be denied that he represented 2 opposing parties.

An attorney cannot represent adverse interests. It is a hornbook doctrine grounded on


public policy that a lawyer’s 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.
Re: Inhibition of Judge Eddie R. Rojas (292 SCRA 306)

Facts

Atty. Rojas was appointed a judge. One of the criminal cases he handled was one in
which he acted as prosecutor. He explained that his delay in inhibiting himself from presiding
on that case was because it was only after the belated transcription of the stenographic notes that
he remembered that he handled that case. He also says that the counsels did not object and he
never held “full-blown” hearings anyway.

Issue

Whether or not there is conflict of interest

Held

Judge is reprimanded. The Rules of Court prevent judges from trying cases where they
acted as counsel without the consent of the parties. This prevents not only a conflict of interest
but also the appearance of impropriety on the part of the judge. A judge should take no part in a
proceeding where his impartiality might reasonably be questioned. He should administer justice
impartially & without delay. The prohibition does not only cover hearings but all judicial acts
(e.g. orders, resolutions) some of which Judge Rojas did make.
Tarlac State University
College of Law

Problem Areas in Legal Ethics

Cases

1. Lambert Pawnbrokers vs. Binamira G.R. No. 170464 July 12, 2010
2. Dela Cueva vs. Omaga A.M. NO. P-08-2590 July 5, 2010
3. Julian Penilla vs. Atty. Quintin Alcid A.C. No. 9149 September 4, 2013
4. Orola vs. Atty. Ramos A.C. No. 9860, September 11, 2013
5. Hornilla vs. Salunat A.C. No. 5804. July 1, 2003
6. Nakpil vs Valdes [A.C. No. 2040. March 4, 1998]
7. Hilado vs David 84 Phil 569
8. Northwestern University vs Atty. Arquillo A.C. No. 6632. August 2, 2005
9. Re: Inhibition of Judge Eddie R. Rojas (292 SCRA 306)

Submitted by:

GLAIZE SHAYE C. SANTOS

Submitted to:

ATTY. ADENN SIGUA

Potrebbero piacerti anche