Professional Documents
Culture Documents
FACTS:
Facts:
Held:Yes.
Perez was able to show that at the time that atty. De la Torre was
representing the said two accused, he was also representing the
interest of the victims family.
Under Rule 15.03 of the CPR, a lawyer shall not represent
conflicting interests except by written consent of all concerned
given after a full disclosure of the facts.
Respondent is therefore duty bound to refrain from representing
two parties having conflicting interests in a controversy.
The prohibition against representing conflicting interest is founded
on principles of public policy and good taste.
In course of a lawyer-client relationship, the lawyer learns all the
facts connected with the clients case, including the weak and
strong points of the case.
It behooves lawyers not only to keep inviolate the clients
confidence, but also to avoid the appearance of impropriety and
double-dealing for only then can litigants be encouraged to entrust
their secrets to their lawyers which is of paramount importance in
the administration of justice.
His representation of opposing clients in the murder case invites
suspicion of double-dealing and infidelity to his clients.
What is unsetting is that respondent assisted in the execution by
the two accused of their confessions whereby they admitted their
participation in various serious criminal offenses knowing fully well
that he was retained previously by the heirs of one of the victims.
Respondent, who presumably knows the intricacies of the law,
should have exercised his better judgment before conceding to
accuseds choice of counsel
WHEREFORE, Atty. Danilo de la Torre is found GUILTY of violation of
Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility for
representing conflicting interests. He is SUSPENDED for THREE
YEARS from the practice of law, effective upon his receipt of this
Decision. He is WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar
acts will be dealt with more severely.
CANOY V ORTIZ
Issue: Whether or not Atty. Ortizs contentions justify his failure to submit a
position paper for the complainant.
Facts:
Held: NO.
However, this mantle of public service will not deliver the lawyer,
no matter how well-meaning, from the consequences of negligent
acts.
It is not enough to say that all pauper litigants should be assured
of legal representation.
They deserve quality representation as well.
If indeed Atty. Ortiz's schedule, workload, or physical condition was
such that he would not be able to make a timely filing, he should
have informed Canoy of such fact.
The relationship of lawyer-client being one of confidence, there is
ever present the need for the client to be adequately and fully
informed of the developments of the case and should not be left in
the dark as to the mode and manner in which his/her interests are
being defended.
Also, he cannot now shift the blame to complainant for failing to
inquire about the status of the case, since, as stated above, it was
his duty as lawyer to inform his clients of the status of cases
entrusted to him.
the severance of the relation of attorney-client is not effective until
a notice of discharge by the client or a manifestation clearly
indicating that purpose is filed with the court or tribunal, and a
copy thereof served upon the adverse party, and until then, the
lawyer continues to be counsel in the case.
Assuming that Atty. Ortiz was justified in terminating his services,
he, however, cannot just do so and leave complainant in the cold
unprotected.
Indeed, Rule 22.02 requires that a lawyer who withdraws or is
discharged shall, subject to a lien, immediately turn over all
papers and property to which the client is entitled, and shall
cooperate with his successor in the orderly transfer of the matter.
Atty. Ortiz claims that the reason why he took no further action on
the case was that he was informed that Canoy had acquired the
services of another counsel.
Assuming that were true, there was no apparent coordination
between Atty. Ortiz and this new counsel.
There are no good reasons that would justify a lawyer virtually
abandoning the cause of the client in the midst of litigation
without even informing the client of the fact or cause of desertion.
That the lawyer forsook his legal practice on account of what
might be perceived as a higher calling, election to public office,
does not mitigate the dereliction of professional duty.
Suspension from the practice is the usual penalty, and there is no
reason to deviate from the norm in this case.
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Jose Max S. Ortiz is ordered
SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one (1) month from
notice, with the warning that a repetition of the same negligence
will be dealt with more severely
JARDIN V. VILLAR
FACTS
Issues:
1. Whether there existed a conflict of interest in the cases represented and
handled by respondent, and
JALANDONI V VILLAROSA
Facts:
Held:
hearing, in which event the attorney should see to it that the name
of the new lawyer is recorded in the case.
A lawyer who desires to retire from an action without the written
consent of his client must file a petition for withdrawal in court. He
must serve a copy of his petition upon his client and the adverse
party at least three days before the date set for hearing, otherwise
the court maytreat the application as a "mere scrap of paper."
Respondent made no such move. He admitted that he withdrew as
counsel on April 26, 1999, which withdrawal was supposedly
approved by the court on April28, 1999.
The conformity of Mrs. Jalandoni was only presumed by Atty.
Villarosa because of the appearance of Atty. Alminaza in court,
supposedly in his place.
A client may discharge his attorney at any time with or without
cause and thereafter employ another lawyer who may then enter
his appearance. Thus, it has been held that a client is free to
change his counsel in a pending case and thereafter retain another
lawyer to represent him.
That manner of changing a lawyer does not need the consent of
the lawyer to be dismissed. Nor does it require approval of the
court.
The appearance of Atty. Alminaza in fact was not even to
substitute for respondent but to act as additional counsel.
Mrs. Jalandonis conformity to having an additional lawyer did not
necessarily mean conformityto respondents desire to withdraw as
counsel.
Respondents speculations on the professional relationship of Atty.
Alminaza and Mrs. Jalandoni find no support in the records of this
case.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, respondent Atty. Nicanor V.
Villarosa is hereby found GUILTY of violating Canon 15 and Canon
22 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and is SUSPENDED
from the practice of law for one (1) year, effective upon receipt of
this decision, with a STERNWARNING that a repetition of the same
or similar acts will be dealt with more severely
HORNILLA V SALUNAT
Facts:
Held: Yes.
Sheriff Gatcheco and his wife went to the house of Gonzales, they
harassed Gonzales and asked her to execute an affidavit of
desistance regarding her complaint, Gonzales thereafter
filedagainst the Gatchecos criminal cases for trespass, grave
threats, grave oral defamation, simple coercion and unjust
vexation;
where respondent s law firm was still representing Gonzales,
herein respondent represented the Gatchecos in the cases filed by
Gonzales against the said sps.,
respondent should be disbarred from the practice of law since
respondents acceptance of the cases of the Gatchecos violates
the lawyer client relationship between complainant and
respondents law firm and renders respondent liable under CPR
particularly Rules 10.01, 13.01,15.02, 15.03, 21.02 and 21.02.
FACTS:
HELD: YES
ROLLON V NARAVAL
A.C. No. 6424. March 4, 2005, PANGANIBAN J
PER CURIAM
FACTS:
ISSUE: Whether or not respondent violated his oath and the CPR Canon
15.07.
HELD: YES
RBCI v FLORIDO
FACTS:
GAMILLA v MARIO
BELLOSILLO, J
FACTS:
Atty Marino, Jr. as president of the UST Faculty Union and other
union officers entered into a collective bargaining agreement with
the management of UST for the provision of economic benefits
amounting toP35 Milllion.
The 1986 collective bargaining agreement expired in 1988 but
efforts to forge a new one unfortunately failed.
In 1989, the faculty members of UST went on strike and as a
counter-measure UST terminated the employment of 16 officers
and directors of the UST Faculty Union including Atty Marino, Jr.
The Sec of Labor prescribed the retroactivity of the collective
bargaining agreement to 1988 when the 1986 collective
bargaining agreement expired.
In the same year, the administration of UST and the UST Faculty
Union also entered into a compromise agreement for the payment
to settle backwages.
The important fact in this case is that Atty, Marino, as president,
negotiated with UST as union attorney, even though he was an
interested party since he was one of the officers who were
dismissed (conflict of interests)