You are on page 1of 7

G.R. No.

L-961 September 21, 1949


BLANDINA GAMBOA HILADO, petitioner,
vs.
JOSE GUTIERREZ DAVID, VICENTE J. FRANCISCO, JACOB ASSAD and SELIM JACOB
ASSAD, respondents.

Petitioner alleged that she and the counsel for the defendant had an attorney-client
relationship with her when, before the trial of the case, she went to defendants
counsel, gave him the papers of the case and other information relevant thereto,
although she was not able to pay him legal fees. That respondents law firm mailed
to the plaintiff a written opinion over his signature on the merits of her case; that
this opinion was reached on the basis of papers she had submitted at his office; that
Mrs. Hilado's purpose in submitting those papers was to secure Attorney Francisco's
professional services. Atty. Francisco appeared as counsel for defendant and
plaintiff did not object to it until (4) months after. Then, plaintiff moved to dismiss
the case between her and defendant.
Issue: Was there an attorney-client relationship between plaintiff and Atty.
Francisco?
Held: YES. In order to constitute the relation a professional one and not merely one
of principal and agent, the attorneys must be employed either to give advice upon a
legal point, to prosecute or defend an action in court of justice, or to prepare and
draft, in legal form such papers as deeds, bills, contracts and the like.
To constitute professional employment it is not essential that the client should have
employed the attorney professionally on any previous occasion. 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. An acceptance of
the relation is implied on the part of the attorney from his acting in behalf of his
client in pursuance of a request by the latter.

That only copies of pleadings already filed in court were furnished to Attorney
Agrava and that, this being so, no secret communication was transmitted to him by
the plaintiff, would not vary the situation even if we should discard Mrs. Hilado's
statement that other papers, personal and private in character, were turned in by
her. Precedents are at hand to support the doctrine that the mere relation of
attorney and client ought to preclude the attorney from accepting the opposite
party's retainer in the same litigation regardless of what information was received
by him from his first client.
An attorney, on terminating his employment, cannot thereafter act as counsel
against his client in the same general matter, even though, while acting for his
former client, he acquired no knowledge which could operate to his client's
disadvantage in the subsequent adverse employment
"A retaining fee is a preliminary fee given to an attorney or counsel to insure and
secure his future services, and induce him to act for the client. It is intended to
remunerate counsel for being deprived, by being retained by one party, of the
opportunity of rendering services to the other and of receiving pay from him, and
the payment of such fee, in the absence of an express understanding to the
contrary, is neither made nor received in payment of the services contemplated; its
payment has no relation to the obligation of the client to pay his attorney for the
services which he has retained him to perform."

UY v. GONZALES
FACTS:
William S. Uy engaged the services of Atty. Fermin L. Gonzales for violation of the
confidentiality of their lawyer-client relationship. The complainant alleges: to
prepare and file a petition for the issuance of a new certificate of title. After
confiding with respondent the circumstances surrounding the lost title and
discussing the fees and costs, respondent prepared, finalized and submitted to him
a petition to be filed before the Regional Trial Court of Tayug, Pangasinan. When the
petition was about to be filed, respondent went to his (complainants) office at Virra
Mall, Greenhills and demanded a certain amount from him other than what they had
previously agreed upon. Respondent left his office after reasoning with him.
Expecting that said petition would be filed, he was shocked to find out later that
instead of filing the petition for the issuance of a new certificate of title, respondent
filed a letter-complaint dated July 26, 1999 against him with the Office of the
Provincial Prosecutor of Tayug, Pangasinan for Falsification of Public Documents.
The letter-complaint contained facts and circumstances pertaining to the transfer
certificate of title that was the subject matter of the petition which respondent was
supposed to have filed. Portions of said letter-complaint read:

The undersigned complainant accuses WILLIAM S. UY, of legal age, Filipino, married
and a resident of 132-A Gilmore Street corner 9th Street, New Manila, Quezon City,
Michael Angelo T. UY, CRISTINA EARL T. UY, minors and residents of the aforesaid
address, Luviminda G. Tomagos, of legal age, married, Filipino and a resident of
Carmay East, Rosales, Pangasinan, and F. Madayag, with office address at A12, 2/F
Vira Mall Shopping Complex, Greenhills, San Juan, Metro Manila, for ESTAFA THRU
FALSIFICATION OF PUBLIC DOCUMENTS, committed as follows:

That on March 15, 1996, William S. Uy acquired by purchase a parcel of land


consisting of 4.001 ha. for the amount of P100,000.00, Philippine Currency, situated
at Brgy. Gonzales, Umingan, Pangasinan, from FERMIN C. GONZALES, as evidenced
by a Deed of Sale executed by the latter in favor of the former; that in the said

date, William S. Uy received the Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-33122, covering
the said land;
That instead of registering said Deed of Sale and Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT)
No. T-33122, in the Register of Deeds for the purpose of transferring the same in his
name, wherein William S. Uy made it appear that his said children are of legal age,
and residents of Pangasinan, when in fact and in truth, they are minors and
residents of Metro Manila.
That the above-named accused, conspiring together and helping one another
procured the falsified documents which they used as supporting papers so that they
can secure from the Office of the Register of Deeds of Tayug, Pangasinan, TCT No. T5165 (Certificate of Land Ownership Award No. 004 32930) in favor of his abovenamed children. Some of these Falsified documents are purported Affidavit of
Seller/Transferor and Affidavit of Non-Tenancy, both dated August 20, 1996, without
the signature of affiant, Fermin C. Gonzales, and that on that said date, Fermin C.
Gonzales was already dead ;

That on December 17, 1998, William S. Uy with deceit and evident intent to defraud
undersigned, still accepted the amount of P340,000.00, from Atty. Fermin L.
Gonzales, P300,000.00, in PNB Check No. 0000606, and P40,000.00, in cash, as full
payment of the redemption of TCT No. 33122knowing fully well that at that time
the said TCT cannot be redeemed anymore because the same was already
transferred in the name of his children;
That William S. Uy has appropriated the amount covered by the aforesaid check, as
evidenced by the said check which was encashed by him;
That inspite of repeated demands, both oral and in writing, William S. Uy refused
and continue to refuse to deliver to him a TCT in the name of the undersigned or to
return and repay the said P340,000.00, to the damage and prejudice of the
undersigned.[2]
With the execution of the letter-complaint, respondent violated his oath as a lawyer
and grossly disregarded his duty to preserve the secrets of his client. Respondent
unceremoniously turned against him just because he refused to grant respondents
request for additional compensation. Respondents act tarnished his reputation and
social standing.[3]
Respondent maintains that the lawyer-client relationship between him and
complainant was terminated when he gave the handwritten letter to complainant;
that there was no longer any professional relationship between the two of them
when he filed the letter-complaint for falsification of public document; that the facts
and allegations contained in the letter-complaint for falsification were culled from

public documents procured from the Office of the Register of Deeds in Tayug,
Pangasinan.
Held:
Practice of law embraces any activity, in or out of court, which requires the
application of law, as well as legal principles, practice or procedure and calls for
legal knowledge, training and experience. While it is true that a lawyer may be
disbarred or suspended for any misconduct, whether in his professional or private
capacity, which shows him to be wanting in moral character, in honesty, probity and
good demeanor or unworthy to continue as an officer of the court, complainant
failed to prove any of the circumstances enumerated above that would warrant the
disbarment or suspension of herein respondent.
Notwithstanding respondents own perception on the matter, a scrutiny of the
records reveals that the relationship between complainant and respondent
stemmed from a personal transaction or dealings between them rather than the
practice of law by respondent. Respondent dealt with complainant only because he
redeemed a property which complainant had earlier purchased from his
(complainants) son.
It is not refuted that respondent paid complainant
P340,000.00 and gave him ample time to produce its title and execute the Deed of
Redemption. However, despite the period given to him, complainant failed to fulfill
his end of the bargain because of the alleged loss of the title which he had admitted
to respondent as having prematurely transferred to his children, thus prompting
respondent to offer his assistance so as to secure the issuance of a new title to the
property, in lieu of the lost one, with complainant assuming the expenses therefor.
As a rule, an attorney-client relationship is said to exist when a lawyer voluntarily
permits or acquiesces with the consultation of a person, who in respect to a
business or trouble of any kind, consults a lawyer with a view of obtaining
professional advice or assistance. It is not essential that the client should have
employed the attorney on any previous occasion or 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, for as long as the advice and assistance of the attorney is sought and received,
in matters pertinent to his profession.
Considering the attendant peculiar circumstances, said rule cannot apply to the
present case. Evidently, the facts alleged in the complaint for Estafa Through
Falsification of Public Documents filed by respondent against complainant were
obtained by respondent due to his personal dealings with complainant. Respondent
volunteered his service to hasten the issuance of the certificate of title of the land
he has redeemed from complainant. Respondents immediate objective was to
secure the title of the property that complainant had earlier bought from his son.
Clearly, there was no attorney-client relationship between respondent and

complainant. The preparation and the proposed filing of the petition was only
incidental to their personal transaction.

Hadjula vs. Atty Madiana [A.C. No. 6711. July 3, 2007]


16OCT
Ponente: GARCIA, J.
FACTS:
[C]omplainant alleged that she and respondent used to be friends as they both
worked at the Bureau of Fire Protection (BFP), claimed that she approached
respondent for some legal advice and further alleged that in the course of their
conversation which was supposed to be kept confidential she disclosed personal
secrets 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.
[R]espondent denied giving legal advice to the complainant and dismissed any
suggestion about the existence of a lawyer-client relationship between them.
Respondent also stated the observation that the supposed confidential data and

sensitive documents adverted to are in fact matters of common knowledge in the


BFP.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the Atty. Madiana breached her duty of preserving the confidence of
a client and violated the Code of Professional Responsibility.
HELD:
YES. Respondent was reprimanded and admonished.
RATIO:
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 seriousness of the respondents offense notwithstanding, the Supreme Court
feels that there is room for compassion, absent compelling evidence that the
respondent acted with ill-will.
Without meaning to condone the error of
respondents ways, what at bottom is before the Court is two former friends
becoming bitter enemies and filing charges and counter-charges against each other
using whatever convenient tools and data were readily available. Unfortunately, the
personal information respondent gathered from her conversation with complainant
became handy in her quest to even the score. At the end of the day, it appears clear
to the Court that respondent was actuated by the urge to retaliate without perhaps
realizing that, in the process of giving vent to a negative sentiment, she was
violating the rule on confidentiality.

You might also like