Lambert Pawnbrokers and Jewelry Corporation vs Helen Binamira, GR 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-inlaw 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.
On September 14, 1998, Helen received a letter from Lim terminating her employment effective
that same day. Lim cited business losses necessitating retrenchment as the reason for the termination.
Helen thus filed a case for illegal dismissal against petitioners docketed as NLRC RAB-VII
CASE NO. 01-0003-99-B. In her Position Paper Helen alleged that she was dismissed without cause and
the benefit of due process. She claimed that she was a mere casualty of the war of attrition between Lim
and the Binamira family. Moreover, she claimed that there was no proof that the company was suffering
from business losses.
In their Position Paper, petitioners asserted that they had no choice but to retrench respondent due
to economic reverses. The corporation suffered a marked decline in profits as well as substantial and
persistent increase in losses. In its Statement of Income and Expenses, its gross income for 1998 dropped
from P1million to P665,000.00.
In addition to this, petitioners contended that Atty. Binamira gravely breached and abused 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
Issue: Whether or not the counsel violated attorney-client relationship
Held:
There is no violation of attorney-client relationship. Supreme Court find no merit in petitioners
assertion that Atty. Binamira gravely breached and abused 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. Notably, this issue was never raised before the labor tribunals and was raised for the first
time only on appeal. Moreover, 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.

Julie Ann Dela Cueva vs Selima Omaga, AM P-08-2590

Facts:
This administrative case stemmed from a sworn Affidavit-Complaint dated June 15, 2007
filed by Julie Ann dela Cueva charging respondent Selima B. Omaga, Court Stenographer,
Municipal Trial Court, Calauan, Laguna, with Immorality.
Complainant Julie Ann C. dela Cueva is the legal wife of P/Supt. Nestor dela Cueva.
They were married on July 29, 1984, and the union bore three children. Due to the philandering
ways of her husband, the couple separated on November 30, 1994. Thereafter, the complainant
cohabited with two different men in succession (1) William Castillo with whom she had three
children: Jessica, born on February 24, 1998; William Paolo, born on March 6, 2000; and Frenz
William, born on August 8, 2002; and (2) Justiniano Montillano with whom she had one child,
Justin Jan, born on March 31, 2006.
On May 31, 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 (the complainant).
The criminal charges were dismissed by the provincial prosecutor in a resolution dated August
24, 2007.
Complainant dela Cueva also filed an administrative complaint against both her husband
and the respondent. In her defense, respondent averred that she first met P/Supt. dela Cueva in
1995 when he was assigned by the Philippine National Police as Chief of Police in Calauan,
Laguna. Their relationship started on March 8, 1995 and continued until she received notice of
the bigamy and concubinage case filed against him. It was only then that she discovered that he
was married. She bore P/Supt. dela Cueva three children: John Emmanuel, born on December
27, 1996; Patrick Josef, born on May 1, 1998; and Patricia May, born on May 18, 2000.
Respondent further asserted that despite having had three children with P/Supt. dela Cueva, they
did not live together in one house but rather, he would just visit her in her house from time to
time.
Issue: whether or not respondent is indeed guilty of immoral conduct.
Held: No. In the cited case of Ui v. Bonifacio, the respondent was a female lawyer who had a
relationship with, and actually married, a man whose earlier marriage was still subsisting. She
asserted, however, that as soon as she learned that he was married, she left him and ended their
association. The Court found that she did not deserve administrative punishment:

All these taken together leads to the inescapable conclusion that

respondent was imprudent in managing her personal affairs. However, the fact
remains that her relationship with Nestor, clothed as it was with what respondent
believed was a valid marriage, cannot be considered immoral. For immorality
connotes conduct that shows indifference to the moral norms of society and the
opinion of good and respectable members of the community. Moreover, for such
conduct to warrant disciplinary action, the same must be grossly immoral,
that is, it must be so corrupt and false as to constitute a criminal act or so
unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high degree.
We have held that a member of the Bar and officer of the court is not only
required to refrain from adulterous relationships . . . but must also so behave
himself as to avoid scandalizing the public by creating the belief that he is
flouting those moral standards. Respondent's act of immediately distancing
herself from Nestor Dela Cueva upon discovering his true civil status belies
just that alleged moral indifference and proves that she had no intention of
flaunting the law and the high moral standard of the legal profession.
Complainant's bare assertions to the contrary deserve no credit. After all, the
burden of proof rests upon the complainant, and the Court will exercise its
disciplinary powers only if she establishes her case by clear, convincing and
satisfactory evidence. This, herein complainant miserably failed to do.
On a final note, the Court would like to point out that, 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. To
speculate that she did so would be tantamount to committing a discrimination against a solo
parent, which is prohibited under Section 7 of Republic Act No. 8972, the Solo Parents Welfare
Act of 2000.

Julian Penilla vs Atty. Quintin Alcid, Jr. , A.C. no. 9149

Facts:
Before this Court is an administrative complaint filed against respondent Atty. Quintin P.
Alcid, .Jr. for violation of the Lawyer's Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility, and for
gross misconduct in the performance of his duty as a lawyer.
Complainant Julian Penilla entered into an agreement with Spouses Rey and Evelyn Garin (the
spouses) 1(x 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
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
attorneys fees and P10,000 as filing fees. Complainant turned over the relevant documents to
respondent and paid the fees in tranches. Respondent then filed the complaint for estafa before
Asst. City Prosecutor Jose C. Fortuno of 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. Henceforth,
complainant and respondent have conflicting narrations of the subsequent events and
transactions that transpired.
Complainant alleges that when the case was submitted for resolution, respondent told him that
they have to give a bottle of Carlos Primero I to Asst. City Prosecutor Fortuno to expedite a
favorable resolution of the case. Complainant claims that despite initial reservations, he later
acceded to respondents suggestion, bought a bottle of Carlos Primero I for P950 and delivered it
to respondents office.
Asst. City Prosecutor Fortuno 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. Respondent then prepared the motion and promised complainant
that he would fix the problem. On February 18, 2002, the motion 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. After complainant signed the complaint, he was told by
respondent to await further notice as to the status of the case. Complainant claims that
respondent never gave him any update thereafter.
Complainant asserts having made numerous and unsuccessful attempts to follow-up the status of
the case and meet with respondent at his office. He admits, however, that in one instance he was
able to talk to respondent who told him that the case was not progressing because the spouses
could not be located. In the same meeting, respondent asked complainant to determine the
whereabouts of the spouses. Complainant returned to respondents office on January 24, 2005,
but because respondent was not around, complainant left with respondents secretary a letter
regarding the possible location of the spouses.
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 respondents
possession. Complainant then sought the assistance of the radio program Ito ang Batas with
Atty. Aga to solve his predicament. Following the advice he gathered, complainant went to the
Office of the Clerk of Court of the Caloocan City Metropolitan Trial Court and Regional Trial
Court (RTC). 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. Atty. Aga of the same radio
program also sent respondent a letter calling his attention to complainants problem. The letter,
like all of complainants previous letters, was unheeded.
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 Lawyers Oath and the Code of Professional
Responsibility, and for appropriate administrative sanctions to be imposed
In an Answer filed on January 30, 2006, respondent prayed that the case be dismissed for lack of
merit. He denied charging complainant P10,000 as filing fees for the estafa case and claimed that
he charged and received only P2,000. He also countered that the payment of P30,000 made by
the complainant was his acceptance fee for both the estafa case and civil case. Respondent
likewise denied the following other allegations of complainant: that he assured the success of the
case before the prosecutor; that he asked complainant to give a bottle of Carlos Primero I to the
prosecutor; that he promised to fix the case; and that he charged P10,000, as he only charged
P5,000, as filing fee for the civil case.
Respondent explained that it was not a matter of indifference on his part when he failed to inform
petitioner of the status of the case. In fact, he was willing to return the money and the documents

of complainant. What allegedly prevented him from communicating with complainant was the
fact that complainant would go to his office during days and times that he would be attending his
daily court hearings. The IBP-CBD called for a mandatory conference on April 28, 2006. Only
complainant and his counsel attended. The conference was reset and terminated on June 9, 2006.
The parties were directed to file their verified position papers within 15 days, to which
complainant and respondent complied.
Issue:
Whether or not Atty. Alcid violated the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Lawyers
Oath
Held:
We sustain 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 we
also find respondent guilty of violating the Lawyers Oath and Canon 17, 18 and Rule 18.03 and
18.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which are the following:
d) Canon 17 A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he shall be mindful of the
trust and confidence reposed in him;
e) Canon 18 A lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence
f) Rule 18.03[, Canon 18] A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him and his
negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable;
g) Rule 18.04[, Canon 18] A lawyer shall keep his client informed of the status of his case and
shall respond within a reasonable time to the clients request for information
And so, the respondent Atty. Quintin P. Alcid, Jr. is hereby found guilty of gross misconduct.
Supreme Court imposed upon respondent the penalty of suspension from the practice of law for a
period of (6) to commence immediately. Respondent is further admonished to be more
circumspect and diligent in handling cases of his clients, and Sternly warned for commission of
the same or similar acts in the future.

Confidentiality Rule
A lawyer shall maintain in confidence all information gained in the professional
relationship with a client, including information which the client has requested to be held
inviolate or the disclosure of which would be embarrassing or would likely be detrimental to the
client, unless the client gives informed consent, except for disclosures that are impliedly
authorized in order to carry out the representation, or are required by these Rules or other law, or
by order of the Court.
The Code of Professional Responsibility provides under Rule 15.02, a lawyer shall be bound by
the rule on privilege communication in respect matters disclosed to him by a prospective client.

Cases:
Rosa F. Mercado vs Atty. Julito Vitriolo
Facts:
Rosa Mercado is seeking for the disbarment of Atty. Julito Vitriolo as he allegedly maliciously
filed a criminal case for falsification of public documents against her thereby violating the
attorney client privilege. It appears that Vitriolo filed a case against complainant as she
apparently made false entries in the certificate of live birth of her children. More specifically she
allegedly indicated that she is married to a certain Ferdinand Fernandez when in fact her real
husband is Ruben Mercado. Mercado claims that by filing the complaint the attorney client
privilege has been violated. Mercado filed a case for Vitriolos disbarment.
Issue: Whether or not the respondent violated the rule on privileged communication between
attorney-client when he filed the criminal case for falsification
Held: No. The evidence on record fails to substantiate complainants allegations. Complainant
did not even specify the alleged communication disclosed by the respondents. All her claims
were couched in general terms and lacked specificity. Indeed the complaint failed to attend the
hearings at the IBP. Without any testimony from the complainant as to the specific confidential
information allegedly divulged by respondent without her consent, it would be difficult if not
impossible to determine if there was any violation of the rule on privileged communication. Such
information is a crucial link in establishing a breach of the rule on privileged communication
between attorney and client. It is not enough to merely assert the attorney client privilege. The
burden of proving that the privilege applies is placed upon the party asserting the privilege.

William Pfleider vs Potenciano Palanca

Facts:
The respondent Atty. Potenciano A. Palanca was for sometime the legal counsel of the
complainant William C. Pfleider. According to the complainant, he retained the legal services of
Palanca from January 1966, whereas the latter insists that the attorney-client relationship
between them began as early as in 1960.
At all events, the relations between the two must have attained such a high level of
mutual trust that on October 10, 1969, Pfleider and his wife leased to Palanca a 1,328 hectare
agricultural land in Hinobaan, Negros Occidental, known as the Hacienda Asia, for a period of
ten years. In their contract, the parties agreed, among others, that a specified portion of the lease
rentals would be paid to Pfleider, and the remainder would be delivered by Palanca to Pfleider's
listed creditors.
The arrangement worked smoothly until October 14, 1969 when the rupture came with
the filing by Pfleider of a civil suit (civil case 9187 of the CFI of Negros Occidental) against
Palanca for rescission of the contract of lease on the ground of alleged default in the payment of
rentals. In his answer to the complaint, Palanca averred full satisfaction of his rental liabilities,
and therefore contended that the lease should continue. He also charged that he had already been

dispossessed of the hacienda by Pfleider and the latter's goons at gunpoint and consequently had
suffered tremendous financial losses.
With this history in, perspective, we shall now consider the administrative charges of
gross misconduct in office brought by Pfleider against Palanca.
If Pfleider was the object of a warrant of arrest in December 1969, no substantial blame can be
laid at the door of the respondent Palanca inasmuch as the latter's services were implicitly
terminated by Pfleider when the latter sued his lawyer in October of the same year. While the
object of the suit is the rescission of the contract of lease between the parties, the conflict of
interest which pits one against the other became incompatible with that mutual confidence and
trust essential to every lawyer-client relation. Moreover, Pfleider fails to dispute Palanca's claim
that on October 26, 1968, Pfleider refused to acknowledge receipt of a certain letter and several
motions for withdrawal, including Palanca's withdrawal as counsel in the estafa case.
Issue: Whether or not Palanca committed a violation of the attorney-client relationship
regarding confidential matters
Held:
No. As Pfleider himself, in the execution of the terms of the aforesaid lease contract between the
parties, complainant furnished respondent with a confidential list of his creditors." This should
indicate that Pfleider delivered the list of his creditors to Palanca not because of the professional
relation then existing between them, but on account of the lease agreement. A violation therefore
of the confidence that accompanied the delivery of that list would partake more of a private and
civil wrong than of a breach of the fidelity owing from a lawyer to his client. Moreover, Pfleider
fails to controvert Palanca's claim that there is no such thing as a "confidential" list of creditors
and that the list of creditors referred to by Pfleider is the same list which forms part of the
pleadings in civil case 9187 (the action for rescission of the lease contract) now, pending
between the complainant and the respondent lawyer, and therefore is embraced within the
category of public records open to the perusal of persons properly interested therein.
In sum, the Court is satisfied, and so hold, that nothing in written complaint for disbarment
against Palanca and in his reply to Palanca's answer supports a prima facie finding of such
misconduct in office by Palanca as would warrant further proceedings in this case.

Genato vs Atty. Silapan

Facts:
Atty. Silapan was leasing office space in Genatos building. Atty. Silapan handled some
of Genatos cases. After a while, Atty. Silapan borrowed money from Genato to buy a car. Atty.
Silapan bought the car, and issued a postdated check to Genato. The check was dishonored.
Genato filed a case against Atty. Silapan under BP 22. In his defense, he alleged that Genato was
in the business of buying an selling deficiency taxed imported cars, shark loans and other shady
deals and that he was also involved in bribery cases. Genato claimed that Atty. Silapan was
guilty of breaking their confidential lawyer-client relationship.

Issue: Whether or not the lawyer committed a violation of the Code of Professional
Responsibility

Held:
No. While Canon 17 provides that a lawyer shall be mindful of the trust and confidence
reposed on him, especially with privileged communication the protection is only limited to
communications which are legitimately and properly within the scope of a lawful employment of
a lawyer. It does not extend to those made in contemplation of a crime or perpetration of a fraud.
Thus, here, the attorney-client privilege does not attach, there being no professional employment
in the strictest sense. However, the disclosures were not indispensable to protect Atty. Silapans
rights as they were not pertinent to the case. It was improper for him to disclose those
information as they were not the subject matter of litigation at hand. His professional
competence and legal advice were not being attacked in the said case. A lawyer must conduct
himself with integrity. He is therefore suspended for 6 months.

Conflict of Interest

Benedicto Hornilla and Atty. Federico D. Ricafort vs. Atty. Ernesto S. Salunat, A.C. No.
5804. July 1, 2003
Facts:
An SEC Case 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. Complainants contend that respondent was guilty of conflict of interest because he was
engaged by the PPSTA, of which complainants were members, and was being paid out of its
corporate funds where complainants have contributed. Despite being told by PPSTA members of
the said conflict of interest, respondent refused to withdraw his appearance in the said cases.
Issue: Whether or not the counsel violated canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
on matters regarding conflict of interest
Held:
Yes. The counsel is guilty representing conflicting interests and is admonished to observe
a higher degree of fidelity in the practice of his profession. WARNED that a repetition of the
same or similar acts. As provided in Rule 15.03 of Code of Professional Responsibility, a lawyer
shall not represent conflicting interests except by written consent of all concerned given after a
full disclosure of the facts.
In other jurisdictions, the prevailing rule is that a situation wherein a lawyer represents
both the corporation and its assailed directors unavoidably gives rise to a conflict of interest. The

interest of the corporate client is paramount and should not be influenced by any interest of the
individual corporate officials. The rulings in these cases have persuasive effect upon us. After
due deliberation on the wisdom of this doctrine, we are sufficiently convinced that a lawyer
engaged as counsel for a corporation cannot represent members of the same corporations board
of directors in a derivative suit brought against them. To do so would be tantamount to
representing conflicting interests, which is prohibited by the Code of Professional
Responsibility?
Quiambao vs Bamba

Facts:
Quiambao charges Atty. Bamba with violation of CPR for representing conflicting
interests when the latter filed a case against her while he was at that time representing her in
another case, and for committing other acts of disloyalty and double-dealing. Atty. Bamba is the
counsel of Allied Investigation Bureau (AIB) and its president and managing director
(Quiambao). Atty. Bamba is the counsel of Quaimbao in an ejectment case. Later on, Quiambao
resigned from AIB. While the ejectment case was still ongoing, Atty. Bamba, as the counsel of
AIB, filed a replevin case against Quiambao.
Issue:
Whether or not Atty. Bamba is guilty of misconduct for representing conflicting interests
in contravention of the basic tenets of the legal profession.
Held:
Yes, Atty. Bamba is guilty. Suspended for 1 year.
At the time Atty. Bamba filed the replevin case on behalf of AIB, he was still the counsel
of record of Quiambao in the pending ejectment case. Under Rule 15.03, a lawyer shall not
represent conflicting interests except by written consent of all concerned given after full
disclosure of the facts. This is founded on the principles of public policy because it is the only
way that litigants can be encouraged to entrust their secrets to their lawyers, which is of
paramount importance in the administration of justice.
3 Tests of Conflict of Interests:
1. Whether a lawyer is duty-bound to fight for an issue or claim in behalf of one client and,
at the same time, to oppose that claim for the other client
2. Whether the acceptance of a new relation would prevent the full discharge of the lawyers
duty of undivided fidelity and loyalty to the client or invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or
double-dealing in the performance of that duty
Whether the lawyer would be called upon in the new relation to use against a former client any
confidential information acquired through their connection or previous employment

Heirs of Falame vs Baguio

Facts:
Plaintiffs, heirs of the late Lydio Falame, allege that their father engaged the services of
respondent Atty. Baguio to represent him in an action for forcible entry (in which Lydio and his
brother Raleigh were one of the defendants). As counsel, Atty. Baguio used and submitted
evidence of: 1.) A special power of attorney executed by Lydio in favor of his brother, Raleigh
Falame, appointing him as his attorney-in-fact; and 2.) affidavit of Raleigh Falame, executed
before the respondent, in which Raleigh stated that Lydio owned the property subject of the case.

Plaintiffs further allege that even after a favorable ruling for the defendants in the said
case, Lydio still retained the services of Atty. Baguio as his legal adviser and counsel of his
businesses until his death in 1996.
However, in October of 2000 Atty. Baguio, in representation of spouses Raleigh and Noemi
Falame, filed a compliant against the plaintiffs involving the same property that was the subject
matter in the first case. Said complaint sought the declaration of nullity of the deed of sale, its
registration in the registry of deeds, TCT issued as a consequence of the registration of the sale
and the real estate mortgage.
Plaintiffs in turn, filed an administrative case against Atty. Baguio alleging that by acting
as counsel for the spouses Falame in the second case, wherein they were impleaded a defendants,
respondent violated his oath of office and duty as an attorney. They contend that the spouses
Falames interests are adverse to those of his former client, Lydio.
The IBP Board of Governors passed a Resolution adopting and approving Investigating
Commissioner Winston Abuyuans report and recommendation for the dismissal of this case.
Issue:
W/N Atty. Baguio violated Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility?
Held:
Yes, he violated the rule. Rule 15.03 of the Canon of Professional Responsibility
provides: A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by written consent of all
concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts. A lawyer may not, without being guilty of
professional misconduct, act as counsel for a person whose interest conflicts with that of his
present or former client.
The test is whether, on behalf of one client, it is the lawyers duty to contest that which
his duty another client requires him to oppose or when the possibility of such situation will
develop. The 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.
The rule prohibits a lawyer from representing a client if that representation will be
directly adverse to any of his present or former clients. The rule is grounded in the fiduciary
obligation of loyalty.
The termination of attorney-client relation provides no justification for a lawyer to
represent an interest adverse to or in conflict with that of the former client. The clients
confidence once reposed should not be divested by mere expiration of professional employment.
The protection given to a client is perpetual and does not cease with the termination of the
litigation, nor is it affected by the partys ceasing to employ the attorney and retaining another, or
by any other change of relation between them. It even survives the death of the client.
In the case at bar, respondent admitted having jointly represented Lydio and Raleigh as
defendants in the first civil case. Evidently, the attorney-client relation between Lydio and
respondent was established despite the fact that it is immaterial whether such employment was
paid, promised or charged for.
As defense counsel in the first civil case respondent advocated the stance that Lydio solely
owned the property subject of the case. In the second civil case involving the same property,
respondent, as counsel for Raleigh and his spouse, has pursued the inconsistent position that
Raleigh owned the same property in common with Lydio, with complainants, who inherited the
property, committing acts which debase respondents rights as co-owner. The fact that the
attorney-client relation had ceased by reason of Lydios death or through the completion of the
specific task for which respondent was employed is not reason for respondent to advocate a
position opposed to the of Lydio. And while plaintiffs have never been respondents clients, they
derive their rights to the property from Lydios ownership of it which respondent maintained in
the first civil case.

Northwestern University vs Arquillo

Facts:
Northwestern University filed an administrative case against Atty. Arquillo for
representing conflicting interests in a NLRC case. The complaint alleges that Atty. Arquillo
appeared as counsel for both the petitioner and the respondent (Castro) in the labor case. Atty.
Arquillo, as a defense, contended that the petitioners and respondent he represented in the labor
case belonged to the same side as the latter party was absolved from liability. Hence, there was
no conflict of interests.
Issue:
W/N Atty. Arquillo represented conflicting interests.
Held:
YES. When a lawyer represents two or more opposing parties, there is a conflict of
interests, the existence of which is determined by three 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 new retainer will require an attorney to
perform an act that may injuriously affect the first 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 attorneys 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.
Having agreed to represent one of the opposing parties first, the lawyer should have
known that there was an obvious conflict of interests, regardless of his alleged belief that they
were all on the same side. It cannot be denied that the dismissed employees were the
complainants in the same cases in which Castro was one of the respondents.