Professional Documents
Culture Documents
I. Conflict of Interest in a Regular Lawyer-Client proceed with the criminal cases until they were
Relationship dismissed or otherwise concluded by the trial
a. What is conflict of interest? court.
b. Test in determining conflicting interests
c. Rule 15.03 iv. Nakpil VS Valdez
i. Lim Jr. VS Villarosa Doctine: The test of impropriety of
Doctrine: There is representation of conflicting representation of conflicting interests is not the
interests if the acceptance of the new retainer certainty of such existence but mere probability
will require the attorney to do anything which for it to exist.
will injuriously affect his first client in any
matter in which he represents him and also II. Conflict of Interest of Corporate Lawyers
whether he will be called upon in his new relation, a. Rule 15.03
to use against his first client any knowledge b. Derivative Suit
acquired through their connection i. Hornilla VS Salunat
Doctrine: Where corporate directors have
committed a breach of trust either by their
ii. Pormento Sr. Pontevedra frauds, ultra vires acts, or negligence, and the
Doctrine: Jurisprudence instructs that there is a corporation is unable or unwilling to institute suit
representation of conflicting interests if the to remedy the wrong, a stockholder (in this case
acceptance of the new retainer will require the a member because PPSTA is non-stock) may
attorney to do anything which will injuriously sue on behalf of himself and other stockholders
affect his first client in any matter in which he and for the benefit of the corporation, to bring
represents him and also whether he will be about a redress of the wrong done directly to
called upon in his new relation, to use against the corporation and indirectly to the
his first client any knowledge acquired through stockholders.
their connection.
ii. Hocorma Foundation VS Funk
Another test to determine if there is a Doctrine: Canon 15, Rule 15.03 of the CPR
representation of conflicting interests is whether provides that a lawyer cannot represent
the acceptance of a new relation will prevent an conflicting interests except by written consent of
attorney from the full discharge of his duty of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the
undivided fidelity and loyalty to his client or facts. Here, it is undeniable that Atty. Funk was
invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or double formerly the legal counsel of Hocorma
dealing in the performance thereof. Foundation. Years after terminating his
relationship with the foundation, he filed a
iii. Samson VS Era complaint against it on behalf of another client,
Doctrine: The lawyer-client relationship did not without the foundation’s written consent.
terminate when the parties entered into a
compromise settlement, for the fact remained
that he still needed to oversee the iii. Pacana VS Pascual Lopez
Ajas, Asistio Balleza, Briones, Lacson, Manuel, Santiago and Valdez 1
Doctrine: This prohibition is founded on the ethical conduct demanded upon lawyers
principles of public policy, good taste and, more in the government service is more exacting
importantly, upon necessity. In the course of a than the standards for those in private
lawyer-client relationship, the lawyer learns all practice. Lawyers in the government service
the facts connected with the client’s case, are subject to constant public scrutiny under
including its weak and strong points. Such norms of public accountability. They also bear
knowledge must be considered sacred and the heavy burden of having to put aside their
guarded with care. private interest in favor of the interest of the
public; their private activities should not
iv. Palm VS Iledan interfere with the discharge of their official
Doctrine: It is settled that the mere relation of functions.
attorney and client does not raise a
presumption of confidentiality.11 The client iii. Canon 6.03
must intend the communication to be 1. Olazo VS Tinga
confidential.12 Since the proposed Doctrine: to fall within the ambit of Rule 6.03
amendments must be approved by at least a of the Code of Professional Responsibility, the
majority of the stockholders, and copies of the respondent must have accepted engagement
amended by-laws must be filed with the SEC, or employment in a matter which, by virtue of
the information could not have been intended to his public office, he had previously exercised
be confidential. power to influence the outcome of the
proceedings.
III. Limitations/ Restrictions of Government Lawyers in
the Practice of Law 2. PCGG VS Sandiganbayan
a. Canon 6 Doctrine: The key to unlock Rule 6.03 lies in
b. Canon 6.01 comprehending first, the meaning of matter
i. Public Prosecutor referred to in the rule and, second, the metes
c. Canon 6.02 and bounds of the intervention made by the
i. Applicability of Rule former government lawyer on the matter. The
ii. Prohibitions of Public Officials and Employees American Bar Association in its Formal
during their Incumbency Opinion 342, defined matter as any discrete,
1. Ali VS Bubong isolatable act as well as identifiable
Doctrine: the general rule is that a lawyer who transaction or conduct involving a particular
holds a government office may not be situation and specific party, and not merely
disciplined as a member of the bar for an act of drafting, enforcing or interpreting
infractions he committed as a government government or agency procedures,
official, he may, however, be disciplined as a regulations or laws, or briefing abstract
lawyer if his misconduct constitutes a violation principles of law.
of his oath a member of the legal profession.
d. Rule 3.03
2. Olazo VS Tinga i. Reasons
Doctrine: Since public office is a public trust,
Ajas, Asistio Balleza, Briones, Lacson, Manuel, Santiago and Valdez 2
e. Public Officials Who Cannot Practice Law in the signatory, he must require the signatory to
Philippines present a competent evidence of identity.
f. Public Officials with Restrictions
g. Restrictions in the Practice of Law by Sanggunian b. The Notary Public
Members i. Caalim-Verzonilla VS Pascua
h. RA 7160 Section 90 Doctrine: The principal function of a notary
i. Canon 15, Rule 15,06 public is to authenticate documents. When a
i. Influence Peddling notary public certifies to the due execution and
1. Maderada VS Mediodea delivery of a document under his hand and seal,
Doctrine: Maderada appeared for herself he gives the document the force of evidence.
not for the public and did not demand Indeed, one of the purposes of requiring
payment for it. Therefore, in doing so, she documents to be acknowledged before a notary
cannot be said to have been engaged in public, in addition to the solemnity which should
the practice of law. What is prohibited is surround the execution and delivery of
appearing as counsel for her co plaintiff. documents, is to authorize such documents to
It no longer follows the raison de etre of be given without further proof of their execution
protecting ones own rights. and delivery.