acts:

Venterez and friends hired Atty. Cosme as counsel for a land title dispute. The court ruled against the
complainants. They wanted to file a motion of reconsideration but Atty. Cosme failed or refused to do so.
Because of this, the complainants were constrained to contact another lawyer to prepare the motion for
reconsideration.

Atty. Cosme claims that the son of one of the complainants informed him that the complainants were
withdrawing the case from him because he (the son) engaged another lawyer to take over the case. Atty.
Cosme further explained that he even turned over the records of the case to the son, ceased to be
counsel of the complainants.

Issue:
Whether or not the respondent violated the Code of the Professional Responsibility (CPR).

Held:
The Supreme Court find the respondent guilty of violating Rule 22.01, Canon 22 of the CPR for
abandoning the complainant’s case without a good cause. An attorney may only retire from the case
either by a written consent of his client or by permission of the court after due notice and hearing, in which
event, the attorney should see to it that the name of the new attorney is recorded in the case.

For failing to protect the interests of the complainants, the respondent violated Rule 18.03, Canon 18 of
the CPR.

The Supreme Court suspended the respondent from the practice of law for a period of three months.
Fernando Salonga, President of Sikap at Tiyaga Alabang Vendors Association, Inc. (STAVA) of
Muntinlupa City, charged Atty. Isidro T. Hildawa with gross misconduct and/or deceit. Complainant
averred that respondent lawyer was a retained counsel of STAVA for a number of years and, in
December 1993, he represented the association in ejectment cases filed against three stallholders at
the Alabang Market before the Municipal Trial Court of Muntinlupa. The defendants deposited the
accrued rentals with the court. On December 9, 1994, respondent lawyer, with conformity of the
counsel of the defendants, withdrew the said deposit in the amount of P104,543.80. Complainant
then alleged that STAVA was not informed of the filing of the motion nor did it authorize Atty.
Hildawa to withdraw the amount and despite repeated demands, he refused to turn over the withdrawn
sum to STAVA. In addition, Atty. Hildawa appeared as counsel for Kilusang Bayan ng mga
Magtitinda sa Pamilihang Bayan ng Muntinlupa (KBMBPM), an opponent of STAVA in an
injunction case. On the other hand, Atty. Hildawa countered that he has an authority to do so by citing
the resolution of the STAVA Board of Trustees dated October 20, 1994 granting him an authority to
do all legal steps in order to collect money for STAVA, and that complainant was fully aware of the
withdrawal of the rentals in arrears. On December 10, 1994 he handed over the sum to the treasurer,
Dolores Javinar, who issued the corresponding receipt. Further, respondent clarified that his services
as counsel for STAVA were already terminated in February 1995, long before he appeared as counsel
for KBMBPM in December, 1995.
The Court ruled that respondent lawyer has transgressed Canon 21 which requires a lawyer to
preserve the confidences and secrets of his client even after the attorney-client relation ceases, a
mandate that he has placed in possible jeopardy by agreeing to appear as counsel for a party his client
has previously contended with in a case similarly involving said parties. The Court ABSOLVED
Atty. Isidro T. Hildawa from the charge of having violated his obligation to hold in trust the funds of
his client but REPRIMANDED him for having placed at risk his obligation of preserving the
confidentiality relationship with a previous client, with a warning that a repetition of the same or
similar conduct in the future will be dealt with most severely.
SYLLABUS
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS; ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP; A LAWYER IS REQUIRED TO PRESERVE
CONFIDENCES AND SECRETS OF HIS CLIENT EVEN AFTER THE RELATION CEASES.- The Court agrees with the
Investigating Commissioner, however, that respondent lawyer has transgressed Canon 21 which requires a lawyer to preserve the
confidences and secrets of his client even after the attorney-client relation ceases, a mandate that he has placed in possible jeopardy
by agreeing to appear as counsel for a party his client has previously contended with a case similarly involving said parties.

84 Phil 569 – Legal Ethics – Existence of Attorney-Client Relationship

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.
Further:
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.