his first client any knowledge acquired through
I. Conflict of Interest in a Regular Lawyer-Client
Relationship
a. What is conflict of interest?
b. Test in determining conflicting interests
c. Rule 15.03
i. Lim Jr. VS Villarosa
Doctrine: There is representation of conflicting
interests if the acceptance of the new retainer
will require the attorney to do anything which
will injuriously affect his first client in any
matter in which he represents him and also
whether he will be called upon in his new relation,
to use against his first client any knowledge
acquired through their connection
ii. Catalan Jr. VS Silvosa
Doctrine: 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 pleadings, or advocating his client’s cause
in open court.
iii. Artezuela VS Maderazo
Doctrine: that lawyers owe undivided allegiance
to their clients, and should at all times weigh their
actions, especially in their dealings with the latter
and the public at large. That they must conduct
themselves beyond reproach at all times.
iv. Pormento Sr. Pontevedra
Doctrine: Jurisprudence instructs that there is a
representation of conflicting interests if the
acceptance of the new retainer will require the
attorney to do anything which will injuriously
affect his first client in any matter in which he
represents him and also whether he will be
called upon in his new relation, to use against
Ajas, Asistio Balleza, Briones, Lacson, Manuel, Santiago and Valdez
their connection.
Another test to determine if there is a
representation of conflicting interests is whether
the acceptance of a new relation will prevent an
attorney from the full discharge of his duty of
undivided fidelity and loyalty to his client or
invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or double
dealing in the performance thereof.
v. Samson VS Era
Doctrine: The lawyer-client relationship did not
terminate when the parties entered into a
compromise settlement, for the fact remained
that he still needed to oversee the
implementation of the settlement as well as to
proceed with the criminal cases until they were
dismissed or otherwise concluded by the trial
court.
vi. Teodoso VS Nava
Doctrine: Even granting that the interests of
Espinosa, Palma and Batislaong are conflicting,
petitioner cannot be held liable for acting as
their common counsel, as stated in their
affidavits, petitioner explained to them the
consequences of his representation and that
they gave their consent to the same.
vii. Nakpil VS Valdez
Doctine: The test of impropriety of
representation of conflicting interests is not the
certainty of such existence but mere probability
for it to exist.
II. Conflict of Interest of Corporate Lawyers
a. Rule 15.03
b. Derivative Suit
i. Hornilla VS Salunat
1
 Doctrine: Where corporate directors have
committed a breach of trust either by their
frauds, ultra vires acts, or negligence, and the
corporation is unable or unwilling to institute suit
to remedy the wrong, a stockholder (in this case
a member because PPSTA is non-stock) may
sue on behalf of himself and other stockholders
and for the benefit of the corporation, to bring
about a redress of the wrong done directly to
the corporation and indirectly to the
stockholders.
ii. Hocorma Foundation VS Funk
Doctrine: Canon 15, Rule 15.03 of the CPR
provides that a lawyer cannot represent
conflicting interests except by written consent of
all concerned given after a full disclosure of the
facts. Here, it is undeniable that Atty. Funk was
formerly the legal counsel of Hocorma
Foundation. Years after terminating his
relationship with the foundation, he filed a
complaint against it on behalf of another client,
without the foundation’s written consent.
iii. Pacana VS Pascual Lopez
Doctrine: This prohibition is founded on
principles of public policy, good taste and, more
importantly, upon necessity. In the course of a
lawyer-client relationship, the lawyer learns all
the facts connected with the client’s case,
including its weak and strong points. Such
knowledge must be considered sacred and
guarded with care.
iv. Palm VS Iledan
Doctrine: It is settled that the mere relation of
attorney and client does not raise a
presumption of confidentiality.11 The client
must intend the communication to be
confidential.12 Since the proposed
Ajas, Asistio Balleza, Briones, Lacson, Manuel, Santiago and Valdez
amendments must be approved by at least a
majority of the stockholders, and copies of the
amended by-laws must be filed with the SEC,
the information could not have been intended to
be confidential.
III. Limitations/ Restrictions of Government Lawyers in
the Practice of Law
a. Canon 6
b. Canon 6.01
i. Public Prosecutor
c. Canon 6.02
i. Applicability of Rule
ii. Prohibitions of Public Officials and Employees
during their Incumbency
1. Ali VS Bubong
Doctrine: the general rule is that a lawyer who
holds a government office may not be
disciplined as a member of the bar for
infractions he committed as a government
official, he may, however, be disciplined as a
lawyer if his misconduct constitutes a violation
of his oath a member of the legal profession.
2. Olazo VS Tinga
Doctrine: Since public office is a public trust,
the ethical conduct demanded upon lawyers
in the government service is more exacting
than the standards for those in private
practice. Lawyers in the government service
are subject to constant public scrutiny under
norms of public accountability. They also bear
the heavy burden of having to put aside their
private interest in favor of the interest of the
public; their private activities should not
interfere with the discharge of their official
functions.
iii. Canon 6.03
1. Olazo VS Tinga
Doctrine: to fall within the ambit of Rule 6.03
2
 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, the
respondent must have accepted engagement
or employment in a matter which, by virtue of
his public office, he had previously exercised
power to influence the outcome of the
proceedings.
2. PCGG VS Sandiganbayan
Doctrine: The key to unlock Rule 6.03 lies in
comprehending first, the meaning of matter
referred to in the rule and, second, the metes
and bounds of the intervention made by the
former government lawyer on the matter. The
American Bar Association in its Formal
Opinion 342, defined matter as any discrete,
isolatable act as well as identifiable
transaction or conduct involving a particular
situation and specific party, and not merely
an act of drafting, enforcing or interpreting
government or agency procedures,
regulations or laws, or briefing abstract
principles of law.
d. Rule 3.03
i. Reasons
e. Public Officials Who Cannot Practice Law in the
Philippines
f. Public Officials with Restrictions
g. Restrictions in the Practice of Law by Sanggunian
Members
h. RA 7160 Section 90
i. Canon 15, Rule 15,06
i. Influence Peddling
1. Maderada VS Mediodea
Doctrine: Maderada appeared for herself
not for the public and did not demand
payment for it. Therefore, in doing so, she
cannot be said to have been engaged in
the practice of law. What is prohibited is
appearing as counsel for her co plaintiff.
Ajas, Asistio Balleza, Briones, Lacson, Manuel, Santiago and Valdez
It no longer follows the raison de etre of
protecting ones own rights.
2. Samonte VS Gatdula
Doctrine: Complainant Samonte failed to
appear and substantiate her allegations
that it was Respondent Gatdula that gave
her the calling card and tried to convince
her to change counsels.
IV. Notarial Law Violations
a. Basic Concepts
i. Spouses Villanueva VS Beradio
Doctrine: Notarization should not be treated as
an empty, meaningless, routinary act. It is
invested with substantive public interest, such
that only those who are qualified or authorized
may act as notaries public.
ii. Tupal VS Rojo
Doctrine: A competent evidence of identity
guarantees that the person appearing before
the notary public is the signatory to the
instrument or document to be notarized. If the
notary public does not personally know the
signatory, he must require the signatory to
present a competent evidence of identity.
b. The Notary Public
i. Caalim-Verzonilla VS Pascua
Doctrine: The principal function of a notary
public is to authenticate documents. When a
notary public certifies to the due execution and
delivery of a document under his hand and seal,
he gives the document the force of evidence.
Indeed, one of the purposes of requiring
documents to be acknowledged before a notary
public, in addition to the solemnity which should
surround the execution and delivery of
documents, is to authorize such documents to
3
 be given without further proof of their execution
and delivery.
ii. Villarin VS Sabate
Doctrine: The function of a notary public is,
among others, to guard against any illegal or
immoral arrangements. That function would be
defeated if the notary public were one of the
signatories to the instrument. For then, he
would be interested in sustaining the validity
thereof as it directly involves himself and the
validity of his own act. It would place him in an
inconsistent position, and the very purpose of
the acknowledgment, which is to minimize
fraud, would be thwarted.
iii. Pantoja Mumas VS Flores
Doctrine: A notary public should not notarize a
document unless the persons who signed the
same are the very same persons who executed
and personally appeared before him to attest to
the contents and truth of what are stated
therein. A notary public is duty-bound to require
the person executing a document to be
personally present, to swear before him that he
is that person and ask the latter if he has
voluntarily and freely executed the same.
c. Disciplinary Sanctions
i. Lee VS Tambago
Doctrine: Notaries public must observe with
utmost care and utmost fidelity the basic
requirements in the performance of their duties,
otherwise, the confidence of the public in the
integrity of notarized deeds will be undermined.
V. Lawyer and Money or Properties of a Client
a. Canon 16
i. Fiduciary Relationship
1. Rivera VS Angeles
Ajas, Asistio Balleza, Briones, Lacson, Manuel, Santiago and Valdez
Doctrine: The Court is not oblivious of the
right of a lawyer to be paid for the legal
services he has extended to his client but
such right should not be exercised
whimsically by appropriating to himself
the money intended for his clients. There
should never be an instance where the
victor in litigation loses everything he won
to the fees of his own lawyer.
2. Angeles VS Uy
Doctrine: The relationship between a
lawyer and a client is highly fiduciary; it
requires a high degree of fidelity and
good faith. It is designed "to remove all
such temptation and to prevent
everything of that kind from being done
for the protection of the client."
b. Canon 16.01
i. Duties and Obligations of a Lawyer
1. Almendrez VS Langit
Doctrine: Respondent received the
money in his capacity as counsel for
complainant. Therefore, respondent held
the money in trust for complainant.
2. Tarog VS Ricafort
Doctrine: He was all too aware that he
was accountable for the moneys
entrusted to him by the clients, and that
his only means of ensuring accountability
was by issuing and keeping receipts.
The Code of Professional Responsibility
demands the utmost degree of fidelity
and good faith in dealing with the moneys
entrusted to lawyers because of their
fiduciary relationship
3. Bayonla VS Reyes
4
 Doctrine: The canons are appropriate
considering that the relationship between
a lawyer and her client is highly fiduciary,
and prescribes on a lawyer a great
degree of fidelity and good faith. There is
no question that the money or property
received by a lawyer for her client
properly belongs to the latter.
Conformably with these canons of
professional responsibility, we have held
that a lawyer is obliged to render an
accounting of all the property and money
she has collected for her client. This
obligation includes the prompt reporting
and accounting of the money collected by
the lawyer by reason of a favorable
judgment to his client.
c. Canon 16.02
i. Reason
1. Tarog VS Ricafort
Doctrine: Rule 16.02 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, imposes on
an attorney the positive obligation to keep
all funds of his client separate and apart
from his own and from those of others
kept by him,
VI.
d. 16.03
i. Dalisay VS Mauricio
Doctrine: let it be stressed that the authority of
an attorney begins with his or her retainer.[12] It
gives rise to a relationship between an attorney
and a client that is highly fiduciary in nature and
of a very delicate, exacting, and confidential
character, requiring a high degree of fidelity and
good faith.[13] If much is demanded from an
attorney, it is because the entrusted privilege to
practice law carries with it the correlative duties
not only to the client but also to the court, to the
bar, and to the public.
Ajas, Asistio Balleza, Briones, Lacson, Manuel, Santiago and Valdez
e. 16.04
i. Prohibitions and Exceptions
1. Linsangan VS Tolentino
Doctrine: The rule is that a lawyer shall not lend
money to his client. The only exception is, when
in the interest of justice, he has to advance
necessary expenses (such as filing fees,
stenographers fees for transcript of stenographic
notes, cash bond or premium for surety bond,
etc.) for a matter that he is handling for the client.
The rule is intended to safeguard the lawyers
independence of mind so that the free exercise
of his judgment may not be adversely affected.[
f. Rules of Court Rule 138 Sec 24, 25 and 27
1. Almendarez VS Langit
Doctrine: Whenever a lawyer is no longer
worthy of the trust and confidence of the
public, this Court has the right and duty to
withdraw his privilege as officer of the Court
and member of the Bar.
2. Attorney’s Lien Defined
3. Charging Lien Defined
Acquisition of Properties Subject of Litigation
a. Elements of Prohibition
i. Fornilda VS Branch
Doctrine: The fact that the properties were first
mortgaged and only subsequently acquired in
an auction sale long after the termination of the
intestate proceedings will not remove it from the
scope of the prohibition.
ii. Ordonio VS Eduarte
Doctrine: In causing the execution of the Deed
of Conveyance during the pendency of the
appeal of the case involving the said property,
he has violated Art. 1491 of the Civil Code
5
 which prohibits lawyers from "acquiring by
assignment property and rights which may be
the object of any litigation in which they may
take part by virtue of their profession.

b. Other Instances Where Prohibition is Applicable

i. Mananquil VS Villegas
Doctrine: The claim that the heirs of Filomena
Zerna have acquiesced and consented to the
assailed lease contracts does not militate
against respondent's liability under the rules of
professional ethics.

the Court must reiterate the rule that the claim

of good faith is no defense to a lawyer who has
failed to adhere faithfully to the legal
disqualifications imposed upon him, designed to
protect the interests of his client

c. Where the Prohibition is Inapplicable

i. Guevara Vs Calalang
Doctrine: It was not professional misconduct or
unethical practice for the respondent to acquire
the rights and interests of his client to the 439
square meter parcel of land subject of the
administrative charges because the land was
not involved in the litigation he was handling.

ii. Macariola VS Asuncion

Doctrine: Respondent Judge did not buy the lot
directly but from Dr. Galapon who earlier
purchased the lot from the plaintiff.

iii. Fabillo VS IAC

Doctrine: a contract between a lawyer and his
client stipulating a contingent fee is not covered
by said prohibition under Article 1491 (5) of the
Civil Code because the payment of said fee is
not made during the pendency of the litigation
but only after judgment has been rendered in
the case handled by the lawyer.
Ajas, Asistio Balleza, Briones, Lacson, Manuel, Santiago and Valdez 6