LAWYER-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP

(Conflict of Interest)
Members:

Ballesteros, Paul Andrew B.

Pineda, Victoria S.

Ramirez, Joan Kaye C.

CREATION of
LAWYER-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP

Legal Consultation

Legal Advice

Payment of acceptance fee

(full or partial)
LEGAL CONSULTATION

If a person, in respect to business

affairs or troubles of any kind,
consults a lawyer with a view to
obtaining professional advice or
assistance, and the attorney
voluntarily permits or acquiesces
with the consultation, then the
professional employment is
established.

DOMINADOR P. BURBE vs.ATTY. ALBERTO C. MAGULTA

AC No. 99-634. June 10, 2002
 Once lawyers agree to take up the
cause of a client, they owe fidelity to
such cause and must always be
mindful of the trust and confidence
reposed in them.

The fact that one is at the end of the

day, not inclined to handle the
clients case is hardly of
consequence

DOMINADOR P. BURBE vs.ATTY. ALBERTO C. MAGULTA

AC No. 99-634. June 10, 2002

Hadjula v Madianda
LEGAL ADVICE
Documenatry Formalism is not an essential
element in the employment of an atty.

Of little moment, too, is the fact that

no formal professional engagement
follows the consultation. Nor will it
make any difference that no contract
whatsoever was executed by the
parties to memorialize the
relationship.

Hadjula vs Madianda
A.C. No. 6711
PAYMENT OF ACCEPTANCE FEE

Not necessary in order to create

LAWYER- CLIENT RELATIONSHIP

The degree of care and skill

required of the lawyer is not
affected by the fact that his
services are rendered gratuitously.

DOMINADOR P. BURBE vs.ATTY. ALBERTO C. MAGULTA

AC No. 99-634. June 10, 2002
Legal Ethics by Pineda 2009 Edition
 RATIONALE:
Public Policy and Good Taste

NATURE

High Delicate of Fiduciary requiring a

very high degree of fidelity and good
faith
ESSENTIAL FACTORS IN ESTABLISHING
LAWYER-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP

(1) Where legal advice of any kind is sought

(2) from a professional legal adviser in his capacity as such,

(3) the communications relating to that purpose,

(4) made in confidence

(5) by the client,

(6) are at his instance permanently protected

(7) from disclosure by himself or by the legal advisor,

(8) except the protection be waived

Dean Wigmore
(anAmericanjuristand expert in thelaw of evidence.
Northwestern Law School(1901 to 1929)
Canon 15 a lawyer shall observe candor, fairness, and loyalty
in all his dealings and transactions with his client.

Rule 15.01 - A lawyer in conferring with a prospective client, shall

ascertain as soon as practicable whether the matter would involve
a conflict with another client or his own interest and if so, shall
forthwith inform the prospective client.

Rule 15.02 A lawyer shall be bound by the rule on privileged

communication in respect of matters disclosed to him by a
prospective client.

Rule 15.03 A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interest

except by written consent of all concerned given after full
disclosure of the facts.

Rule 15.04 A lawyer may, with the written consent of all

concerned, act as mediator, conciliator or arbitrator in settling
disputes.
 Canon 15 - Rule 15. 01

A lawyer, in conferring with a

prospective client, shall ascertain as soon
as practicable whether the matter would
involve a conflict with another client or
his own interest, and if so, shall forthwith
inform the prospective client.

It is the duty of the lawyer to disclose and

explain to his client/s all circumstances
which might affect the latters selection of
counsel.
 Canon 15 - Rule 15. 02

A lawyer shall be bound by the rule on

privileged communication in respect of
matters disclosed to him by a prospective
client.
Canon 15 - Rule 15. 03
A lawyer shall not represent
conflicting interest except by written
consent of all concerned given after a
full disclosure of the facts.

Founded on principles of public policy

and good taste

This rule applies whether confidential

communications have been confided or
not.
Summary of Tests 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 which he represents
him

Whether he will be called upon in his

new relation, to use against his first
client any knowledge acquired through
their connection
 Summary of Tests of Conflicting
Interests

Whether the acceptance of a new

relation will prevent an attorney form
the full discharge of his duty of
undivided fidelity and loyalty

When the subject matter of the present

controversy is related, directly or
indirectly to the previous litigation in
which he appeared for the former client
 Canon 15 - Rule 15. 04

A lawyer may, with the written consent

of all concerned, act as mediator,
conciliator or arbitrator in settling
disputes.
Heirs of Falame vs. Atty. Baguio, Adm. Case No. 6876, March 7, 2008

Facts: Complainants are heirs of the deceased Lydio Falame. They

alleged that the respondent Atty. Baguio services were engaged by
their father as one of the defendants in an action for forcible entry
which was ruled in their favor. Thereafter, Atty. Baguio continued as
legal adviser and counsel for business of Lydio Falame until his
death.

At sometime, Atty Baguio filed a case for reconveyance involving the

same property in representation of the codefendants of their father
in the first case. The heirs contended that the interest in the second
case is adverse to their father as a former client further a violation of
Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Atty. Baguio argued that it was the codefendant of this father who
engaged his services and in fact paid his fees. He did not betray
Lydio because no confidential information was revealed as he never
talked to him. He maintained that there was no clear, convincing and
satisfactory evidence against him. IBP Board ruled in favor of Atty.
Baguio for failure of the complainants to specify the charge.
Issue: Whether or not there is conflict of interest in representing his
clients?

Held: Yes, the Supreme Court explained that the rule concerning
conflict of interest prohibits a lawyer from representing a client if
that representation will be directly adverse to any of his present or
former clients. In the same way, a lawyer may only be allowed to
represent a client involving the same or substantially related matter
that is materially adverse to the former client only if the former
consents to it after consultation.

In this case, respondent admitted having jointly represented the co-

defendants of the deceased in the first case, evidently the attorney-
client relationship was established regardless who paid the fees.

Respondent advocated that the deceased Lydio solely owned the

property subject of the case while in the second he pursued
inconsistent position that his co-defendants owned the property in
common. Accordingly, the disciplinary action is warranted, meted
out the penalty of reprimand.
Quiambao vs. Atty. Bamba, Adm. Case No. 6708, August 25, 2005

Facts: Complainant Felicitas Quiambao is the president and

managing director of Allied Investigation Bureau. She procured the
services of the respondent Atty. Bamba not only for corporate
affairs but also her personal case. Atty. Bamba represented the
complainant in her ejectment case.

Months after her retirement, respondent filed a case representing

AIB for replevin and damages for the company car assigned to her.
In her charges, complainant alleged disloyalty and double-dealing
against Atty. Bamba for proposing to have a separate security
agency as well to her brother which the respondent became a
partner and director, respectively.

On the other hand, Atty. Bamba argued that he was made to believe
that the personal case of Quiambao was part of his engagement with
AIB. Moreover, if there was privileged communication given would
have no use because the ejectment and replevin cases are unrelated
involving different issues and parties.
Issue: Whether or not the respondent is guilty of misconduct for
representing conflicting interest?

Held: Yes, the proscription against representation of conflicting

interest applies to a situation where the opposing parties are
present clients in the same action or in an unrelated action. It is of
no moment that the lawyer would not be called upon to contend for
one client that which the lawyer has to oppose for the other client or
that there would be no occasion to use the confidential information.

It is enough that the opposing parties in one case, one of whom

would lose the suit, are present clients and the nature or conditions
of the lawyers respective retainers with each of them would affect
the performance of duty of undivided fidelity to both clients.

In this case, it is undisputed that he was engaged by AIB at the time

when he was still a counsel of record for the complainant. His
argument that the cases are unrelated is not sustain, his
representation of opposing clients in both cases obviously
constitutes conflict of interest.
Mercado vs. Atty. Vitriolo, Adm. Case No. 5108, May 26, 2005

Facts: Complainants husband filed an annulment of their marriage

which was dismissed by the RTC. Thereafter, the counsel for the
complainant died which was substituted by the respondent.

It appears that the respondent filed a criminal action against the

complainant for falsifying entries in the certificate of live birth of her
children and making it appear she was married to some other man.

For her part, the complainant alleged that the information in the
criminal action disclosed confidential facts then handled by the
respondent, hence, guilty of breaching their privileged and
confidential lawyer-client relationship.

Respondent maintains that his filing of criminal action does not

violate the rule because its bases are birth certificates which are
public documents which no way connected to the criminal action
and that the information confided to him were all just for the
annulment case.
Issue: Whether or not the respondent is guilty of violation of
privileged communication between lawyer-client relationship?

Held: No, in resolving the issue the Supreme Court laid down the
essential factors to establish the existence of privilege:

1.There exist an attorney-client relationship or prospective

relationship by which reason that the client made the
communication;
2. The client made the communication in confidence; and
3. The legal advice was sought from the attorney in his professional
capacity.

Here, we hold that the evidence on record fails to substantiate the

complaint. It did not even specify the alleged communication in
confidence disclosed by respondent. All her claims were couched in
general terms. She did not spell out the facts which will determine
the merit of her complaint.

The Court cannot be involved in a guessing game as to the existence

of facts which the complainant must prove.
Leticia Gonzales vs. Atty. Marcelineo Cabucana
A.C. No. 6836, January 23, 2006

Facts:
The firm Cabucana, Cabucana, De Guzman and
Cabucana Law Office represented Leticia
Gonzales in an action for Sum of Money and
Damages filed before the MTC of Santiago City,
with Atty. Edmar Cabucana handling the case. A
decision was rendered ordering the losing party
to pay Gonzales with interest plus attorney's
fees. Subsequently, a writ of execution was filed.
Sheriff Romeo Gatcheco could not fully
implement said writ. Thus, an administrative case
was filed against him by Gonzales.
 In September 2003 Sheriff Gatcheco and his wife harassed
Gonzales into executing an affidavit of desistance in the
administrative case filed against Sheriff Gatcheco. Hence,
Gonzales filed several criminal cases against the Gatchecos.
Atty. Marcelino Cabucana represented the Gatchecos in the
said criminal cases. Gonzales filed a complaint for disbarment
against the respondent on the ground of violation of the
lawyer-client relationship between Gonzales and the law firm
of Cabucana.

In his Answer to the complaint, respondent alleged that it was

his brother who represented Gonzales in the civil case; that he
represent the Gatchecos on a probonobasis.

IBP Commissioner Wilfredo E.J.E. Reyes, recommended that

respondent be sternly warned, reprimanded and advised to be
more circumspect in accepting cases that might result in the
conflict of interest.

IBP Board of Governors found that respondent made a

mistake in the acceptance of the administrative case of
Gatcheco and adopted the IBP Commissioner
recommendation.
 Issue: Whether or not Atty.
Marcelino Cabucana is guilty
of violating the CPR
 Ruling:

Respondent Atty. Cabucana is found guilty of violating Rule

15.03 of Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Rule15.03Alawyershallnotrepresentconflicting
interestexceptbywrittenconsentofallconcernedgivenafter
afulldisclosureofthefacts.

It is well-settled that a lawyer is barred from representing

conflicting interests except by written consent of all
concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts. Such
prohibition is founded on the principles of public policy and
good taste as the nature of the lawyer-client relations is one of
trust and confidence of the highest degree. Lawyers are
expected not only to keep inviolate the client's confidence, but
also to avoid the appearance of treachery and double-dealing
for only then can litigants be encouraged to entrust their
secrets to their lawyers, which is of paramount importance in
the administration of justice.
 Test of Inconsistency

One of the test of inconsistency of interest is

whether the acceptance of a new relation would
prevent the full discharge of the lawyer's duty of
undivided fidelity and loyalty to the client or invite
suspicion of unfaithfulness or double-dealing in
the performance of that duty.
As we expounded in the recent case of Quiambaovs.Bamba,

The proscription against representation of conflicting interest

applies to a situation where the opposing parties are present clients
in the same action or in an unrelated action. It is of no moment that
the lawyer would not be called upon to contend for one client that
which the lawyer has to oppose for the other client, or that there
would be no occasion to use the confidential information acquired
from one to the disadvantage of the other as the two actions are
wholly unrelated. It is enough that the opposing parties in one case,
one of whom would lose the suit, are present clients and the nature
or conditions of the lawyer's respective retainers with each of them
would affect the performance of the duty of undivided fidelity to
both clients.

The claim of respondent that there is no conflict of interests in this

case, as the civil case is handled by their law firm where Gonzales
is the complainant and the criminal cases filed by Gonzales against
the Gatcheco spouses are not related, has no merit. The
representation of opposing clients in said cases, though unrelated,
constitutes conflict of interest or at the very least, invites suspicion
of double-dealing which this Court cannot allow.
 Respondent further argued that it was his brother
who represented Gonzales in the Civil Case and
not him, thus, there could be no conflict of
interests. We do not agree. As respondent
admitted, it was their law firm which represented
Gonzales in the civil case. Such being the case,
the rule against representing conflicting interests
applies.

The IBP Resolution was approved with

modification that respondent is fined P2,000.00
with stern warning that commission of the same
or similar act in the future shall be dealt with
more severely.
Eliseo C. Pormento, Sr. vs. Atty. Elias A. Pontevedra
A.C. No. 5128, March 31, 2005

Facts:
Complainant (Eliseo C. Pormento, Sr.) alleges that
between 1964 and 1994 respondent (Atty. Ponteverde)
is his family counsel having represented him and his
members of his family in all legal proceedings in which
they are involved.

The rift between complainant and respondent began

when complainant's counterclaim in Civil Case No.
1648 filed before the Regional Trial Court of Bacolod
City was dismissed. Complainant alleged that Atty.
Ponteverde deliberately failed to inform him of the
dismissal of his counter-claim despite receipt of the
order of dismissal by the trial court, as a result of
which,complainantwasdeprivedofhisrighttoappeal
said order. In order to recover ownership he hire
anotherlawyer.
 Complainant filed a criminal case for qualified theft
against the relatives of the new owner of the said land.
Respondent is the counsel of the accused in the said
case. Complainant claims that as part of his defense in
said criminal case, respondent utilized pieces of
confidential information he obtained from complainant
whilethelatterisstillhisclient.

On January 19, 2000, the Court referred the instant case

to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for
investigation, report and recommendation.

In his Report, dated February 20, 2004, Commissioner

Agustinus V. Gonzaga found respondent guilty of
violating Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. He recommended that
respondent be meted the penalty of suspension for one
month.

IBP Board of Governors dismissed the complaint for

lack of merit.
Issue:

Whether or not Atty. Pontevedra is

guilty of violating the CPR
Ruling:

There is conflict of interest in respondent's

representation of complaint in Civil Case No. 1648
and his subsequent employment as counsel of the
accused in Criminal Case No 3159.

The subject matter in Civil Case No. 1648 is Lot 609

located at Escalante, Negros Occidental, the same
parcel of land involved in Criminal Case No. 3159 filed
by herein complainant against several persons,
accusing them of theft for allegedly cutting and
stealing coconut trees within the premises of said lot.
Complainant contends that it is in this criminal case
that respondent used confidential information which
the latter obtained from the former in Civil Case 1648.
 Thus, respondent should have declined employment in
Criminal Case No. 3159 so as to avoid suspicion that he
used in the criminal action any information he may have
acquired in Civil Case No. 1648. Moreover, nothing on
record would show that respondent fully apprised
complainant and his new clients and secured or at least
tried to secure their consent when he took the defense of
the accused in Criminal Case No. 3159.

It cannot be denied that when respondent was the

counsel of complainant in Civil Case No. 1648, he became
privy to the documents and information that complainant
possessed with respect to the said parcel of land. Hence,
whatever may be said as to whether or not respondent
utilized against complainant any information given to him
in a professional capacity, the mere fact of their previous
relationship could have precluded him from appearing as
counsel for the opposing side.
 Prescriptionagainstrepresentationof
conflictinginterest;whenitfinds
application

The proscription against representation of

conflicting interests finds application where the
conflicting interests arise with respect to the
same general matter and is applicable however
slight such adverse interest may be. In essence,
what a lawyer owes his former client is to
maintain inviolate the client's confidence or to
refrain from doing anything which will injuriously
affect him in any matter in which he previously
represented him.
 Prohibitionagainstrepresentationof
conflictinginterestappliesalthoughthe
attorney'sintentionswerehonestandhe
actedingoodfaith.

Respondent contends that he handled the

defense of the accused in the subject criminal
case for humanitarian reasons and with the
honest belief that there exists no conflict of
interests. However, the rule is settled that the
prohibition against representation of conflicting
interest applies although the attorney's intention
and motives were honest and he acted in good
faith. Moreover, the fact that the conflict of
interests is remote or merely probable does not
make the prohibition inoperative.
Humberto C. Lim, Jr, et al, v s. Atty. Nicanor V. Villarosa
A.C No. 5303, June 15, 2006

Sometime in 1997, Lumot A. Jalandoni, chairman/president of PRC was

sued before the RTC, Branch 52 in Civil Case No. 97-9865. The latter
engaged the legal services of herein respondent who formally entered his
appearance on Oct. 2, 1997 as counsel for defendant Lumot A. Jalandoni,
et. al. Respondent as a consequence of said Atty.-Client relationship
represented Jalandoni, et. al in the entire proceedings of said case. Utmost
trust and confidence was reposed on said counsel, hence delicate and
confidential matters involving all personal circumstances of his client were
entrusted to the respondent. The latter provided with all the necessary
information relative to the property in question and likewise on legal
matters affecting the corporation (PRC) particularly involving problems
which affect Hotel Alhambra. Said counsel was privy to all transactions and
affairs of the corporation.
However, on April 27, 1999 respondent without due notice prior to a
scheduled hearing, filed a Motion to Withdraw as counsel. Jalandoni was
not furnished of said motion to withdraw and it is without her conformity.
The far reaching effects of the untimely and unauthorized withdrawal by
respondent cause irreparable damage and injury to Lumot Jalandoni, et. al.;
a highly meritorious case in favour of his client suddenly suffered
unexpected defeat.

. Succeeding events will show that respondent defended Sps. Jalbuena in

all the cases filed against them by PRC thru its duly authorized
representatives before the Public Prosecutor Office in Bacolod City.
 As early as April 6, 1999 respondent already appeared for and in
behalf of the Sps. Carmen and Dennis Jalbuena/Vicente Delfin
while concurrently representing Lumot Jalandoni,et. al in Civil
Case No.97-9865. However, despite being fully aware that the
interest of his client Lumot A. Jalandoni holding an equivalent of
82% of PRCs shares of stocks and the interest of PRC are one
and the same, notwithstanding the fact that Lumot was still his
client in Civil Case 97-9862, respondent opted to represent
opposing clients at the same time. The corporation filed estafa
case against Sps. Carmen and Dennis Jalbuena together with the
manager of UCPB bank manager Vicente delfin. Succeeding
events will show that respondent defended Sps. Jalbuena in all
the cases filed against them by PRC thru its duly authorized
representatives before the Public Prosecutor Office in Bacolod
City.

Respondent filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the

complaint against him was unfounded.

The Court resolved to refer the complaint to the IBP for

investigation and found the respondent guilty of violation of the
Canon of Professional Responsibility, the IBP investigator
recommended his suspension for the practice of law for 6
months. The IBP Board of reversed the recommendation. Lumot
A. Jalandoni filed a motion for reconsideration but the Board
denied it.
Issue:

Whether or not Atty. Jalbuena is

guilty of violation of CPR
Ruling:
Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR)
highlights the need for candor, fairness, and loyalty in all
dealings of lawyers with their clients.

It is only upon strict compliance with the condition of full

disclosure of facts that a lawyer may appear against his
client; otherwise, is representation of conflicting interest is
reprehensible. Conflict of interest may be determined in
this manner:

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.
 The rule on conflict of interests 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 new

clients whose interests oppose those of a former client
in any manner, whether or not they are parties in the
same action or in totally unrelated cases. The cases
here directly or indirectly involved the parties
connection to PRC, even if neither PRC nor Lumot. A.
Jalandoni was specifically named as party-litigant in
some of the cases mentioned.

The representation by a lawyer of conflicting interests,

in the absence of the written consent of all concerned
was still required. A lawyer who acts as such in settling
a dispute cannot represent any of the parties to it.

Atty. Villarosa was found guilty of violating of anon 15

and Canon 22 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility and was suspended from the practice of
law for one year with a stern warning that a repetition
of the same will be dealt with more severely
 -END-

Thanks for listening