Rule 15.

04, Canon 15, CPR A lawyer

may, with the written consent of all
concerned, act as mediator,
conciliator or arbitrator in settling
disputes.
A lawyer's knowledge of the law and his reputation
for fidelity may make it easy for the disputant's to
settle their differences amicably. However, the
lawyer should not act as counsel to any of them.
Donald Dee vs C.A. [G.R. No. 77439. August 24, 1989]

FACTS:
Private respondent personally talked with the president of Caesar's
Palace and convinced the latters president to go after Sy instead to
which the latter agreed with the condition that private respondent should
first convince Sy to pay the indebtedness to which respondent
succeeded. He was able to free petitioners brother from his
indebtedness. Having thus settled the account of petitioner's brother,
private respondent sent several demand letters to petitioner demanding
the balance of P50,000.00 as attorney's fees. Petitioner, however,
ignored these, thus, private respondent filed a complaint against
petitioner for the collection of attorney's fees and refund of transport fare
and other expenses.
Petitioners claimed, that at the time private respondent was rendering
services to petitioner, he was actually working "in the interest" and "to
the advantage" of Caesar's Palace of which he was an agent and a
consultant. This being the case, private respondent is not justified in
claiming that he rendered legal services to petitioner in view of the
conflicting interests involved.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondent violated the conflict of interest rule?

HELD:

No. Generally, an attorney is prohibited from representing parties with

contending positions. However, at a certain stage of the controversy before it
reaches the court, a lawyer may represent conflicting interests with the
consent of the parties. A common representation may work to the advantage
of said parties since a mutual lawyer, with honest motivations and impartially
cognizant of the parties' disparate positions, may well be better situated to
work out an acceptable settlement of their differences, being free of partisan
inclinations and acting with the cooperation and confidence of said parties.
Rule 15.05, Canon 15,CPR - A lawyer when
advising his client, shall give a candid and honest
opinion on the merits and probable results of the
client's case, neither overstating nor understating
the prospects of the case.
If he finds that his client's cause is defenseless,
then it is his bounden duty to advise the latter to
submit, rather than transverse the inconvertible.
Rule 15.06, Canon 15, CPR - A lawyer shall not state or
imply that he is able to influence any public official, tribunal
or legislative body. (influence peddling)
It is improper for a lawyer to show in any way that he has
connections and can influence any tribunal or public official,
judges, prosecutors, and others, specifically so if the purpose is
to enhance his legal standing and to ntrench the confidence his
case or cases are assured of victory.
Lantoria vs. Bunyi

Facts:

Cesar L. Lantoria seeks disciplinary action against respondent

Irineo
L. Bunyi, member of the Philippine Bar, on the ground that
respondent Bunyi allegedly committed acts of graft and corruption,
dishonesty and conduct unbecoming of a member of the Integrated
Bar of the Philippines, and corruption of the judge and bribery, in
connection with respondent's handling of Civil Case Nos. 81, 83 and
88 then pending before the Municipal Court of Experanza, Agusan
del Sur, presided over by Municipal Judge Vicente Galicia in which
respondent Bunyi was the counsel of one of the parties, namely,
Mrs. Constancia Mascarinas.
 It appears that the complaint in Civil Case Nos. 81, 83 and 88 sought to eject
the squatters from the aforementioned farm. 3 These cases were assigned to
the Municipal Court of Esperanza, Agusan del Sur, the acting municipal judge
of which was the Honorable Vicente Galicia. The defendants in the mentioned
civil cases were declared in default. In relation to the same three (3) civil cases,
the records of the present case show that complainant Lantoria wrote
a letter to respondent Bunyi.

The letters of respondent Bunyi addressed to complainant showed that

respondent had indeed prepared the draft of the decisions in Civil Case Nos.
81, 83 and 88 of the Municipal Court of Esperanza, Agusan del Sur, which he
submitted to Judge Vicente Galicia thru the complainant. Those letters
indicated that respondent had previous communications with Judge Galicia
regarding the preparation of the decisions. The testimony of complainant to the
effect that he had lost the original letters, and complainant's withdrawal of the
complaint in the case at bar are of no moment. Bunyi admitted that he prepared
the draft of the decisions in the said civil cases affirmed the existence of the
letters.
Issue:
WON Bunyi is guilty of unethical conduct

Held:
Yes. Respondent is guilty of highly unethical and unprofessional
conduct for failure to perform his duty, as an officer of the court, to help
promote the independence of the judiciary and to refrain from engaging
in acts which would influence judicial determination of a litigation in which
he is counsel.
Rule 15.07, Canon 15, CPR. - A lawyer shall
impress upon his client compliance with the
laws and the principles of fairness.
A lawyer should comply with the client's lawful
request. but he should resist and should never follow
any unlawful instructions. In matters of law, it is the
client who should yield to the lawyer and not the other
way around.
Rule 15.08 - A lawyer who is engaged in another
profession or occupation concurrently with the practice of
law shall make clear to his client whether he is acting as a
lawyer or in another capacity.
Exercise of dual profession is not prohibited but a lawyer
must make it clear when he is acting as a lawyer and
when he is otherwise, especialy in occupations related to
the practice of law.
Quiambao V. Bamba

Facts:
Complainant Felicitas S. Quiambao
charges respondent Atty. Nestor A. Bamba with violation of the
Code of Professional Responsibility 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 committingother
acts of disloyalty and double-dealing.

Issue:
Whether or not the respondent is guilty of misconduct for
representing conflicting interests in contravention of the basic
tenets of the legal
profession.
Held:

Yes, respondent is guilty. It is undisputed that at the time the

respondent filed the replevin case on behalf of AIB he was still the
counsel of record of the complainant in the pending
ejectment case.
Nakpil V. Valdes

Facts:

Petitioner instituted an action for reconveyance with damages for breach

of trust before the RTC of Baguio City against respondents Carlos Valdes
and Caval Realty Corporation. She alleged in her complaint that her
husband Jose Nakpil prior to his death had requested Valdes to
purchase Pulong Maulap and thereafter register the sale and hold the title
thereto in trust for him which respondent Valdes did. But after her
husband's death, Valdes concealed and suppressed all information
regarding the trust agreement and transferred Pulong Maulap in the name
of respondent Caval Realty Corporation which he owns.
Valdes, on the other hand, denied the existence of any trust agreement
over Pulong Maulap. He averred that he bought the summer residence for
himself with his own funds and without any participation of the late Nakpil;
neither was it bought in trust for the latter. Valdes claims that he only
informed Pinggoy Nakpil of the acquisition of Pulong Maulap, and Pinggoy
merely showed interest in buying the property if he could have the
money. Meanwhile, considering their avowed friendship, he offered the
usufruct of the property to the Nakpils who in turn agreed to shoulder its
maintenance expenses, real estate taxes, fire insurance premiums and
servicing of interest on the mortgage obligation constituted on the property.