conflict of interest pale

8/13/2019 Conflict of Interest PALE

1/11

Lloyd Paul C. Ledesma III-Manresa

IMPRESCRIBILITY OF DISBARMENT PROCEEDINGS

BOBIE ROSE V. FRIAS vs. ATTY. CARMELITA S. BAUTISTA-LOZADAA.C. No. 6656 May 4 !""6

Fa#$s%Atty. Carmelita S. Bautista-Lozada was found guilty of violation Rule 1.!" and #$.!% of t&e Code of Professional Res'onsi(ility.

Rule 1.!") A lawyer s&all not re'resent *onfli*ting interests e+*e't (y written *onsent ofall *on*erned given after a full dis*losure of t&e fa*ts.

Rule 1$.!%) A lawyer s&all not (orrow money from &is *lient unless t&e *lient,s interests arefully 'rote*ted (y t&e nature of t&e *ase or (y inde'endent advi*e. eit&er s&all a lawyerlend money to a *lient e+*e't w&en in t&e interest of /usti*e &e &as to advan*e ne*essarye+'enses in a legal matter &e is &andling for t&e *lient.

Iss&'%w&et&er or not lia(ility for dis(arment 'res*ri(es in 0 years from t&e *ommission oft&e a*t.

Co(#')( *( L'+a, E$*#s%&e issue 'osed in t&is *ase is 'ro(lemati* to t&e 'rofessionalres'onsi(ility *ode 're*isely (e*ause su*& issue on 'res*ri'tion of lia(ility o'ens u' t&e'ossi(ility of a(uses of lawyers w&o will 2nowingly *ommit violations in t&e &o'es of freeingt&emselves from lia(ility after a la'se of time if no 'ro*eedings are *ommen*ed. And if su*&'res*ri'tion is allowed t&e *ommon notion of lawyers (eing t&e num(er 1 violators of t&elaw will almost *ertainly (e a fa*t.

',/%&e su'reme *ourt &eld t&at no dis(arment 'ro*eedings does not 'res*ri(e. 3asearly as 14$5 we &ave &eld t&at t&e defense of 'res*ri'tion does not lie in administrative

'ro*eedings against lawyers.1 And in t&e 0!!% *ase of 6e*2 v. Santos0 we de*lared t&atan administrative *om'laint against a mem(er of t&e (ar does not 'res*ri(e.7

And even if su*& rules are valid Atty. Lozada failed to inter'ose su*& defense at t&eearliest o''ortunity t&us (eing (arred (y esto''el.

o matter &ow mu*& time &as ela'sed from t&e time of t&e *ommission of t&e a*t*om'lained of and t&e time of t&e institution of t&e *om'laint erring mem(ers of t&e (en*&and (ar *annot es*a'e t&e dis*i'lining arm of t&e Court.Rule 8III Se*tion 1 of t&e Rules of Pro*edure of t&e CB9-IBP w&i*& 'rovides for a'res*ri'tive 'eriod for t&e filing of administrative *om'laints against lawyers runs afoul of

t&e settled ruling of t&is Court. It s&ould t&erefore (e stru*2 down as void and of no legaleffe*t for (eing ultra vires.


2/11

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

TEODORO R. REGALA vs. TE ONORABLE SANDIGANBAYANG.R. No. 0"1002 S'3$'') !" 06

Fa#$s%PC:: want to (uild u' t&eir *ase against ;duardo Cou/uan*o for t&e anomalies in

t&e C?9S. PC:: wants 'etitioners divulge t&at Co/uang*o indeed was a*lient of t&eir firm as well as ot&er information regarding Co/uang*o.

PC:: filed a *ase im'leading t&e lawyers of ACCRA as defendants in order to for*e t&emto divulge information regarding a *lient.

Iss&'% w&et&er or not PC:: may *om'el lawyers to divulge t&e name of a *lient.

Co(#')( *( L'+a, E$*#s%&is issue tou*&es u'on t&e very essen*e of lawyering and oft&e attorney-*lient relations&i'. If su*& was t&e *ase t&at it may (e *om'elled (y way offiling a *ase against an attorney t&en t&e /usti*e system as well as t&e entire law 'rofessionwill (e rendered nugatory and vane. &e matter of *onfidentiality is a 'rere@uisite in order toadminister t&e full e+tent of t&e rig&ts 'rovided in t&e *onstitution and of t&e laws of t&eland. It is 're*isely 'rote*ted in order for a 'erson a**used of a wrong-doing may fully*oo'erate wit& t&e lawyer for t&e 'rote*tion of &is own rig&ts. it&out t&is 'aramountim'ortant given to su*& *onfidentiality t&en *lients may not feel as *omforta(le divulgingfa*ts to lawyers and t&us to t&e detriment of t&eir own 'erson and to t&e failure of /usti*e.

',/%&e su'reme *ourt &eld t&at no t&ey are merely standing in for t&eir *lients asdefendants in t&e *om'laint. uite o(viously 'etitioners in*lusion as *o-defendants in t&e*om'laint is merely (eing used as leverage to *om'el t&em to name t&eir *lients and*onse@uently to ena(le t&e PC:: to nail t&ese *lients. Su*& (eing t&e *ase res'ondentPC:: &as no valid *ause of a*tion.

As a matter of 'u(li* 'oli*y a *lient,s identity s&ould not (e s&rouded in mystery. &egeneral is t&at a lawyer may not invo2e t&e 'rivilege and refuse to divulge t&e name oridentity of &is *lient.

1D t&e *ourt &as a rig&t to 2now t&at t&e *lient w&ose 'rivileged information is soug&t to (e'rote*ted is fles& and (lood.0D t&e 'rivilege (egins to e+ist only after t&e attorney-*lient relations&i' &as (eenesta(lis&ed. &e attorney-*lient 'rivilege does not atta*& until t&ere is a *lient."D t&e 'rivilege generally 'ertains to t&e su(/e*t matter of t&e relations&i'.

>inally due 'ro*ess *onsiderations re@uire t&at t&e o''osing 'arty s&ould as a generalrule 2now &is adversary. 3A 'arty suing or sued is entitled to 2now w&o &is o''onent is.76e *annot (e o(liged to gro'e in t&e dar2 against un2nown for*es.

;+*e't)1D Client identity is 'rivileged w&ere a strong 'ro(a(ility e+ists t&at revealing t&e *lient,sname would im'li*ate t&at *lient in t&e very a*tivity for w&i*& &e soug&t t&e lawyer,s advi*e.0D &ere dis*losure would o'en t&e *lient to *ivil lia(ility &is identity is 'rivileged."D &ere t&e government,s lawyers &ave no *ase against an attorney,s *lient unless (yrevealing t&e *lient,s name t&e said name would furnis& t&e only lin2 t&at would form t&e*&ain of testimony ne*essary to *onvi*t an individual of a *rime t&e *lient,s name is'rivileged.


3/11

&at *lient identity is 'rivileged in t&ose instan*es w&ere a strong 'ro(a(ility e+ists t&at t&edis*losure of t&e *lients identity would im'li*ate t&e *lient in t&e very *riminal a*tivity forw&i*& t&e lawyer,s legal advi*e was o(tained.

>urt&ermore In modern day 'er*e'tion of t&e lawyer-*lient relations&i' an attorney is moret&an a mere agent or servant (e*ause &e 'ossesses s'e*ial 'owers of trust and

*onfiden*e re'osed on &im (y &is *lient. 14 A lawyer is also as inde'endent as t&e /udge oft&e *ourt t&us &is 'owers are entirely different from and su'erior to t&ose of an ordinaryagent.

Based on &e Rules of Court and &e Code of Professional res'onsi(ility t&e *om'ulsionruns afoul wit& t&e laws.

Rule 1"! se*tion 0% EBD) Se*tion 0%. 9is@ualifi*ation (y reason of 'rivileged*ommuni*ation. F &e following 'ersons *annot testify as to matters learned in *onfiden*ein t&e following *ases)E(D An attorney *annot wit&out t&e *onsent of &is *lient (e e+amined as to any*ommuni*ation made (y t&e *lient to &im or &is advi*e given t&ereon in t&e *ourse of orwit& a view to 'rofessional em'loyment nor *an an attorneys se*retary stenogra'&er or*ler2 (e e+amined wit&out t&e *onsent of t&e *lient and &is em'loyer *on*erning any fa*tt&e 2nowledge of w&i*& &as (een a*@uired in su*& *a'a*ityG

And Canon 15) A lawyer owes fidelity to t&e *ause of &is *lient and &e s&all (e mindful oft&e trust and *onfiden*e re'osed in &im.

Canon 1) &e lawyers owes Hentire devotion to t&e interest of t&e *lient warm zeal in t&emaintenan*e and defense of &is rig&ts and t&e e+ertion of &is utmost learning and a(ilityHto t&e end t&at not&ing (e ta2en or (e wit&&eld from &im save (y t&e rules of law legallya''lied. o fear of /udi*ial disfavor or 'u(li* 'o'ularity s&ould restrain &im from t&e fulldis*&arge of &is duty.

In t&e /udi*ial forum t&e *lient is entitled to t&e (enefit of any and every remedy anddefense t&at is aut&orized (y t&e law of t&e land and &e may e+'e*t &is lawyer to assertevery su*& remedy or defense. But it is steadfastly to (e (orne in mind t&at t&e great trustof t&e lawyer is to (e 'erformed wit&in and not wit&out t&e (ounds of t&e law. &e offi*e ofattorney does not 'ermit mu*& less does it demand of &im for any *lient violation of law orany manner of fraud or *&i*anery. 6e must o(ey &is own *ons*ien*e and not t&at of &is*lient.


4/11

NORT7ESTERN UNIVERSITY INC. vs. A$$y. MACARIO D. AR8UILLOA.C. No. 662!. A&+&s$ ! !""5

Fa#$s%Ben i*olas su(mitted a letter-*om'laint wit& t&e Integrated Bar of t&e P&ili''inesagainst Atty. Ma*ario Ar@uillo for de*eit mal'ra*ti*e gross mis*ondu*t and violation of &is

oat& as Attorney (y re'resenting *onfli*ting interest.

It is alleged t&at in a *ase (efore t&e LRC Atty. Ar@uillo re'resented (ot& *om'lainants defendants. 6e is re'resented 5 *om'lainants also re'resented 1 of t&e res'ondentsJdefendants Kose Castro in t&e same *onsolidated *ase.

Commissioner 9ennis >una found Atty. Ar@uillo guilty re*ommended sus'ension for $mont&s. &e Board of :overnors of IBP modified t&e sus'ension to 0 years.

Iss&'%w&et&er or not &e is lia(le for re'resenting *lients wit& *onfli*t of interest.

Co(#')( *( L'+a, E$*#s%A lawyer s&ould (e at t&e full dis'osal of &is *lient if &e s&ouldde*ide to re'resent &im. And in order for t&at to &a''en &e must not re'resent interestst&at *onfli*t wit& one anot&er. Be*ause &e is e+'e*ted to defend &is *lient u' to t&e veryend wit& &is full *a'a*ity (ut w&en &e re'resents *onfli*ts of interests t&e line (etweenea*& *lient (e*ome (lurry and as to w&i*& one is (eing defended fully and wit& t&e aim towin will (e @uestiona(le. &e out*ome of t&e *ase would (e li2e a *ir*us-s&ow &e would (earguing wit& &imself and t&us t&e defenses mig&t (e s&allow in order to 'ro*eed inlitigation. >urt&er t&e information divulged (y t&e *lient mig&t (e used against &im for t&edefense of t&e ot&er. &us a violation of a sa*red oat& of lawyers.

',/%=;S. &e Code of Professional Res'onsi(ility re@uires lawyers to o(serve *andorfairness loyalty in all t&eir dealings wit& t&eir *lients. Corollary to &is dutyt&ey s&ould notre'resent *onfli*ting interests e+*e't wit& all t&e *on*erned *lient,s written *onsent givenafter a full dis*losure of fa*ts.

&en a lawyer re'resents 0 or more o''osing 'arties t&ere is a *onfli*t of interests t&ee+isten*e of w&i*& determined (y " se'arate tests) E1D w&en in re'resentation of one *lienta lawyer is re@uired to fig&t for an issue or *laim (ut is also duty-(ound to o''ose it foranot&er *lientG E0D w&en t&e a**e'tan*e of t&e new retainer will re@uire an attorney to'erform an a*t t&at may in/uriously t&at affe*t t&e *lient or w&en *alled u'on in a newrelation to use against t&e first one any 2nowledge a*@uired t&roug& t&eir 'rofessional*onne*tionG or E"D w&en t&e a**e'tan*e of a new relation would 'revent t&e full dis*&arge ofan attorney,s duty to give undivided fidelity and loyalty to t&e *lient or would invite sus'i*ionof unfait&fulness or dou(le dealing in t&e 'erforman*e of t&at duty.

In t&is *ase Atty. Ar@uillo re'resented (ot& 'arties. 6e even filed a motion to dismiss in(e&alf of 1 res'ondent Kose Castro and drafted a 'osition 'a'er in (e&alf of 5*om'lainants. 6is a*ts *annot (e /ustified even (y t&e fa*t t&at Kose Castro was a(solvedfrom t&e*om'laints. It *annot (e denied t&at &e re'resented 0 o''osing 'arties.


5/11

SPOUSES MA9ADAYA SADI9 vs. :UDGE ABDALLA CASARG.R. No. MT:-5-0"52 :a(&a)y ! 0;

Fa#$s%&e (enefi*iaries soug&t Casar,s assistan*e to *laim t&e insuran*e (enefits to w&i*&t&ey were t&e (enefi*iaries.


6/11

BENEDICTO ORNILLA vs. ATTY. ERNESTO S. SALUNATA.C. No. 51"4 :&,y 0 !""2

Fa#$s% A S;C Case was filed (y t&e P&ili''ine Pu(li* S*&ool ea*&ers Asso*iationEPPSAD against its own Board of 9ire*tors. Res'ondent admits t&at t&e ASSA Law >irm

of w&i*& &e is t&e Managing Partner was t&e retained *ounsel of PPSA. =et &e a''earedas *ounsel of re*ord for t&e res'ondent Board of 9ire*tors in t&e said *ase.

Com'lainants *ontend t&at res'ondent was guilty of *onfli*t of interest (e*ause &e wasengaged (y t&e PPSA of w&i*& *om'lainants were mem(ers and was (eing 'aid out ofits *or'orate funds w&ere *om'lainants &ave *ontri(uted. 9es'ite (eing told (y PPSAmem(ers of t&e said *onfli*t of interest res'ondent refused to wit&draw &is a''earan*e int&e said *ases.

Iss&'%w&et&er or not t&ere e+ists *onfli*t of interest.

Co(#')( *( L'+a, E$*#s%Confli*t of interest is an issue w&i*& is of &eavy weig&t (utsometimes are overloo2ed or are &onestly mista2en as non-e+istent. As lawyers (eforeta2ing on a *ase it is diffi*ult to *over all t&e angles and all t&e *on*erned 'ersonalities inorder to as*ertain w&et&er a *onfli*t of interest e+ists or not. &at is w&y every lawyer must(e vigilant in t&eir dealings (e*ause little &ave (een a*@uitted (y t&e Su'reme Court forignoran*e of t&e fa*ts. And to (e 'unis&ed for t&at is a great (low to a lawyers integrity andwill li2ely &ave an effe*t on *lients w&o would engage your servi*es.

',/%&e su'reme *ourt &eld t&at =es &e is :?IL= of re'resenting *onfli*ting interestsand is A9M


7/11

:OSEFINA M. ANI


8/11

FERDINAND A. SAMSON vs. ATTY. EDGARDO O. ERAA.C. No. 6664 :&,y 06 !"02

Fa#$s% Samson engaged t&e servi*es of Atty. ;ra to re*over t&eir investment in a'yramiding s*am ran (y Sison &is 'resent *lient. 6e 're'ared t&e *om'laint and after

negotiations t&e 'arties *ame u' wit& a settlement t&e su(/e*t of w&i*& is a 'ro'erty to (e*onveyed to Samson.

After verifying t&e title t&ey *ould not li@uidate t&e 'ro'erty (e*ause t&ere was a lien andAtty. ;ra was not anymore res'onding to *ommuni*ations (y Samson. And along t&e waySamson found out Atty. ;ra was re'resenting Sison in ot&er *ases involving t&e sames*am *ase. And t&us dis(arment *ase was filed.

Iss&'% w&et&er or not Atty. ;ra is is guilty of mis*ondu*t for re'resenting *onfli*tinginterests failing to serve &is *lient wit& *om'eten*e and diligen*e and *&am'ion t&elatter,s *ause wit& w&ole&earted fidelity *are and devotion.

Co(#')( *( L'+a, E$*#s) w&et&er or not t&e attorney-*lient relations&i' &as ended alawyer *annot re'resent an adverse interest to t&at of t&e former *lient 're*isely to 'rote*tt&e 'revious *lient from unwarranted use of information re*eived (y t&e lawyer w&ile &ewas engaged as one. It is of *ourse a limitation to a lawyer,s in*ome and *lientele (ut t&eintegrity of t&e 'rofession is far more im'ortant t&an t&at one w&i*& is guided (y 'ersonalam(itions. Su*& a no(le 'rofession must not (ow down to su*& a status as to s*avenge for*lients w&i*& *learly *annot (e ta2en in.

',/%=es &e is guilty. Rule 1.!" Canon 1 of t&e Code of Professional Res'onsi(ility'rovides t&at) HA lawyer s&all not re'resent *onfli*ting interests e+*e't (y written *onsent ofall *on*erned given after a full dis*losure of t&e fa*ts.H

In In 6ornilla v. Atty. Salunat05 t&e Court dis*ussed t&e *on*e't of *onfli*t of interest int&is wise)&e 'ro&i(ition against *onfli*t of interest rests on five rationales rendered as follows)+ + +.

>irst t&e law see2s to assure *lients t&at t&eir lawyers will re'resent t&em wit& undividedloyalty. A *lient is entitled to (e re'resented (y a lawyer w&om t&e *lient *an trust. Instillingsu*& *onfiden*e is an o(/e*tive im'ortant in itself. + + +.

Se*ond t&e 'ro&i(ition against *onfli*ts of interest see2s to en&an*e t&e effe*tiveness oflegal re'resentation. o t&e e+tent t&at a *onfli*t of interest undermines t&e inde'enden*eof t&e lawyer,s 'rofessional /udgment or in&i(its a lawyer from wor2ing wit& a''ro'riatevigor in t&e *lient,s (e&alf t&e *lient,s e+'e*tation of effe*tive re'resentation + + + *ould (e*om'romised.

&ird a *lient &as a legal rig&t to &ave t&e lawyer safeguard t&e *lient,s *onfidentialinformation +++.1Qw'&i1 Preventing use of *onfidential *lient information against t&einterests of t&e *lient eit&er to (enefit t&e lawyer,s 'ersonal interest in aid of some ot&er*lient or to foster an assumed 'u(li* 'ur'ose is fa*ilitated t&roug& *onfli*ts rules t&atredu*e t&e o''ortunity for su*& a(use.


9/11

>ourt& *onfli*ts rules &el' ensure t&at lawyers will not e+'loit *lients su*& as (y indu*ing a*lient to ma2e a gift to t&e lawyer +++.

>inally some *onfli*t-of-interest rules 'rote*t interests of t&e legal system in o(tainingade@uate 'resentations to tri(unals. In t&e a(sen*e of su*& rules for e+am'le a lawyermig&t a''ear on (ot& sides of t&e litigation *om'li*ating t&e 'ro*ess of ta2ing 'roof and

*om'romise adversary argumentation + + +.

Contrary to Atty. ;ra,s ill-*on*eived attem't to e+'lain &is disloyalty to Samson and &isgrou' t&e termination of t&e attorney-*lient relations&i' does not /ustify a lawyer tore'resent an interest adverse to or in *onfli*t wit& t&at of t&e former *lient.

&e s'irit (e&ind t&is rule is t&at t&e *lient,s *onfiden*e on*e given s&ould not (e stri''ed(y t&e mere e+'iration of t&e 'rofessional em'loyment. ;ven after t&e severan*e of t&erelation a lawyer s&ould not do anyt&ing t&at will in/uriously affe*t &is former *lient in anymatter in w&i*& t&e lawyer 'reviously re'resented t&e *lient.

or s&ould t&e lawyer dis*lose or use any of t&e *lient,s *onfiden*es a*@uired in t&e'revious relation. In t&is regard Canon 15 of t&e Code of Professional Res'onsi(ilitye+'ressly de*lares t&at) HA lawyer owes fidelity to t&e *ause of &is *lient and &e s&all (emindful of t&e trust and *onfiden*e re'osed in &im.H


10/11

GENEROSA BUTED vs. ATTY. AROLD M. ERNANDOA.C. No. 025 O#$o') 0; 00

Fa#$s%In an a*tion for 'artition Atty. 6ernando was *ounsel for Lu*iana A(adilla and a

*ertain Angela Buted. Res'ondent ultimately su**eeded in defending Lu*iana A(adillas*laim of e+*lusive owners&i'. It a''ears t&at Lu*iana A(adilla sold t&e lot to Benito Bolisayand a new ransfer Certifi*ate of itle over t&e lot was issued in t&e name of *om'lainants'ouses.

&en an a*tion for s'e*ifi* 'erforman*e was lodged (y a *ou'le named Luis Sy and ;lenaSy against Benito Bolisay as one of t&e defendants t&e latter retained t&e servi*es ofres'ondent Atty. 6ernando and *laims t&at &e rendered &is servi*es to Benito Bolisay freeof *&arge. It a''ears t&at t&e Sys were *laiming t&at t&e lease e+tended to t&eaforementioned lot. Res'ondent avers t&at t&e relations&i' (etween &imself and BenitoBolisay as regards t&is *ase was terminated on % 9e*em(er 14$4. Res'ondent 6ernandosee2s t&e *an*ellation of t&e ransfer Certifi*ate of itle ECD of *om'lainant s'ouses overt&e lot. Carlos 9ionisia and >ran*is*o were Lu*ianas registered *o-owners. Res'ondent6ernando testified t&at if t&e 'etition for *an*ellation of C was granted t&e lot would nolonger (e owned (y *om'lainant s'ouses (ut would (e owned in *ommon (y all t&e &eirs ofLu*iana A(adilla.

Iss&'%&et&er or not res'ondent 6ernando &ad a *onfli*t of interests.

Co(#')( *( L'+a, E$*#s) &ere is a great res'onsi(ility and sense of awareness t&at mustalways (e 'resent w&en dealing wit& *lients. &e attorney-*lient relations&i' atta*&es event&oug& no monetary *onsideration &as (een given. Lawyers must always (e aware t&atgiving advi*es or even listening to a 'erson mig&t *onstitute t&e relations&i' and t&usafterwards &e *annot /ust enter into anot&er attorney-*lient relations&i' wit&out first 2nowingall t&e relevant fa*ts and wit&out divulging w&at &e 'ersonally 2nows as well. &is area inLegal ;t&i*s is very &ard to always 'ursue (e*ause in today,s situation t&e world is(e*oming smaller and some&ow someway every(ody 2nows every(ody.

And t&us vigilan*e must always (e a *on*ern.

',/%=es t&ere is *onfli*t of interest. Alt&oug& t&e first and se*ond *ases &andled (yres'ondent does not *onstitute *onfli*t of interest t&e same *annot (e said wit& res'e*t tot&e a*tion for s'e*ifi* 'erforman*e and t&e *adastral 'ro*eeding. By res'ondents ownadmission &e defended t&e rig&tof owners&i' over Lot 4%"4-B of *om'lainant BenitoBolisay in t&e a*tion for s'e*ifi* 'erforman*e.

6e assailed t&is same rig&t of owners&i' w&en &e su(se@uently filed a 'etition for*an*ellation of *om'lainants ransfer Certifi*ate of itle over t&at same lot. Res'ondent6ernando was in a *onfli*t of interest situation. It is *lear from t&e Canons of Professional;t&i*s t&at in *ases w&ere a *onfli*t of interests may e+ist full dis*losure of t&e fa*ts ande+'ress *onsent of all t&e 'arties *on*erned are ne*essary.

&e 'resent Code of Professional Res'onsi(ility is stri*ter on t&is matter *onsidering t&at*onsent of t&e 'arties is now re@uired to (e in written form. In t&e *ase at (ar su*& *onsentwas wanting. Moreover t&e a(sen*e of monetary *onsideration as w&at t&e res'ondent*ontests does not e+em't t&e lawyer from *om'lying wit& t&e 'ro&i(ition against 'ursuing*ases w&ere a *onfli*t of interest e+ists. &e 'ro&i(ition atta*&es from t&e moment t&e


11/11

attorney-*lient relations&i' is esta(lis&ed and e+tends (eyond t&e duration of t&e'rofessional relations&i'.

conflict of interest pale

Documents