LEGAL ETHICS

DIGESTED CASES
HADJULA VS ATTY. MADIANDA
FACTS:
Complainant alleged that she and respondent used to be friends as they both worked at the Bureau of
Fire Protection (BFP), claimed that she approached respondent for some legal advice and further alleged
that in the course of their conversation which was supposed to be kept confidential she disclosed
personal secrets only to be informed later by the respondent that she (respondent) would refer the matter
to a lawyer friend. It was malicious, so complainant states, of respondent to have refused handling her
case only after she had already heard her secrets.
Respondent denied giving legal advice to the complainant and dismissed any suggestion about the
existence of a lawyer-client relationship between them. Respondent also stated the observation that the
supposed confidential data and sensitive documents adverted to are in fact matters of common
knowledge in the BFP.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the Atty. Madiana breached her duty of preserving the confidence of a client and violated
the Code of Professional Responsibility.
HELD:
YES. Respondent was reprimanded and admonished. The moment complainant approached the then
receptive respondent to seek legal advice, a veritable lawyer-client relationship evolved between the two.
Such relationship imposes upon the lawyer certain restrictions circumscribed by the ethics of the
profession. Among the burdens of the relationship is that which enjoins the lawyer, respondent in this
instance, to keep inviolate confidential information acquired or revealed during legal consultations.
The seriousness of the respondents offense notwithstanding, the Supreme Court feels that there is room
for compassion, absent compelling evidence that the respondent acted with ill-will. Without meaning to
condone the error of respondents ways, what at bottom is before the Court is two former friends
becoming bitter enemies and filing charges and counter-charges against each other using whatever
convenient tools and data were readily available. Unfortunately, the personal information respondent
gathered from her conversation with complainant became handy in her quest to even the score. At the
end of the day, it appears clear to the Court that respondent was actuated by the urge to retaliate without
perhaps realizing that, in the process of giving vent to a negative sentiment, she was violating the rule on
confidentiality.
ATTY. BRIONES VS ATTY. JIMENEZ
FACTS:
The complainant in this disbarment case is Atty. Briones. The respondent is Atty. Jimenez. Complainant
Briones is the Special Administrator of the Henson Estate, while respondent Jimenez is the counsel for
Heirs of Henson.
The root of herein administrative complaint for Disbarment is an RTC Order (2002). The RTC Order
directed complainant Briones to deliver the residue of the estate to the Heirs in proportion to their shares.
Complainant Briones did not reply to the demand, so respondent Jimenez opted to file a criminal
complaint in behalf of his clients for refusal to obey the lawful order of the court.

Complainant Briones now claims that respondent Jimenez is guilty of violation of Rule 19.01 of the Code
of Professional responsibility by filing the unfounded criminal complaint against complainant to obtain an
improper advantage:
Rule 19.01 - A lawyer shall employ only fair and honest means to attain the lawful objectives of his client
and shall not present, participate in presenting or threaten to present unfounded criminal charges to
obtain an improper advantage in any case of proceeding.
ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent Atty. Jimenez should be administratively liable.
HELD:
Yes. Atty. Jacinto D. Jimenez is found guilty of and REPRIMANDED [since no evidence of malice or bad
faith] for violation of Rule 19.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility Fair play demands that
respondent should have filed the proper motion with the RTC to attain his goal of having the residue of
the estate delivered to his clients and not subject complainant to a premature criminal prosecution.
Canon 19 of the Code of Professional Responsibility enjoins a lawyer to represent his client with zeal.
However, the same Canon provides that a lawyers performance of his duties towards his client must be
within the bounds of the law. Rule 19.01 of the same Canon requires, among others, that a lawyer shall
employ only fair and honest means to attain the lawful objectives of his client. To permit lawyers to resort
to unscrupulous practices for the protection of the supposed rights of their clients is to defeat one of the
purposes of the state the administration of justice. While lawyers owe their entire devotion to the interest
of their clients and zeal in the defense of their clients right, they should not forget that they are, first and
foremost, officers of the court, bound to exert every effort to assist in the speedy and efficient
administration of justice.
ALEX ONG VS ATTY. UNTO
FACTS:
The complainant received a demand-letter from the respondent as legal counsel of one Nemesia
Garganian claiming for the support of the alleged child of the complainant with the latter. A few days
thereafter, the respondent wrote a letter addressed to Dr. Jose Bueno (Agaw), an emissary of the
complainant. In this letter, the respondent listed down the alleged additional financial demands of Ms.
Garganian against the complainant and discussed the courses of action that he would take against the
complainant should the latter fail to comply with his obligation to support Ms. Garganian and her son.
It was alleged that the real father of Ms. Garganians son was the complainants brother and that the
complainant merely assumed his brothers obligation to appease Ms. Garganian who was threatening to
sue them. The complainant then did not comply with the demands against him.
Consequently, the respondent filed a complaint with the Office of the City Fiscal (now Prosecutors Office)
of Dumaguete City against the complainant, his wife, Bella Lim, and one Albina Ong, for alleged violation
of the Retail Trade Nationalization Law and the Anti-Dummy Law.
The next day, the respondent filed another criminal complaint against the complainant, Lim, Ong and
Adela Peralta for their alleged violation of the Anti-Dummy Law.
In addition, the respondent commenced administrative cases against the complainant before the Bureau
of Domestic Trade, the Commission on Immigration and Deportation, and the Office of the Solicitor
General. According to the complainant, these cases were subsequently denied due course and dismissed
by the aforesaid government agencies.
The foregoing prompted the complainant to file the present case for disbarment. The records show that
the respondent offered monetary rewards to anyone who could provide him any information against the

complainant just so he would have a leverage in his actions against the latter. The complainant branded
the respondents tactics as highly immoral, unprofessional and unethical, constitutingmalpractice of law
and conduct gravely unbecoming of a lawyer.
ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent is guilty of malpractice of law and conduct unbecoming of lawyer.
HELD:
YES. The relevant rule to the case at bar is Canon 19 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. It
mandates lawyers to represent their clients with zeal but within the bounds of the law. Rule 19.01 further
commands that a lawyer shall employ only fair and honest means to attain the lawful objectives of his
client and shall not present, participate or threaten to present unfounded criminal charges to obtain an
improper advantage in any case or proceeding.
We find the respondents action to be malicious as the cases he instituted against the complainant did not
have any bearing or connection to the cause of his client, Ms. Garganian. Clearly, the respondent has
violated the proscription in Canon 19, Rule 19.01. His behavior is inexcusable. His tactic is unethical and
runs counter to the rules that a lawyer shall not, for corrupt motive or interest, encourage any suit or
proceeding and he shall not do any act designed primarily to solicit legal business.
The ethics of the legal profession rightly enjoin lawyers to act with the highest standards of truthfulness,
fair play and nobility in the course of his practice of law. A lawyer may be disciplined or suspended for any
misconduct, whether in his professional or private capacity. Public confidence in law and lawyers may be
eroded by the irresponsible and improper conduct of a member of the Bar. Thus, every lawyer should act
and comport himself in such a manner that would promote public confidence in the integrity of the legal
profession.
IMELDA NAKPIL V. ATTY. VALDES
FACTS:
Valdes is Jose Nakpils accountant, consultant and lawyer. Nakpil got interested in the purchase of a
summer residence in Baguio but due to lack of funds, he asked Valdes to buy it for him and hold it in trust.
Valdes obtained 2 loans (65k and 75k), then he bought the land and had the title issued in his name.
When Jose Nakpil died, Imelda, his wife, became the administratrix of Joses estate. And, Valdes law firm
filed for the settlement of Joses estate. Baguio property became an issue because the property was not
included in Joses inventory of estate, but the loans used to purchase the property were charged under
his name. The title to the property was transferred from Valdes to Caval Realty, Valdes family realty corp.
Valdes accounting firm handled the inventory of Joses estate but also, handled the claims of Joses
creditors- Angel Nakpil and ENORN, INC.
ISSUE:
W/n Valdes is guilty of representing conflicting interests in violation of the code of professional ethics
HELD:
Yes.The prescription applies no matter how slight the adverse interest is.
Representation of conflicting interests may be allowed only upon full disclosure of the facts among all
concerned parties, as to the extent of conflict and probable adverse outcome. The preparation of claims
of the creditors against the estate is obviously improper because he had to fight for one side, the claims
he was defending against for the other side. The defense that he had already resigned from the law firm
was not supported by evidence. His resignation from the accounting firm only shows that he was absent
for quite some time but returned to work during the tenure of the litigation of claims. Thus, he cannot claim
ignorance of the case.
The test of impropriety of representation of conflicting interests is not the certainty of such existence but
mere probability for it to exist. Even though he could have committed such misconduct not as a lawyer but

as an accountant, the court is not divested of jurisdiction to punish a lawyer for misconduct committed
outside the legal field, as the good moral character requirement is not only a requisite for entrance to the
bar but a continuing requirement for the practice of law. A lawyer should always act to promote public
confidence to the legal profession.
QUIAMBAO V. BAMBA
FACTS:
Quiambao charges Atty. Bamba with violation of CPR 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 committing
other acts of disloyalty and double-dealing. Atty. Bamba is the counsel of Allied Investigation Bureau (AIB)
and its president and managing director (Quiambao). Atty. Bamba is the counsel of Quaimbao in an
ejectment case. Later on, Quiambao resigned from AIB. While the ejectment case was still ongoing, Atty.
Bamba, as the counsel of AIB, filed a replevin case against Quiambao.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Bamba is guilty of misconduct for representing conflicting interests in contravention of
the basic tenets of the legal profession.
HELD:
Yes, Atty. Bamba is guilty. At the time Atty. Bamba filed the replevin case on behalf of AIB, he was still the
counsel of record of Quiambao in the pending ejectment case. Under Rule 15.03, a lawyer shall not
represent conflicting interests except by written consent of all concerned given after full disclosure of the
facts. This is founded on the principles of public policy because it is the only way that litigants can be
encouraged to entrust their secrets to their lawyers, which is of paramount importance in the
administration of justice.
3 Tests of Conflict of Interests:
1. Whether a lawyer is duty-bound to fight for an issue or claim in behalf of one client and, at the
same time, to oppose that claim for the other client
2. Whether the acceptance of a new relation would prevent the full discharge of the lawyers duty of
undivided fidelity and loyalty to the client or invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or double-dealing in
the performance of that duty
Whether the lawyer would be called upon in the new relation to use against a former client any
confidential information acquired through their connection

HORNILLA V. ATTY. SALUNAT

FACTS:
Complainants in this case are members of the Philippine Public School Teachers Association (PPSTA)
who filed an intra-corporate case against its members of the Board of Directors for unlawful spending and
the undervalued sale of the real properties of PPSTA corporation. Attorney Salunat is the counsel of the
Philippine Public School Teachers Association (PPSTA) and at the same time the counsel of the PPSTA
Board of Directors. Hence, complainants now aver that Atty. Salunat is guilty of conflict of interest.
ISSUE:
Can a lawyer, engaged by a corporation, defend members of the board of the same corporation in a
derivative suit?

HELD:
No, a lawyer cannot. Hence, Atty. Salunat is guilty of representing conflicting interest and is admonished
to observe a higher degree of fidelity in the practice of his profession.
The Court in this case explained the nature of a derivative suit. Where corporation directors have
committed a breach, ultra vires acts, or negligence a stockholder may sue on behalf of himself and
other stockholders and for the benefit of the corporation. In this suit therefore, the corporation is the real
party in interest, while the stockholder who files a suit for the corporations behalf is only the nominal
party.
The test of inconsistency of interest 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.
A situation wherein a lawyer represents both the corporation and its assailed directors unavoidably gives
rise to a conflict of interest.
HEIRS OF FALAME VS. ATTY.BAGUIO
FACTS:
Plaintiffs, heirs of the late Lydio Falame, allege that their father engaged the services of respondent Atty.
Baguio to represent him in an action for forcible entry (in which Lydio and his brother Raleigh were one of
the defendants). As counsel, Atty. Baguio used and submitted evidence of: 1.) A special power of attorney
executed by Lydio in favor of his brother, Raleigh Falame, appointing him as his attorney-in-fact; and 2.)
affidavit of Raleigh Falame, executed before the respondent, in which Raleigh stated that Lydio owned the
property subject of the case.
Plaintiffs further allege that even after a favorable ruling for the defendants in the said case, Lydio still
retained the services of Atty. Baguio as his legal adviser and counsel of his businesses until his death in
1996.
However, in October of 2000 Atty. Baguio, in representation of spouses Raleigh and Noemi Falame, filed
a compliant against the plaintiffs involving the same property that was the subject matter in the first case.
Said complaint sought the declaration of nullity of the deed of sale, its registration in the registry of deeds,
TCT issued as a consequence of the registration of the sale and the real estate mortgage.
Plaintiffs in turn, filed an administrative case against Atty. Baguio alleging that by acting as counsel for the
spouses Falame in the second case, wherein they were impleaded a defendants, respondent violated his
oath of office and duty as an attorney. They contend that the spouses Falames interests are adverse to
those of his former client, Lydio.
The IBP Board of Governors passed a Resolution adopting and approving Investigating Commissioner
Winston Abuyuans report and recommendation for the dismissal of this case.
ISSUE:
W/N Atty. Baguio violated Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility?
HELD:
Yes, he violated the rule. Rule 15.03 of the Canon of Professional Responsibility provides: A lawyer shall
not represent conflicting interests except by written consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of
the facts. A lawyer may not, without being guilty of professional misconduct, act as counsel for a person
whose interest conflicts with that of his present or former client.
The test is whether, on behalf of one client, it is the lawyers duty to contest that which his duty another
client requires him to oppose or when the possibility of such situation will develop. The rule 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 a client if that representation will be directly adverse to any
of his present or former clients. The rule is grounded in the fiduciary obligation of loyalty.
The termination of attorney-client relation provides no justification for a lawyer to represent an interest
adverse to or in conflict with that of the former client. The clients confidence once reposed should not be
divested by mere expiration of professional employment. The protection given to a client is perpetual and
does not cease with the termination of the litigation, nor is it affected by the partys ceasing to employ the
attorney and retaining another, or by any other change of relation between them. It even survives the
death of the client.
In the case at bar, respondent admitted having jointly represented Lydio and Raleigh as defendants in the
first civil case. Evidently, the attorney-client relation between Lydio and respondent was established
despite the fact that it is immaterial whether such employment was paid, promised or charged for.
As defense counsel in the first civil case respondent advocated the stance that Lydio solely owned the
property subject of the case. In the second civil case involving the same property, respondent, as counsel
for Raleigh and his spouse, has pursued the inconsistent position that Raleigh owned the same property
in common with Lydio, with complainants, who inherited the property, committing acts which debase
respondents rights as co-owner. The fact that the attorney-client relation had ceased by reason of Lydios
death or through the completion of the specific task for which respondent was employed is not reason for
respondent to advocate a position opposed to the of Lydio. And while plaintiffs have never been
respondents clients, they derive their rights to the property from Lydios ownership of it which respondent
maintained in the first civil case.
HUMBERTO LIM, JR. in behalf of PENTA RESORTS CORP./ atty-in-Fact of LUMOTJALANDONI vs.
ATTY. NICANOR VILLAROSA
FACTS:
Mrs. Jalandoni has two sons-in-law, namely Dennis Jalbuena married to her daughter Carmen Jalbuena
and Humberto Lim, Jr. herein complainant married to her daughter, Cristina Lim. Mrs.Lumot Jalandoni
owned 97% of Penta Resorts Corp (PRC). That the only property of the corp, is as above-stated, the
Alhambra Hotel constructed solely thru the effort of the sps Jalbuena on the parcel of land now claimed by the
Cabiles family. PRC had a case wherein respondent was its counsel. Later on, complainant had a case against sps
Jalbuena where the parties were related to each other and the latter sps. Were represented by the respondent as their
retained counsel; after respondent had allegedly withdrawn as counsel for the complainants which respondent
averred in his answer, it is incumbent upon Humberto Lim to represent his wife as one of the
representatives of PRC and Alhambra Hotel in the administrative complaint to protect not only her interest
but that of the family. It is evident that complainant had a lawyer-client relationship with the respondent before
thelatter retained as counsel by the sps. Jalbuena when the latter were sued by complainants representative.
Respondent for having appeared as counsel for the Sps. Jalbuena when charged by respondents former
client Jalandoni of PRc and Alhambra Hote, represented conflicting interests in violation of CPR.
ISSUE:
WON there existed a conflict of interest in the cases represented and handled by the respondent?
HELD:
The rule on conflict of interests covers not only cases which confidential communication have been confided
but also those in which no confidence has been bestowed or will be used. The first part of the rule refers to cases in which the
opposing parties are present clients either in the same action or in a totally unrelated case; the second part pertains
to those in which the adverse party against whom the atty. Appears is his former client in a matter which is related, directly or
indirectly, to the present controversy. 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. An atty. Owes to his client
undivided allegiance. After being retained and receiving the confidences of the client he cannot, w/out the
free and intelligent consent of his client, act both for his client and for one whose interest is adverse to, or conflicting with
that of his client in the same general matter. The relation of Atty. and client may be terminated by the
client, by the lawyer or by the court, or by reason of circumstances beyond the control of the client or
the lawyer. An Atty. may only retire from a case either by written consent of his client or by permission of the court after
due notice and hearing, in which event the atty should see to it that the name of the new lawyer is recorded
in the case. The appearance of Atty. Alminaza in fact was not even to substitute for respondent but to act as additional
counsel. Mrs. Jalandonis conformity to having an additional lawyer did not necessarily mean to
respondents desire to withdraw as counsel Respondents speculations on the professional relationship of
Atty. Alminaza and Mrs. Jalandoni find no support in the records of this case. Respondent should
not have presumed that his motion to withdraw as counsel would be granted by the court. Yet, he
stopped appearing as Mrs. Jalandonis counsel beginning april28, 1999, the first hearing date. No
order from the court was shown to have actually granted his motion for withdrawal. Thus, Atty. Villarosa is
found guilty of violating Canon 15 and Canon 22 of CPR and suspended from practice of law for one year.
LETICIA GONZALES vs ATTY. MARCELINO CABUCANA
FACTS:
Sheriff Gatcheco and his wife went to the house of Gonzales, they harassed Gonzales and asked her to
execute an affidavit of desistance regarding her complaint, Gonzales thereafter filed against the Gatchecos criminal cases for
trespass, grave threats, grave oral defamation, simple coercion and unjust vexation; where respondents law firm
was still representing Gonzales, herein respondent represented the Gatchecos in the cases filed by Gonzales against
the said sps respondent should be disbarred from the practice of law since respondents acceptance of the cases of the
Gatchecos violates the lawyer- client relationship between complainant and respondents law firm and renders
respondent liable under CPR particularly Rules 10.01, 13.01,15.02, 15.03, 21.02 and 21.02. Respondent
alleged that he never appeared and represented of such case since it was his brother, Atty. Edmar Cabucana who
appeared and represented Gonzales in said case. He admitted that he is representing Sheriff Gatcheco and his wife in the
cases filed against them bur claimed that his appearance is pro bono and that the sps pleaded with him as no other counsel
was willing to take their case.
ISSUE:
WON respondent violated Rule 15.03 of CPR
HELD:
Respondent is guilty violating Rule 15.03 of Canon 15 of the CPR. It is well-settled that 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 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 clients 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. The proscription against representation of conflicting interests
applies to a situation where the opposing parties are present clients in the same action or in an unrelated action.
Respondents allegation that it was his brother who represented Gonzales, thus there could be no conflict
of interest is no merit. As respondent admitted, it was their law firm which represented Gonzales in the civil case. Such being
the case, the rule against representing conflicting interest applies. The court consider however as mitigating circumstances
the fact that he is representing the Gatcheco sps pro bono and that it was his firm and not respondent
personally which handled the civil case of Gonzales. And it was observed that there was no malice and bad faith
inrespondents acceptance of the Gatchecos cases as shown by the move of complainant to withdraw the case. Thus,
for violation of Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of CPR and taking consideration of mitigating circumstances,
Atty. Cabucana is fined the amount of P 2,000 with stern warning that a commission of the same or similar act in the future
shall be dealt with more severely.