Licudan v Court of AppealsFacts:

FACTS:
-Atty. Teodoro Domalanta was the counsel of his sister and brother-in-law.
Herepresented them in two civil cases and in both, he obtained judgment infavor of his
clients.
-He filed a petition for Attorneys Lien with Notification to his Clients which
provided that:
He is entitled to own 97.5 sq.m of his clients share of the lot in
question
He shall have usufructuary right for 10 years of his clients share of
the lot in question
All the damages accruing to his client if for the undersigned counsel
-A series of hearings were made and the trial court ruled in favor of thelawyer.
-10 months after, the heirs of the lawyers (deceased) clients filed a motion to
set aside the orders of the trial court.
-The lawyer stressed the fact that the payment of the professional serviceswas pursuant
to a contract which could no longer be disturbed as it hasalready been implemented and
since then had become final
-CA ruled in favor of the lawyer, dismissing the appeal of the petitioners.
-Instant petition: The petitioners now fault the respondent court for its failureto exercise
its inherent power to review and determine the propriety of the
respondents lawyers fees
-They also accuse their lawyer of having committed an unfair advantage orlegal fraud
by virtue of the Contract for Professional Services devised by him.
-According to the petitioners, they may have won the cases (where the
lawyerrepresented them) but would lose the entire property won in the litigation totheir
lawyer.
They would be deprived of their house and lot and the recovered
damages since everything would just go to lawyers fees.
Furthermore, a portion of the land that they would recover would still

go to lawyers fees since it pertains to the lawyers son by way of

usufruct for 10 years.
ISSUE: W/N the attorneys fees in this case is reasonable, being in the nature of
contingent fees
HELD:
No. The attorneys fees in this case is unconscionable and unreasonable.
a. The instant petition is granted, and the Court of Appeals decision
reversed and set aside.
b. Atty. Domalanta is awarded reasonable attorneys fees in the amount
of P20,000.

HILADO vs DAVID
FACTS: In April 1945, Blandina Hilado filed a complaint to have some deeds of sale
annulled against Selim Assad. Attorney Delgado Dizon represented Hilado. Assad was
represented by a certain Atty. Ohnick.
In January 1946, Atty. Vicente Francisco replaced Atty. Ohnick as counsel for Assad and
he thenafter entered his appearance in court.
In May 1946 or four months later, Atty. Dizon filed a motion to have Atty. Francisco be
disqualified because Atty. Dizon found out that in June 1945, Hilado approached Atty.
Francisco to ask for additional legal opinion regarding her case and for which Atty.
Francisco sent Hilado a legal opinion letter.

Atty. Francisco opposed the motion for his disqualification. In his opposition, he said that
no material information was relayed to him by Hilado; that in fact, upon hearing Hilados
story, Atty. Francisco advised her that her case will not win in court; but that later, Hilado
returned with a copy of the Complaint prepared by Atty. Dizon; that however, when
Hilado returned, Atty. Francisco was not around but an associate in his firm was there (a
certain Atty. Federico Agrava); that Atty. Agrava attended to Hilado; that after Hilado left,
leaving behind the legal documents, Atty. Agrava then prepared a legal opinion letter
where it was stated that Hilado has no cause of action to file suit; that Atty. Agrava had
Atty. Francisco sign the letter; that Atty. Francisco did not read the letter as Atty. Agrava
said that it was merely a letter explaining why the firm cannot take on Hilados case.
Atty. Francisco also pointed out that he was not paid for his advice; that no confidential
information was relayed because all Hilado brought was a copy of the Complaint which
was already filed in court; and that, if any, Hilado already waived her right to disqualify
Atty. Francisco because he was already representing Assad in court for four months in
the said case.
Judge Jose Gutierrez David ruled in favor of Atty. Francisco.
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Francisco should be disqualified in the said civil case.
HELD: Yes. There already existed an attorney-client relationship between Hilado and
Atty. Francisco. Hence, Atty. Francisco cannot act as counsel against Hilado without the
latters consent.

As ruled by the Supreme Court, to constitute an attorney-client relationship, it is not

necessary that any retainer should have been paid, promised, or charged for; neither is
it material that the attorney consulted did not afterward undertake the case about which
the consultation was had. If a person, in respect to his business affairs or troubles of
any kind, consults with his attorney in his professional capacity with the view to
obtaining professional advice or assistance, and the attorney voluntarily permits or
acquiesces in such consultation, then the professional employment must be regarded
as established.
Further:
An attorney is employed that is, he is engaged in his professional capacity as a lawyer
or couselor when he is listening to his clients preliminary statement of his case, or when
he is giving advice thereon, just as truly as when he is drawing his clients pleadings or
advocating his clients cause in open court
Anent the issue of what information was relayed by Hilado to Atty. Francisco: It does not
matter if the information relayed is confidential or not. So long as the attorney-client
relationship is established, the lawyer is proscribed from taking other representations
against the client.
Anent the issue that the legal opinion was not actually written by Atty. Francisco but was
only signed by him: It still binds him because Atty. Agrava, assuming that he was the
real author, was part of the same law firm. An information obtained from a client by a

member or assistant of a law firm is information imparted to the firm, his associates or
his employers.
Anent the issue of the fact that it took Hilado four months from the time Atty. Francisco
filed his entry of appearance to file a disqualification: It does not matter. The length of
time is not a waiver of her right. The right of a client to have a lawyer be disqualified,
based on previous atty-client relationship, as counsel against her does not prescribe.
Professional confidence once reposed can never be divested by expiration of
professional employment.