2A Legal Ethics

2nd Long Exam

Fr. Ferrer
CHAPTER 10.6
CONFLICT OF INTEREST 11. CHUNG
CONFLICTING INTEREST INCONSIS
TENT Ref No. 23=480
Atty. CLIENT VS. CLIENT DUTIES
vs. Case Name Tiania v Ocampo
Client Present New vs.
Former Catchy Phrase Balimbing, minsan prutas, minsan si Lolo Ocampo
Same Related Case Unrelated
Case Case Doctrine:

Representing both parties in a case and performing in favor of one party,

Conflict of Interest can be:
constitutes conflict of interest.
1. Attorney vs. Client
2. Client vs. Client
a. If present Facts:
I. Same case
II. Related case ● These are two consolidated cases regarding disbarment
III. Unrelated case proceedings against Atty Ocampo.
b. New vs. Former (related cases directly/indirectly but ● 1st case= Atty ocampo ​represented both sides in an ejectment
substantially) case. ​Tiania confronted OCampo about this but he reassured Tiania
3. Inconsistent Duties that he will take care of everything and that there was no need to
4. No conflict of interest hire a new lawyer. (the other party was Blaylock by the way)
subsequently, Atyy ocampo asked Tiania to sign a piece of paper
Instructions: without Tiania knowing that it is already a compromise
1. For the doctrine, please use the footnote in the book and/or the agreement.(so obviously, Atty Ocampo is in favor of Blaylock
relevant laws/rules applied. from the very start)
2. Please classify your assigned case if attorney vs. client, client vs. ● 2nd case= the transaction involves a sale between Blaylock and
client, inconsistent duties, or no conflict of interest. If it is client vs. Angel Spouses. Again, Atty Ocampo asked the other party (Angel
client, further classify if present or new vs. former. If client vs. spouses) to sign, without them knowing that it is a Real Estate
client, present case, further classify if same case, related case, or Mortgage and a PN
unrelated case.
Example: Issue:
Client vs. Client - Present - Same Case
Client vs. Client - New vs. Former Is there conflict of interest? YES

Ruling:

1
2A Legal Ethics
2nd Long Exam
Fr. Ferrer
Atty Ocampo is guilty of representing conflicting interest. We prohibit
misconduct, act as counsel for a person whose interest conflicts
representation of conflicting interest not only beacue the relation of attorney
with that of his present or former client. He may not also
and client is one of trust and confidence of the highest degree, but also
undertake to discharge conflicting duties any more than he may
because of the principles of public policy and good taste. An atty has the
represent antagonistic interests.
duty to deserve the fullest confidence of his client and represent him with
undivided loyalty. Once this confidence is abused, the entire profession
suffers Facts:

The test of conflict of interest is whether or not 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.
Notes from Fr. Ferrer during discussion:
Establish first Atty-Client relationship!
Conflict Client vs. Client - Present - Same Case
Penalty Suspended for 1 month ( considering old age)
● This complaint is filed against Atty. Valencia for representing
conflicting interest during three cases that he previously handled.
● In the case entitled Leonora M. Aville v. Editha Valdez for nonpayment
of rentals, herein respondent, while being the counsel for lessor Valdez,
also acted as counsel for the tenants by filing an Explanation and
Compliance before the RTC.
● In the case entitled Editha S. Valdez and Joseph J. Alba, Jr. v. Salve
Bustamante and her husband for ejectment, respondent represented
lessor Valdez against tenant Bustamante, also being represented by
respondent. The presiding judge Reuben P. dela Cruz warned
respondent to refrain from repeating the act of being counsel of record
of both parties in the Civil Case.

● Subsequently in the third case, entitled Editha S. Valdez v. Joseph J.

Alba, Jr., respondent, as counsel for Valdez, filed a Complaint for
12. CONSOLACION Rescission of Contract with Damages and Cancellation of Transfer
Certificate of Title No. 275500 against Alba,also respondent's former
client and the co-plaintiff of Valdez in the second civil case.
Ref No. 27=21 of supplementary readings

Case Name Samala v. Valencia ● Respondent Valencia raised the defense that he had already severed his
representation for Alba when the latter charged respondent with estafa
Catchy Phrase The desire for opportunity must end where loyalty and therefore his act of representing Valdez does not amount to
to the client begins. representing interest adverse to Alba, a former client
Issue:
Doctrine:
● Whether Respondent Valencia is liable for representing conflicting
A lawyer may not, without being guilty of professional interests.

2
2A Legal Ethics
2nd Long Exam
Fr. Ferrer
Ruling:
● Yes, respondent’s defense that his relationship with Alba has long
been severed by the act of the latter of not turning over the proceeds
collected in Civil Case No. 98-6804, in connivance with the
complainant, is unavailing. Termination of the attorney-client
relationship precludes an attorney from representing a new client whose
interest is adverse to his former client. Alba may not be his original
client but the fact that he filed a case entitled Valdez and Alba v.
Bustamante and her husband, is a clear indication that respondent is
protecting the interests of both Valdez and Alba in the said case.
Respondent cannot just claim that the lawyer-client relationship
between him and Alba has long been severed without observing
Section 26, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court wherein the written consent
of his client is required.
● One of the tests of inconsistency of interests is 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.
Notes from Fr. Ferrer during discussion:
● Please read Agpalo book p. 300-301 on the part about Samala v.
Valencia, binasa lang ito ni Fr. Ferrer nung report ko.
● Attorney must guard the secrets of his client till he goes to the grave.
● Take note and memorize the tests of inconsistency.
Conflict
Penalty
13. DAMASCO TY
Ref No. 29=19 of Supplementary readings
Case Name Pormento v. Pontevedra
Catchy Phrase
Doctrine:
Where the subject matter of the present suit between the lawyer’s new
client and his former client is in some way connected with that of the
former client’s action, the lawyer may have to contend for his new client
that which he previously opposed as counsel for the former client or to
use against the latter information confided to him as his counsel.
Facts:
● This is a disbarment case against a lawyer filed by his counsel.
● There are three incidents in this disbarment complaint.
● In one case, [Respondent Lawyer Pontevedra] failed to inform
[Client Pormento] of the dismissal of his counterclaim thereby
depriving him of his right to appeal. Ultimately, the client lost the
parcel of land which was the subject matter of that suit.
● The next case is a continuation of the first case. In order to recover
the lost land, Client hired a new lawyer to file a criminal case for
qualified theft against the relatives of the new owner. In this case,
the accused’s counsel is Respondent Lawyer.
● The third incident is an ejectment case by Petitioner Client against
his nephew. When the Client purchased the lot in this case,
Respondent Lawyers only hand in the transaction was that he
notarized the deed of sale. In this ejectment case, Respondent
lawyer is representing the nephew.
Issue:
● Whether or not Respondent Lawyer is guilty of malpractice and
misconduct by representing clients with conflicting interests and
should be disbarred by reason thereof?
Ruling:
3
2A Legal Ethics
2nd Long Exam
Fr. Ferrer

Penalty Fined Php 10,000.00 and warned

● Yes, there is a representation of conflicting interests in this case
but not in the case of the nephew.
● A lawyer is forbidden from representing a subsequent client
against a former client when the subject matter of the present
controversy is related, directly or indirectly, to the subject matter
of the previous litigation in which he appeared for the former
client.
● Where the subject matter of the present suit between the lawyer’s
new client and his former client is in some way connected with that
of the former client’s action, the lawyer may have to contend for
his new client that which he previously opposed as counsel for the
former client or to use against the latter information confided to
him as his counsel.
● When Respondent Lawyer was the counsel of the Client, he
became privy to the documents and information that his client
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 should have
precluded him from appearing as counsel for the opposing side.
● Thus, respondent should have declined employment in the
qualified theft case so as to avoid suspicion that he used in that
case any information he may have acquired prior.
● There is no conflict of interest in the case against the nephew. The
only established participation the lawyer had with respect to that
parcel of land purchased by complainant, is that he was the one
who notarized the deed of sale. On that basis alone, it does not
necessarily follow that respondent obtained any information from
herein complainant that can be used to the detriment of the latter in
the ejectment case he filed.
Notes from Fr. Ferrer during discussion:
No comment
CHAPTER 10.7
14. DE JESUS
Ref No. 34=62
Case Name Buted v. Hernando
Catchy Phrase Dakilang Traydor
Doctrine:
The absence of monetary consideration does not exempt the lawyer from
complying with the prohibition against pursuing cases where a conflict of
interest exists.
Facts:
Atty. Hernando was counsel for Luciana Abadilla and Angela Buted for a
partition case of the late Teofilo Buted’s lot. He successfully defended the
case. When Luciana died, Hernando withdrew appearance. Luciana once
sold the property to Benito Bolisay but it appears that the TCT was issued to
the Sy couple. Upon filing specific performance, Bolisay got Atty.
Hernando to represent him (free of charge). They succeeded in ejecting the
couple. Atty. Hernando claims to have terminated relationship with Bolisay.
In February 1974, Atty. Hernando filed a petition, in behalf of Luciana’s
heirs without their consent, to cancel TCT of Bolisay couple over the lot.
The couple filed disapproval. The case was dismissed for prescription. In
August of 1974, Bolisay couple filed an administrative complaint against
Atty. Hernando for having abused personal secrets obtained by him as their
counsel
Issue:

Conflict Client vs. Client - New vs. Former Whether or not respondent Hernando had a conflict of interests

4
2A Legal Ethics
2nd Long Exam
Fr. Ferrer
Integrity of the legal profession is of paramount interest. This stern rule is
Ruling: designed not alone to prevent the dishonest practitioner from fraudulent
conduct, but as well to protect the honest lawyer from unfounded suspicion
Yes. The Supreme Court ruled that Atty. Hernando had a conflict of of unprofessional practice.
interest. In the action for specific performance, Atty Hernando defended the
Bolisay couple’s right to ownership but assailed the very same right in the
cadastral proceeding in favor of Luciana’s heirs. The Canons of
Conflict Client v. Client. New vs. Former
Professional Ethics prohibits conflicting interests for lawyers. “It is
unprofessional to represent conflicting interests, except by express consent
Penalty 5 mos suspension
of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts. Within the
meaning of this canon, a lawyer represents conflicting interests when, in
behalf of one client, it is his duty to contend for that which duty to another CHAPTER 10.10
client requires him to oppose. The obligation to represent the client with 15. DOMASIG
undivided fidelity and not to divulge his secrets or confidence forbids also
the subsequent acceptance of retainers or employment from others in
Ref No. 54=507
matters adversely affecting any interest of the client with respect to which
confidence has been reposed.”And despite Atty Hernando’s claim that he Case Name VDA Zubiri v. Zubiri
had never seen nor taken hold of the Transfer Certificate of Title or that he
divulged any confidential information belonging to the Bolisay couple, that Catchy Phrase
the mere fact that respondent had acted as counsel for Benito Bolisay in the
action for specific performance should have precluded him from appearing Doctrine:
as counsel for the other side in in the cancellation of the Transfer Certificate
of Title of the spouses. There is no necessity for proving the actual It is unprofessional to represent conflicting interests." The simultaneous
transmission of confidential information to an attorney in the course of his representation by a lawyer of both parties to a suit constitutes malpractice
employment by his first client in order that he may be precluded from which should be severely condemned and the lawyer corrected by
accepting employment by the second or subsequent client where there are disciplinary action.”
conflicting interests between the first and the subsequent clients. The
prohibition on conflict of interest was designed not only to prevent the
dishonest practitioner from fraudulent conduct, but as well to protect the
honest lawyer from unfounded suspicion of unprofessional practice. Facts:
Although the relation of attorney and client has terminated, and the new
employment is in a different case; nor can the attorney use against his Aurora Camara Vda. de Zubiri filed with the CFI of Lanao del Norte a
former client any knowledge or information gained through their former complaint for the recovery of her alleged share in 2 commercial lots in
connection. Iligan City against Wenceslao Ben Zubiri and the Standard Vacuum Oil
Co., the occupant of portions of the said properties. She alleged that the said
Notes from Fr. Ferrer during discussion: lots were conjugal because they have been purchased by her and her late
husband during their marriage. Moreover, she claimed that Ben was in the
possession of the said properties and has no right, interest, nor participation

5
2A Legal Ethics
2nd Long Exam
Fr. Ferrer
therein unless proven that he is a duly recognized natural child of her
husband.
Four pleadings were filed in this case, namely: 1) the herein appellant's
answer; 2) a Stipulation of Facts; 3) a motion to render judgment on the
pleadings; and 4) the defendant Standard Vacuum Oil Company's answer to
the above complaint.
A week before the scheduled hearing for the petition, Ben’s counsel filed a
motion to postpone the hearing on the ground that he could not release
himself from his current employment as to be free to attend the said hearing.
However, the court denied the motion and proceeded with the scheduled
hearing despite the absence of the defendant's counsel and, after hearing the
plaintiff's argument, likewise denied the petition to set aside judgment. The
subsequent motion for reconsideration thereof having been denied too, the
defendant-appellant interposed the present appeal.
Issue:
Whether or not the denial of the motion to set aside judgment was
reasonable and proper.
In the defendant’s answer, an admission in paragraph 1 of the same was so
total and unqualified a repudiation of the defendant's own interest that
indeed, especially as it was avowed in the said pleading that the defendant
was unassisted by counsel, the trial court should have insisted upon some
assurance that the defendant was solely and fully accountable therefor.
After the defendant represented under oath that the plaintiff's counsel was
the principal author of the same, and the one who talked him into
participating in it, the intervention of the lower court became an absolute
necessity.
To be sure, the active participation of a lawyer in one party's affairs relating
to a pending case in which the said lawyer is the counsel for the opposing
party is brazenly unethical to say the least. The Canons of Legal Ethics very
explicitly declare that "it is unprofessional to represent conflicting
interests." The simultaneous representation by a lawyer of both parties to a
suit constitutes malpractice which should be severely condemned and the
lawyer corrected by disciplinary action.
Notes from Fr. Ferrer during discussion:
XXX

Conflict Client v. Client

Ruling:
Penalty No mention of penalty for representing conflicting
No. ​In the first place, the motion for postponement under consideration was
interest because the case was focused on the pleading
the very first filed by the counsel for the appellant. It was filed with the
submitted.
court a full week prior to the scheduled hearing, with due and proper notice
to the opposing party. Its ground was not unreasonable and hardly flimsy
since it is not denied that then, the counsel for the appellant was under some CHAPTER 10.12
contractual commitments from which he needed time to be release. Under 16. DY
these circumstances, it does seem that the denial of the motion prevented
rather than serve the ends of justice.
Ref No. 75=449
Secondly, the appellant's petition to set aside judgment, which was verified Case Name San Jose vs. Cruz
and duly supported by two affidavits of merit, was grounded on very serious
allegations. Catchy Phrase Stick to one, walang kaliwaan

6
2A Legal Ethics
2nd Long Exam
Fr. Ferrer

Doctrine: Conflict Client vs. Client - present - same case

Counsel must remain loyal to his client even after the case has already
been decided and the lawyer client relationship has been terminated. Penalty Reprimand
Counsel might use the knowledge and information he gained from the
former case against his former client, which is bad
CHAPTER 10.13

Facts: 17. ESCALANTE

A parcel of land was mortgaged by B to A, B defaulted on the payments. A

Ref No. 35=367
wanted to foreclose the mortgage so he hired the services of Atty Cruz.
Case Name
The case eventually went up to the SC, they won. The case was remanded to
the RTC Catchy
Phrase
C, the cousin of B, filed a third party complaint against the execution of the
property. WITH THE SERVICES OF ATTY. CRUZ Doctrine:

So Atty Cruz is now the opposing counsel against his former client XXX
regarding the same subject matter

Issue: Facts:

Is Atty Cruz liable? XXX

Ruling: Yup! Issue:

Attorney owes loyalty to his client even after the attorney client relationship XXX
has terminated. Not good practice to defend in another case against his
former client. Lawyer might use the knowledge and information he had Ruling:
acquired from the former case with the former client against him in the
subsequent case wherein the former client is now an opposing party in a XXX
case which concerns substantially the same subject matter and relief sought
Notes from Fr. Ferrer during discussion:
Notes from Fr. Ferrer during discussion:
XXX
XXX

7
2A Legal Ethics
2nd Long Exam
Fr. Ferrer
Conflict
Penalty
CHAPTER 10.18
18. EVANGELISTA
Ref No. 103=121
Case Name Donald Dee vs CA and Mutuc
Catchy Phrase A lawyer can serve two masters at the same time
Doctrine
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.
Facts:
Donald Dee and his father went to the residence of Atty. Mutuc
accompanied by the latter's cousin, to seek his advice regarding the
problem of the alleged indebtedness of petitioner's brother, Dewey
Dee, to Caesar's Palace, a well-known gambling casino at Las Vegas,
Nevada, U.S.A. His services were reportedly contracted for P100,000.
After a several long distance telephone calls and two trips to Las
Vegas, Atty. Mutuc found out that the $1,000,000 debt had actually been
incurred by Ramon Sy, with Dewey Dee merely signing for the chits.
Atty. Mutuc personally talked with the president of Caesar's Palace at
Las Vegas, Nevada. The president told him that if he could convince
Ramon Sy to acknowledge the obligation, Dewey Dee would be
exculpated from liability for the account. Upon Atty. Mutuc’s return
to Manila, he conferred with Ramon Sy and the latter was convinced
to acknowledge the indebtedness. Thereafter, the account of Dewey
Dee was cleared and the casino never bothered him.
Atty. Mutuc filed a case because Dee refuses to pay the balance of
P50,000.00 as attorney's fees. According to Dee, Atty. Mutuc had
allegedly volunteered his services "as a friend of defendant's family"
to see what he could do about the situation. After trial, the court a
quo rendered judgment ordering Dee to pay Atty. Mutuc the sum of
P50,000.00. Dee filed an MR with the following arguments: (1) At the
time Atty. Mutuc was ostensibly rendering services to petitioner and
his father, he was actually working "in the interest" and "to the
advantage" of Caesar's Palace of which he was an agent and a
consultant, hence the interests of the casino and Atty. Mutuc were
united in their objective to collect from the debtor; and (2) Atty.
Mutuc is not justified in claiming that he rendered legal services to
Dee in view of the conflicting interests involved.
Issue:
Whether or not there is conflict on interests?
Ruling:
No, there is no conflict of interests here. And even assuming that there is
conflict of interests, Atty Mutuc’s role therein was not ethically or
legally indefensible. Generally, an attorney is prohibited from
representing parties with contending positions. However, 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.
8
2A Legal Ethics
2nd Long Exam
Fr. Ferrer
Ruling:
Conflict Attorney vs. Client = Present: Unrelated Cases
No, the moment that you were consulted about the case and given papers,
Penalty None
client attorney relationship attaches and doubt of being able to pay is no
longer a question since you already assisted him and received documents
CHAPTER 10.24 for his case. You can no longer go to the opposite party and be their
19. FABIA counsel.

Notes from Fr. Ferrer during discussion:

Ref No. 179=219

Case Name In re Porter XXX

Catchy Phrase All for one not one for all Conflict Conflict of interest

Doctrine: Penalty 6 months suspension

A lawyer cannot do clerical work for one and be counsel of the other
party in the same case. Once the client attorney relationship attaches, you
are obliged to represent him faithfully and not go to the other party even 20. FELLONE
if there is doubt that they can’t settles your fees.
Ref No. 180=45
Facts:
Case Name Bautista v. Barrios
This case is about a suspension case filed against Atty. Porter for
Catchy Phrase You draft for me, you appear for me
threatening someone in order to solicit work and for representing two
parties at the same time. Atty porter was the one who was consulted for the
Doctrine:
filing of the case, he received documents and is the one who assisted in
A lawyer cannot draft a pleading (office work) for one party and
filing the case without affixing his name as counsel. After some time, he
represent the opposing party to whom the lawyer pleading is directed at
entered as the counsel of the defendant for the same case and filed a
the same time. - Conflict of interest
demurer against the complaint he assisted in preparing. He alleges that he
never accepted the job since he was afraid that the plaintiff cannot pay his
dues. Facts:

Issue: ● Bautista engaged the services of respondent Atty. Barrios to draft

an extra-judicial partition between Rufina Bautista and her brother
Whether or not payment of dues is a necessary in order for you to accept the and sisters on one side and Federico Rovero on the other. The deed
case. distributed the conjugal properties of Rovero and his deceased wife
Maria Bautista who was a sister of the Bautista’s and who died

9
2A Legal Ethics
2nd Long Exam
Fr. Ferrer
intestate in 1952. The deed was prepared by said Barrios and was ● The inconsistent positions taken by the respondent coupled with
accordingly signed. Thereafter, in September of the same year, some flimsy arguments he had advanced ​, do not favorably impress
because Rovero refused to comply the terms of the deed, Rufina this Court with his alleged good faith in the matter.
Bautista sued him (Civil Case No, K-689, Capiz Court of First ● Corrective measures are called for, and, in accordance with the
Instance) to deliver the properties awarded to her in the said Solicitor General’s recommendation, Atty. Barrios is hereby
extra-judicial partition. She asked respondent Barrios to suspended from the practice of his profession for a period of
represent her; but upon her refusal, Rufina was compelled to, two years from the time this becomes fina​l. So ordered
and did engage the services of Atty. Artemio S. Arrieta.
Thereafter, Atty. Barrios appeared for Federico Rovero, and
Notes from Fr. Ferrer during discussion:
opposed the demand of Rufina Bautista.
● Unknown to Bautista, Barrios was already the counsel of the
Only obiter : At most, if he could appear for one client, it should be for him
other party to whom the pleading seeks to be enforced.
who seeks to enforce ​the partition as drafter. Yet he appeared for Rovero
who sought to avoid compliance with it, asserting that it did not contain all
Issue:
the terms of the agreement, that it was subject to certain modifications, etc.
Whether there was conflict of interest when Atty. Barrios appeared for
the other party whom Bautista wanted to enforce the pleading against Conflict Client vs. Client - I
which likewise was drafted by Att. Barrios? YES
Penalty SUSPENDED for 2 yrs
Ruling:
21. FLAMENO
NOTE! Obiter. But still SC upheld the conflict of interest.

● Even supposing that, as claimed by Atty. Barrios, he was Ref No. 180=318
employed by ​both Rovero and the Bautista brothers ​to draft the
partition, it is doubtful whether he could appear for one as against Case Name
the other in a subsequent litigation
● At most, if he could appear for one client, it should be for him who Catchy Phrase
seeks to enforce ​the partition as drafter. Yet he appeared for
Rovero who sought to avoid compliance with it, asserting that it Doctrine:
did not contain all the terms of the agreement, that it was subject to
certain modifications, etc. Moreover, in his defense of Rovero, he XXX
raised issues which obviously violated Rufina’s confidence,
because he alleged — in behalf of Rovero — that the undisclosed Facts:
modifications were known to Rufina at the time of execution of the
partition XXX

Issue:

10
2A Legal Ethics
2nd Long Exam
Fr. Ferrer
counsel for the accused and also for the complaining witness in a criminal
XXX case.

Ruling: First count: respondent was engaged by Pansaon as his counsel in a criminal
case, People v Nazareno. Later on, Nazareno filed a complaint for forcible
XXX entry against Pansaon. Pansaon alleged that the petitioner lost the case since
respondent Atty was privy to valuable information from Pansaon.
Notes from Fr. Ferrer during discussion:
Second count: respondent was counsel for Storeo and Teofilo in a criminal
XXX case. During hearing, there was a heated exchange with the respondent and
the private prosecutor because of the latter’s insistence on calling Morales
to the witness stand despite expressed desistance to prosecute the criminal
Conflict
case.
Penalty
Issue:

22. FRANCISCO W/N respondent was guilty of malpractice

Ruling:
Ref No. 183=345

Case Name Nombrado v Hernandez First count: Yes. Communication between attorney and client are a
complicated affair consisting of entangled relevant and irrelevant secret and
Catchy Phrase “A man with no loyalty will leave you once the road well known facts. Whether or not respondent utilized against his former
darkens” client information given to him in a professional capacity, the mere fact of
their previous relationship should have precluded him from appearing as
Doctrine: counsel for the other side in the forcible entry case.
Whether or not respondent utilized against his former client information
given to him in a professional capacity, the mere fact of their previous Second count: No. Nothing improper in respondent’s conduct since
relationship should have precluded him from appearing as counsel for the intervening “in behalf of the complaining party” did not constitute
other side in the forcible entry case simultaneous appearance in behalf of the contending parties since there was
no longer any conflict to speak of.

Facts:

Disbarment case charging respondent with malpractice on two counts: (1) Notes from Fr. Ferrer during discussion:
having appeared as counsel for Crispin Nazareno in a civil case for forcible
entry against Arsenio Pansaon, his former client, and (2) having appeared as XXX

11
2A Legal Ethics
2nd Long Exam
Fr. Ferrer
Conflict ATTY V CLIENT
Penalty Reprimand and warning be administered.
23. FULACHE
Ref No. 184=342
Case Name Natan vs. Capule
Catchy Phrase Wait a Minute, Hacienda Minit.
Doctrine:
An attorney if forbidden to do either of two things after severing his
relationship with the former client. He may not do anything which will
injuriously affect his former client in any matter in which he formerly
represented him, nor may he at any time use against his former client
knowledge or information acquired by virtue of the previous relationship.
Facts:
Natan is the administrator of the estate of the deceased Maria Patero.
During the lifetime of the decedent’s husband, Santiago Patero filed an
action against Santiago to recover the wife’s share in the conjugal
properties. The husband failed to follow the court’s order so he was ordered
to delivered to Natan, the Hacienda Minit (located in Palawan), for
administration. Few years after, Santiago died.
During his administration, Natan filed an action for forcible entry against
Francisco Edonga, et. al. Natan employed Capule as his lawyer. Natan
delivered to Capule various documents, among which are a copy of the
decision in the civil case instituted by Natan against Santiago, tax
declarations, etc. Capule (from Manila), however was not able to attend the
trial, despite being paid for the full amount. Afterwards, Capule filed a
petition to withdraw as attorney for Natan.
Afterwards, Olimpio Patero employed Natan as his lawyer. He wants to
assert his right over Hacienda Minit. He alleges that he was a recognized
child of the deceased Santiago. Natan then filed on behalf of Olimpio a
petition alleging that Olimpio is the sole heir of Santiago M. Patero, and
that he is in possession of Hacienda Minit; that Natan had been encroaching
upon the land in Hacienda Minit. Olimpio also filed a complaint for estafa
against the tenants of Natan. Upon the filing of the complaint for estafa the
four accused were arrested and detained in the municipal jail of Coron.
Thereupon, respondent herein went to see them and secured from three of
them a written statement that: they would deliver to Olimpio Patero, the
owner of Hacienda, Minit, his share in the harvest that' the three obtained
from the portions they had cultivated.
Natan then instituted this administrative proceeding charging Capule with
the following acts of misconduct in his office as lawyer:
1) for having failed to appear, without any justifiable reason, in the
hearing of a case for which he had received his fees in full;
2) for having accepted professional employment in the very case in which
his former client is the adverse party, and utilizing against the latter
papers, knowledge, and information obtained in the course of his
previous employment; and
3) for falsely accusing tenants of his former client and causing their
detention, in order to compel them to enter into a compromise by
giving Capule one-half of their rice harvests.
Issue:
Whether the lawyer is guilty of the mentioned acts of misconduct.
Ruling:
First Act
No. The Court find that respondent's failure to appear, as he had agreed and
promised, was involuntary on his part, because it appears that he had never
12
2A Legal Ethics
2nd Long Exam
Fr. Ferrer
expected that the judge before whom the case was pending would refuse to Notes from Fr. Ferrer during discussion:
grant his motion for postponement.
XXX
Second Act​:
It is evident that because of Capule’s previous relationship with the Natan,
Conflict Client vs. Client - New vs. Former
he was disqualified to accept the case of Olimpio Patero, who claimed
ownership of the
Penalty Suspended for two years.
Hacienda Minit. The immediate objective of Patero was to wrest possession
of the Hacienda Minit from respondent's former client, Natan, which
possession it was the latter's duty to protect and support. 24. GALANG

The Court was convinced that Capule had utilized the papers, knowledge
and information that he had received from his former client, Natan, in
relation to the Hacienda Minit, against Natan and for the benefit of his new
client Olimpio.
The fact that respondent herein retired from the forcible entry case did not
relieve him from his obligation of fidelity and loyalty to his former client.
The inconsistency between his position as attorney for Olimpio Patero and
that as attorney for complainant was so apparent that it could not have
escaped respondent's attention. Respondent may not excuse his conduct
behind the shield of the presumption of good faith, because the
inconsistency was clear. But what makes the violation of his obligation of
fidelity more improper is the fact that in forwarding Patero's interests, he
did actually utilize the papers, knowledge, and information which he had
received in the course of his employment as lawyer for complainant herein.
Third Act:
The court is convinced that Capule must be the one who induced Olimpio to
accuse falsely the tenants of Natan for the crime of estafa. Capule knew that
Olimpio was not in possession of the hacienda. He must also have known
that his new client had no right to demand the harvests from the tenants.
The Court ruled that his act constitute not merely an unethical practice but a
clear and direct violation of the a portion of his oath as a lawyer:
“I will do no falsehood xxxxxx”.
Ref No. 189=209
Case Name In re de la Rosa
Catchy Phrase Hindi malpractice pero hindi rin ethical
Doctrine:
But while such consent exempts him from administrative liability, the
representation of adverse interest may not make his conduct less
unethical.
Facts:
● Severino Caoibes sold to ​Juliana Bayubay y Garcia a parcel of
sugar land located in Batangas for P15,500. This was duly
acknowledged before ​Luciano de la Rosa​, a notary public.
○ 8,000 was paid upon the execution of the instrument
○ Balance of 5,330 was paid as well but there remains an
unpaid sum of 330.
● The land sold by Caoibes was 90 hectares in area but upon
registration in the Court of Land Registration, Bayubay found out
that the land contained only 60 hectares.
● Bayubay sought the services of Atty. de la Rosa to determine
whether or not she should procure a reduction in the price of the
land by reason of the discrepancy in the land area. (Note: it was
later found that no payment was made by Bayubay for the services
of de la Rosa because of the assertion of the former that the latter

13
2A Legal Ethics
2nd Long Exam
Fr. Ferrer
ought not to collect P800 from her inasmuch as she had lost so
much by the reason of the difference in the land area.)
● Respondent however, was also asked to intervene on behalf of
Caoibes and to induce the Bayubay to pay the full amount, wherein
he was paid 900 pesos.
● Caoibes filed this complaint alleging that:
○ De la rosa, in collusion with Bayubay, withheld payment
to petitioner and thereby depriving him of money he was
depending on to redeem certain jewelry
○ De la rosa maliciously placed obstacles in the collection
of the remaining balance from Bayubay, and a total of 900
was received by him
○ De la rosa refused to pay the sum of 1330 even though
Bayubay already gave it to him for payment of the
balance
● (Note: de la Rosa merely served as an intermediary between the
two, no representation in any court of justice was made at all)
Issue:
Whether or not de la Rosa should be administratively liable for representing
both Caoibes and Bayubay, whose interests were opposed to each other
Ruling:
No.
● It should be noted that, although it appears that the respondent was
acting as attorney for both parties, the vendor and the purchaser,
whose interests were diametrically opposed to each other, he was
doing so with the knowledge and consent of both parties
○ The complainant knew that De la Rosa was acting for and
on behalf of the purchaser because he had conferred with
him as her representative.
○ The purchaser knew that he was acting for and on behalf
of the seller for pay because he had obtained from her
express permission to do so.
● Although it appears from the evidence that the respondent was
acting for and on behalf of both parties to the controversy, we do
not regard this as constituting malpractice under the law, it
appearing undisputed in the record that he acted thus with the
knowledge and consent of both parties interested. This being the
case, neither party was deceived by respondent, and neither one
suffered involuntary damages by reason of his actions
● While it is true that the conduct of respondent in this case does not
constitute malpractice within the provisions of section 21 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, ​nevertheless it does constitute a practice
severely to be condemned as strongly tending to deprive the
relation of attorney and client of those special elements which
make it one of trust and confidence​, with the corresponding
obligations, and to change it into one which may be modified and
dallied with in the interest of the attorney who thinks he sees an
opportunity of making more money by a combination with his
client's adversary.
Notes from Fr. Ferrer during discussion:
● Highlighted that de la Rosa did not represent either Caoibes nor
Bayubay in court, but if he did, would make it a conflict of interest
(I forgot exactly what he said, but it’s along those lines sorry
forgot to take note)
● De la Rosa merely made the situation a money making opportunity
because:
○ If he compelled Bayubay to pay the full amount to
Caoibes, the latter would pay him fees; or
○ If he was able to reduce the purchase price equivalent to
the missing 30 hectares, Bayubay would then pay him.
○ In either case he would be compensated.
Conflict No conflict.
Penalty N/A
25. GERALDEZ
Ref No. 190=400
Case Name Pfleider vs Palanca
14
2A Legal Ethics
2nd Long Exam
Fr. Ferrer

Catchy Phrase I am your lessee not your lawyer!

Notes from Fr. Ferrer during discussion:
Doctrine: ​The violation therefore of the confidentiality of the list of
creditors was more in the civil form than breach of the lawyer and client
relationship. Conflict Attorney vs. Client

Penalty N/A
Facts:

In this case, Palanca used to be the lawyer of Pfleider, and the two were
close friends. Eventually, Pfleider leased a portion of his land to his friend
Palanca with the condition that Palanca pays half of the rent to Pfleider
himself as the lessor, and the other half to the the creditors of Pfleider.
Because of this, Plfeider gave a list of his creditors to Palanca which
Palanca eventually disclosed and leaked. Because of this, there was a falling
out between the two and now Pfleider filing a disbarment case against
Palaca for violating their lawyer client relationship.

Issue:

Whether or not the disbarment case against Palanca filed by Pfleider would
prosper and did Palanca violate their lawyer client relationship?

Ruling:

The court ruled that this was not violated because the list was given to
Palanca not on the basis of their lawyer client relationship but on the basis
of the lease agreement which they agreed upon when Pfleider decided to
lease his land to his friend Palanca.

Also, the list was readily available in the pleadings of another suit filed
against Palanca by Pfleider which was for rescission of the contract of lease.
This means that the list of creditors was readily available to the public
anyway because of this suit.

The violation therefore of the confidentiality was more in the civil form
than breach of the lawyer and client relationship. Thus, Palanca was not
disbarred as the case did not prosper.

15
2A Legal Ethics
2nd Long Exam
Fr. Ferrer
CHAPTER 9.2 W/N The documents are indeed confidential correspondence between
Uy Chico and his lawyer
26. GOMEZ
NO.
Ref No. 14=500
Ruling:
The Court ruled that the documents Uy Chico handed to his lawyer were not
Case Name Uy Chico v. Union Life Assurance Society
confidential anymore because they were handed to him for the purpose of
delivering it a 3rd party thus the Uy Chico’s lawyer must reduced to a mere
Catchy Phrase messenger in this case.

Doctrine: To Rule otherwise would be to give a facility for fraud because than
Thus, a communication intended by the client to be sent to a third person anybody could assail their own statements or acts but just stating that their
through his attorney loses its confidential character after it has reached lawyer whom through such documents evidencing said statements or acts
the third party made them known without his authority.

Notes from Fr. Ferrer during discussion:

Facts:
XXX
1. Uy Chico had a warehouse storing dried plant material which burnt
down
2. Uy Chico tried to claim insurance on his burnt inventory from Conflict
Union Life Assurance but Union only paid half the amount
3. Uy Chico made repeated demands until one day him and Union Penalty The Documents are allowed to be introduced as
Life came into an agreement evidence and showed Uy Chico clearly agreed to the
4. Uy Chico delivered some documents to Union Life regarding their compromise and thus he had to be bound by the
agreement to compromise, which were delivered by his lawyer terms thereof.
5. However, Uy Chico still made demands and brought a collection
suit against Life Assurance CHAPTER 9.10
6. During Trial Life Assurance asked if they could introduce the
documents handed over as evidence that Uy Chico agreed to 27. HERMOSO
compromise
7. Uy Chico agreed but subsequently withdrew his consent stating
that the documents were confidential and just between him and his Ref No. 36=264
lawyer
Case Name Jones v Harding
Issue:

16
2A Legal Ethics
2nd Long Exam
Fr. Ferrer
of Maggay to ask him such questions granting his right to redeem the
Catchy Phrase Open secret
portion of the hacienda sold. Prising has in fact declared that the promissory
notes were delivered by him to Hixson and Jones. Nothing new would have
Doctrine:
been disclosed nor would such affirmation have revealed any secret of his
client, since Prising had already stated to the judge and other persons
In ascertaining whether the information or communication is privileged,
present at the proceedings that he had delivered said notes to his lawyers.
the nature of the suit, the circumstances and conditions of the questions
There is no secret that will be revealed.
or of the affirmative or negative answers thereto are what, in each case,
determine the question.
Notes from Fr. Ferrer during discussion:

Facts: XXX

The Magays were co-owners of a land which it sold and conveyed to

Conflict Inconsistent Duties
Prising but without entering into the registry the deed of sale. Domingo
Magay, one of the co-owners, contends he had no knowledge of the sale and
Penalty Contempt
therefore sought to exercise his right of redemption and be subrogated to the
rights of the purchaser. He further sought to obtain from Prising the details
of the transaction. Later, Prising had made known that three promissory 28. IGNACIO
notes were delivered to his counsels, Jones and Hixson for safe-keeping and
collection. Hence, a petition was filed pending action on the redemption
Ref No. 37=392
case, for the taking of their depositions being necessary and important
witnesses. Prising’s counsels refused to answer on the ground of privileged
Case Name People v. Sleeper
communication. The lower court, however, overruled and ordered them to
answer. Continuing with their refusal, they were then held in contempt until Catchy Phrase Friends, Lawyers or Nothing
their answers were made.
Doctrine: [FROM THE BOOK] The party who asserts the privilege has
Issue: the burden of proof to establish the privilege unless it appears from the
face of the document itself that it is privileged. His mere assertion that
WON questions based on a client’s testimony is still covered under the matter is confidential is insufficient.
privileged communication?
There is no client-attorney relationship by the mere incidental fact that
Ruling: the person communicated with is a lawyer.

No, it cannot be considered to be within the coverage of privileged

communication. Whatever might have been the answer, whether affirmative Facts:
or negative, it could never be considered as a privileged communication
which an attorney is bound to maintain on behalf of his client. The refusal SLEEPER was the acting secretary-treasurer of the Manila Building and
therefore amounts to contempt, because the judge could not deny the right Loan Association (MBLA), a corporation duly organized and existing under

17
2A Legal Ethics
2nd Long Exam
Fr. Ferrer
the laws of the PH, with an office in Manila City.
L. Ammen Transportation Co., a different corporation, deposited with said
MBLA 30,000 PHP, with interest at the rate of 7% per annum, with the
CONDITION that the sum could be withdrawn from said MBLA after a
15-day notice has been given. SLEEPER was the one who received the
money, and instead of applying the said sum for the purposes intended for
it, he misappropriated and converted said sum to his own personal use and
benefit.
SLEEPER was eventually tried and found guilty of ESTAFA, and
sentenced to 2 years, 11 months and 11 days of presidio correcional. At
trial, FRED FISHER, a lawyer, was called to identify a paper known in the
record as “EXHIBIT M,” which essentially contained an ADMISSION
from SLEEPER that he misappropriated the funds. In the same letter, made
several promises:
1. That he would leave the Philippine Islands immediately
2. That he would resign from the positions he held in the same company, as
secretary-treasurer and member of the board of directors
3. That he would execute a demand note to FISHER as trustee, for the
benefit of the said contributors for full payment of the amount he
misappropriated, which can be taken from his account with MBLA
4. That he will, upon demand, transfer to FISHER as trustee for the
contributors, ALL PROPERTY he owned other than personal effects,
to be disposed of and applied to the note.
Another witness, MR. HAUSSERMANN, was called to the stand to
identify the same letter (“Exhibit M”) as he was indicated and he signed
therein as witness.
SLEEPER’s counsel objected to the presentation of the letter, alleging that
the same was privileged communication between SLEEPER and FISHER,
who was acting as attorney for him. The court sustained the said objection
and the letter was admitted into evidence. Eventually, SLEEPER was
adjudged guilty of ESTAFA.
Issue:
1.) DID FISHER REPRESENT SLEEPER AS A LAWYER? / WAS
THERE A LAWYER-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SLEEPER
AND FISHER?
2.) WAS THE LETTER PART OF PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION
BETWEEN A LAWYER AND A CLIENT?
Ruling:
THERE WAS NO LAWYER-CLIENT relationship between Fisher &
Sleeper. There is nothing in the letter that gives the idea that in the
preparation of the document or the raising of the funds, Fisher was acting as
attorney for Sleeper. There is no showing that there were representations
made to Sleeper in order that he would sign the document. Likewise, there
is no evidence that there was any form of immunity offered to him, or that
Sleeper relied on any such promise. While it is true that they are lifelong
personal friends, there is no evidence whatsoever, in the preparing of the
document or in the presenting of the same for Sleeper to sign. In fact, absent
any evidence, it would appear that Sleeper voluntarily read and signed the
letter, in the presence of Fisher and Haussermann, the latter of whom
afterwards affixed his signature thereon as witness.
Logically it would follow that the letter is ​not privileged communication,
and thus is competent evidence.
Notes from Fr. Ferrer during discussion:
XXX
Conflict No conflict of interest
Penalty None
29. LEE
18
2A Legal Ethics
2nd Long Exam
Fr. Ferrer
Canon 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that a lawyer owes
fidelity to the cause of his client and shall be mindful of the trust and confidence
Ref No. 49=9 of the SR reposed on him. The long- established rule is that an attorney is not permitted to
disclose communications made to him in his professional character by a client,
Case Name Genato v silapan unless the latter consents.

Catchy Phrase Atty, it was supposed to be our dirty little secret
Doctrine:
A lawyer must conduct himself, especially in his dealings with his clients, with
integrity in a manner that is beyond reproach. His relationship with his clients
should be characterized by the highest degree of good faith and fairness.
It must be stressed, however, that the privilege against disclosure of confidential
communications or information is limited only to communications which are
legitimately and properly within the scope of a lawful employment of a lawyer. It
does not extend to those made in contemplation of a crime or perpetration of a fraud.
the attorney-client privilege does not attach, there being no professional employment
in the strict sense.

But then, the disclosures were not indispensable to protect his rights as they were
not pertinent to the foreclosure case.
Facts:
In this case, Atty. Silapan rented an office space referred by his client Genato. Later A lawyer must conduct himself, especially in his dealings with his clients, with
on, Atty. Silapan borrowed money amounting to P200,000 from Genato to pay as integrity in a manner that is beyond reproach. His relationship with his clients
downpayment for a car purchase. As security for the loan, Atty. Silapan mortgaged should be characterized by the highest degree of good faith and fairness.
his house in Quezon City but did not transfer the title to Genato. Atty. Silapan also
issued a post-dated check amounting to P170,000 for the payment of interests from
the loan. Notes from Fr. Ferrer during discussion:
Atty. Silapan failed to pay the loan despite demands from Genato, and when Genato
tried to encash the said check, it was dishonored since the account used in the check
was taken down already. This resulted the complainant-Genato to file a BP22 case Conflict Atty v client
against Atty. Silapan and a civil case for judicial foreclosure of real estate mortgage.
Penalty Atty Suspended 6 months
In the said proceeding, Atty. Silapan disclosed confidential information (client being
part of shady dealings and client’s intention to bribe court officials) between him
and his client as his defense to discredit his client’s credibility by establishing CHAPTER 9.12
client’s propensity to commit fraud and tell lies.
30. LEONG
Issue:

whether respondent committed a breach of trust and confidence by imputing to Ref No. 60=44
complainant illegal practices and disclosing complainants alleged intention to bribe
government officials in connection with a pending foreclosure case. Case Name Barton v. Leyte Asphalt and Mineral

Catchy Phrase When there is leakage, you have lost the

Ruling: attorney-client privilege

19
2A Legal Ethics
2nd Long Exam
Fr. Ferrer
31. LU
Doctrine: The attorney-client privilege is not destroyed by the fact that a
third person may have overheard a communication intended to be
confidential nor by the circumstance that other attorneys represented the Ref No. 78=393
client. But as to a third person who may have overheard a confidential
communication, the privilege does not as a rule apply. Case Name People v. Sy Juco

Catchy Phrase Hindi mabubuko kahit nasa building ni Sy Juco sa

Facts: Binondo ang mga sikreto ng cabinet ni Atty. Remo.
Barton sued Leyte for breach of contract. At the trial court, Leyte presented Doctrine:
a carbon copy of a letter sent by Barton to his attorney. In this letter, it
contained information of the profit Barton would have received in the An Attorney has the duty to strictly preserve the secrets or
contract. Barton objected to the admission of the copy of the letter. The trial communications made to him.
court judge excluded such letter on the ground of attorney client privilege.
Courts cannot order the disclosure of privileged information which would
Issue: violate the right of an attorney.

Whether or not the copy of the letter is admissible as evidence in court?

Ruling:
YES. The ruling of the trial court for excluding the letter is erroneous
because even if the letter was considered privileged communication
between attorney and client, such privilege was lost when the letter came
into the hands of a third party. Also, when papers are offered in evidence,
the court will take no notice of how they were obtained.
Notes from Fr. Ferrer during discussion:
Facts:
Pursuant to a supposedly reliable information, Special Agent Mendiola from
the BIR applied for a search warrant for the seizure of various documents
belonging to Sy Juco for defrauding the government. Among the things
seized was a filing cabinet belonging to Atty. Remo. Atty. Remo filed a
petition to the court enjoining the government to open the said filing cabinet
claiming that it contains documents of his clients, which are privileged. The
CFI denied his petition. Hence Atty. Remo appealed to the SC.

XXX Issue:

Whether the court can order the opening of the filing cabinet seized which
Conflict No conflict of interest contains various documents of a lawyer’s client. - NO.
Penalty No penalty Ruling:

CHAPTER 9.16

20
2A Legal Ethics
2nd Long Exam
Fr. Ferrer
The SC declared the search warrant as null and void for 1) failing to meet
the constitutional requirements of a search warrant and 2) for violating the
duty of Atty. Remo to preserve the secrets of his clients.
It is clear that the court could not and can not order the opening of the art
metal filing cabinet in question because, it having been proven that it
belongs to the appellant attorney and that in it he keeps the records and
documents of his clients, to do so would be in violation of his rights as such
attorney, since it would be tantamount to compelling him to disclose or
divulge facts or things belonging to his clients, which should be kept secret,
unless he is authorized by them to make such disclosure, it being a duty
imposed by law upon an attorney to strictly preserve the secrets or
communications made to him.
Notes from Fr. Ferrer during discussion:
XXX
Conflict No conflict of interest
Penalty No Penalty
CHAPTER 9.20
The waiver of the privilege cannot be made partially. A client may either
waive it in its entirety or not at all. Hence, by introducing in evidence
part of a privileged document, ​a client waives the protection of the
privilege as to the other part of the document. ​A waiver in part is a
waiver in whole for a client may not remove the seal of confidentiality as
makes for his advantage and insist that it be privileged as to so much as
makes to the disadvantage of the adversary. (​Agpalo​)
Facts:
- This case is a petition for mandamus requiring respondent judge to
permit the Atty. for Petitioner to examine a Letter presented as
evidence in an earlier civil case. A part of the letter was read as
evidence in record in favor of respondent Team Motor Co. Inc. but the
rest was not read out loud and not presented for examination.
- The previous civil case was for two fire insurance claims. The Letter
was about the transfer/ turnover of the case to the current Counsel (for
respondent) and urging Teal Motor to file the complaint (fire insurance
claims). The Letter was presented as evidence for an issue regarding
the delay in filing the complaint.
- Counsel for the petitioner objected to the partial introduction of
evidence but was denied. Teal Motor contends that the rest of the letter
was confidential attorney-client information. (i.e. terms of employment,
fees to be paid, etc.)

32. LUMAPAS Issue:

- W/N the action of the CFI Judge in allowing the partial introduction of
Ref No. 137=352
evidence is proper?
Case Name Orient Insurance Co. vs. Revilla and Teal Motor Co.
Inc. (1930) Ruling:

Catchy Phrase - NO. When presenting oral statements from a document, the document
itself must also be produced. ​The excerpt in question must therefore be
Doctrine: considered as proof submitted by the plaintiff; and there can be no
question that, part of the letter having been introduced in behalf of the
plaintiff, the whole of the letter could properly be examined by the

21
2A Legal Ethics
2nd Long Exam
Fr. Ferrer
other party, in accordance with the express provision of section 283 of
the Code of Civil Procedure. Issue:
- The defense of privileged information is wanting.
- The SC held that they were not privileged information, “​irrelevant but XXX
not privileged​”. And even if privileged it is deemed waived by
introduction into evidence of the Letter. Ruling:
- Opposing Counsel is entitled to examine the whole letter. Waiver
cannot be made partially. When a party presents evidence in part, he XXX
waives the privilege of the other parts.
Notes from Fr. Ferrer during discussion:
Notes from Fr. Ferrer during discussion:
XXX
- He merely repeated the doctrine.
Conflict
Conflict No conflict of Interest
Penalty
Penalty N/A
Revised Penal Code
CHAPTER 9.22-23 CRIMES COMMITTED BY PUBLIC OFFICERS
Chapter Two
33. MAGBUHOS
MALFEASANCE AND MISFEASANCE IN OFFICE

Ref No. 156=390 Section One. — Dereliction of duty

169=18 of the SR but same case Art. 208. Prosecution of offenses; negligence and tolerance​. —
Elements:
Case Name People vs. Sandiganbayan
1. Offender is Public Officer, or Officer of the law
Catchy Phrase Para maging state witness, si judge nag-confess 2. In dereliction of the duties of his office,
3. Shall:
Doctrine: a. Maliciously ​refrain from ​instituting prosecutio​n for the
punishment for the punishment
XXX b. ​Tolerate ​the ​commission​ of offenses

Facts: NOTE: can be for judge or lawyers

OFFENSE TYPE: Dolo - Nonfeasance
XXX

22
2A Legal Ethics
2nd Long Exam
Fr. Ferrer
Art. 209. Betrayal of trust by an attorney or solicitor. — Revelation of secrets. — ELEMENTS:
1. Any person
1​st​ Offense: 2. Have made offers or promises or given gifts
1. Offender is any attorney-at-law or solicitor (procurador judicial) 3. As described by the preceding articles
2. By any malicious breach of professional duty or of inexcusable negligence
or ignorance Notes: preceding articles are bribery and indirect bribery
3. He prejudiced his client, or revealed any of the secrets of the latter
learned by him in his professional capacity. Art. 183. False testimony in other cases and perjury in solemn affirmation. —

Malicious Breach - Dolo - Misfeasance (prejudice a client); 1. Any person,

Inexcusable Negligence - Culpa - Misfeasance
2​nd​ Offense:
1. Offender is any attorney-at-law or solicitor (procurador judicial)
2. Having undertaken the defense of a client or having received confidential
information from said client in a case
3. Undertakes the defense of the opposing party in the same case, without
the consent of his first client.
NOTE: no more solicitor this time and age; this offense and the next ones is for
lawyers
2. Who knowingly makes untruthful statements and not being included in
the provisions of the next preceding articles,
3. Shall testify under oath, or make an affidavit, upon any material matter
before a competent person authorized to administer an oath in cases in
which the law so requires.
Any person who, in case of a ​solemn affirmation made in lieu of an oath, shall
commit any of the falsehoods mentioned in this and the three preceding articles
of this section, shall suffer the respective penalties provided therein.
In relation with… Article 17 – the lawyers are Principal by inducement

1. Offender is any public officer, employee, or notary who, taking

advantage of his official position or upon any ecclesiastical minister Art. 184. Offering false testimony in evidence.​ —
with regard to civil status of persons 1. Any person who shall
2. Shall falsify a document by committing any of the following acts: 2. Knowingly offer in evidence a false witness or testimony in any judicial or
a. Causing it to appear that persons have participated in any act official proceeding,
or proceeding when they did not in fact so participate;
b. Attributing to persons who have participated in an act or
proceeding statements other than those in fact made by them; Art. 208-209, 212, 171 172 (last par.) 183 [corr. art. 17] and 184
c. Making untruthful statements in a narration of facts; Articles only a lawyer can violate
d. Altering true dates;
e. Making any alteration or intercalation in a genuine document
which changes its meaning;
f. Issuing in an authenticated form a document purporting to be
a copy of an original document when no such original exists, or
including in such a copy a statement contrary to, or different from, that
of the genuine original; or
g. Intercalating any instrument or note relative to the issuance thereof
in a protocol, registry, or official book.

Art. 212. Corruption of public officials. —

23