CANON 15

Case No. 1
NAKPIL VS VALDEZ / A.C. No. 2040 / March 4, 1998

FACTS:
Nakpil, husband of the complainant, became interested in purchasing a summer residence in
Moran Street, Baguio City. For lack of funds, he requested Atty. Valdez to purchase the Moran
property for him. They agreed that respondent would keep the property in thrust for the
Nakpils until the latter could buy it back. Pursuant to their agreement, respondent obtained
two (2) loans from a bank which he used to purchase and renovate the property. Title was then
issued in respondent’s name. When Jose Nakpil died, Respondent acted as the legal counsel
and accountant of his widow. Respondent acted as the legal counsel and accountant of his
widow. Respondent excluded the Moran property from the inventory of Jose’s estate and
transferred his title to the Moran property to his company, the Caval Realty Corporation.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the acts of Atty. Valdez violates  the Code of Professional Responsibility

RULING:
Yes. As a rule, a lawyer is not barred from dealing with his client but the business transaction
must be characterized with utmost honesty and good faith. Business transactions between an
attorney and his client are disfavored and discouraged by the policy of the law. Hence, courts
carefully watch these transactions to assure that no advantage is taken by a lawyer over his
client. This rule is founded on public policy for, by virtue of his office, an attorney is in an easy
position to take advantage of the credulity and ignorance of his client. Thus, no presumption of
innocence or improbability of wrongdoing is considered in an attorney’s favor. Respondent’s
misuse of his legal expertise to deprive his client of the Moran property is clearly unethical. a
lawyer may be suspended or disbarred for ANY misconduct, even if it pertains to his private
activities, as long as it shows him to be wanting in moral character, honesty, probity or good
demeanor. Possession of good moral character is not only a prerequisite to admission to the
bar but also a continuing requirement to the practice of law. Atty. Valdez is suspended from the
practice of law for a period of one (1) year
CASE NO. 2

NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY, INC., vs. ARQUILLO / A.C. No. 6632 / August 2, 2005

FACTS
Atty. Arquillo represented opposing parties in one a case before the before the National Labor
Relations Commission, Regional Arbitration Branch in San Fernando, La Union. Complainants
accuse Atty. Arquillo of deceit, malpractice, gross misconduct and/or violation of his oath as
attorney by representing conflicting interests.
Atty. Arquillo claimed that there was no conflict of interest in his representation of both the res
pondent and the complainants in the same consolidated cases, because all of them were allege
dly on the same side. The case was filed with the IBP-Commission on Bar Discipline which found
Atty. Arquillo guilty of the charge and recommended a penalty of suspension for 6 months. The
governors of the IBP increased the penalty for 2 years.

ISSUE
Whether or not the acts of Atty. Arquillo violates the Code of Professional Responsibility

RULING
Yes. The Code of Professional Responsibility requires lawyers to observe candor, fairness and
loyalty in all their dealings and transactions with their clients. Corollary to this duty, lawyers
shall not represent conflicting interests, except with all the concerned clients’ written consent,
given after a full disclosure of the facts. When a lawyer represents two or more opposing
parties, there is a conflict of interests, the existence of which is determined by three separate
tests: (1) when, in representation of one client, a lawyer is required to fight for an issue or
claim, but is also duty-bound to oppose it for another client; (2) when the acceptance of the
new retainer will require an attorney to perform an act that may injuriously affect the first
client or, when called upon in a new relation, to use against the first one any knowledge
acquired through their professional connection; or (3) when the acceptance of a new relation
would prevent the full discharge of an attorney’s duty to give undivided fidelity and loyalty to
the client or would invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or double dealing in the performance of
that duty. An attorney cannot represent adverse interests. It is a hornbook doctrine grounded
on public policy that a lawyer’s representation of both sides of an issue is highly improper. The
proscription applies when the conflicting interests arise with respect to the same general
matter, however slight such conflict may be. It applies even when the attorney acts from honest
intentions or in good faith. An attorney cannot represent adverse interests. It is a hornbook
doctrine grounded on public policy that a lawyer’s representation of bothsides of an issue is
highly improper. The proscription applies when the conflicting interests arise with respect to
the same general matter, however slight such conflict may be. It applies even when the
attorney acts from honest intentions or in good faith. Atty. Arquillo is suspended for 1 year from
the practice of law.
CASE NO. 3

HEIRS OF FALAME VS. BAGUIO / A.C. No. 6876 / March 7, 2006

FACTS:
Respondent Atty. Baguio jointly represented Lydio and Raleigh as defendants in the first
civilcase. 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 inconsistentposition thNat Raleigh owned the same property in common with
Lydio, with complainants, who inherited the property, committing acts which debase
respondent's rights as a co-owner.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Baguio’s acts violated the Code of Professional Responsibility

RULING:
Yes. 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 lawyer’s duty to contest for that which his duty to 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. In addition, the rule holds even if the
inconsistency is remote or merely probable or the lawyer has acted in good faith and with no
intention to represent conflicting interests. loyalty.—The rule concerning conflict of interest
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. In the course of a lawyer-client relationship, the lawyer learns all the facts connected
with the client’s case, including the weak and strong points of the case. The nature of that
relationship is, therefore, one of trust and confidence of the highest degree. The termination of
attorneyclient relation provides no justification for a lawyer to represent an interest adverse to
or in conflict with that of the former client. The client’s confidence once reposed should not be
divested by mere expiration of professional employment. Even after the severance of the
relation, a lawyer should not do anything which will injuriously affect his former client in any
matter in which he previously represented him nor should he disclose or use any of the client’s
confidences acquired in the previous relation. Atty. Baguio is reprimanded and is further
admonished to observe a higher degree of fidelity in the practice of his profession and to bear
in mind that a repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely.
CASE NO. 4

GAMILLA V. MARINO / A.C. 4765 / March 20, 2008

FACTS:

Atty. Eduardo Marino Jr. was the president of the UST Faculty Union. There’s a long history of
collective bargaining agreement between UST and UST Faculty Union. During the series of
agreements between UST and the UST Faculty Union, Atty. Marino was removed from his
position but continued to serve as a lawyer for the UST Faculty Union. In the end, the UST
Faculty won and was awarded 42 million pesos for back wages, salaries, additional
compensations, etc. Complainants are members of the UST Faculty Union questioning the lack
of transparency in the disbursement of the monetary benefits (42M) for the faculty members,
and prays for the expulsion of Atty. Marino for failure to account for the balance of 42M ceded
to them by UST and the attorney’s fees amounting to 4.2M which he deducted from the
benefits allotted to faculty members.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Atty. Marino’s acts violated the Code of Professional Responsibility Held:

RULING:

Yes. Although the record shows that the Bureau of Labor Relations found respondent as having
adequately accounted for the disbursement of the funds which the UST Faculty Union received
through the series of agreements with the management of UST, this Court believes that Atty.
Mariño failed to avoid conflict of interests, first, when he negotiated for the compromise
agreement wherein he played the diverse roles of union president, union attorney and
interested party being one of the dismissed employees seeking his own restitution, and
thereafter, when he obtained thE attorney’s fees of P4,200,000.00 without full prior disclosure
of the circumstances justifying such claim to the members of the UST Faculty Union. As one of
the sixteen (16) union officers and directors seeking compensation from the University of Santo
Tomas for their illegal dismissal, respondent was involved in obvious conflict of interests when
in addition he chose to act as concurrent lawyer and president of the UST Faculty Union in
forging the compromise agreement. The test of conflict of interest among lawyers 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 doubledealing
in the performance thereof.” In the same manner, it is undoubtedly a conflict of interests for an
attorney to put himself in a position where selfinterest tempts, or worse, actually impels him to
do less than his best for his client. Necessarily, a lawyer cannot continue representing a client in
an action or any proceeding against a party even with the client’s consent after the lawyer
brings suit in his own behalf against the same defendant if it is uncertain whether the
defendant will be
able to satisfy both judgments. No doubt, a lawyer is not authorized to have financial stakes in
the subject matter of the suit brought in behalf of his client. Atty. Eduardo J. Mariño, Jr. is
REPRIMANDED for his misconduct with a warning that a more drastic punishment will be
imposed on him upon a repetition of the same act.
CASE NO. 5

WILFREDO ANGLO V. ATTY. JOSE M. VALENCIA, ET AL.,

/ A.C. 10567 / February 25, 2015

FACTS:
    Complainant alleged that he availed the services of the law firm of the respondents for labor
cases. Atty. Dionela, a partner of the law firm, was assigned to represent the complainant. The
labor cases were terminated upon the agreement of both parties. A criminal case for qualified
theft was filed against the complainant and his wife by FEVE Farms, represented by the law
which handled the complainant’s labor cases. Aggrieved. Complainant filed disbarment case
against the respondents, alleging that they violated the rule on conflict of interest.

    IBP Commissioner found the respondents to have violated the rule on conflict of interest and
recommended that the respondents be reprimanded.

ISSUE:
    Whether or not the respondents acts violates the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR).

RULING:
Yes. There is conflict of interest when a lawyer represents inconsistent interests of two or
more opposing parties. The test is “whether or not in behalf of one client, it is the lawyer’s duty
to fight for an issue or claim, but it is his duty to oppose it for the other client. In brief, if he
argues for one client, this argument will be opposed by him when he argues for the other
client.” This 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. Also, there
is conflict of interests if the acceptance of the new retainer will require the attorney to perform
an act which will injuriously affect his first client in any matter in which he represents him and
also whether he will be called upon in his new relation to use against his first client any
knowledge acquired through their connection. Another test of the inconsistency of interests 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. As such, a lawyer is prohibited 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 on totally unrelated cases. The prohibition is founded on the principles of public
policy and good taste. The Supreme Court found the respondents guilty of representing
conflicting interests in violation of Rule 15.03, Canon 15 and Canon 21 of the CPR and are
therefore Reprimanded for said violations, with a Stern Warning that a repetition of the same
or similar infraction would be dealt with more severely. Meanwhile, the case against Atty. Philip
Dabao is Dismissed in view of his death.

CASE NO. 6
HORNILLA V. SALUNAT / A.C. No. 5804 / July 1, 2003

FACTS:
Hornilla is a member of the Philippine Public School Teachers Association (PPSTA). Along with
several other complainants, Hornilla filed intra-corporate cases before the Securities and
Exchange Commission (SEC) against PPSTA board members for unlawful spending and the
undervalued sale of real property. Atty. Ernesto Salunat on the other hand is a member of the
ASSA Law and Associates, and a retained legal counsel of PPSTA. As retained counsel, he
represented PPSTA in the cases against them by Hornilla and other members. Hornilla alleged
that Atty. Salunat is laboring under conflict of interests for engaging with PPSTA, where his fees
are derived from the corporate funds that its members, including himself, contributed on. Atty.
Salunat refused to withdraw his representation despite being told by PPSTA members about
the conflict of interest. For his part, he contends that his representation was in behalf of ASSA
Law and Associates, being the retained legal counsel of PPSTA, and not under his personal
capacity.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the Atty. Salunat’s acts violated the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR)

RULING:

Yes. There is conflict of interest when a lawyer represents inconsistent interests of two or more
opposing parties. The test is “whether or not in behalf of one client, it is the lawyer’s duty to
fight for an issue or claim, but it is his duty to oppose it for the other client. In brief, if he argues
for one client, this argument will be opposed by him when he argues for the other client.” This
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. Also, there is conflict of
interests if the acceptance of the new retainer will require the attorney to perform an act which
will injuriously affect his first client in any matter in which he represents him and also whether
he will be called upon in his new relation to use against his first client any knowledge acquired
through their connection. Another test of the inconsistency of interests 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 lawyer engaged as counsel for a corporation cannot represent
members of the same corporation’s board of directors in a derivative suit brought against
them. Atty. Salunat is is ADMONISHED to observe a higher degree of fidelity in the practice of
his profession. He is further WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt
with more severely.