CANON 14

1.

Hilado v. David, 84 Phil. 569 [No. L961. September

21, 1949]
Petitioner alleged that she and the counsel for the defendant had an attorney-client relationship
with her when, before the trial of the case, she went to defendant’s counsel, gave him the
papers of the case and other information relevant thereto, although she was not able to pay him
legal fees. “That respondent’s law firm mailed to the plaintiff a written opinion over his signature
on the merits of her case; that this opinion was reached on the basis of papers she hadsubmitted at his office; that
Mrs. Hilado's purpose in submitting those papers was to secure
 Attorney Francisco's professional services.” Atty. Francisco appeared as counsel for defendant
and plaintiff did not object to it until (4) months after. Then, plaintiff moved to dismiss the casebetween her and
defendant Atty. Francisco opposed the motion for his disqualification. Stating that no material
information was relayed to him by Hilado; that in fact, upon hearing Hilado’s 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 Hilado’s 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.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Atty. Francisco should be disqualified in the 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 latter’s 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. Section 19 (e) of Rule 127 imposes upon an
attorney the duty “to maintain inviolate the confidence, and at every peril to himself, to preserve
the secrets of his client.”  Communications between attorney and client are, in a great number of
litigations, a complicated affair, consisting of entangled relevant and irrelevant, secret and well
known facts. In the complexity of what is said in the course of the dealings between an attorney
and a client, inquiry of the nature suggested would lead to the revelation, in advance of the trial,
of other matters that might only further prejudice the complainant’s cause. We conclude
therefore that the motion for disqualification should be allowed.

2. IN Re: Bagabuyo
A.M. No. 7006 Adm. Case No. 7006. October 9, 2007.

Plaza was accused of murdering a policeman. Criminal case was originally raffled to the sala of
Judge Buyser. Buyser denied the Demurrer to the Evidence of the accused, declaring that
evidence presented was sufficient to prove the crime of homicide but not murder.

Counsel for Plaza filed a Motion to Fix Amount of Bail, but Senior State Prosecutor Bagabuyo
(who was in charge of the case) objected thereto on the ground that the original charge of murder
was not subject to bail (Rules of Court). Judge Buyser inhibited himself from trying the case
because of the “harsh insinuation” of Bagabuyo that he “lacks the cold neutrality of an impartial
magistrate” by allegedly suggesting the filing of the motion to fix the amount of bail.

Case was transferred to Judge Tan, who fixed the amount of bail at P40,000. Instead of availing
of judicial remediess, Bagabuyo caused the publication of an article regarding the Order granting
the bail in the Mindanao Gold Star Daily, “Senior prosecutor lambasts Surigao judge for
allowing murder suspect to bail out.”

In the article, Bagabuyo argued that the crime of murder is non-bailable, but admitted that a
judge could still opt to allow a murder suspect to bail out in cases when the evidence of the
prosecution is weak. He claims that the former judge found the evidence to be strong. He stated
that he was not afraid to be cited for contempt because it was the only way for the public to know
that there are judges displaying judicial arrogance.

RTC directed Bagabuyo (and the writer of the article) to explain why he should not be cited for
indirect contempt of court for the publication of the article which degraded the court with its
presiding judge with its lies and misrepresentations. Bagabuyo refused to explain and the RTC
held him in contempt of court, sentencing him to 30 days in jail (he posted a bail bond and was
released).
Despite this, Bagabuyo presented himself to the media for interviews in Radio Station DXKS
and again, attacked the integrity of Judge Tan. In the radio interview, Bagabuyo called Judge Tan
a liar, ignorant of the law and that as a mahjong aficionado, he was studying mahjong instead of
studying the law.

RTC required Bagabuyo to explain and show cause why he should not be held in contempt and
be suspended from the practice of law for violating the Code of Professional Responsibility
(Rule 11.05 and Rule 13.02). Bagabuyo denied the charge that he sought to be interviewed. He
said that he was approached by someone who asked him to comment on the Order. He justified
his response to the interview (at the instance of his friend) as a simple exercise of his
constitutional right of freedom of speech and that it was made without malice.
RTC found his denials lame, held him in contempt, and suspended him from the practice of law
for 1 year. In accordance with the Rules of Court, the case was transmitted to the Office of the
Bar Confidant, which recommended the implementation of the RTC’s order of suspension.

ISSUE:  WON Prosecutor Bagabuyo violated the canons and his oath as a lawyer?

Held: YES
Lawyers are licensed officers of the courts who are empowered to appear, prosecute and defend;
and upon whom peculiar duties, responsibilities and liabilities are devolved by law as a
consequence. Membership in the bar imposes upon them certain obligations. Canon 11 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility mandates a lawyer to observe and maintain the respect due
to the courts and to judicial officers and [he] should insist on similar conduct by others. Rule
11.05 of Canon 11 states that a lawyer shall submit grievances against a judge to the proper
authorities only.

Respondent violated Rule 11.05 of Canon 11 when he admittedly caused the holding of a press
conference where he made statements against the Order dated November 12, 2002 allowing the
accused in Crim. Case No. 5144 to be released on bail.

Respondent also violated Canon 11 when he indirectly stated that Judge Tan was displaying
judicial arrogance in the article entitled, Senior prosecutor lambasts Surigao judge for allowing
murder suspect to bail out, which appeared in the August 18, 2003 issue of the Mindanao Gold
Star Daily. Respondents statements in the article, which were made while Crim. Case No. 5144
was still pending in court, also violated Rule 13.02 of Canon 13, which states that a lawyer shall
not make public statements in the media regarding a pending case tending to arouse public
opinion for or against a party.

In regard to the radio interview given to Tony Consing, respondent violated Rule 11.05 of Canon
11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility for not resorting to the proper authorities only for
redress of his grievances against Judge Tan. Respondent also violated Canon 11 for his
disrespect of the court and its officer when he stated that Judge Tan was ignorant of the law, that
as a mahjong aficionado, he was studying mahjong instead of studying the law, and that he was a
liar.

Respondent also violated the Lawyers Oath, as he has sworn to conduct [himself] as a lawyer
according to the best of [his] knowledge and discretion with all good fidelity as well to the courts
as to [his] clients.

As a senior state prosecutor and officer of the court, respondent should have set the example of
observing and maintaining the respect due to the courts and to judicial officers. Montecillo v.
Gica held:

It is the duty of the lawyer to maintain towards the courts a respectful attitude. As an officer of
the court, it is his duty to uphold the dignity and authority of the court to which he owes fidelity,
according to the oath he has taken. Respect for the courts guarantees the stability of our
democratic institutions which, without such respect, would be resting on a very shaky
foundation.