LEGAL RESERCH: LEGAL ETHICS

GROUNDS FOR TERMINATION OF ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP:

CANON 22 — A LAWYER SHALL WITHDRAW HIS SERVICES ONLY FOR GOOD CAUSE
AND UPON NOTICE APPROPRIATE IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES.

Rule 22.01— A lawyer may withdraw his services in any of the following
cases:

a) When the client pursues an illegal or immoral course of conduct in

connection with the matter he is handling;

b) When the client insists that the lawyer pursue conduct violative of
these canons and rules;

c) When his inability to work with co-counsel will not promote the best
interest of the client;

d) When the mental or physical condition of the lawyer renders it difficult

for him to carry out the employment effectively;

e) When the client deliberately fails to pay the fees for the services or fails
to comply with the retainer agreement;

f) When the lawyer is elected or appointed to public office; and

g) Other similar cases.

RELATED CASES

CAN LAWYER REPRESENT A CASE AGAINST HIS FORMER CLIENT?:

CANON 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states that: “A LAWYER OWES

FIDELITY TO THE CAUSE OF HIS CLIENT AND HE SHALL BE MINDFUL OF THE TRUST
AND CONFIDENCE REPOSED IN HIM.”

In the case of ADM. CASE NO. 6876, March 7, 2008, HEIRS OF LYDIO "JERRY"
FALAME, namely: MELBA FALAME, LEO FALAME and JERRY FALAME vs. ATTY.
EDGAR J. BAGUIO, the termination of attorney-client relation provides no justification
for a lawyer to represent an interest adverse to or in conflict with that of the former
client. The 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.

In relation to this, 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 reposed on him. His highest and most unquestioned duty is to protect the
client at all hazards and costs even to himself. The protection given to the client is
perpetual and does not cease with the termination of the litigation, nor is it affected by
the party's ceasing to employ the attorney and retaining another, or by any other
change of relation between them. It even survives the death of the client.

In Hornilla v. Salunat,  AC.No. 5804, July 1, 2003, 405 SCRA 220, explained the
test to determine when a conflict of interest is present thus:

There is conflict of interest when a lawyer represents in consistent 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 interest 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. (Emphasis
supplied)

In the case of Marcelo v. Javier, A.C. No. 3248, September 18, 1992, 214 SCRA
1, Sr., the Supreme Court stated that “Lawyers must conduct themselves, especially in
their dealings with their clients and the public at large, with honesty and integrity in a
manner beyond reproach. Lawyers cannot be allowed to exploit their profession for the
purpose of exacting vengeance or as a tool for instigating hostility against any person—
most especially against a client or former client.”

In the case of A.C. No. 7023, March 30, 2006, BUN SIONG YAO, Complainant,
vs. ATTY. LEONARDO A. AURELIO, the Supreme Court also stated that:

“It is essential to note that the relationship between an attorney and his client is a
fiduciary one. 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 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, unless the latter consents. This obligation to preserve the confidences and
secrets of a client arises at the inception of their relationship. The protection given to
the client is perpetual and does not cease with the termination of the litigation, nor is it
affected by the party's ceasing to employ the attorney and retaining another, or by any
other change of relation between them. It even survives the death of the client.”