Quiambao v. Bamba Rule 15.

03, Canon 5 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides: A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by written consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts. This prohibition is founded on principles of public policy and good taste.[8] In the course of a lawyer-client relationship, the lawyer learns all the facts connected with the clients 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.[9] It behooves lawyers not only to keep inviolate the clients confidence, but also to avoid the appearance of treachery and double-dealing for only then can litigants be encouraged to entrust their secrets to their lawyers, which is of paramount importance in the administration of justice.[10] In broad terms, lawyers are deemed to represent conflicting interests when, in behalf of one client, it is their duty to contend for that which duty to another client requires them to oppose.[11] Developments in jurisprudence have particularized various tests to determine whether a lawyers conduct lies within this proscription. One test is whether a lawyer is duty-bound to fight for an issue or claim in behalf of one client and, at the same time, to oppose that claim for the other client.[12] Thus, if a lawyers argument for one client has to be opposed by that same lawyer in arguing for the other client, there is a violation of the rule. Another test 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. Still another test is whether the lawyer would be called upon in the new relation to use against a former client any confidential information acquired through their connection or previous employment. The proscription against representation of conflicting interests applies to a situation where the opposing parties are present clients in the same action or in an unrelated action. It is of no moment that the lawyer would not be called upon to contend for one client that which the lawyer has to oppose for the other

client, or that there would be no occasion to use the confidential information acquired from one to the disadvantage of the other as the two actions are wholly unrelated. It is enough that the opposing parties in one case, one of whom would lose the suit, are present clients and the nature or conditions of the lawyers respective retainers with each of them would affect the performance of the duty of undivided fidelity to both clients. [ 1 5 ] It must be noted that the proscription against representation of conflict ing interests finds application where the conflicting interests arise with respect to the same general matter however slight the adverse interest may be. It applies even if the conflict pertains to the lawyers private activity or in the performance of a funct ion in a non-professional capacity. In the process of det ermining whether there is a conflict of interest, an import ant criterion is probability, not certainty, of conflict .

Solatan v. Inocentes The present case focuses on a critical aspect of the lawyer-client relationshipthe duty of loyalty. The fidelity lawyers owe their clients is traditionally characterized as undivided. This means that lawyers must represent their clients and serve their needs without interference or impairment from any conflicting interest. Unquestionably, an attorney giving legal advice to a party with an interest conflicting with that of his client resulting in detriment to the latter may be held guilty of disloyalty. However, far be it that every utterance of an attorney which may have afforded an individual some relief adverse to the formers client may be labeled as a culpable act of disloyalty. As in every case, the acts alleged to be culpable must be assessed in light of the surrounding circumstances. While the levy was made on chattel found in the apartment of the judgment debtor, Gliceria Solatan, the complainant was the true owner of the properties. Consequently, the latter had a right to recover the

same. In fact, considering the circumstances, the questioned statement is in consonance with complainants foremost duty to uphold the law as an officer of the court. The statement of Atty. Camano in such a context should not be construed by this Court as giving advice in conflict against the interest of the spouses Genito as in fact the latter have no interest over the incorrectly levied properties. The rule on conflicting interests, established in Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, deals with conflicts in the interests of an attorneys actual clients among themselves, of existing and prospective clients, and of the attorney and his clients. It states that a lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by written consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts.

Palm v. Iledan, Jr. We find no conflict of interest when respondent represented Soledad in a case filed by Comtech. The case where respondent represents Soledad is an Estafa case filed by Comtech against its former officer. There was nothing in the records that would show that respondent used against Comtech any confidential information acquired while he was still Comtechs retained counsel. Further, respondent made the representation after the termination of his retainer agreement with Comtech. A lawyers immutable duty to a former client does not cover transactions that occurred beyond the lawyers employment with the client. The intent of the law is to impose upon the lawyer the duty to protect the clients interests only on matters that he previously handled for the former client and not for matters that arose after the lawyer-client relationship has terminated.

Rollon v. Naraval Rule 15.05 of the Code of Professional Responsibility requires that lawyers give their candid and best opinion to their clients on the merit or

lack of merit of the case, neither overstating nor understating their evaluation thereof. Knowing whether a case would have some prospect of success is not only a function, but also an obligation on the part of lawyers.[ If they find that their clients cause is defenseless, then it is their bounden duty to advise the latter to acquiesce and submit, rather than to traverse the incontrovertible. The failure of respondent to fulfill this basic undertaking constitutes a violation of his duty to observe candor, fairness and loyalty in all his dealings and transactions with his clients. The circumstances of this case indubitably show that after receiving the amount of P8,000 as filing and partial service fee, respondent failed to render any legal service in relation to the case of complainant. His continuous inaction despite repeated followups from her reveals his cavalier attitude and appalling indifference toward his clients cause, in brazen disregard of his duties as a lawyer. Not only that. Despite her repeated demands, he also unjustifiably failed to return to her the files of the case that had been entrusted to him. To top it all, he kept the money she had likewise entrusted to him. Furthermore, after going through her papers, respondent should have given her a candid, honest opinion on the merits and the status of the case. Apparently, the civil suit between Rosita Julaton and complainant had been decided against the latter. In fact, the judgment had long become final and executory. But he withheld such vital information from complainant. Instead, he demanded P8,000 as filing and service fee and thereby gave her hope that her case would be acted upon.

Lemoine v. Balon, Jr. A lawyer who practices or utilizes deceit in his dealings with his client not only violates his duty of fidelity, loyalty and devotion to the clients cause but also degrades himself and besmirches the fair name of an honorable profession. We would like to make it clear that we cannot give you the aforesaid amount until and unless our attorneys fees will be

forthwith agreed and settled. In the same manner, should you be barbaric and uncivilized with your approached, we will not hesitate to make a proper representation with the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation for the authenticity of your visa, Department of Labor and Employment for your working status, Bureau of Internal Revenue for your taxation compliance and the National Bureau of Investigation [with] which we have a good network... CANON 15 - A lawyer shall observe candor, fairness and loyalty in all his dealings and transactions with his clients. RULE 15.06 - A lawyer shall not state or imply that he is able to influence any public official, tribunal or legislative body. Respondents threat in his December 7, 1999 letter to expose complainant to possible sanctions from certain government agencies with which he bragged to have a good network reflects lack of character, self-respect, and justness.

Mercado v. Security Bank Corporation Rule 15.06 of Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states that a lawyer shall not state or imply that he is able to influence any public official, tribunal or legislative body. Further, Rule 15.07 provides that a lawyer must impress upon his client compliance with the laws and the principles of fairness. Atty. Villanueva took the forbidden course. In informing Mercado that he was a very very good, close and long time friend of the ponente, Atty. Villanueva impressed upon the former that he can obtain a favorable disposition of his case. However, when his petition was dismissed twice, Mercados expectation crumbled. This prompted him to hurl unfounded, malicious, and disrespectful accusations against Chief Justice Davide and the ponente. We have repeatedly admonished lawyers from making bold assurances to their clients. A lawyer who guarantees the successful outcome of a litigation will exert heavy pressure and employ any means to win the case at all costs. But when the case is lost, he will blame the courts,

placing them under a cloud of suspicion. As what happened in this case, Atty. Villanuevas statements led Mercado, not only to suspect but also to believe, that the entire Court, together with Chief Justice Davide and the ponente, could be pressured or influenced, Responsibility enjoins lawyers to observe and maintain the respect due to courts and the judicial officers.[21] Atty. Villanuevas conduct, no doubt, degraded the integrity and dignity of Chief Justice Davide and the ponente and this Court as well. Thus, we find Atty. Villanueva also guilty of indirect contempt of court.