Problem:

Atty. Ayala worked in the BPI Bank since the

time of his admission to the bar. After twenty
years of employment, he resigned from the bank
to go into private practice. Since he has been
known to be banker/lawyer, almost all his clients
were people related to the banking institutions
and/clients of the BPI. In most of these cases,
the complaints he was tasked to handle were
against BPI. In the first few years of his
practice, he was threatened with administrative
suits and was, therefore, compelled to withdraw
from the cases. It has been ten years from his
severance from the bank. Can he still be
charged administratively for violation of the
pertinent Canon? Reason.
 Another problem:
Atty. Galang is handling the case for drug trafficking
against his young clients. He is a seasoned practitioner
who, for a long time, has established a good relationship
with people in government agencies where he makes the
rounds in his practice. In one instance, he got
letterheads from the DOJ which is one of these agencies.
He got an Order of dismissal for the case but the same
has been submitted for review. In what he terms as
extraordinary diligence in defense of his clients, he
drafted an Order for their release and submitted the
same to the office of the head of the said agency. A
cause-oriented group files a case for disbarment against
him. State if the case has merit and give your reasons
for stating so.
THE LAWYER AND HIS CLIENT

CONFLICT OF INTEREST AND

ATTORNEYS LIEN
Undivided Allegiance to the Client
A Must for Lawyers

Therefore, treachery and

double-dealing is a ground for
disciplinary action.
CANON 15 - A LAWYER SHALL OBSERVE CANDOR,
FAIRNESS AND LOYALTY IN ALL HIS DEALINGS AND
TRANSACTIONS WITH HIS CLIENTS

Rule 15.03 A lawyer shall not

represent conflicting interests
except by written consent of all
concerned given after a full
disclosure of the facts.
When is there conflict of interest?
There is conflict of interest when there is
inconsistency in the interests of two or
more opposing parties, such that in behalf
of one client, it is the lawyer's duty to
fight for an issue or claim, but it is also
his duty to oppose it for the other client.
(Note: This also applies to government
lawyers)
 General Rule: An attorney
cannot represent adverse
interest.

Exception: Where the parties

consent to the representation
after full disclosure of facts.
TEST IN DETERMINING REPRESENTING
CONFLICTING INTERESTS

Will the acceptance of a new

lawyer-client relation prevent a
lawyer from discharging fully his
duty of undivided fidelity and loyalty
to another client or invite suspicion
of unfaithfulness or double-dealing
in the performance thereof?
The TEST in determining Conflicting Interest:
The test is whether or not the acceptance of a
new relation will prevent an attorney from the
full discharge of his duty of individual fidelity
and loyalty to his client or invite suspicion of
unfaithfulness in double-dealing in the
performance thereof whether or not the actions
which he handled were related or totally
unrelated. The prohibition against representing
conflicting interests rests on the relation of
trust and confidence of the highest degree
between attorney and client and on the
principle of public policy and good taste. (Tiana
vs. Ocampo 200 SCRA 472)
Foundation of the Proscription on Conflicting
Interest

It is generally the rule based on sound public

policy that an attorney cannot represent adverse
interest. It is highly improper to represent both
sides of an issue. The proscription against
representation of conflicting interest finds
application where the conflicting interest arises
with respect to the same general matter and is
applicable however slight such adverse interest
may be. It applies although the attorney's
intention and motives were honest and he acted
in good faith.
Cont.

However, representation of
conflicting interest may be allowed
where the parties consent to the
representation after full disclosure
of facts. (Nakpil vs. Valdez, 286
SCRA 758).
Raison d'tre for the Rule:
To bar dishonest practitioners from
fraudulent conduct and prevent the
honest practitioner from putting himself
into a position where he may be required
to choose between conflicting duties. It is
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. . . .
 Cont.
It is founded on principles of public policy, of
good taste. As has been said in another case,
the question is not necessarily one of the rights
of the parties, but as to whether the attorney
has adhered to proper professional standard.
With these thoughts in mind, it behooves
attorney, like Caesar's wife, not only to keep
inviolate the client's confidence, but also to
avoid the appearance of treachery and double
dealing. Only thus can litigants be encouraged
to entrust their secrets to their attorneys which
is of paramount importance in the
administration of justice.
 Some Pronouncements by the Supreme
Court:

"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 dealings
between an attorney and 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." (Hilado vs.
David, 84 Phil. 571)
 Some Pronouncements by the Supreme Court:

In the similar case of Pasay Law and Conscience

Union, Inc. vs. Paz, (95 SCRA 24 [1980]) where a
former Legal Officer and Legal Prosecutor of PARGO
who participated in the investigation of the Anti-Graft
case against Mayor Pablo Cuneta later on acted as
counsel for the said Mayor in the same anti-graft
case, this Court, citing Nombrado vs. Hernandez (26
SCRA 13 119681) ruled:
The Solicitor General is of the opinion, and we find
no reason to disagree with him, that even if
respondent did not use against his client any
information or evidence acquired by him as counsel it
cannot be denied that he did become privy to
information regarding the ownership of the parcel of
land which was later litigated in the forcible entry
case, for it was the dispute over the land that
triggered the mauling incident which gave rise to the
criminal action for physical injuries.
Some Pronouncements by the Supreme
Court:

It is unprofessional to represent
conflicting interests, except by express
conflicting consent of all concerned given
after a full disclosure of the facts. Within
the meaning of this canon, a lawyer
represents conflicting interest when, in
behalf on one client, it is his duty to
contend for that which duty to another
client requires him to oppose. (PNB vs.
Atty. Telesforo S. Cedo, 243 SCRA 1)
Some Pronouncements by the
Supreme Court:
Respondents justification for his actions
reveal a patent ignorance of the fiduciary
obligations which a lawyer owes to his client.
A lawyer-client relationship is not terminated
by the filing of a motion for a writ of
execution. His acceptance of a case implies
that he will prosecute the case to its
conclusion. He may not be permitted to
unilaterally terminate the same to the
prejudice of his client. (GLORITO V.
MATURAN, petitioner, vs. ATTY. CONRADO S.
GONZALES, respondent. [A.C. No.
2597. March 12, 1998])
OPPOSING CLIENTS IN RELATED CASES:

It is improper for a lawyer to appear as

counsel for one party against the adverse
party who is his client in a related suit, as a
lawyer is prohibited from representing
conflicting interests or discharging
inconsistent duties. He 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. That the representation of conflicting
interest is in good faith and with honest
intention on the part of the lawyer does not
make the prohibition inoperative.
It is improper for a lawyer to appear as counsel
for one party against his present client even in
a totally unrelated case. With regard to a
former client, the traditional rule is to
distinguish between related and unrelated
cases. A lawyer may not represent a
subsequent client against a former client in a
controversy that is related, directly or
indirectly, to the subject matter of the previous
litigation in which he appeared for the former
client. Otherwise, he may.
Note

In the case of Rosacia vs. Atty.

Bulalacao, 248 SCRA 665, the
Supreme Court ruled that a
lawyer may not accept a case
against a former client even
after the termination of his
attorney-client relationship with
the latter.
Cont.

The Court reiterates that an attorney owes

loyalty to his client not only in the case in which
he has represented him but also after the
relation of attorney and client has terminated
as it is not good practice to permit him
afterwards to defend in another case other
person against his former client under the
pretext that the case is distinct from, and
independent of the former case. (See also
Sumangil v. Santo Roman, 84 Phil. 777 (1949);
San Jose v. Cruz, 57 Phil. 792 (1933).)
The Court reiterates that an attorney owes
loyalty to his client not only in the case in which

he has represented him but also after the

relation of attorney and client has terminated
as it is not good practice to permit him
afterwards to defend in another case other
person against his former client under the
pretext that a case is distinct from, and
independent of the other case. It behooves
respondent 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 attorneys which is of
paramount in the administration of justice.
- Justice Hector L. Hofilena
In a recent case of Atty. Era (2013)

X x x the termination of the

attorney-client relationship does not
justify a lawyer to represent an
interest adverse to or in conflict with
that of the former client. The spirit
behind this rule is that the clients
confidence once given should not be
stripped by the mere expiration of
the professional employment.
 Cont...
Even after the severance of the relation, a
lawyer should not do anything that will
injuriously affect his former client in any
matter in which the lawyer previously
represented the client. Nor should the lawyer
disclose or use any of the clients confidences
acquired in the previous relation. Thus, Atty.
Era was found guilty of Rule 15.03 of Canon
15 and Canon 17 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility and was suspended from the
practice of law for two (2) years. Ferdinand
A. Samson v. Atty. Edgardo O. Era, A.C. No.
6664, July 16, 2013.
CANONS OF PROFESSIONAL ETHICS
Canon 6. Adverse influence and conflicting interests

It is a duty of a lawyer at the time of

retainer to disclose to the client all the
circumstances of his relations to the
parties and any interest in or connection
with the controversy, which might
influence the client in the selection of
counsel.
(cont.)
It is unprofessional to represent
conflicting interests, except by express
consent 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
client requires him to oppose.
(cont)
The obligation to represent the
client with undivided fidelity and not
to divulge his secrets or confidence
forbids also subsequent acceptance
of retainers or employment from
others in matters adversely
affecting any interest of the client
with respect to which confidence
has been reposed.
 In Hornilla v. Atty. Salunat, 27 the Court discussed
the concept of conflict of interest in this wise:

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 lawyers 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.
 Note:

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.
Rationale:

First, the law seeks to assure clients

that their lawyers will represent them
with undivided loyalty. A client is
entitled to be represented by a lawyer
whom the client can trust. Instilling
such confidence is an objective
important in itself. x x x.
 Rationale:
Second, the prohibition against conflicts
of interest seeks to enhance the
effectiveness of legal representation. To
the extent that a conflict of interest
undermines the independence of the
lawyers professional judgment or inhibits
a lawyer from working with appropriate
vigor in the clients behalf, the clients
expectation of effective representation x x
x could be compromised.
 Rationale:
Third, a client has a legal right to have
the lawyer safeguard the clients
confidential information xxx. Preventing
use of confidential client information
against the interests of the client, either
to benefit the lawyers personal interest,
in aid of some other client, or to foster
an assumed public purpose is facilitated
through conflicts rules that reduce the
opportunity for such abuse.
Rationale:

Fourth, conflicts rules help

ensure that lawyers will not
exploit clients, such as by
inducing a client to make a
gift to the lawyer xxx.
 Rationale:

Finally, some conflict-of-interest rules

protect interests of the legal system in
obtaining adequate presentations to
tribunals. In the absence of such rules,
for example, a lawyer might appear on
both sides of the litigation, complicating
the process of taking proof and
compromise adversary argumentation.
 ATTORNEYS INTEREST VS. CLIENTS
INTEREST:
An attorney should not put himself in a
position where self-interest tempts him to do
less that his best for his client. For this
reason, it is improper for a lawyer to continue
representing a client in a suit against a party
even with the clients consent after the lawyer
brings suit on his own behalf against the
same defendant. It is likewise improper to
have financial stakes in a subject matter of
the suit brought on behalf of his client. In
either case, the possibility of a conflict
between self-interest and that of his client
exists which may affect the performance of
his duty of undivided fidelity to his client.
CANON 16 A lawyer shall hold in trust all
moneys and properties of his client that may
come into his possession.
Rule 16.01 A lawyer shall
account for all money or property
collected or received for or from
the client.

Rule 16.02 A lawyer shall keep

the funds of each client separate
and apart from his own and those
of others kept by him.
 Rule 16.03 A lawyer shall deliver
the funds and property of his client
when due or upon demand.
However, he shall have a lien over
the funds and may apply so much
thereof as may be necessary to
satisfy his lawful fees and
disbursements, giving notice
promptly thereafter to his client.
He shall also have a lien to the
same extent on all judgments and
executions he has secured for his
client as provided for the Rules of
Court.
RETAINING LIEN VS. CHARGING LIEN

Attorneys Liens - an attorney shall

have a lien upon the funds,
documents and papers of his client
which have lawfully come into his
possession and may retain the
same until his lawful fees and
disbursements have been paid, and
may apply such finds to the
satisfaction thereof.
He shall also have a lien to the same extent
upon all judgments for the payment of money,
and executions issued in pursuance of such
judgments which he has secured in a litigation
of his client, from and after the time when he
shall have caused a statement of his claim of
such lien to be entered upon the records of the
court rendering such judgment, or issuing such
execution, and shall have caused written notice
thereof to be delivered to his client and to the
adverse party; and he shall have the same
right and power over such judgments and
executions as his client would have to enforce
his lien and secure the payment of his fees and
disbursements. (Sec, 37, Rule 138, RRC)
Rule 16.04 A lawyer shall not
borrow money from his client unless
the clients interests are fully
protected by the nature of the case
or by independent advice. Neither
shall a lawyer lend money to a client
except, when in the interest of
justice, he has to advance necessary
expenses in the legal matter he is
handling for the client.
 Some Principles:
Attorneys lien is not an excuse for
non-rendition of accounting
Cannot disburse clients money to
clients creditors without authority.
Failure to deliver upon demand
gives rise to the presumption that
he has misappropriated the funds
for his own use to the prejudice of
the client and in violation of the
trust reposed in him.
Some Principles:

Notify client if retaining lien shall be

implemented
When a lawyer enforces a charging lien
against his client, the client-lawyer
relationship is terminated.
The principle behind Rule 16.04 is to
prevent the lawyer from taking advantage
of his influence over the client or to avoid
acquiring a financial interest in the
outcome of the case.
Just today...
SC disbars lawyer for dishonesty,
orders him to return P1.3M in docket
fees to client

Read
more: http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/7562
93/sc-disbars-lawyer-for-dishonesty-
orders-him-to-return-p1-3m-in-docket-
fees-to-client#ixzz3xaMHZE15
Follow us: @inquirerdotnet on
Twitter | inquirerdotnet on Facebook
The Supreme Court held that
deliberate failure to pay just debts
and the issuance of worthless
checks constitute gross misconduct,
for which a lawyer may be
sanctioned with suspensions from
the practice of law. Lawyers are
instruments for the administration
of justice and vanguards of our legal
system. Isidra Barrientos vs. Atty.
Elerizza Libiran-Meteoro (A.C. No.
6408, August 31, 2004)
They are expected to maintain
not only legal proficiency but
also high standards of morality,
honesty, integrity and fair
dealing so that the peoples
faith and confidence in the
judicial system is ensured.
(Ibid.)
They must at all times faithfully
perform their duties to society, to
the bar, the courts and to their
clients, which include prompt
payment of financial obligations.
They must conduct themselves in a
manner that reflects the values and
norms of the legal profession as
embodied in the Code of Professional
Responsibility. (Ibid.)
CANON 17 A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and
he shall be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him.
No fear of judicial disfavor or public popularity should
restrain him from full discharge of his duty.
It is the duty of the lawyer at the time of retainer to
disclose to the client all the circumstances of his
relations to the parties and any interest in, or connection
with, the controversy which might influence the client in
the selection of counsel.
The lawyer owes loyalty to his client even after the
relation of attorney and client has terminated. It is not
good practice to permit him afterwards to defend in
another case other persons against his former client
under the pretext that the case is distinct from and
independent of the former case.
CANON 18 A lawyer shall serve his client with
competence and diligence.

Rule 18.01 A lawyer shall not

undertake a legal service which he
knows or should know that he is not
qualified to render. However, he may
render such service if, with the consent
of his client, he can obtain as
collaborating counsel a lawyer who is
competent on the matter.

Rule 18.02 A lawyer shall not handle

any legal matter without adequate
preparation.
 Rule 18.03 A lawyer shall not
neglect a legal matter entrusted to
him and his negligence in connection
therewith shall render him liable.

Rule 18.04 A lawyer shall keep the

client informed of the status of his
case and shall respond within a
reasonable time to the clients
request for information.
Note:
Competence: sufficiency of lawyers
qualification to deal with the matter in
question and includes knowledge and skill
and the ability to use them effectively in
the interest of the client.
A lawyer must keep himself constantly
abreast with the trend of authoritative
pronouncements and developments in all
branches of law.
There must be extraordinary diligence
in prosecution or defense of his clients
cause.
Note:
If a lawyer errs like any other
human being, he is not answerable
for every error or mistake, and will
be protected as long as he acts
honestly and in good faith to the
best of his skill and knowledge.
Lawyer is not an insurer of the
result in a case where he is
engaged in the counsel.
But

CANON 19 A lawyer
shall represent his
client with zeal within
the bounds of the law.
 Problem:
Atty. Galang is handling the case for drug trafficking
against his young clients. He is a seasoned practitioner
who, for a long time, has established a good relationship
with people in government agencies where he makes the
rounds in his practice. In one instance, he got
letterheads from the DOJ which is one of these agencies.
He got an Order of dismissal for the case but the same
has been submitted for review. In what he terms as
extraordinary diligence in defense of his clients, he
drafted an Order for their release and submitted the
same to the office of the head of the said agency. A
cause-oriented group files a case for disbarment against
him. State if the case has merit and give your reasons
for stating so.
Suggested Answer:
Extraordinary diligence in handling the
case for the client entitles the lawyer to
employ only honorable means to secure
for his client what is justly due him or
to present even defense provided by
law to enable the client to succeed. The
act is improper and may create a
suspicion of partiality on a government
agency which is mandated to dispense
justice. A perception, if created, may
result to an erosion of the publics
confidence in the administration of
justice.
 Problem:
Atty. Ayala worked in the BPI Bank since the
time of his admission to the bar. After twenty
years of employment, he resigned from the bank
to go into private practice. Since he has been
known to be banker/lawyer, almost all his clients
were people related to the banking institutions
and/clients of the BPI. In most of these cases,
the complaints he was tasked to handle were
against BPI. In the first few years of his
practice, he was threatened with administrative
suits and was, therefore, compelled to withdraw
from the cases. It has been ten years from his
severance from the bank. Can he still be
charged administratively for violation of the
pertinent Canon? Reason.