IN RE HAMILTON

Facts:

L. Porter Hamilton advised and counseled Luciano Andrada in regard to a claim (by Andrada) against Isabelo Alburo.
In lieu thereof, Hamilton received various documents (vouchers, notes) from Andrada. Hamilton prepared a formal
petition for Andrada, and also prepared papers relating to attachment proceedings against the property of Alburo. It
appeared, however, that Hamilton was not noted as attorney of record for Andrada.
Later on, Hamilton entered appearance as attorney of record for Alburo (the defendant in the same case). Hamilton only
surrendered the documents received from Andrada when the court ordered him to do so.
Another misconduct was committed by Hamilton when he proposed, through a letter, to S.L. Joseph of Cebu that he be
employed as attorney for S.L. Joseph Lumber Yard, under a threat to compel said person to accept his proposition.
Judge Wislezinus said: Ah hindi pwede yan! He orderd the fiscal to file an action for disbarment against Hamilton for
professional misconduct.
Hamiltons defense was that there was no attorney-client relationship between him and Andradasince he was not the
attorney of record. On the second misconduct, Hamiltons defense was that the letter (where he made the proposition)
was privileged communication so it cannot be used as evidence against him.

Issue:
Is Atty Hamilton guilty of professional misconduct?
Held:
Yes, and he should be suspended for 6 years. The existence of an attorney-client relationship could be established by overt acts. By
accepting papers relating to the claim, the confidential relationship was established. Hamilton also counseled with Andrada
regarding the subject matter of the suit. The fact that he did not allow his name to be place by the clerk of court as attorney of record
for Andrada (when the papers were filed) can only be considered as proof of lack of good faith with the client to whome he was
rendering professional services. A stipulated fee is not necessary to establish the relationship either.
By representing the opposing party in the same case (without the others consent) and by refusing to surrender the documents
received from Andrada (until there were court orders), counsel violated the confidence between him and Andrada. He did not offer
his services in good faith to his client.
As to the claim that the letter to S.L. Joseph was privileged, there was no proof that there was an attorney-client relationship
between Hamilton and S.L. Joseph. Furthermore, in a disbarment proceeding, where the alleged client himself is not insisting on the
privilege, counsel cannot be permitted to shield himself behind the privilege.