10.12. New Client against Former Client.

General Rule: An attorney cannot represent adverse interest.

Exception: Where the parties consent to the representation after full disclosure of facts.
A lawyer my properly act as counsel for a new client, against former client in a
matter wholly unrelated to that of the previous employment, there being in that
instance no conflict of interests.
Even if the lawyer acquired no confidential information from his former client or his
services to him re gratuitous or the client illegally terminated his professional
employment.
Reason: What a lawyer owes to former client to refrain from doing anything which will
injuriously affect him in any matter which he previously represented him; in this case,
duty does not arise.
E.g. having appeared for a party opposed to the probate of a will, he may not go to the
opposite side and champion its cause against his former client.
Cantorne v Ducusin 57 Phil 23 Legal Ethics Obligations of a lawyer
FACTS: Sometime in the 1920s, Engracia Cantorne sued one Petrona Basmayor for the
loss of Cantornes shawl. Basmayor was represented Atty. Eugeniano Ducusin (some
record say Ducasin). Ducusin approached Cantorne advising her not to appear in court
during trial because his client allegedly agreed to pay P25.00 for the shawl. Cantorne
even spent some money just to entertain Ducusin in her home. So Cantorne did not
appear during the trial and the suit against Basmayor was dismissed due to Cantornes
non-appearance. Cantorne subsequently filed a disbarment case against Ducusin.
ISSUE: Whether or not Ducusins acts are a ground for disbarment/suspension.
HELD: Yes. An attorney-at-law is in this jurisdiction as elsewhere, an officer of the court,
with an obligation to the courts and the public no less significant than his obligation to
his clients. An attempt to obstruct, pervert, or impede the administration of justice, or to
evade the fair operation of the law, is a ground for suspension or disbarment. Ducusins
actuations frustrated the ends of justice. Evidence shows conclusively that he violated
his obligations to the court and to his client and furthermore obstructed the
administration of justice thus disregarding the fundamental ethics of his profession.
Ducusin was suspended for two years (lessened to a one year suspension by s Supreme
Court Resolution in 1933).

10.13. Conflicting duties.

A lawyer may not undertake to discharge conflicting duties any more than may he
represent antagonistic interests.
A lawyer may not, as counsel for a client, attack the validity of the instrument
prepared by him.

The test here is that: WON if a lawyer argues in behalf of one client, it is the lawyers
duty to oppose it for the other client.
E.g. A lawyer may not, as an employee of a corporation whose duty is to attend to its
legal affairs, join a labor union of employees in that corporation because the exercise of
the unions rights is incompatible with his duty as a lawyer for his corporate client.
As for a Public official: 6.03 A lawyer shall not, after leaving government service, accept
engagements or employment in connection with any matter in which he had intervened
while in said service.
In a patent infringement suit he may not subsequently represent another client who
seeks to nullify the patent of which his former client was granted a license to.
Bautista v Barrios 9 SCRA 695 Legal Ethics Representing Conflicting Interests
FACTS: Bautista approached Atty. Barrios to help her and two other parties to draft a
Deed of Partition involving the intestate property of one other sibling who died in 1952.
Barrios assisted Bautista. However, one of the parties to the Deed, Federico Rovero
refused to comply and so Bautista was forced to sue Rovero. She asked Barrios to
represent her. Barrios drafted the petition for Bautista but he refused to file the same
because he said he is reluctant to take up a lost cause. So Bautista engaged the
services of another lawyer but to her surprise she found out that Barrios is representing
Rovero in court.
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Barrios should be disciplined.
HELD: Yes. Barrios represented conflicting interests in contravention to his Lawyers
Oath. He cannot in fact represent any of the parties as against each other. Particularly,
he cannot represent Rovero in questioning the terms of the very Deed he helped
prepared and then assail the validity of the terms of said Deed. His inconsistent position
in the case militates against Barrios good faith. Barrios was suspended from practice for
two years.

10.14. Attorneys Interest versus clients interest.

An attorney should not put himself in a position where self-interest tempts him to do less
than his best for his client.
The test here is that: WON 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 in double-dealing in the performance thereof.

10.18. WHERE THE CLIENTS KNOWINGLY CONSENT TO DUAL REPRESENTATION IN

WRITING
Lawyer may represent conflicting interests before it reaches the court but only after full
disclosure of the facts and express written consent of all parties.
Where representation by a lawyer is for both opposing parties, their written consent
may enable the lawyer to represent them before but not after their controversy has
reached the court. After the controversy has reached the court, the lawyer cannot, even
with the parties written consent, represent both of them without being held
administratively liable as an officer of the court.
Disclosure should include thorough explanation of nature and extent of conflict and
possible adverse effects of dual representation. This should include disclosure of the
lawyers present and/or former clients who have conflicting interests.
Advantage: a mutual lawyer, impartial and with honest motivations, may be better
situated to work out an acceptable settlement since he has confidence of both parties
A lawyer may represent new client against former client only after full disclosure and
written consent. Former clients written consent constitutes a release from obligation to
keep inviolate the clients confidences or to desist from injuriously affecting him in any
matter which he previously represented.
Where circumstances show parties require independent counsel, or where lawyer may
be suspected of disloyalty, he should immediately withdraw from the case.
General rule that a lawyer may be allowed to represent conflicting interests, where
parties consent, applies only where one is a former client and the other is a new one, not
where both are current clients.
Lawyer may not represent conflicting interests, even with consent, where the conflict is
between the attorneys interest and that of a client (Self-interest should yield to clients
interest) or between a private clients interest and that of the govt or any of its
instrumentalities (public policy and public interest forbid dual representation).
Nakpil vs Valdes [A.C. No. 2040. March 4, 1998] FACTS: Jose Nakpil, husband of the complainant, became interested in purchasing a
summer residence in Moran Street, Baguio City. For lack of funds, he requested
respondent to purchase the Moran property for him. They agreed that respondent would
keep the property in thrust for the Nakpils until the latter could buy it back. Pursuant to
their agreement, respondent obtained two (2) loans from a bank which he used to
purchase and renovate the property. Title was then issued in respondents name.
The ownership of the Moran property became an issue in the intestate proceedings when
Jose Nakpil died. Respondent acted as the legal counsel and accountant of his widow.
Respondent excluded the Moran property from the inventory of Joses estate and
transferred his title to the Moran property to his company, the Caval Realty Corporation.
ISSUE: Whether or not there was conflict of interest between the respondent Atty. Valdes
and the complainant.

HELD: YES. Respondent was suspended from practice of law for one (1) year.
RATIO: [T]here is no question that the interests of the estate and that of its creditors are
adverse to each other. Respondents accounting firm prepared the list of assets and
liabilities of the estate and, at the same time, computed the claims of two creditors of
the estate. There is clearly a conflict between the interest of the estate which stands as
the debtor, and that of the two claimants who are creditors of the estate.
[R]espondent undoubtedly placed his law firm in a position where his loyalty to his client
could be doubted. In the estate proceedings, the duty of respondents law firm was to
contest the claims of these two creditors but which claims were prepared by
respondents accounting firm. Even if the claims were valid and did not prejudice the
estate, the set-up is still undesirable. The test to determine whether there is a conflict of
interest in the representation is probability, not certainty of conflict. It was respondents
duty to inhibit either of his firms from said proceedings to avoid the probability of conflict
of interest.
Public confidence in law and lawyers may be eroded by the irresponsible and improper
conduct of a member of the bar. Thus, a lawyer should determine his conduct by acting
in a manner that would promote public confidence in the integrity of the legal profession.
Members of the bar are expected to always live up to the standards embodied in the
Code of Professional Responsibility as the relationship between an attorney and his client
is highly fiduciary in nature and demands utmost fidelity and good faith. In the case at
bar, respondent exhibited less than full fidelity to his duty to observe candor, fairness
and loyalty in his dealings and transactions with his clients.
10.19. WHERE NO TRUE ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP IS
ATTENDANT.
Absence of true attorney-client relationship either with the attorney or with the law firm
of which he is a member makes the prohibition inapplicable.
Exception: attorneys secretary, stenographer or clerk who, in such capacity, has
acquired confidential information from attorneys client, may not accept employment or,
after admission to the bar, represent an interest adverse to that of attys client.
Hilado v David 84 Phil 569 Legal Ethics Existence of Attorney-Client Relationship
FACTS: In April 1945, Blandina Hilado filed a complaint to have some deeds of sale
annulled against Selim Assad. Attorney Delgado Dizon represented Hilado. Assad was
represented by a certain Atty. Ohnick.
In January 1946, Atty. Vicente Francisco replaced Atty. Ohnick as counsel for Assad and
he thenafter entered his appearance in court.

In May 1946 or four months later, Atty. Dizon filed a motion to have Atty. Francisco be
disqualified because Atty. Dizon found out that in June 1945, Hilado approached Atty.
Francisco to ask for additional legal opinion regarding her case and for which Atty.
Francisco sent Hilado a legal opinion letter.
Atty. Francisco opposed the motion for his disqualification. In his opposition, he said that
no material information was relayed to him by Hilado; that in fact, upon hearing Hilados
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 ofaction 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 Hilados 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.
Judge Jose Gutierrez David ruled in favor of Atty. Francisco.
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Francisco should be disqualified in the said civil 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
latters 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.
Further:
An attorney is employed-that is, he is engaged in his professional capacity as a lawyer or
counselor-when he is listening to his clients preliminary statement of his case, or when
he is giving advice thereon, just as truly as when he is drawing his clients pleadings, or
advocating his clients cause in open court.

Anent the issue of what information was relayed by Hilado to Atty. Francisco: It does not
matter if the information relayed is confidential or not. So long as the attorney-client
relationship is established, the lawyer is proscribed from taking other representations
against the client.
Anent the issue that the legal opinion was not actually written by Atty. Francisco but was
only signed by him: It still binds him because Atty. Agrava, assuming that he was the
real author, was part of the same law firm. An information obtained from a client by a
member or assistant of a law firm is information imparted to the firm, his associates or
his employers.
Anent the issue of the fact that it took Hilado four months from the time Atty. Francisco
filed his entry of appearance to file a disqualification: It does not matter. The length of
time is not a waiver of her right. The right of a client to have a lawyer be disqualified,
based on previous atty-client relationship, as counsel against her does not prescribe.
Professional confidence once reposed can never be divested by expiration of
professional employment.