LAWYER AND THE Client 1-3

Case Title Canons Brief description of the Violation ( How the canon/s was violated) State other Sanctions imposed(if any)
Violated &
other
violations ( If
any)
MICHAEL RUBY, Canon 15, It is undisputed that Atty. Espejo was the counsel of record in the case that was Atty. Rudolph Dilla Bayot is ADMONISHED to exercise
vs. filed in the RTC. Equally undisputed is the fact that it was only Atty. Espejo who more prudence and judiciousness in dealing with his
ATTY. ERLINDA B. ESPEJO and signed the retainer agreement. clients.
ATTY. RUDOLPH DILLA BAYOT He is also ordered to return to Michael Ruby within
However, the evidence on record, including Atty. Bayot’s admissions, the amount of Four Thousand Pesos (₱4,000.00)
points to the conclusion that a lawyer-client relationship existed representing his appearance fee received from the
between him and the complainant: latter and he is warned that a repetition of the same
would meet with a more severe disciplinary action
 Atty. Bayot prepared the complaint that was filed with the RTC. and penalty.
 He prepared the motion to serve summons through publication.
 He appeared as counsel for the complainant in the hearings of the case
before the RTC.
 He advised the complainant on the status of the case.
The foregoing circumstances clearly established that a lawyer-client relationship
existed between Atty. Bayot and the complainant.
"Documentary formalism is not an essential element in the employment of an
attorney; the contract may be express or implied. To establish the relation, it is
sufficient that the advice and assistance of an attorney is sought and received in
any matter pertinent to his profession."
Further, acceptance of money from a client establishes an attorney-client
relationship
DARIA O. DAGING, Rule 15.03 It is undisputed that complainant entered into a Retainer Agreement SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of
Vs. dated March 7, 2005 with respondent's law firm and respondent filed six (6) months
ATTY. RIZ TINGALON L. DAVIS, on behalf of said Balageo an Answer with Opposition to the Prayer for
He is warned that a commission of the same or
the Issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Injunction dated July 11, 2005. It
similar offense in the future will result in the
was only on August 26, 2005 when respondent withdrew his
imposition of a stiffer penalty.
appearance for Balageo.
Based on the established facts, it is indubitable that respondent
transgressed Rule 15.03 of Canon 15 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. It provides:
* 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.
* "A lawyer 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."
The prohibition against representing conflicting interests is absolute
and the rule applies even if the lawyer has acted in good faith and with
no intention to represent conflicting interests.

Court emphasized that lawyers are expected not only to keep inviolate
the client's 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
 LAWYER AND THE Client 1-3

administration of justice.

FERDINAND A. SAMSON, Rules 15.03, Contrary to Atty. Era’s ill-conceived attempt to explain his disloyalty to Samson SUSPENDED from the practice of law for TWO (2)
vs and his group, the termination of the attorney-client relationship does not justify YEARS , with a warning that a repetition of the same
ATTY. EDGARDO O. ERA, a lawyer to represent an interest adverse to or in conflict with that of the former or similar act in the future will be dealt with more
client. severely.

The absence of the express consent from Samson and his group after full
disclosure to them of the conflict of interest, therefore, the most ethical thing for
Atty. Era to have done was either to outrightly decline representing and entering
his appearance as counsel for Sison, or to advice Sison to engage another lawyer
for herself. Unfortunately, he did neither, and should now suffer the proper
sanction.