Legal Ethics Doctrines – DQ of Judges – LT 1 b. Lawyer represented A and B in an ejectment case against C.

Later,
Lawyer represented A in a rescission case against B. = YES Client
vs client – related (acc to Coloquio)
3. Pormento v. Pontevedra
a. YES. Conflict of interest. New v. Former (acc to DamascoTy)
i. In a previous case re: a piece of land, lawyer lost the case
because he failed to inform his client (Original Client) of
the dismissal of his counterclaim and thus losing his right
to appeal. Original Client lost the piece of land.
ii. In a subsequent case, the Original Client client filed a
criminal case against family of the new owner of the
subject land of the first case. The Lawyer represented the
family of the new owner.
iii. YES. Conflict of interest. Client v. Client. New v. Former.
1. Sabi nung 4a atty v client. weird
Choices; Yes or No, and then: b. NO conflict of interest. New v. former.
i. Original Client filed an ejectment case against his
1. Atty. vs. Client nephew. When Original Client bought the lot in this case,
2. Client vs. Client - Present – Same Case the Lawyer’s only hand was NOTARIZING the deed of
3. Client vs. Client – Present – Related Case sale.
4. Client vs. Client – Present - Unrelated Case ii. NO conflict of interest. Client v. client new v. former.
5. Client vs. Client – New vs. Former 4. Buted v. Hernando
6. Inconsistent Duties a. Lawyer represented A in a partition case. A & Lawyer won.
b. Before A died, A sold the property to B but it appears that the TCT
Not Sure Yet was issued to C. Upon filing specific performance, B got the
-Bautista v Barrios Lawyer to represent him PRO BONO. They won in ejecting C.
-Nombrado v Hernandez Lawyer terminated his relationship w B.
-in re De La Rosa c. Lawyer filed a petition in behalf of A’s heirs without their consent
-Pfleider vs Palanca to cancel TCT of B over the lot. B filed an admin case against the
lawyer for having abused personal secrets.
d. Client v. Client. New v. Former.
1. Tiania v. Ocampo e. YES. Conflict of Interest.
a. In an ejectment case, the lawyer was the retaining counsel of A f. Kung without their consent, edi Atty Client
and was also the counsel of the B. He induced one of the parties 5. Zubiri v Zubiri
to sign a compromise agreement. a. Lawyer, as counsel to the Plaintiff, in the same case advised the
i. YES. Client v Client. Present. Same Case. Defendant as to his rights and prepared the answer for him
b. Lawyer acted as counsel of X in selling a house to B. X bought a i. ? YES. Conflict of Interest. Present. Same Case.
new house. Lawyer made X sign a document. Yun pala the ii. Acc to Rein: NO Conflict of Interest.
document was a REM and PN in favor of B. B filed a collection 6. San Jose v. Cruz
case against X, with the Lawyer representing B this time. a. Lawyer and A won in the SC in a foreclosure case against B; the
i. Same case case was REMANDED back to RTC. C cousin of B filed a third
2. Samala v. Valencia party complaint against execution of the property with A’s Lawyer.
a. Lawyer represented BOTH SIDES in a collection case = Client vs b. Footnote: Having appeared for a party opposed to the probate of a
client – Present – Same Case (Consolacion) will, he may not go to the opposite side and champion its cause
against his former client.
c. YES. Conflict of Interest. Present. Same Case (remanded e)
7. Pasay Law v. Paz
a. A Lawyer headed an investigation against a Mayor and initiated a
corruption case against him. Before the investigation finished, he
was hired by the Office of the Mayor. He then represented the
Mayor in the same corruption case he initiated.
b. Footnote: Having once held a public office or having been in the
public employ, a lawyer should not, after his RETIREMENT or
RESIGNATION, accept professional employment in connection
with any matter he has investigated or passed upon in such office
or employ."
c. In this case, there was an ATTORNEY CLIENT relationship
between the GOVERNMENT and the lawyer when he was heading
the investigation.
d. YES. Inconsistent Duties.
i. Atty v Client acc to Diploma.
ii. Same Case acc to Rob
8. Dee v. CA
a. Footnote: A common representation may work to the advantage of
the parties since a mutual lawyer, with honest motivations and
impartially cognizant of the parties’ disparate positions, may well
be better situatied to work out an acceptable settlement of their
differences.
b. Dewey Dee signed the chits of the gambler Ramon Sy but he was
alleged to be the one in debt. So Dee got the services of the Lawyer
to settle the debt. The Lawyer talked to the Casino. The Casino got
the lawyer as agent to convince Ramon Sy to acknowledge the
debt.
c. Thereafter, Dewey Dee alleges that Lawyer is conflicting interest.
Because he acted an agent of the casino.
d. NO conflicting interest. Client v Client. Present. Same case.
9. In re Hamilton
a. Footnote:?
b. Lawyer counseled and advised A against B by preparing necessary
documents to institute attachment proceedings. However Lawyer
did not sign the papers as A’s counsel. Later, Lawyer counseled for
B.
c. YES.
i. I think Conflict of Interest, Present, Same case.
ii. Acc to Mau, Atty Client
iii. Acc to Pavia, Conflict of Interest lang walang nilagay
d. amilton wrote a letter to Mr. Joseph of Joseph Lumber Yard,
offering his services as but with an implied threat that should Mr.
Joseph refuse, an investigation will be had as to why the
Government used the said lumber yard as supplier. (Shady siguro)
i. No conflict of interest. Atty v Client.
10. Bautista v. Barrios
a. Footnote?
b. A lawyer cannot draft a pleading (office work) for one party and
represent the opposing party to whom the lawyer pleading is
directed at the same time.
c. A died. Sister in law sought the services of the Lawyer to draft
extrajudicial partition for her in the partition case. Pero nagaway si
Sister in Law tska si Illegitimate Child. Pero kumuha ng ibang
lawyer si Sister in Law. But then, sh]e found out the Lawyer was
already the counsel of the other party whom the pleading is to be
enforced.
d. Inconsistent Duties.
11. Mejia v. Reyes
a. Lawyer was the bank attorney and notary public of PNB
b. Third parties sued PNB and engaged the services of the lawyer
c. Inconsistent duties to!
i. YES. Client v Client. Present. Related case(Flameno)
ii. YES. Atty v. client. (Guzman)
12. Nombrado v. Hernandez
a. Footnote: Whether or not respondent utilized against his former
client information given to him in a professional capacity, the mere
fact of their previous relationship should have precluded him from
appearing as counsel for the other side in the forcible entry case
b. A thru Lawyer filed a criminal case against B. Case dismissed.
c. B thru Lawyer filed a civil case of forcible entry against A.
i. YES. Client v. Client. New v. Former(Phoebe)
ii. Atty v. Client acc to Bea and Fajardo
13. Natan v. Capule
a. Footnote: An attorney if forbidden to do either of two things after
severing his relationship with the former client. He may not do
anything which will injuriously affect his former client in any
matter in which he formerly represented him, nor may he at any
time use against his former client knowledge or information
acquired by virtue of the previous relationship
b. A was the administrator of estate of X. Lawyer represented A in an
forcible entry case against B.
c. C was claiming to be the recognized child of X. Lawyer represents
C in several cases including partition, against A.
d. Case referred to A as a former client.
e. YES. Client v. Client. New v. Former.
14. In re Dela Rosa
a. Footnote: But while such consent exempts him from
administrative liability, the representation of adverse interest may
not make his conduct less unethical.
b. A sold land to B acknowledged by the Lawyer as Notary Public.
c. B sought the advice of the Lawyer to procure a reduction in the
price because the land is smaller than what was stated.
 d. NO Conflict of interest because the Lawyer did NOT represent
either party in a court of justice. He merely served as an
intermediary
i. But if he did. Same case?
ii. Acc to Orquinaza, Atty v. Client
15. Pfleider v. Palanca
a. Footnote: The violation therefore of the confidentiality of the list
of creditors was more in the civil form than breach of the lawyer
and client relationship.
b. For some time, Lawyer was the counsel of A.
c. A leased the land to Lawyer. Contract stipulated that some rental
payments would be paid to A and some to A’s listed creditors.
Using the creditor list given by A, Lawyer filed a rescission case
against A. A filed admin charges vs Lawyer.
d. NO breach of lawyer client relation. Lawyer violate the
confidence NOT as counsel but as a LESSEE.
i. Acc to Geraldez and Lim, Atty v. Client
ii. Pwede bang NO conflict of interest?
iii. No Conflict. Atty v. Client.
 End of Conflict of Interest
16. Uy Chico v. Union Life
a. Footnote: Thus, a communication intended by the client to be sent
to a third person through his attorney loses its confidential
character after it has reached the third party
b. A sent documents to Insurance Company thru Lawyer. The
documents are related to A and IC’s compromise. During Trial, IC
asked A if it’s ok to show the documents re: compromise; A said
yes. Later, gusto bawiin ni A saying confidential daw yung
documents between A and Lawyer.
i. NO conflict of interest (Gomez)
ii. Atty v. Client (Banadera) ?
17. Jones v. Harding
a. Footnote: In ascertaining whether the information or
communication is privileged, the nature of the suit, the
circumstances and conditions of the questions or of the affirmative
or negative answers thereto are what, in each case, determine the
question.
b. Ms sold land to P. D, a co-owner of the Ms, did not know of the
sale and wished to be subrogated. P said PNs were already
delivered to Lawyer 1 and Lawyer 2 for safekeeping. Lawyer 1
refused to answer in court if he has the PN.
c. It is just proper that Lawyer 1 was cited in contempt. There is no
privilege already since si P na nga nagsabi na dineliver niya yung
PN kay Lawyer 1 and 2. Edi open secret na!
i. YES. Inconsistent duties. Acc to Hermoso and Bainto
18. People v. Sleeper
a. Footnote: he party who asserts the privilege has the burden of
proof to establish the privilege unless it appears from the face of
the document itself that it is privileged. His mere assertion that the
matter is confidential is insufficient.
i. There is no client-attorney relationship by the mere
incidental fact that the person communicated with is a
lawyer.
b. A was the secretary of a corporation who misappropriated funds.
He was sued for estafa.
c. A and Lawyer are FRIENDS. Lawyer prepared Exhibit M signed
by A where A admitted the crime.
d. Court: NO violation of privilege. There is no evidence that the
Lawyer is ACTING AS ATTORNEY for A. Lawyer never
presented to Fisher as his attorney. A also never questioned signing
the document.
e. NO conflict of interest. Could have been atty v client.
i. Anong subcategory doe?
19. Genato v. Silapan
a. Lawyer and A are in a mortgage contract where Lawyer defaulted
and his checks bounced. A filed a BP22 case.
b. Lawyer’s defense was to discredit A by disclosing confidential
information regarding A’s illegalities: client being part of shady
dealings and client’s intention to bribe court officials.
c. Footnote: This is NOT covered by atty client privilege bc it the
scope is only LAWFUL not those in contemplation of a crime or
perpetuation of fraud. Intention to bribe, illegal, is not covered by
privilege bc the client does NOT consult the lawyer
PROFESSIONALLY.
i. Atty v. Client acc to Lee and Bello
20. Baron v. Leyte Asphalt
a. A sued B for breach of contract. B presented as evidence a letter
sent by A to A’s lawyer.
b. NO breach of confidentiality.
c. The attorney-client privilege is not destroyed by the fact that a
third person may have overheard a communication intended to be
confidential nor by the circumstance that other attorneys
represented the client. But as to a third person who may have
overheard a confidential communication, the privilege does not as
a rule apply.
d. Inconsistent duties re: privileged info
21. People v. Syjuco
a. Doctrine acc to Lu: An Attorney has the duty to strictly preserve
the secrets or communications made to him.
 i. Courts cannot order the disclosure of privileged
information which would violate the right of an attorney.
b. Footnote: The lawyer’s file cabinet containing client’s records and
documents may not be ordered opened because that would
tantamount to compelling him to divulge the client’s confidence in
violation of the law imposing upon him the duty to strictly preserve
the client’s secret.
c. Search warrant ordering opening of such cabinet is void. It violates
atty client privilege.
i. No conflict of interest
22. Orient Insurance v. Revilla
a. The waiver of the privilege cannot be made partially. A client may
either waive it in its entirety or not at all. Hence, by introducing in
evidence part of a privileged document, a client waives the
protection of the privilege as to the other part of the document. A
waiver in part is a waiver in whole for a client may not remove the
seal of confidentiality as makes for his advantage and insist that it
be privileged as to so much as makes to the disadvantage of the
adversary
i. No conflict of interest
23. People v. SB
a. For the application of the attorney client privilege, the period to be
considered is the date when the privileged communication was
made by the client to the atty in relation. To either a crime
committed in the past or w/ respect to a crime intended to be
committed in the future. If the client sees his lawyer’s advice w
respect to a crime that the former has therefore committed, he is
given the protection of a virtual confessional seal w/c the atty
client privilege declares cannot be broken by the atty w/o the
cleitn’s consent. The same privileged confidentiality however does
not attach to a CRIM wc a client INTENDS TO COMMIT
therafter or in the future and for purposeoses of wc he seeks the
lawyers advice.
i. No conflict of interest. Atty v. Client
b. Clearly, therefore, the confidential communications thus made by
Paredes to Sansaet were for purposes of and in reference to the
crime of falsification which had not yet been committed in the
past by Paredes but which he, in confederacy with his present co-
respondents, later committed. Having been made for purposes of a
future offense, those communications are outside the pale of the
attorney-client privilege.