• SCC Chemicals Corporation, through its chairman and vice president, obtained a loan from State Investment house (SIHI).
• Loan amount was P130T, with a 30% interest rate p.a.
• Surcharges: 2% per month on the remaining balance.
• The officers above mentioned executed a comprehensive security agreement on the loan.
• But SCC failed to pay the loan. SIHI sent demand letters, but no payment was made.
• SIHI presented one witness to prove his claim. The cross-examination was postponed many times. SCC was finally declared to have waived its right to cross examine.
• A lot of challenges were made by SCC on the validity of the document. But this is of no moment. (and irrelevant)
• Now, SCC is questioning the preponderance of evidence (irrelevant) and the amount of attorneys fees awarded.
Issue:
• W/N SIHI is entitled to attorney’s fees.
Held:
• No.
• The appeal is partially granted. Attorney’s fees are deleted.
• Radio Communications of the Philippines v Rodriguez stated that the reason for the award of the attorneys’ fees must be stated in the text of the court’s decision. Since the trial court did not state any reason for awarding the attorney’s fees, the fees should have been disallowed by the appellate court.
• The award of attorney’s fees is the exception rather than the rule, \hence it is necessary for the trial court to make findings of fact and law, which would bring the case within the exception and justify the grant of the award.
• Given the failure of the trial court to explicitly state the rationale for the award of attorney’s fees, the same shall be disallowed.
134 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.
• Hamilton’s defense was that there was no attorney-client relationship between him and Andrada—since he was not the attorney of record. On the second misconduct, Hamilton’s 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 other’s 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.
135 HILADO v DAVID Facts:
• Blandina Hilado (ganda ng pangalan!) brought an action against Selim Assad to annul the sale of several houses and lot exected by Hilado’s husband.
• Delgado et al. was counsel for Hilado, while Ohnick et al filed an answer for Assad.
• Later on, Atty Vicente Francisco entered his appearance for Assad substituting Ohnick et al.
• The firm of Delgado urged Atty Francisco to stop representing Assad since there exists an atty-client relationship between him (Francisco) and the other party (Hilado) in the same case.
• It was alleged that Hilado consulted Francisco regarding the case and that the former turned over papers to the latter. From such documents, Francisco sent a written opinion to Hilado.
• Since makulit si Francisco, Delgado et al. sought to disqualify Francisco from representing Assad in the case.
• Francisco’s defense was that he only met Hilado once and this was when the latter informed him about the case.
He added that when Hilado left documents in their office, he told his assistant to tell Hilado that their firm would not handle her case. And that the written opinion was made by his assistant, which he signed without reading, and only for the purpose of explaining to Hilado why his firm rejected the case.
• David is the judge trying the case who dismissed the complaint for disqualification against Francisco. Said judge reasoned that no attorney-client relationship existed between Hilado and Francisco.
Issue:
Was there an attorney-client relationship between Francisco and Hilado?
Should Atty Francisco be disqualified from representing Assad?
Held:
The firm of Francisco mailed a written opinion to Hilado on the merits of the case (with Francisco’s signature); this opinion was reached on the basis of papers submitted at his office; and that Hilado’s purpose in submitting those papers was to secure Francisco’s professional services. From these ultimate facts, an attorney-client relationship between Francisco and Hilado can be said to have ensued.
To constitute professional employment it is not essential that the client should have employed the attorney professionally on any previous occasion. 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. When a person consults with his attorney in his professional capacity with the view of obtaining professional advice or assistance, and the attorney voluntarily permits or acquiesces in such consultation, then the professional employment must be regarded as established.
The existence of attorney-client relationship precludes the attorney from representing (and receiving a retainer from) the opposite party in the same case.
An information professionally obtained by an attorney from a client is sacred to the employment to which it pertains, and to permit it be used in the interest of another, or in the interest of the adverse party is to strike at the element of confidence which forms the basis of an attorney-client relationship.
The rule inhibiting an attorney from acting in behalf of both parties is implied in the Rules of Court (wala pang codified codes of professional responsibility noon).
The defense that Francisco never read the written opinion nor the documents submitted by Hilado will not preclude the
existence of an attorney-client relationship. The fact remains that his firm did give Hilado a formal professional advice from which emerged the relation. The letter binds and estops him in the same manner and degree as if he wrote it personally.
And an information obtained from a client by a member or assistant of the firm is information imparted to the firm.
The failure to object to counsel’s appearance does not operate as a waiver of the right to ask for counsel’s disqualification.
Motion for disqualification against Attorney Francisco should be allowed.
*A retaining fee (just in case itanong) is a preliminary fee given to an attorney or counsel to insure and secure his future services, and induce him to act for the client.
136 REGALA v SANDIGANBAYAN Facts:
• Petitioners in this case and private respondent Roco were all then partners of the law firm Angara, Abello, Concepcion, Regala and Cruz Law Offices (commonly known as ACCRA)
• ACCRA performed services for clients which included acquiring and/or organizing business associations and/or organizations where it acted as incorporators or simply as stockholders
• As members of the law firm, petitioners and Roco admit that they assisted in the organization and acquisition of companies included in Civil Case No. 0033. In keeping with the office practice, ACCRA lawyers acted as nominees-stockholders. Anong kalokohan yan?
o Civil Case No. 0033 – “RP v. Eduardo Cojuangco et. al.”, for the recovery of ill-gotten wealth, which includes shares of stock in certain corporations
•
PCGG later on filed a motion to admit 3rd amended complaint, which excluded Roco in Civil Case 33 as party defendant. PCGG was removing Roco because Roco was going to make choochoo and reveal the identity of the principals.• The ACCRA lawyers then filed a comment and/or opposition saying that they should also be removed the way that Roco was.
• PCGG then said that it will ask for their exclusion only if they will also disclose the identity of their clients
• During the proceedings, Roco did not actually reveal the identity of the client for whom he acted as nominee-stockholder
• The ACCRA lawyer’s motion for exclusion was denied (they refused to comply with the PCGG’s offer) by the PCGG and the court. Hence, this motion for certiorari
Issue:
• W/N the ACCRA lawyers should be excluded from the case Held:
• Yes. It is apparent that the ACCRA lawyers were only impleaded to force them to disclose the identity of their clients.
• PCGG has no valid cause of action Issue:
• W/N the attorney-client privilege prohibits the ACCRA lawyers from revealing the identity of their clients Held:
• General rule: a client’s identity should not be shrouded in mystery
o Exceptions: where a strong probability exists that revealing the client’s name would implicate that client in the very activity for which he sought the lawyer’s advice
o Where disclosure would open the client to civil liability
o Where revealing the identity would furnish the only link that would be necessary to convict an individual of a crime
• Suing the lawyer to force him to disclose the identity of his client in any of these instances is improper and the suit, upon motion, may be dismissed on such ground.
• The prosecution should rely on the strength of their evidence and not on the weakness of the defense
• Roco merely stated that he was acting as nominee-stockholder for the client and is part of legitimate lawyering.
The ACCRA lawyers also made such statement and should also be dropped.
• the relation of attorney and client is strictly personal and highly confidential and fiduciary
• the lawyer is more than a mere agent or servant because he possesses special powers of trust and confidence reposed on him by his client
137 PEOPLE v SANDIGANBAYAN
Facts: Honrada was the clerk of court and acting stenographer of the First MCTC. Paredes was the Provincial Attorney of Agusan. Sansaet was the counsel of Paredes.
It appears that Paredes applied for a free patent and Certificate of Title over a lot. It was initially approved, but the Director of lands subsequently filed for the cansellation of the patent and title on the ground that the land had been reserved as a school site. The lower court ruled to nullify the patent and title after finding out that Paredes obtained the same through fraudulent misrepresentations.
An information for perjury was filed against Paredes. However, the fiscal directed the Deputy Minister of Justice to move for the dismissal of the case on the ground of prescription. After some time, Gelacio, the one who filed the perjury case, sent a letter to the OMB seeking the investigation of the 3 personalities for falsification of public documents. The alleged falsified documents were documents purporting to be a notice of arraignment and stenographic notes supposedly taken during the arraignment of the perjury charge.
In a sudden turn of events, Atty. Sansaet revealed that Paredes contrived to have the graft case dismissed on the ground of double jeopardy by making it appear that the perjury case had been dismissed by the trial court . Atty. Sansaet was, in effect, asking to be a state witness against Paredes. However, the OMB denied the request of Atty. to be a state witness on the ground that the confession made by Paredes to Atty. was privileged communication.
Issue: W/N the confession made by Paredes to Atty. is privileged communication.
Held: The confession made by Paredes is not covered by privileged communication.
This case is actually an exception to the rule. It can be assumed that there was confidential information made by Paredes to Sansaet in connection with the falsification case, because Sansaet was the counsel.
A distinction must be made between communications relating to past crimes already committed, and future crimes intended to be committed by the client. It is true that by now those crimes had already been committed. But for the application of the atty.-client privilege to apply, the period to be considered is the date when the privileged communication was made by the client to the atty. In other words, if the client seeks the advice of the atty. with respect to a crime already committed at the time of the communication, it is privileged information. But if the client consults the atty. regarding a crime he is about to commit after the consultation, such is not privileged information.
In the present case, the confession made by Paredes to Sansaet were in reference to a crime of falsification which had not yet been committed in the past by Paredes but which he later committed. Having been made for purposes of a future offense, those communications are outside the pale of the atty.-client privilege.
Besides, for the rule to attach, the purpose of the consultation must be for a lawfule purpose. Without the lawful purpose, the privilege does not attach.
138 NGAYAN v TUGADE Facts:
-Ngayan asked Tugade to prepare and affidavit to be used as basis for a complaint against Soriano and Leonido as a consequence of the latter’s entry into complainants’ dwelling. Ngayan signed the affidavit without thoroughly reading it but she noticed one paragraph which did not mention that Leonido was with Soriano when they both barged into complainant’s residence.
-Upon being informed of this omission, Tugade crossed out the said paragraph. Ngayan asked Tugade to make another affidavit and the latter promised to do so.
-Ngayan discharged Tugade as their counsel and found out that Tugade did not include the name of Leonido in the criminal case filed.
-When the omission was remedied by their new counsel, the adverse parties filed a motion for reinvestigation through their counsel, Atty. Gaminda, who was a former classmate of Tugade.
-Tugade was also a lawyer of the brother of Leonido in an insurance company.
-In the hearing for the motion for reinvestigation, the adverse parties in affidavit which Tugade prepared for Ngayan, with one paragraph crossed out. Tugade himself presented an affidavit controverting the discarded affidavit which he prepared for Ngayan.
-Thus Ngayan charged Tugade for violation of paragraphs (e) and (f), Sec.20, Rule 138 Rules of Court (e) to maintain inviolate the confidence…and to preserve the secrets of his client…
(f) to abstain from all offensive personality..against a party or witness…
Issue: W/N Tugade must be disciplined for violation of the said Rule HELD: YES, he is suspended from the practice of law for 1 year.
-When Tugade furnished the adverse parties with a copy of the discarded affidavit, thus enabling the adverse parties to use it as evidence against complainants, he betrayed the trust and confidence of his clients in violation of paragraph (e) Sec.20 Rule 138
-Tugade’s actuations from the beginning show that he was partial to the adverse parties. This could be explained by the fact that he was a former classmate of Atty.Gaminda, the adverse parties’ counsel, and also by the fact that he was the lawyer of Leonido’s brother in an insurance company.
-Tugade submitted an affidavit containing facts prejudicial to his former client such as the fact that the crime charged by
Ngayan had already prescribed, and that Ngayan asked him to make the offense more grave to prevent the offense from prescribing. This constitutes an act of offensive personality against complainants, violative of par.(f) Sec.20 Rule 138.
139 PFLEIDER v PALANCA FACTS:
- Palanca is the lawyer of Pfleider.
- Pfleider leased to Palanca an agricultural land, Hacienda Asia in Negros Occidental for a period of 10 years - It is stipulated in the lease agreement that a specified portion of the lease rentals would be paid to Pfleider and
the remainder would be delivered by Palanca to the listed creditors of Pfleider
- Pfleider filed a suit for the rescission of the lease agreement of the ground of alleged default in the payment of rentals of Palanca.
- Pfleider also filed for the disbarment of Palanca on the grounds of:
o Palanca did not follow the instructions of Pfleider to settle his estafa case against Matiao in 1965 and the latter also failed to deposit the sum of P5,000 with the court
o Palanca has fraudulently charged the P5,000 as part of the lease rental of the Hacienda Asia
o Palanca also falsely represented having paid one Guintos the sum of P866 for the account of Pfleider when in truth and in fact, Guintos only received P86
o The list of creditors which Pfleider has confidentially supplied Palanca was disclosed by Palance in violation of their attorney-client relationship
ISSUE:
- W/N Palanca committed a breach of fidelity owing form a lawyer to his client HELD:
- NO!
- There is no substantial blame against Palanca inasmuch as the latter’s services were implicitly terminated by Pfleider when he sued his lawyer.
- While the object of the suit is the rescission of the lease contract, the conflict of interest became incompatible with the mutual confidence and trust essential to every lawyer-client relationship.
- Also, Pfleider delivered the list of creditors to Palanca not because of the professional relation then existing between them, but on account of the lease agreement. A violation thereof would partake more of a private and civil wrong than of a breach of fidelity owing from a lawyer to his client.
140 MERCADO v VITRIOLO FACTS:
• Rosa F. Mercado (complainant) is a Senior Education Program Specialist of CHED. Atty. Vitriolo is a Deputy Executive Director IV of CHED.
• Complainant’s husband filed an annulment case entitled Ruben Mercado v. Rosa Francisco. The case was dismissed.
• Complainant’s counsel later on died. Atty. Vitriolo substituted the counsel who just died.
• Later on, Atty. Vitriolo filed a criminal action against complainant. (falsification of documents: birth certificates of her children, making it appear that she was married to a certain Ferdinand Fernandez when in fact she was legally
• Later on, Atty. Vitriolo filed a criminal action against complainant. (falsification of documents: birth certificates of her children, making it appear that she was married to a certain Ferdinand Fernandez when in fact she was legally