This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2014-12-10 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| The representation of conflicting interests is prohibited "not only because the relation of attorney and client is one of trust and confidence of the highest degree, but also because of the principles of public policy and good taste. An attorney has the duty to deserve the fullest confidence of his client and represent him with undivided loyalty. Once this confidence is abused or violated the entire profession suffers."[34] | |||||
|
2007-01-22 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| The stern rule against representation of conflicting interests is founded on principles of public policy and good taste. It springs from the attorney's duty to represent his client with undivided fidelity and to maintain inviolate the client's confidence as well as from the injunction forbidding the examination of an attorney as to any of the privileged communications of his client.[19] | |||||
|
2003-03-20 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| As one of the sixteen (16) union officers and directors seeking compensation from the University of Santo Tomas for their illegal dismissal, respondent was involved in obvious conflict of interests when in addition he chose to act as concurrent lawyer and president of the UST Faculty Union in forging the compromise agreement. The test of conflict of interest among lawyers is "whether 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 or double-dealing in the performance thereof."[15] In the same manner, it is undoubtedly a conflict of interests for an attorney to put himself in a position where self-interest tempts, or worse, actually impels him to do less than his best for his client. | |||||