Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

FELICITAS S. QUIAMBAO v. ATTY. NESTOR A. BAMBA

This case has been cited 9 times or more.

	AC. No. 10687 2015-07-22	MABINI COLLEGES v. ATTY. JOSE D. PAJARILLO VILLARAMA, JR., J.
This rule prohibits a lawyer from representing new clients whose interests oppose those of a former client in any manner, whether or not they are parties in the same action or on totally unrelated cases.[6] Based on the principles of public policy and good taste, this prohibition on representing conflicting interests enjoins lawyers 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 administration of justice.[7] In Maturan v. Gonzales[8] we further explained the rationale for the prohibition:The reason for the prohibition is found in the relation of attorney and client, which is one of trust and confidence of the highest degree. A lawyer becomes familiar with all the facts connected with his client's case. He learns from his client the weak points of the action as well as the strong ones. Such knowledge must be considered sacred and guarded with care. No opportunity must be given him to take advantage of the client's secrets. A lawyer must have the fullest confidence of his client. For if the confidence is abused, the profession will suffer by the loss thereof. Meanwhile, in Hornilla v. Salunat,[9] we explained the test to determine the existence of conflict of interest:
	AC. No. 9860 2013-09-11	JOSEPHINE L. OROLA v. ATTY. JOSEPH ADOR RAMOS PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
Under the afore-cited rule, it is explicit that a lawyer is prohibited from representing new clients whose interests oppose those of a former client in any manner, whether or not they are parties in the same action or on totally unrelated cases. The prohibition is founded on the principles of public policy and good taste.[26] It behooves lawyers 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 administration of justice.[27] In Hornilla v. Salunat[28] (Hornilla), the Court explained the concept of conflict of interest, to wit:There is conflict of interest when a lawyer represents inconsistent interests of two or more opposing parties. The test is "whether or not in behalf of one client, it is the lawyer's duty to fight for an issue or claim, but it is his duty to oppose it for the other client. In brief, if he argues for one client, this argument will be opposed by him when he argues for the other client." This rule covers not only cases in which confidential communications have been confided, but also those in which no confidence has been bestowed or will be used. Also, there is conflict of interests if the acceptance of the new retainer will require the attorney to perform an act which will injuriously affect his first client in any matter in which he represents him and also whether he will be called upon in his new relation to use against his first client any knowledge acquired through their connection. Another test of the inconsistency of interests 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.[29] (Emphasis supplied; citations omitted)
	AC. No. 5098 2012-04-11	JOSEFINA M. ANIÑON v. ATTY. CLEMENCIO SABITSANA BRION, J.
"The proscription against representation of conflicting interests applies to a situation where the opposing parties are present clients in the same action or in an unrelated action."[7] The prohibition also applies even if the "lawyer would not be called upon to contend for one client that which the lawyer has to oppose for the other client, or that there would be no occasion to use the confidential information acquired from one to the disadvantage of the other as the two actions are wholly unrelated."[8] To be held accountable under this rule, it is "enough that the opposing parties in one case, one of whom would lose the suit, are present clients and the nature or conditions of the lawyer's respective retainers with each of them would affect the performance of the duty of undivided fidelity to both clients."[9]
	GR NO. 162331 2006-11-20	LEPANTO CONSOLIDATED MINING CO. v. WMC RESOURCES INT'L. PTY. LTD. CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Thereafter, petitioner filed a case[4] for Injunction, Specific Performance, Annulment of Contracts and Contractual Interference with the Regional Trial Court of Makati, Branch 135, against WMC Resources, WMC Philippines, and the Tampakan Companies. WMC Philippines and the Tampakan Companies moved for the dismissal of said case. Said Motion to Dismiss having been denied, WMC Philippines challenged the order dismissing the Motion on appeal[5] before the Court of Appeals which subsequently ordered the dismissal of the case on the ground of forum shopping in this wise:Nevertheless, the Court finds that private respondent is guilty of forum-shopping. There is forum-shopping whenever, as a result of an adverse opinion in one forum, a party seeks a favorable opinion (other than by appeal or certiorari) in another. The principle applies not only with respect to suits filed in courts but also in connection with litigation commenced in the courts while an administrative processes and in anticipation of an unfavorable administrative ruling and a favorable court ruling.
	AC. NO. 6125 2006-09-19	SIMON D. PAZ v. ATTY. PEPITO A. SANCHEZ CARPIO, J.
Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that "a lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by written consent of all concerned given after full disclosure of the facts." Lawyers are deemed to represent conflicting interests when, in behalf of one client, it is their duty to contend for that which duty to another client requires them to oppose.[15] The proscription against representation of conflicting interest applies to a situation where the opposing parties are present clients in the same action or in an unrelated action.[16]
	AC. NO. 6160 2006-03-30	NESTOR PEREZ v. ATTY. DANILO DE LA TORRE YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
The prohibition against representing conflicting interest is founded on principles of public policy and good taste. In the course of a lawyer-client relationship, the lawyer learns all the facts connected with the client's case, including the weak and strong points of the case. The nature of that relationship is, therefore, one of trust and confidence of the highest degree. It behooves lawyers not only to keep inviolate the client's confidence, but also to avoid the appearance of impropriety and double-dealing for only then can litigants be encouraged to entrust their secrets to their lawyers, which is of paramount importance in the administration of justice.[5]
	AC. NO. 6836 2006-01-23	LETICIA GONZALES v. ATTY. MARCELINO CABUCANA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Rule 15.03 A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interest except by written consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts. It is well-settled that a lawyer is barred from representing conflicting interests except by written consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts. [24] Such prohibition is founded on principles of public policy and good taste as the nature of the lawyer-client relations is one of trust and confidence of the highest degree. [25] 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 administration of justice. [26]
	AC. NO. 6836 2006-01-23	LETICIA GONZALES v. ATTY. MARCELINO CABUCANA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
In similar cases where the respondent was found guilty of representing conflicting interests a penalty ranging from one to three years' suspension was imposed. [38]
	GR No. 143672 2003-04-24	CIR v. GENERAL FOODS CORONA, J.
True, it is the taxpayer's prerogative to determine the amount of advertising expenses it will incur and where to apply them.[11] Said prerogative, however, is subject to certain considerations. The first relates to the extent to which the expenditures are actually capital outlays; this necessitates an inquiry into the nature or purpose of such expenditures.[12] The second, which must be applied in harmony with the first, relates to whether the expenditures are ordinary and necessary. Concomitantly, for an expense to be considered ordinary, it must be reasonable in amount. The Court of Tax Appeals ruled that respondent corporation failed to meet the two foregoing limitations.