Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ELESIO C. PORMENTO v. ATTY.

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	AC. No. 10687 2015-07-22	MABINI COLLEGES v. ATTY. JOSE D. PAJARILLO VILLARAMA, JR., J.
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. The rule prohibiting conflict of interest applies to situations wherein a lawyer would be representing a client whose interest is directly adverse to any of his present or former clients.[10] It also applies when the lawyer represents a client against a former client in a controversy that is related, directly or indirectly, to the subject matter of the previous litigation in which he appeared for the former client.[11] This rule applies regardless of the degree of adverse interests.[12] What a lawyer owes his former client is to maintain inviolate the client's confidence or to refrain from doing anything which will injuriously affect him in any matter in which he previously represented him.[13] A lawyer may only be allowed to represent a client involving the same or a substantially related matter that is materially adverse to the former client only if the former client consents to it after consultation.[14]
	Adm. Case No. 9058 2012-11-14	ROBERT VICTOR G. SEARES v. ATTY. SANIATA LIWLIWA V. GONZALES-ALZATE BERSAMIN, J.
Atty. Gonzales-Alzate's legal representation of Turqueza neither resulted in her betrayal of the fidelity and loyalty she owed to Seares, Jr. as his former attorney, nor invited the suspicion of unfaithfulness or double dealing while she was performing her duties as an attorney.[39] Representing conflicting interests would occur only where the attorney's new engagement would require her to use against a former client any confidential information gained from the previous professional relation.[40] The prohibition did not cover a situation where the subject matter of the present engagement was totally unrelated to the previous engagement of the attorney.[41] To constitute the violation, the attorney should be shown to intentionally use against the former client the confidential information acquired by her during the previous employment.[42] But a mere allegation of professional misconduct would not suffice to establish the charge, because accusation was not synonymous with guilt.[43]
	AC. No. 4808 2011-11-22	TERESITA T. BAYONLA v. ATTY. PURITA A. REYES BERSAMIN, J.
It is true that a lawyer shall not be disbarred or suspended from the practice of law until she has had full opportunity upon reasonable notice to answer the charges against her, to produce witnesses in her behalf, and to be heard by herself or counsel.[26] Contrary to Atty. Reyes' insistence, however, the IBP Board of Governors was under no legal obligation to conduct a trial-type proceeding at which she could have personally confronted Bayonla. In other words, the lack of such proceeding neither diminished her right to due process nor deprived her of the right. A formal investigation entailing notice and hearing is required in administrative proceedings for disbarment, but the imperative need of notice and hearing does not always mean the holding of an adversarial trial-type proceeding. Due process is still satisfied when the parties are afforded the reasonable opportunity to be heard and to submit evidence in support of their respective sides.[27] As the Court said in Samalio v. Court of Appeals:[28]
	AC. No. 6674 2009-06-30	ROBERT BERNHARD BUEHS v. ATTY. INOCENCIO T. BACATAN PERALTA, J.
A conflict of interests also exists when 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.[19]
	ADM CASE NO. 5439 2007-01-22	CLARITA J. SAMALA v. ATTY. LUCIANO D. VALENCIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
An attorney owes loyalty to his client not only in the case in which he has represented him but also after the relation of attorney and client has terminated.[20] The bare attorney-client relationship with a client precludes an attorney from accepting professional employment from the client's adversary either in the same case[21] or in a different but related action.[22] A lawyer is forbidden from representing a subsequent client against a former client when the subject matter of the present controversy is related, directly or indirectly, to the subject matter of the previous litigation in which he appeared for the former client.[23]