Você está na página 1de 4

NESTOR PEREZ vs ATTY. DANILO DE LA TORRE Perez as brgy.

Captain of Binanuaanan, Calabanga, Camarines sur, that in Dec 2001, several suspects for murder and kidnapping for ransom, among them Sonny Boy Ilo and Diego Avilawere apprehended and jailed by the police authorities; that respondent went to the unicipal bldg. of Calabanga where the accused were being detained and made representations that he could secure their freedom if they sign the prepared extrajudicial confessions; that unknown to the two accused, respondent was representing the heirs of the murder victim; The extrajudicial confessions included herein the complainant as the mastermind in the criminal activities for which they were being charged. Respondent claimed that when Ilo sought his assistance in executing his extrajudicial confession,he conferred with Ilo in the presence of his parents and only after he was convinced that Ilo wasnot under compulsion did he assist the accused in executing the extrajudicial confession. ISSUE: Whether Or Not the respondent violated Rule 15.03 of CPR HELD: Atty. De la Torre was guilty of violation of Rule 15.03 of CPR. He is suspended for three years from the practice of law. The respondent admitted that his services as a lawyer were retained by both Avila and Ilo. Perez was able to show that at the time that atty. De la Torre was representing the said two accused, he was also representing the interest of the victims family. Under Rule 15.03 of the CPR, a lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by written consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts. Respondent is therefore duty bound to refrain from representing two parties having conflicting interests in a controversy. The prohibition against representing conflicting interest is founded on principles of public policy and good taste. In course of a lawyer-client relationship, the lawyer learns all the facts connected with the clients case, including the weak and strong points of the case. It behooves lawyers not only to keep inviolate the clients 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. His representation of opposing clients in the murder case invites suspicion of double-dealing and infidelity to his clients. What is unsettling is that respondent assisted in the execution by the two accused of their confessions whereby they admitted their participation in various serious criminal offenses knowing fully well that he was retained previously by the heirs of one of the victims. Respondent, who presumably knows the intricacies of the law, should have exercised his better judgment before conceding to accuseds choice of counsel.

HEIRS OF LYDIO "JERRY" FALAME, namely: MELBA FALAME, LEO FALAME and JERRYFALAME, petitioners,vs. ATTY. EDGAR J. BAGUIO, respondent. FACTS: Respondent Atty. Baguio jointly represented Lydio and Raleigh as defendants in the first civil case. As defense counsel in the first civil case, respondent advocated the stance that Lydio solely owned the property subject of the case. In the second civil case involving the same property, respondent, as counsel for Raleigh and his spouse, has pursued the inconsistent position that Raleigh owned the same property in common with Lydio, with complainants, who inherited the property, committing acts which debase respondent's rights as a co-owner. ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Baguio is guilty of representing conflicting interests between his clients. Held : Yes, Atty. Baguio is guilty. A lawyer may not act as counsel for a person whose interest conflicts with that of his present or former client as provided in Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility The rule holds even if the inconsistency is remote or merely probable or the lawyer has acted in good faith and with no intention to represent conflicting interests. Furthermore, the termination of attorney-client relation provides no justification for a lawyer to represent an interest adverse to or in conflict with that of the former client. The client's confidence once reposed should not be divested by mere expiration of professional employment or even death.. NAZARIA S. HERNANDEZ (DECEASED), SUBSTITUTED BY LUCIANO S. HERNANDEZ, JR., complainant, vs. ATTY. JOSE C. GO, respondent. Facts: Complainant engaged respondents services, she entrusted to him her land titles and allowed him to sell her lots, believing that the proceeds thereof would be used to pay her creditors. Respondent abused her trust and confidence when he did not sell her properties to others but to himself and spent his own money to pay her obligations. Obviously, had he sold the lots to other buyers, complainant could have earned more. Records show that she did not receive any amount from respondent. Issue: Whether or not he violated the canon law?

Held: DISBARRED. A lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys and properties of his client that may come into his possession. Such conduct on the part of respondent degrades not only himself but also the name and honor of the legal profession. He violated this Courts mandate that lawyers must at all times conduct themselves, especially in their dealing with their clients and the public at large, with honesty and integrity in a manner beyond reproach. A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he shall be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him. Membership in the legal profession is a privilege. When it appears that an attorney is no longer worthy of the trust and confidence of his clients and the public, it becomes not only the right but also the duty of this Court to withdraw the privilege. Respondent, by his conduct, blemished not only his integrity as a member of the Bar, but also the legal profession. Public interest requires that an attorney should exert his best efforts and ability to protect the interests of his clients. A lawyer who performs that duty with diligence and candor not only protects his clients cause; he also serves the ends of justice and does honor to the bar and helps maintain the respect of the community to the legal profession.

LOURDES R. BUSIOS, complainant, vs. ATTY. FRANCISCO RICAFORT, respondent. Facts; Initial case of estafa was filed and subsequently dropped upon payment of the respondent of the amount allegedly owed to the complainant. However, the administrative case was pursued by the complainant claiming gross misconduct on the part of the respondent as to the delayed payment of debt even with repeated request in addition to the asking of P 2000 as bond in a case handled by him, which was was not even required.

Issue; WON Atty. Francisco Ricafort be disbarred or suspended in his practice of law. Ruling; The Supreme Court found the recommendation of the IBP to suspend the respondent insufficient, therefore, ruled to DISBAR Atty. Francisco Ricafort in relation to his

palpable disregard of Sec 25 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court,ule 1.01 of Canon 1 and Rules 16.01, 16.02 and 16.03 of Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, aggravated by a violation of Canon 11.