his first client any knowledge acquired through

I. Conflict of Interest in a Regular Lawyer-Client their connection.

Relationship
a. What is conflict of interest? Another test to determine if there is a
b. Test in determining conflicting interests representation of conflicting interests is whether
c. Rule 15.03 the acceptance of a new relation will prevent an
i. Lim Jr. VS Villarosa attorney from the full discharge of his duty of
Doctrine: There is representation of conflicting undivided fidelity and loyalty to his client or
interests if the acceptance of the new retainer invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or double
will require the attorney to do anything which dealing in the performance thereof.
will injuriously affect his first client in any
matter in which he represents him and also v. Samson VS Era
whether he will be called upon in his new relation, Doctrine: The lawyer-client relationship did not
to use against his first client any knowledge terminate when the parties entered into a
acquired through their connection compromise settlement, for the fact remained
that he still needed to oversee the
ii. Catalan Jr. VS Silvosa implementation of the settlement as well as to
Doctrine: An attorney is employed — that is, he is proceed with the criminal cases until they were
engaged in his professional capacity as a lawyer dismissed or otherwise concluded by the trial
or counselor — when he is listening to his client’s court.
preliminary statement of his case, or when he is
giving advice thereon, just as truly as when he is vi. Teodoso VS Nava
drawing his client’s pleadings, or advocating his Doctrine: Even granting that the interests of
client’s pleadings, or advocating his client’s cause Espinosa, Palma and Batislaong are conflicting,
in open court. petitioner cannot be held liable for acting as
their common counsel, as stated in their
iii. Artezuela VS Maderazo affidavits, petitioner explained to them the
Doctrine: that lawyers owe undivided allegiance consequences of his representation and that
to their clients, and should at all times weigh their they gave their consent to the same.
actions, especially in their dealings with the latter
and the public at large. That they must conduct vii. Nakpil VS Valdez
themselves beyond reproach at all times. Doctine: The test of impropriety of
representation of conflicting interests is not the
iv. Pormento Sr. Pontevedra certainty of such existence but mere probability
Doctrine: Jurisprudence instructs that there is a for it to exist.
representation of conflicting interests if the
acceptance of the new retainer will require the II. Conflict of Interest of Corporate Lawyers
attorney to do anything which will injuriously a. Rule 15.03
affect his first client in any matter in which he b. Derivative Suit
represents him and also whether he will be i. Hornilla VS Salunat
called upon in his new relation, to use against
Ajas, Asistio Balleza, Briones, Lacson, Manuel, Santiago and Valdez 1
 Doctrine: Where corporate directors have amendments must be approved by at least a
committed a breach of trust either by their majority of the stockholders, and copies of the
frauds, ultra vires acts, or negligence, and the amended by-laws must be filed with the SEC,
corporation is unable or unwilling to institute suit the information could not have been intended to
to remedy the wrong, a stockholder (in this case be confidential.
a member because PPSTA is non-stock) may
sue on behalf of himself and other stockholders III. Limitations/ Restrictions of Government Lawyers in
and for the benefit of the corporation, to bring the Practice of Law
about a redress of the wrong done directly to a. Canon 6
the corporation and indirectly to the b. Canon 6.01
stockholders. i. Public Prosecutor
c. Canon 6.02
ii. Hocorma Foundation VS Funk i. Applicability of Rule
Doctrine: Canon 15, Rule 15.03 of the CPR ii. Prohibitions of Public Officials and Employees
provides that a lawyer cannot represent during their Incumbency
conflicting interests except by written consent of 1. Ali VS Bubong
all concerned given after a full disclosure of the Doctrine: the general rule is that a lawyer who
facts. Here, it is undeniable that Atty. Funk was holds a government office may not be
formerly the legal counsel of Hocorma disciplined as a member of the bar for
Foundation. Years after terminating his infractions he committed as a government
relationship with the foundation, he filed a official, he may, however, be disciplined as a
complaint against it on behalf of another client, lawyer if his misconduct constitutes a violation
without the foundation’s written consent. of his oath a member of the legal profession.

2. Olazo VS Tinga
iii. Pacana VS Pascual Lopez Doctrine: Since public office is a public trust,
Doctrine: This prohibition is founded on the ethical conduct demanded upon lawyers
principles of public policy, good taste and, more in the government service is more exacting
importantly, upon necessity. In the course of a than the standards for those in private
lawyer-client relationship, the lawyer learns all practice. Lawyers in the government service
the facts connected with the client’s case, are subject to constant public scrutiny under
including its weak and strong points. Such norms of public accountability. They also bear
knowledge must be considered sacred and the heavy burden of having to put aside their
guarded with care. private interest in favor of the interest of the
public; their private activities should not
iv. Palm VS Iledan interfere with the discharge of their official
Doctrine: It is settled that the mere relation of functions.
attorney and client does not raise a
presumption of confidentiality.11 The client iii. Canon 6.03
must intend the communication to be 1. Olazo VS Tinga
confidential.12 Since the proposed Doctrine: to fall within the ambit of Rule 6.03
Ajas, Asistio Balleza, Briones, Lacson, Manuel, Santiago and Valdez 2
 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, the It no longer follows the raison de etre of
respondent must have accepted engagement protecting ones own rights.
or employment in a matter which, by virtue of
his public office, he had previously exercised 2. Samonte VS Gatdula
power to influence the outcome of the Doctrine: Complainant Samonte failed to
proceedings. appear and substantiate her allegations
that it was Respondent Gatdula that gave
2. PCGG VS Sandiganbayan her the calling card and tried to convince
Doctrine: The key to unlock Rule 6.03 lies in her to change counsels.
comprehending first, the meaning of matter
referred to in the rule and, second, the metes
and bounds of the intervention made by the IV. Notarial Law Violations
former government lawyer on the matter. The a. Basic Concepts
American Bar Association in its Formal i. Spouses Villanueva VS Beradio
Opinion 342, defined matter as any discrete, Doctrine: Notarization should not be treated as
isolatable act as well as identifiable an empty, meaningless, routinary act. It is
transaction or conduct involving a particular invested with substantive public interest, such
situation and specific party, and not merely that only those who are qualified or authorized
an act of drafting, enforcing or interpreting may act as notaries public.
government or agency procedures,
regulations or laws, or briefing abstract ii. Tupal VS Rojo
principles of law. Doctrine: A competent evidence of identity
guarantees that the person appearing before
d. Rule 3.03 the notary public is the signatory to the
i. Reasons instrument or document to be notarized. If the
e. Public Officials Who Cannot Practice Law in the notary public does not personally know the
Philippines signatory, he must require the signatory to
f. Public Officials with Restrictions present a competent evidence of identity.
g. Restrictions in the Practice of Law by Sanggunian
Members b. The Notary Public
h. RA 7160 Section 90 i. Caalim-Verzonilla VS Pascua
i. Canon 15, Rule 15,06 Doctrine: The principal function of a notary
i. Influence Peddling public is to authenticate documents. When a
1. Maderada VS Mediodea notary public certifies to the due execution and
Doctrine: Maderada appeared for herself delivery of a document under his hand and seal,
not for the public and did not demand he gives the document the force of evidence.
payment for it. Therefore, in doing so, she Indeed, one of the purposes of requiring
cannot be said to have been engaged in documents to be acknowledged before a notary
the practice of law. What is prohibited is public, in addition to the solemnity which should
appearing as counsel for her co plaintiff. surround the execution and delivery of
documents, is to authorize such documents to
Ajas, Asistio Balleza, Briones, Lacson, Manuel, Santiago and Valdez 3
 be given without further proof of their execution Doctrine: The Court is not oblivious of the
and delivery. right of a lawyer to be paid for the legal
services he has extended to his client but
ii. Villarin VS Sabate such right should not be exercised
Doctrine: The function of a notary public is, whimsically by appropriating to himself
among others, to guard against any illegal or the money intended for his clients. There
immoral arrangements. That function would be should never be an instance where the
defeated if the notary public were one of the victor in litigation loses everything he won
signatories to the instrument. For then, he to the fees of his own lawyer.
would be interested in sustaining the validity
thereof as it directly involves himself and the 2. Angeles VS Uy
validity of his own act. It would place him in an Doctrine: The relationship between a
inconsistent position, and the very purpose of lawyer and a client is highly fiduciary; it
the acknowledgment, which is to minimize requires a high degree of fidelity and
fraud, would be thwarted. good faith. It is designed "to remove all
such temptation and to prevent
iii. Pantoja Mumas VS Flores everything of that kind from being done
Doctrine: A notary public should not notarize a for the protection of the client."
document unless the persons who signed the
same are the very same persons who executed b. Canon 16.01
and personally appeared before him to attest to i. Duties and Obligations of a Lawyer
the contents and truth of what are stated 1. Almendrez VS Langit
therein. A notary public is duty-bound to require Doctrine: Respondent received the
the person executing a document to be money in his capacity as counsel for
personally present, to swear before him that he complainant. Therefore, respondent held
is that person and ask the latter if he has the money in trust for complainant.
voluntarily and freely executed the same.
2. Tarog VS Ricafort
c. Disciplinary Sanctions Doctrine: He was all too aware that he
i. Lee VS Tambago was accountable for the moneys
Doctrine: Notaries public must observe with entrusted to him by the clients, and that
utmost care and utmost fidelity the basic his only means of ensuring accountability
requirements in the performance of their duties, was by issuing and keeping receipts.
otherwise, the confidence of the public in the
integrity of notarized deeds will be undermined. The Code of Professional Responsibility
demands the utmost degree of fidelity
V. Lawyer and Money or Properties of a Client and good faith in dealing with the moneys
a. Canon 16 entrusted to lawyers because of their
i. Fiduciary Relationship fiduciary relationship
1. Rivera VS Angeles
3. Bayonla VS Reyes
Ajas, Asistio Balleza, Briones, Lacson, Manuel, Santiago and Valdez 4
 Doctrine: The canons are appropriate
considering that the relationship between e. 16.04
a lawyer and her client is highly fiduciary, i. Prohibitions and Exceptions
and prescribes on a lawyer a great 1. Linsangan VS Tolentino
degree of fidelity and good faith. There is Doctrine: The rule is that a lawyer shall not lend
no question that the money or property money to his client. The only exception is, when
received by a lawyer for her client in the interest of justice, he has to advance
properly belongs to the latter. necessary expenses (such as filing fees,
Conformably with these canons of stenographers fees for transcript of stenographic
professional responsibility, we have held notes, cash bond or premium for surety bond,
that a lawyer is obliged to render an etc.) for a matter that he is handling for the client.
accounting of all the property and money
she has collected for her client. This The rule is intended to safeguard the lawyers
obligation includes the prompt reporting independence of mind so that the free exercise
and accounting of the money collected by of his judgment may not be adversely affected.[
the lawyer by reason of a favorable
judgment to his client. f. Rules of Court Rule 138 Sec 24, 25 and 27
1. Almendarez VS Langit
c. Canon 16.02 Doctrine: Whenever a lawyer is no longer
i. Reason worthy of the trust and confidence of the
1. Tarog VS Ricafort public, this Court has the right and duty to
Doctrine: Rule 16.02 of the Code of withdraw his privilege as officer of the Court
Professional Responsibility, imposes on and member of the Bar.
an attorney the positive obligation to keep
all funds of his client separate and apart 2. Attorney’s Lien Defined
from his own and from those of others 3. Charging Lien Defined
kept by him,
VI. Acquisition of Properties Subject of Litigation
d. 16.03 a. Elements of Prohibition
i. Dalisay VS Mauricio i. Fornilda VS Branch
Doctrine: let it be stressed that the authority of Doctrine: The fact that the properties were first
an attorney begins with his or her retainer.[12] It mortgaged and only subsequently acquired in
gives rise to a relationship between an attorney an auction sale long after the termination of the
and a client that is highly fiduciary in nature and intestate proceedings will not remove it from the
of a very delicate, exacting, and confidential scope of the prohibition.
character, requiring a high degree of fidelity and
good faith.[13] If much is demanded from an ii. Ordonio VS Eduarte
attorney, it is because the entrusted privilege to Doctrine: In causing the execution of the Deed
practice law carries with it the correlative duties of Conveyance during the pendency of the
not only to the client but also to the court, to the appeal of the case involving the said property,
bar, and to the public. he has violated Art. 1491 of the Civil Code
Ajas, Asistio Balleza, Briones, Lacson, Manuel, Santiago and Valdez 5
 which prohibits lawyers from "acquiring by
assignment property and rights which may be
the object of any litigation in which they may
take part by virtue of their profession.

b. Other Instances Where Prohibition is Applicable

i. Mananquil VS Villegas
Doctrine: The claim that the heirs of Filomena
Zerna have acquiesced and consented to the
assailed lease contracts does not militate
against respondent's liability under the rules of
professional ethics.

the Court must reiterate the rule that the claim

of good faith is no defense to a lawyer who has
failed to adhere faithfully to the legal
disqualifications imposed upon him, designed to
protect the interests of his client

c. Where the Prohibition is Inapplicable

i. Guevara Vs Calalang
Doctrine: It was not professional misconduct or
unethical practice for the respondent to acquire
the rights and interests of his client to the 439
square meter parcel of land subject of the
administrative charges because the land was
not involved in the litigation he was handling.

ii. Macariola VS Asuncion

Doctrine: Respondent Judge did not buy the lot
directly but from Dr. Galapon who earlier
purchased the lot from the plaintiff.

iii. Fabillo VS IAC

Doctrine: a contract between a lawyer and his
client stipulating a contingent fee is not covered
by said prohibition under Article 1491 (5) of the
Civil Code because the payment of said fee is
not made during the pendency of the litigation
but only after judgment has been rendered in
the case handled by the lawyer.
Ajas, Asistio Balleza, Briones, Lacson, Manuel, Santiago and Valdez 6