Hilado vs Judge David 84 Phil 569
Subject: Basic Legal Ethics
FACTS
A lawsuit filed by Blandina
Hilado against Selim Assad. In June 1945, Hilado consulted with Attorney
Vicente Francisco about her case. Francisco gave Hilado some legal advice and
even prepared a legal opinion letter for her. However, Francisco did not accept
Hilado's case because he was already representing Assad in another case.
In January 1946, Assad filed a
motion to disqualify Francisco from representing Hilado in the case. Assad
argued that Francisco's previous legal advice to Hilado created an attorney-client
relationship between them. This meant that Francisco was now disqualified from
representing Assad in the case because he had a conflict of interest.
The trial court granted
Assad's motion and disqualified Francisco from representing Hilado. Hence this
appeal.
ISSUE
Whether or not Atty Francisco
and Hilado have formed an attorney-client relationship although the former
refused the latter’s employment.
RULING
Yes.
Under the law, an attorney who
has previously given legal advice to a party in a case is disqualified from
acting as counsel for the opposing party in the same case.
In this case, Hilado having
conferred information to Atty Francisco with regard to her case and given his
legal advice although the latter did not accept has in effect created an
attorney-client relationship. This in turn bars Atty. Francisco from
representing Assad for conflict of interest. Thus, an attorney who has
previously given legal advice to a party in a case is disqualified from acting
as counsel for the opposing party in the same case.
No comments:
Post a Comment