HR Week 9
HR Week 9
HR Week 9
CANON 15
ISSUE:
Whether or not a lawyer engaged by a corporation defend members of the board of
the same corporation in a derivative suit?
HELD/ RATIO:
● The prevailing rule is that a situation wherein a lawyer represents both the
corporation and its assailed directors unavoidably gives rise to a conflict of
interest.
● The interest of the corporate client is paramount and should not be influenced
by any interest of the individual corporate officials.
● A lawyer engaged as counsel for a corporation cannot represent members of
the same corporation’s board of directors in a derivative suit brought against
them. T
● his would tantamount to representing conflicting interest which is prohibited by
the Code of Professional Responsibility
● in the case, the records show that the SEC case 9 Philippine Public School
Teacher Association, Inc. vs. Board of Directors of PPSTA was filed by PPSTA
against its own board of directors.
● Atty. Salunat admits that the ASSA Law firm were he is a managing partner
was retained as counsel of PPTSA yet he appeared as counsel of record for
the respondent Board of Directors.
● Clearly Atty. Salunat was guilty of conflict of interest when he represented the
parties against whom his other client, the PPSTA filed a suit.
● Despite Atty. Salunat’s argument that he only represented the Board of
Directors in the OMB case and he merely filed a Manifestation of Extreme
Urgency wherein he prayed for the dismissal of the complaint against his
clients, the individual Board Members.
● Through filing a pleading, he necessarily entered his appearance in the case
which constituted conflict of interest considering that the complaint in the
Office of the Ombudsman, even though in the name of the individual members
of PPTS, was brought in benhalf of and to protect the interest of the
corporation.
LIMJOCO, JUSTINELLI
MARIE TAMAYO
ISSUE
Whether or Not there is a violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility for conflict of interest
HELD
Yes, the rule is that the lawyer is barred from representing conflicting interests except by written
consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts. Even the fact of appearing to be
treacherous and double-dealing is discouraged because people are expected to entrust their secrets
to their lawyers. Acceptance of a new relation would prevent the full discharge of the lawyer’s duty of
undivided fidelity and loyalty to the client or invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or double-dealing in the
performance of that duty.
Although the firm was the one who represented the civil case the person is still in representation of the
firm. It at the least invite suspicion of double-dealing.
It is however mitigated by the fact that the case was done in good faith and with no malice as
supported by the findings of IBP Commissioner Reyes and Gonzales move of withdrawing the case.
VERSOZA, REG
ISSUE:
● Whether or not lawyer-client confidentiality applies in this case
HELD/RATIO
● Yes
● Lawyer-client relationship is based on contract of lease services & contract of
agency; but it is more than relationship of principal-agent and lessor-lessee. A
lawyer possesses special powers of trust given by the client. He also occupies
quasi-judicial office since he is an officer of the court.
● Canon 17 of CPR says that a lawyer owes fidelity to cause of his client.
Canon 15 of the Canons of Professional Ethics also speaks of the devotion of
a lawyer to the interest of his client.
● The rights to counsel of an accused is also involved in this issue. If client were
made to choose between legal representation w/o effective communication and
disclosure and legal representation w/ all his secrets revealed then he might be
compelled to stay away from judicial system or lose right to counsel.
● GENERAL RULE:
○ Court has right to know that client whose privileged info is sought to
be protected is flesh and blood.
○ Privilege exists only after attorney-client relationship has been
established. It does not attach until there is a client.
○ Privilege generally pertains to subject matter of the relationship.
○ Due process requires that the opposing party should, as a general
rule, know his adversary.
● EXCEPTIONS
○ Client identity is privileged where a strong probability exists that
revealing client’s name would implicate that client in the very activity
for w/c he sought the lawyer’s advice.
○ It is also privileged where disclosure would open the client to civil
liability.
○ It is also privileged when government’s lawyers have no case against
an attorney’s client unless, by revealing the client’s name, the said
name would furnish the only link that would be necessary to convict
an individual of a crime.
● The instant case FALLS UNDER AT LEAST 2 EXCEPTIONS.
● First, disclosure would lead to establish the client’s connection w/ the very fact
in issue. Also, the link between the offense and the legal advice/service was
duly established by no less than the PCGG itself. The petitioners have a
legitimate fear that identifying their clients would implicate them. The revelation
of the name would provide the link for prosecution to build its case, where none
otherwise exists.
● It is different when the client consults attorney for illicit purposes, seeking
advice on how to around the law. In this case, a client thinks he might have
previously committed something illegal and consults his attorney about it.
● The Court is trying to avoid fishing expedition by the prosecution. After all,
there are alternative sources of information available to prosecutor w/c does
not depend on utilizing a defendant’s counsel as convenient and readily
available sources.
● The Lawyer-client confidentiality and loyalty exists not only during
relationship but even after termination of the relationship.
HELD
1. NO
Ratio If a client seeks his lawyers’ advice with respect to a crime he
committed, it is given the virtual confessional seal. This does not apply
to a crime which a client intends to commit.
Reasoning A distinction must be made between confidential
communications relating to past crimes already crimes and future
crimes intended to be committed.
- The period is the date when the privileged communication was made
by the client to the attorney.
- Paredes was planning to commit the crime of falsification.
- But for the application of the attorney-client privilege, however, the
period to be considered is the date when the privileged communication
was made by the client to the attorney in relation to either a crime
committed in the past or with respect to a crime intended to be
committed in the future.
- The testimony sought to be elicited from Sansaet as state witness are
the communications made to him by physical acts and/or
accompanying words of Parades at the time he and Honrada, either
with the active or passive participation of Sansaet, were about to falsify,
or in the process of falsifying, the documents which were later filed in
the Tanodbayan by Sansaet and culminated in the criminal charges
now pending in respondent Sandiganbayan
- Sansaet himself was a conspirator and it is settled that for the atty-
client privilege to apply in communication, it must be for a lawful
purpose. The existence of an unlawful purpose prevents the
attachment of the privilege.
2. YES
Ratio Despite his involvement in the crime, Sansaet fulfills all the
requirements needed for his discharge as state witness.
Reasoning Sansaet was a conspirator in the crime of falsification and
in a conspiracy the act of one is the act of all. One of the requirements
for state witness is that he does not appear to be the most guilty (not
that he is the least guilty as to what has been erroneously interpreted in
some instances).
- It is the identity of the mens rea which is considered the predominant
consideration and warrants an imposition of the same penalty.
- In the case of People v Ocemar: “And by ‘most guilty’ we mean the
highest degree of culpability in terms of participation in the commission
of the offense and not necessarily the severity of the penalty imposed.
While all the accused may be given the same penalty by reason of
conspiracy, yet one may be considered least guilty if We take into
account his degree of participation in the perpetration of the offense.
- The other requisites for the discharge of Sansaet as state witness are
present.
- Sansaet is the only cooperative witness to the actual commission
of the crime of falsification.
- There is absolute necessity for Sansaet’s testimony because the
prosecution has no direct evidence available.
- He does not appear to be the most guilty.
- His testimony can be corroborated by reputable witnesses.
- Sansaet has not been convicted of any crime involving moral
turpitude.
ISSUE:
HELD:
RATIO:
OREIRO, ZAFARIAH
PASOMANERO, RAY
PAOLO LAZARO