The interest of the corporate client is paramount and should not be influenced by any interest of the individual corporate officials. Its members have been characterized as trustees or directors clothed with a fiduciary character.
Any posts, comments, and opinions posted herein by the author is in no way and should never be construed as attributable to the Public Attorney's Office. Despite being told by PPSTA members of the said conflict of interest, respondent refused to withdraw his appearance in the said cases.
Thus, movants and complainants will be adducing the same sets of evidence and witnesses. After investigation, Commissioner Lydia A.
Instead, we resolve to admonish respondent to observe a higher degree of fidelity in the practice of his profession. It was established that in Aprilrespondent was approached by complainant regarding the dishonored checks issued by Manila City Councilor Koa.
The representation of opposing clients in said cases, though unrelated, constitutes conflict of interests or, at the very least, invites suspicion of double-dealing which this Court cannot allow.
Harvard Law Review, Developments in the Law: Yet, he appeared as counsel of record for the respondent Board of Directors in the said case. However, instead of proceeding with the hearing, the commissioner ordered both parties to submit their respective memoranda. Conflict of Interest, 94 Harv.
Furthermore, this restriction on dual representation should not be waivable by consent in the usual way; the corporation should be presumptively incapable of giving valid consent.
In his Comment,   respondent denied the allegations against him. Salunat   is instructive on this concept, thus: Considering however, that this is his first offense, we find the penalty of suspension, recommended in IBP Resolution No.
Koa demanding payment of the checks. This site is only meant as a resource to aid students and researchers on their legal studies. While the respondent may assert that the complainant expressly consented to his continued representation in the ejectment case, the respondent failed to show that he fully disclosed the facts to both his clients and he failed to present any written consent of the complainant and AIB as required under Rule The pertinent rule of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides: Koa for estafa and violation of Batas Pambansa Blg.
By way of Special and Affirmative Defenses, respondent averred that complainant Atty. The issue in this case is whether the respondent is guilty of misconduct for representing conflicting interests in contravention of the basic tenets of the legal profession.
Thus, he prayed that the complaint against him be dismissed and, instead, complainant Ricafort be disciplined or disbarred. It is noted that on the scheduled hearing, only the complainant appeared. Hence, it is concluded that he waived not only his right to file said memorandum but also the right to a hearing.
hornilla vs salunat READ CASE DIGEST HERE. Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila FIRST DIVISION A.C. No. July 1, BENEDICTO HORNILLA and ATTY. Uber Digests | HORNILLA vs SALUNAT.
vs. ATTY. ERNESTO S. SALUNAT, Despite being told by PPSTA members of the said conflict of interest, respondent refused to withdraw his appearance in the said cases.
Moreover. hornilla vs salunat READ CASE DIGEST HERE. Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila FIRST DIVISION A.C. No. July 1, BENEDICTO HORNILLA and ATTY.
Sep 30, · In the case of LETICIA GONZALES vs. ATTY.
MARCELINO CABUCANA, A.C. No.January 23,Rule 03 was intended “ to avoid the appearance of treachery 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.”.
On November 21,Benedicto Hornilla and Federico D.
Ricafort filed an administrative complaint1 with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Commission on Bar Discipline, against respondent Atty. Ernesto S. Salunat for illegal and unethical practice and conflict of interest.
FACTS: This administrative case is filed by Benedicto Hornilla and Federico Ricafort against degisiktatlar.como Salunat for illegal and unethical practice and conflict of interest.
Complainants alleged that respondent is a member of the ASSA Law and Associates, which was the retained counsel of the Philippine Public School Teachers Association (PPSTA).Case digest hornilla vs atty salunat