Case digest hornilla vs atty salunat

Such being the case, the rule against representing conflicting interests applies.

Despite being told by PPSTA members of the said conflict of interest, respondent refused to withdraw his appearance in the said cases. Where corporate directors have committed a breach of trust either by their frauds, ultra vires acts, or negligence, and the corporation is unable or unwilling to institute suit to remedy the wrong, a stockholder may sue on behalf of himself and other stockholders and for the benefit of the corporation, to bring about a redress of the wrong done directly to the corporation and indirectly to the stockholders.

PPSTAet al. The cases and ethics opinions differ on whether there must be separate representation from the outset or merely from the time the corporation seeks to take an active role. Conflict of Interest, 94 Harv. 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.

By way of Special and Affirmative Defenses, respondent averred that complainant Atty. 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 There is conflict of interest when a lawyer represents inconsistent interests of two or more opposing parties.

Ocampo, SCRA []. Having said that, we find, however, that respondent falls short of the integrity and good moral character required from all lawyers. As we explained in the case of Hilado vs. Indeed, the bar must maintain a high standard of legal proficiency as well as of honesty and fair dealings.

In view of all of the foregoing, we find the respondent guilty of serious misconduct for representing conflicting interests. They are expected to uphold the dignity of the legal profession at all times.

Gonzales, supra note 9; Northwestern University, Inc. The pertinent rule of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides: The corporation should be included as a party in the suit. In brief, if he argues for one client, this argument will be opposed by him when he argues for the other client.

Only thus can litigants be encouraged to entrust their secrets to their attorneys which is of paramount importance in the administration of justice.

Outside counsel must thus be retained to represent one of the defendants. David, supra note 8. Bamba, [28] The proscription against representation of conflicting interests applies to a situation where the opposing parties are present clients in the same action or in an unrelated action.

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. Barrios, 9 SCRA []. As respondent himself narrated in his Position Paper, he likewise acted as their counsel in the criminal cases filed by Gonzales against them.

It is of no moment that the lawyer would not be called upon to contend for one client that which the lawyer has to oppose for the other client, or that there would be no occasion to use the confidential information acquired from one to the disadvantage of the other as the two actions are wholly unrelated.

In the said case, he filed a Manifestation of Extreme Urgency wherein he prayed for the dismissal of the complaint against his clients, the individual Board Members. Barrios, 9 SCRA []. Law and Policy 3rd ed. His representation of opposing clients in both cases, though unrelated, obviously constitutes conflict of interest or, at the least, invites suspicion of double-dealing.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. BENEDICTO HORNILLA and ATTY. FEDERICO D. RICAFORT, complainants vs. killarney10mile.comO S. SALUNAT, respondents A.C. No. July 1, TOPIC: Conflict of Interest.

Top Posts & Pages

Rule A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except bywritten consent of all concerned given after a. 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.”.

of any lawful order of a superior court, or for corruptly or willfully appearing as an attorney for a party to a case without authority to do so. The practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of Documents Similar To Digest Hornilla v Atty Salunat.

Hornilla vs Salunat

Skip carousel. carousel previous carousel next.

examples of remedial law. Benedicto Hornilla and Atty. Federico Ricafort vs. Atty. Ernesto Salunat A.C. No.

July 1, Facts: Benedicto Hornilla is a member of the Philippine Public School Teachers Association (PPSTA).Along with several other complainants, Hornilla filed intra-corporate cases before the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) against PPSTA board members for unlawful spending and the.

Case digest hornilla vs atty salunat
Rated 3/5 based on 19 review