Lee Vs Simando DIGEST

LEE VS SIMANDO We held in Nombrado v.
Hernandez 25 that
A. C. No. 9537 the termination of the relation of attorney
(June 10, 2013) and client provides no justification for a
lawyer to represent an interest adverse to
FACTS: or in conflict with that of the former client.
The reason for the rule is that the client’s
Atty. Simando was the retained counsel of confidence once reposed cannot be
complainant Dr. Lee from November 2004 divested by the expiration of the
until January 8, 2008, with a monthly professional employment. Consequently,
retainer fee of Three Thousand Pesos a lawyer should not, even after the
(Php3,000.00). severance of the relation with his client,
do anything which will injuriously affect his
Sometime during the above-mentioned former client in any matter in which he
period, Atty. Simando went to see Dr. Lee previously represented him nor should he
and asked if the latter could help a certain disclose or use any of the client's
Felicito M. Mejorado (Mejorado) for his confidences acquired in the previous
needed funds. Because Dr. Lee did not relation.
know Mejorado personally and she
claimed to be not in the business of Accordingly, we reiterate that lawyers are
lending money, the former initially refused enjoined to look at any representation
to lend money. But Atty. Simando situation from "the point of view that there
allegedly persisted and assured her that are possible conflicts," and further, "to
Mejorado will pay his obligation and will think in terms of impaired loyalty" that is to
issue postdated checks and sign evaluate if his representation in any way
promissory notes. He allegedly even will impair loyalty to a client.
offered to be the co-maker of Mejorado
and assured her that Mejorado's ((FOR THE LAWYER AND CLIENT
obligation will be paid when due. RELATIONSHIP RULING))
Due to Atty. Simando’s persistence, Dr.
Lee succumb to his deman. When the
In the instant case, we find substantial
obligation of Mejorado became due,
evidence to support respondent's violation
despite despite Dr. Lee's repeated
of the above parameters, as established
demands, Mejorado failed and refused to
by the following circumstances on record:
comply with his obligation.
Even after several months, Mejorado still First, it is undisputed that there was a
failed to pay Dr. Lee, so she again asked lawyer-client relationship between
Atty. Simando why no payment has been complainant and Atty. Simando as
made yet. Dr. Lee then reminded Atty. evidenced by the retainer fees received
Simando that he was supposed to be the by respondent and the latter's
co-maker of the obligation of Mejorado. representation in certain legal matters
pertaining to complainant's business;
ISSUE:
Second, Atty. Simando admitted that
RULING: Mejorado is another client of him albeit in
a case claiming rewards against the
Bureau of Customs;
The respondent is guilty of violating Rule
21.01 of the Code of Professional Third, Atty. Simando admitted that he was
Responsibility.23 In his last-ditch effort to the one who introduced complainant and
impeach the credibility of complainant, he Mejorado to each other for the purpose of
divulged informations24 which he acquired entering into a financial transaction while
in confidence during the existence of their having knowledge that complainant's
lawyer-client relationship. interests could possibly run in conflict with
Mejorado's interests which ironically such
client's interests, he is duty-bound to
protect;
Fourth, despite the knowledge of the

conflicting interests between his two
clients, respondent consented in the
parties' agreement and even signed as
co-maker to the loan agreement;
Fifth, respondent's knowledge of the

conflicting interests between his two
clients was demonstrated further by his
own actions, when he:
(a) failed to act on Mejorado's failure to

pay his obligation to complainant despite
the latter's instruction to do so;
(b) denied liability despite signing as co-

maker in the receipts/promissory notes
arising from the loan agreement between
his two clients;
(c) rebutted complainant's allegations

against Mejorado and him, and even
divulged informations he acquired while
he was still complainant's lawyer.
Clearly, it is improper for respondent to

appear as counsel for one party
(complainant as creditor) against the
adverse party (Mejorado as debtor) who is
also his client, since a lawyer is prohibited
from representing conflicting interests. He
may not, without being guilty of
professional misconduct, act as counsel
for a person whose interest conflict with
that of his present or former client.

Lee Vs Simando DIGEST

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lee Vs Simando DIGEST

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lee Vs Simando DIGEST

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

LEE VS SIMANDO We held in Nombrado v.

Fourth, despite the knowledge of the

Fifth, respondent's knowledge of the

(a) failed to act on Mejorado's failure to

(b) denied liability despite signing as co-

(c) rebutted complainant's allegations

Clearly, it is improper for respondent to

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.