Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 58 views

    FABI - Frias Vs Bautista-Lozada

    Uploaded by

    11 : 28
    Respondent acted as counsel for both the complainant and the buyer in the sale of the complainant's property. She introduced her two clients to each other for the sale, acted as the broker, and took a large commission from the cash payment without consent. She also borrowed money from the complainant client. The Court ruled the respondent was guilty of dishonesty and malpractice for representing conflicting interests without consent and for borrowing from a client, in violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    FABI - Frias Vs Bautista-Lozada

    Uploaded by

    11 : 28
    58 views4 pages
    Respondent acted as counsel for both the complainant and the buyer in the sale of the complainant's property. She introduced her two clients to each other for the sale, acted as the broker, and took a large commission from the cash payment without consent. She also borrowed money from the complainant client. The Court ruled the respondent was guilty of dishonesty and malpractice for representing conflicting interests without consent and for borrowing from a client, in violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

    Original Title

    FABI_Frias vs Bautista-Lozada

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Respondent acted as counsel for both the complainant and the buyer in the sale of the complainant's property. She introduced her two clients to each other for the sale, acted as the broker, and took a large commission from the cash payment without consent. She also borrowed money from the complainant client. The Court ruled the respondent was guilty of dishonesty and malpractice for representing conflicting interests without consent and for borrowing from a client, in violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    58 views4 pages

    FABI - Frias Vs Bautista-Lozada

    Uploaded by

    11 : 28
    Respondent acted as counsel for both the complainant and the buyer in the sale of the complainant's property. She introduced her two clients to each other for the sale, acted as the broker, and took a large commission from the cash payment without consent. She also borrowed money from the complainant client. The Court ruled the respondent was guilty of dishonesty and malpractice for representing conflicting interests without consent and for borrowing from a client, in violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 4

    FRIAS vs. ATTY.

    BAUTISTA-LOZADA

    A.C. No. 6656, December 13, 2005

    Facts:

    Complainant Bobie Rose Frias alleged that respondent became her retained

    counsel and legal adviser in the early part of 1990. She entrusted to respondent

    documents and titles of properties in November of that year. Sometime in December

    1990, respondent persuaded complainant to sell her house located at 589 Batangas

    East, Ayala Alabang Village, Muntinlupa City. Respondent allegedly acted as broker as

    she was in need of money.

    On December 7, 1990 respondent hastily arranged a meeting with her and a

    prospective buyer, Dra. Flora San Diego, in Valenzuela, Manila. She was allegedly

    made to sign a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) without her having read it because

    "they had to reach the bank before it closed at 3:00 p.m." When they arrived at the

    Security Bank branch in Valenzuela, San Diego handed respondent P2M in cash and

    P1M in check, instead of P3M in cash as the down payment indicated in the MOA. Out

    of the P2M in cash, respondent took P1M as her commission without complainant's

    consent. When the complainant protested, respondent promised to sign a promissory

    note later. The P1M check was later on dishonored by the bank because it was a stale

    check. San Diego eventually backed out from the sale. However, she converted the

    aborted sale into a mortgage loan at 36% p.a. interest, as provided for in the MOA.

    Since the transaction between her and San Diego did not materialize, complainant

    allegedly tried to recover from respondent the title to the property and other

    documents. Respondent, however, started avoiding her. She recovered the documents
    placed inside an envelope only on May 6, 1991. On the same day, however, the

    envelope was allegedly stolen from her Pajero.

    ISSUE:

    Whether or not the respondent is guilty of dishonesty and malpractice.

    RULING:

    YES. Canon 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides, a lawyer

    shall not represent conflicting interests except by written consent of all concerned

    given after a full disclosure of the facts. A lawyer may not, without being guilty of

    professional misconduct, act as counsel for a person whose interest conflicts with that

    of his present or former client. He may not also undertake to discharge conflicting

    duties any more than he may represent antagonistic interests. This stern rule is

    founded on the principles of public policy and good taste. It springs from the relation

    of attorney and client which is one of trust and confidence. The test of conflict of

    interest is whether the acceptance of a new relation will prevent an attorney from the

    full discharge of his duty of undivided fidelity and loyalty to his client or invite

    suspicion of unfaithfulness or double-dealing in its performance. The conflict exists if

    the acceptance of the new retainer will require the attorney to perform an act which

    will injuriously affect his first client in any matter in which he represented him and

    also whether he will be called upon in his new relation to use against the first client

    any knowledge acquired through their connection.

    In this case, respondent not only admitted that she represented both complainant

    and San Diego in unrelated actions but also counseled both of them in the sale of the

    Alabang property. As their lawyer, she was duty-bound to protect both of their
    interests. She should have therefore refrained from jumbling their affairs. Yet she

    introduced the complainant to another client of hers as a buyer of the property. She

    even had the temerity to broker the transaction. At that early stage, she should have

    realized that her role as their lawyer had been seriously compromised. Since buyer and

    seller had evident antagonistic interests, she could not give both of them sound legal

    advice. On top of this, respondent's obvious tendency then was to help the

    complainant get a high selling price since the amount of her commission was

    dependent on it.

    Likewise, her act of borrowing money from a client was a violation of Canon

    16.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility: A lawyer shall not borrow money

    from his client unless the client's interests are fully protected by the nature of the case

    and by independent advice. A lawyer's act of asking a client for a loan, as what

    respondent did, is very unethical. It comes within those acts considered as abuse of

    client's confidence. The canon presumes that the client is disadvantaged by the

    lawyer's ability to use all the legal maneuverings to renege on her obligation.

    Finally, respondent should be reminded that a lawyer should, at all times, comply

    with what the court lawfully requires. Here, respondent continues to disregard the

    final order of the Court of Appeals finding her liable for the P900,000 she received

    from complainant. We see no justification for her continued delay in complying with

    an order that has long become final. Respondent adamantly insists that she and

    complainant should simultaneously settle their obligations. As a lawyer, she should

    have known that her obligation to the complainant was independent of and separate

    from the complainant's obligation to the buyer. Her refusal to comply with the
    appellate court's order is, therefore, a willful disobedience to its lawful orders and

    must not be left unpunished.

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

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

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy