84 Phil 569 Legal Ethics Existence of Attorney-Client Relationship

In April 1945, Blandina Hilado filed a complaint to have some deeds of

sale annulled against Selim Assad. Attorney Delgado Dizon
represented Hilado. Assad was represented by a certain Atty. Ohnick.
In January 1946, Atty. Vicente Francisco replaced Atty. Ohnick as
counsel for Assad and he thenafter entered his appearance in court.
In May 1946 or four months later, Atty. Dizon filed a motion to have
Atty. Francisco be disqualified because Atty. Dizon found out that in
June 1945, Hilado approached Atty. Francisco to ask for additional
legal opinion regarding her case and for which Atty. Francisco sent
Hilado a legal opinion letter.
Atty. Francisco opposed the motion for his disqualification. In his
opposition, he said that no material information was relayed to him by
Hilado; that in fact, upon hearing Hilados story, Atty. Francisco
advised her that her case will not win in court; but that later, Hilado
returned with a copy of the Complaint prepared by Atty. Dizon; that
however, when Hilado returned, Atty. Francisco was not around but an
associate in his firm was there (a certain Atty. Federico Agrava); that
Atty. Agrava attended to Hilado; that after Hilado left, leaving behind
the legal documents, Atty. Agrava then prepared a legal opinion letter
where it was stated that Hilado has no cause of action to file suit; that
Atty. Agrava had Atty. Francisco sign the letter; that Atty. Francisco did
not read the letter as Atty. Agrava said that it was merely a letter
explaining why the firm cannot take on Hilados case.
Atty. Francisco also pointed out that he was not paid for his advice;
that no confidential information was relayed because all Hilado

brought was a copy of the Complaint which was already filed in court;
and that, if any, Hilado already waived her right to disqualify Atty.
Francisco because he was already representing Assad in court for
four months in the said case.
Judge Jose Gutierrez David ruled in favor of Atty. Francisco.
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Francisco should be disqualified in the
said civil case.
HELD: Yes. There already existed an attorney-client relationship
between Hilado and Atty. Francisco. Hence, Atty. Francisco cannot act
as counsel against Hilado without the latters consent.
As ruled by the Supreme Court, to constitute an attorney-client
relationship, it is not necessary that any retainer should have been
paid, promised, or charged for; neither is it material that the attorney
consulted did not afterward undertake the case about which the
consultation was had. If a person, in respect to his business affairs or
troubles of any kind, consults with his attorney in his professional
capacity with the view to obtaining professional advice or assistance,
and the attorney voluntarily permits or acquiesces in such
consultation, then the professional employment must be regarded as
established.
Further:
An attorney is employed-that is, he is engaged in his professional
capacity as a lawyer or counselor-when he is listening to his clients
preliminary statement of his case, or when he is giving advice thereon,
just as truly as when he is drawing his clients pleadings, or advocating

his clients cause in open court.

Anent the issue of what information was relayed by Hilado to Atty.
Francisco: It does not matter if the information relayed is confidential
or not. So long as the attorney-client relationship is established, the
lawyer is proscribed from taking other representations against the
client.
Anent the issue that the legal opinion was not actually written by Atty.
Francisco but was only signed by him: It still binds him because Atty.
Agrava, assuming that he was the real author, was part of the same
law firm. An information obtained from a client by a member or
assistant of a law firm is information imparted to the firm, his
associates or his employers.
Anent the issue of the fact that it took Hilado four months from the time
Atty. Francisco filed his entry of appearance to file a disqualification: It
does not matter. The length of time is not a waiver of her right. The
right of a client to have a lawyer be disqualified, based on previous
atty-client relationship, as counsel against her does not prescribe.
Professional confidence once reposed can never be divested by
expiration of professional employment.