PALM V. ATTY. ILEDAN, JR.

(A.C. No. 8242, October 2, 2009)

I agree with the ruling of the Supreme Court in stating that there was no Lawyer-Client
relationship between Atty. Iledan and Mr. Harrison. It was clear from the beginning that Atty.
Iledan attended the stockholders meeting of COMTECH as a proxy of Mr. Harrison and nothing
more.
While the complainant contends that Atty. Iledan used the information gained in the said meeting
to gain the upper hand in representing his client Soledad in the estafa case file against the latter,
the information in the stockholders meeting especially the proposed amendments to the by-laws
are recorded in documents which are open to the public. Therefore information divulged in the
said meeting is considered to be not confidential in nature, and does not impose upon the layer
the need to preserve the said information in confidence.
Lastly, I concur with the Court in stating that the mere relationship between the lawyer and the
client does not raise the presumption of confidentiality. In order that Canon 21 may be applied
there must be an intent by the client to keep the communication confidential. As such,
complainants communication during the stockholders meeting whereby, majority of the
stockholder must vote and a copy of which shall be given to the Securities and Exchange
Commission, can never be considered confidential. Thus, no violation of Canon 21 or violation
of the Lawyer and Client relationship with respect to the confidentiality of information is present
in this case.

Rick San L. Jito

Case Analysis:
Canon 20
Masmud vs NLRC
(G.R. No. 183385, February 13, 2009)

I concur with the Supreme Courts decision that Atty. Gos claim for his fees
in the case he represented with Masmud is valid and reasonable. It should be
given merit that Atty. Gos compensation is considered to be a contingent
fee.
Contingent fee is dependent upon whether the case represented by a lawyer
would prosper or not. As such, the lawyer takes all the risk in representing
his client in the said case with the possibility of not getting anything despite
the effort exerted in the latters part. Thus, it customarily accepted that a
lawyer may receive a much higher compensation because of the said risk.
The court was right in stating that It would be ironic if after putting forth the best in him to
secure justice for his client, he himself would not get his due. It would be truly unjust for a
lawyer to use all his effort, learnings, time, and energy if he does not receive adequate
compensation for his effort. The Court stated it well that their duty is not alone to ensure that a
lawyer acts in a proper and lawful manner, but also to see that a lawyer is paid his just fees.
Thus Atty. Go should be paid his fees reasonably and adequately with respect to his
representation of his clients case.