HILADO v DAVID
GR No. L-961 | September 21, 1949
GAYARES
PETITIONER:
Blandina Gamboa Hilado
RESPONDENT:
Jose David, Vicente Francisco, Jacob Assad, and
Selim Assad
DOCTRINE:
A client’s right to have a lawyer be disqualified
due to previous relationship does not prescribe.
FACTS:
 Hilado filed a complaint to have a
number of deeds of sale annulled
against Selim Assad.
 Atty. Dizon represented Hilado, while
Atty. Ohnick represented Assad.
 Atty. Francisco eventually replaced
Atty. Ohnick as counsel for Assad and
entered his appearance in court.
 Four months after, Atty. Dizon filed a
motion to have Atty. Francisco be
disqualified due to the reason that in
June 1945, Hilado approached Atty.
Francisco for legal opinion regarding
her case and for which he sent a legal
opinion letter.
 Atty. Francisco opposed the motion,
asserting that the petitioner relayed no
material information to him; than in
fact, upon hearing Hilado’s statement,
he advised her that her case would not
win in court.
 After their first encounter, Hilado
returned with a copy of the complaint
prepared by Atty. Dizon but Atty.
Francisco was not around.
 In his place, an associate in his firm,
Atty. Agrava attented to Hilado. She
left the legal documents behind and
Atty. Agrava prepared a legal opinion
letter for her, which stated that Hilado
has no cause of action to file suit and
that he had Atty. Francisco sign the
letter. Also, Atty. Francisco did not rea
the letter as Atty. Agrava said that it
was a simply a letter explaining why the
firm cannot take on the case.
 Atty. Francisco added that he was not
paid for his advice and that no
confidential information was relayed
because Hilado only brought a copy of
the complaint, which was already filed
in Court.
 Hilado already waived her right to
disqualify Atty. Francisco because he
was already representing Assad in court
for four months.
ISSUE:
W/N Atty. Francisco should be disqualified in
the civil case between Hilado and Assad due to
reasons presented by the former?
HELD:
YES – An attorney-client relationship existed
between Hilado and Atty. Francisco, which bars
his functions as a counsel against the former
without the necessary consent.
RATIO:
To constitute an attorney-client relationship, it is
not necessary that any retainer should have been
paid, promised, or charged. Neither is it material
that the attorney consulted did not undertake the
case. If a person consults with his attorney in his
professional capacity with the intention of
obtaining advice or assistance, the attorney
voluntarily permits or acquiesces in such
consultation, then the employment must be
regarded as established.
In other words, an attorney is employed when he
is engaged in his professional capacity as a
lawyer and is listening to his client’s preliminary
statement of the case or when he is giving
advice.
It does not matter if Hilado relayed confidential
issue or not. As long as the relationship is
established, the lawyer is barred from taking
representations against his client.
Additionally, even if Atty. Francisco did not
write the legal opinion given to Hilado, he is still
part of the law firm that gave the material to
Hilado. Hence, he is still bound to it.
Lastly, it also does not matter if the issue of their
relationship was only brought up four months
after since the length of time is not a waiver of
Hilado’s right. A client’s right to have a lawyer
be disqualified due to previous relationship does
not prescribe.