Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 616 views

    Castro-Justo V Galing

    Uploaded by

    Gillian Calpito
    Respondent Atty. Galing drafted a demand letter on behalf of complainant Justo regarding dishonored checks from Manila City Councilor Arlene Koa after being paid a professional fee. However, Atty. Galing later appeared as counsel for Koa in a criminal case filed by Justo against Koa. Justo alleged this represented conflicting interests and violated legal ethics rules. The Court held that a lawyer-client relationship was established between Justo and Atty. Galing, and that representing opposing parties in the same matter violated the prohibition on conflicting interests without obtaining proper consent from all parties. Atty. Galing was found guilty of violating the Code of Professional Responsibility.

    Copyright:

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

    Castro-Justo V Galing

    Uploaded by

    Gillian Calpito
    616 views2 pages
    Respondent Atty. Galing drafted a demand letter on behalf of complainant Justo regarding dishonored checks from Manila City Councilor Arlene Koa after being paid a professional fee. However, Atty. Galing later appeared as counsel for Koa in a criminal case filed by Justo against Koa. Justo alleged this represented conflicting interests and violated legal ethics rules. The Court held that a lawyer-client relationship was established between Justo and Atty. Galing, and that representing opposing parties in the same matter violated the prohibition on conflicting interests without obtaining proper consent from all parties. Atty. Galing was found guilty of violating the Code of Professional Responsibility.

    Original Description:

    sdfsdff

    Original Title

    Castro-Justo v Galing

    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 Atty. Galing drafted a demand letter on behalf of complainant Justo regarding dishonored checks from Manila City Councilor Arlene Koa after being paid a professional fee. However, Atty. Galing later appeared as counsel for Koa in a criminal case filed by Justo against Koa. Justo alleged this represented conflicting interests and violated legal ethics rules. The Court held that a lawyer-client relationship was established between Justo and Atty. Galing, and that representing opposing parties in the same matter violated the prohibition on conflicting interests without obtaining proper consent from all parties. Atty. Galing was found guilty of violating 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
    616 views2 pages

    Castro-Justo V Galing

    Uploaded by

    Gillian Calpito
    Respondent Atty. Galing drafted a demand letter on behalf of complainant Justo regarding dishonored checks from Manila City Councilor Arlene Koa after being paid a professional fee. However, Atty. Galing later appeared as counsel for Koa in a criminal case filed by Justo against Koa. Justo alleged this represented conflicting interests and violated legal ethics rules. The Court held that a lawyer-client relationship was established between Justo and Atty. Galing, and that representing opposing parties in the same matter violated the prohibition on conflicting interests without obtaining proper consent from all parties. Atty. Galing was found guilty of violating 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 2

    Castro-Justo v Galing

    FACTS:
    Complainant Justo alleged that she engaged the services of
    respondent Atty. Galing in connection with dishonored checks issued by
    Manila City Councilor Arlene W. Koa. After she paid his professional fees,
    the respondent drafted and sent a letter to Ms. Koa demanding payment
    of the checks. On July 10, 2003, complainant filed a criminal complaint
    against Ms. Koa for estafa and violation of BP 22 before the Office of the
    City Prosecutor of Manila. On August 8, 2003, respondent appeared as
    counsel for Ms. Koa before the prosecutor of Manila.

    Complainant submits that by representing conflicting interests,


    respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibility. Respondent
    denied the allegations against him. He admitted that he drafted a
    demand letter for complainant but argued that it was made only in
    deference to their long standing friendship and not by reason of a
    professional engagement as professed by complainant. He denied
    receiving any professional fee for the services he rendered. It was
    allegedly their understanding that complainant would have to retain the
    services of another lawyer.

    ISSUE:
    Whether or not respondent is guilty of violating Canon 15, Rule 15.03
    of the Code of Professional Responsibility by representing conflicting
    interests

    HELD:
    Yes. A lawyer-client relationship can exist notwithstanding the close
    friendship between complainant and respondent. The relationship was
    established the moment complainant sought legal advice from
    respondent regarding the dishonored checks. By drafting the demand
    letter respondent further affirmed such relationship. The non-payment of
    professional fee will not exculpate respondent from liability. Absence of
    monetary consideration does not exempt lawyers from complying with
    the prohibition against pursuing cases with conflicting interests. The
    prohibition attaches from the moment the attorney-client relationship is
    established and extends beyond the duration of the professional
    relationship.

    Under Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of the Code of Professional


    Responsibility, " a lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by
    written consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts."
    Respondent was therefore bound to refrain from representing parties with
    conflicting interests in a controversy. By doing so, without showing any
    proof that he had obtained the written consent of the conflicting parties,
    respondent should be sanctioned.

    There is conflict of interest when a lawyer represents inconsistent


    interests of two or more opposing parties. The test is ‘whether or not in
    behalf of one client, it is the lawyer’s duty to fight for an issue or claim, but
    it is his duty to oppose it for the other client. In brief, if he argues for one
    client, this argument will be opposed by him when he argues for the other
    client.’ Also, there is conflict of interests 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 represents him and also
    whether he will be called upon in his new relation to use against his first
    client any knowledge acquired through their connection. Another test of
    the inconsistency of interests 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 the performance thereof.

    You might also like