Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

IMELDA A. NAKPIL v. ATTY. CARLOS J. VALDES

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	AC. NO. 6125 2006-09-19	SIMON D. PAZ v. ATTY. PEPITO A. SANCHEZ CARPIO, J.
The Court notes that respondent did not specifically deny that he represented conflicting interests. Respondent merely offered to justify his actuations by stating that he felt it was his "duty and responsibility' to file the case because he felt responsible for the cancellation of TCT No. 25214 and its subsequent transfer in complainant's name.[18] Respondent stated that he "will forever be bothered by his conscience" if he did not file the case.[19] However, good faith and honest intentions do not excuse the violation of this prohibition.[20] In representing both complainant and Dizon, respondent's duty of undivided fidelity and loyalty to his clients was placed under a cloud of doubt. Respondent should have inhibited himself from representing Dizon against complainant in the DARAB and RTC cases to avoid conflict of interest.
	AC. NO. 6632 2005-08-02	NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY v. ATTY. MACARIO D. ARQUILLO PANGANIBAN, J.
An attorney cannot represent adverse interests. It is a hornbook doctrine grounded on public policy that a lawyer's representation of both sides of an issue is highly improper. The proscription applies when the conflicting interests arise with respect to the same general matter, however slight such conflict may be. It applies even when the attorney acts from honest intentions or in good faith.[12]
	AC. No. 4863 2001-09-07	URBAN BANK v. ATTY. MAGDALENO M. PEÑA PUNO, J.
On October 5, 2000, we received a Manifestation from the complainant, represented this time by Corazon M. Bejasa, praying that the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline and Board of Governors be ordered to make a more thorough determination of whether or not respondent committed the acts of deceit, malpractice and gross misconduct complained of as grounds for the latter's disbarment. We then resolved to treat this manifestation as an appeal. Disbarment proceedings are matters of public interest,[5] undertaken for public welfare and for the purpose of preserving courts of justice from the official ministration of the persons unfit to practice them.[6]