This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2005-12-13 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by written consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts. A lawyer may not, without being guilty of professional misconduct, act as counsel for a person whose interest conflicts with that of his present[21] or former client.[22] He may not also undertake to discharge conflicting duties any more than he may represent antagonistic interests. This stern rule is founded on the principles of public policy and good taste.[23] It springs from the relation of attorney and client which is one of trust and confidence. | |||||
|
2004-07-30 |
TINGA, J, |
||||
| In administrative proceedings, the complainant or the person who calls the attention of the court to the alleged misconduct is in no sense a party, and has generally no interest in the outcome except as all good citizens may have in the proper management of justice. Hence, if the evidence on record warrants, the respondent may be suspended or disbarred despite the desistance of the complainant or his withdrawal of the charges. [23] | |||||
|
2004-07-30 |
TINGA, J, |
||||
| The prohibition ordained in paragraph 5 of Article 1491 and Article 1492 is founded on public policy because, by virtue of his office, an attorney may easily take advantage of the credulity and ignorance of his client[30] and unduly enrich himself at the expense of his client. | |||||