7/27/2019 BUTED vs HERNANDO.doc

1/2

BUTED vs HERNANDO

Facts: The respondent Atty. Hernando claims that his lawyer-client relationship

towards the complainant spouses was terminated on December 4, 1969. The

common heirs of Abadilla who happen to be the reistered co-owners in the oriinal

certificate of title co!erin "ot #o. 94$9-% see&s cancellation of the Transfer'ertificate of Title issued to the complaint spouses. (ithout the latter)s consent,

respondent Hernando filed a petition on the behalf of the common heirs and e!en

appeared in cadastral proceedins aainst the complaint spouses.

Issue: (hether or not the respondent had a conflict interests under the

aforementioned circumstances.

Discussion of the Court: *!en the respondent denied of ha!in a!ailed himself of

any confidential information relatin to "ot 94$9-%, the fact per se that the

respondent had acted as counsel for %enito %olisay in the action for specific

performance should ha!e prohibited respondent from actin or appearin ascounsel for the other side in the subse+uent petition for cancellation of the T'T of

the spouses enerosa and %enito %olisay.

%esides, the 'anons of rofessional *thics asserts that an attorney owes loyalty to

his client not only in the case which he has represented him but after the relation of

attorney and client terminated and it is not a ood practice to permit him

afterwards to defend in another case other persons aainst his former client under

the pretet that the case is distinct from, and independent of the former case.

Ruling of the Sure!e Court: Atty. Hernando was suspended from his practice

of law for a period of fi!e months that whene!er he will commit the same offense

aain, he will be sub/ected to a more se!ere penalty.

NA"#I$ vs %A$DE&

Facts:0ose #a&pil was then interested in purchasin a summer residence in oran

2treet, %auio 'ity but due to lac& of funds, he as&ed respondent to purchase the

oran property for him. They both areed that the latter would &eep the property in

trust for the #a&pils until they could fully pay it bac&. As reards to their areement,

respondent obtained two loans which cost 63, . and 53, .. He

e!entually used the said amount in purchasin and reno!atin the property. The

title was then issued in respondent)s name. (hen 0ose #a&pil died, his widow and

complainant melda #a&pil was appointed as the administrati of 0ose)s estate.

Durin the proceedins for its settlement, the complainant notice that the oran

property was not included in the in!entory of 0ose)s estate. 7n one hand, the

respondent insists his absolute riht on the said property.

Issue: (hether or not the respondent uses his leal epertise in depri!in his leal

client of the oran property.

7/27/2019 BUTED vs HERNANDO.doc

2/2

Discussion of the Court: f the respondent really belie!ed that he owned the said

property, he should ha!e at least informed complainant of his ad!erse claim so that

/ust in case that both parties won)t aree on its ownership, the respondent should

ha!e formally presented his claim in the intestate proceedins instead of

transferrin the property to his own corporation without any notice i!en to the

complainant and the /ude in the estate proceedins.

The respondent)s defense that he could not be chared because his alleed

8misconduct pertains to his accountin practice was not accepted by the 'ourt

because the rule states that a lawyer must be suspended or disbarred for any

misconduct, e!en if it pertains to his pri!ate acti!ities, as lon as it shows him to be

wantin in moral character, honesty, probity or ood demeanor.

Ruling of the Court:The 'ourt finds Atty. 'arlos 0. :alde; uilty of misconduct. He

is suspended from the practice of law for a period of 1 year and at the e!ent that he

will !iolate similar infraction, he will be dealin more se!ere punishment.

$AO vs 'EDE$

Facts:The respondent has an outstandin obliation of