Hilado v. David

In April 1945 Blandina Gamboa Hilado sued Selim Jacob Assad to annul the sale of houses and a lot made during the Japanese occupation by her late husband. The Delgado, Dizon, Flores and Rodrigo firm represented her. In July 1945, after she brought the case papers to Atty. Vicente J. Francisco's office, Francisco sent her a signed letter. The letter gave his opinion that her action would not ordinarily prosper, declined to appear for her, and returned the records. In January 1946 Francisco entered his appearance for the defendant Assad. Hilado's counsel moved to disqualify him. Francisco answered that his assistant, Atty. Agrava, had received the papers and dictated the letter, which Francisco signed without reading. He said only copies of pleadings already filed were involved, and that he had formed his view of the case before Hilado consulted him. Judge Jose Gutierrez David dismissed the motion, finding that no attorney-client relationship had arisen and no information beyond the complaint was conveyed. Hilado sought certiorari.

1. 1Whether an attorney-client relationship arose between Hilado and Atty. Francisco
2. 2Whether Francisco was disqualified from representing the adverse party in the same case, even without proof that confidential information was received
3. 3Whether the delay in objecting or the availability of appeal barred relief

Petition granted; Francisco disqualified. The relationship arose because his firm gave Hilado a written opinion on the merits based on papers she submitted to obtain his professional services. "To constitute professional employment it is not essential that the client should have employed the attorney professionally on any previous occasion," no retainer need be paid, and it is immaterial that the attorney did not afterward take the case. The prohibition on representing opposing interests is implied from the attorney-client privilege (then Rule 123, Sec. 26(e)) and the duty to preserve the client's secrets (then Rule 127, Sec. 19(e)). It applies "regardless of what information was received" from the first client, because requiring proof of confidential disclosures would deter litigants from consulting lawyers. "Hence the necessity of setting down the existence of the bare relationship of attorney and client as the yardstick for testing incompatibility of interests." Lawyers must "avoid the appearance of treachery and double-dealing." The Court did not impugn Francisco's good faith. The letter bound him even if his assistant wrote it, since information given to a firm member is imparted to the firm. The four-month delay was no waiver, and certiorari was proper given the courts' summary jurisdiction over attorneys. Disposition: the motion for disqualification was allowed, without costs.