Scribd
Upload
1K views2 pages

Hornilla Vs Atty Salunat - 63

- This case involves a complaint filed against attorney Ernesto Salunat for illegal and unethical practice and conflict of interest. - The complainants allege that Salunat represented the Philippine Public School Teachers Association (PPSTA) board members in an intra-corporate case filed by PPSTA members against the board, despite his law firm being the retained counsel of PPSTA. - Salunat claimed he represented the board members on behalf of his law firm and that there was no conflict. However, the court found that representing both a corporation and members being sued derivatively creates a conflict of interest, as the lawyer has a duty to the corporation but must oppose its interests when representing the individual members

Uploaded by

Rigel Alas
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
1K views2 pages

Hornilla Vs Atty Salunat - 63

- This case involves a complaint filed against attorney Ernesto Salunat for illegal and unethical practice and conflict of interest. - The complainants allege that Salunat represented the Philippine Public School Teachers Association (PPSTA) board members in an intra-corporate case filed by PPSTA members against the board, despite his law firm being the retained counsel of PPSTA. - Salunat claimed he represented the board members on behalf of his law firm and that there was no conflict. However, the court found that representing both a corporation and members being sued derivatively creates a conflict of interest, as the lawyer has a duty to the corporation but must oppose its interests when representing the individual members

Uploaded by

Rigel Alas
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

CASE NO. 63 BENEDICTO HORNILLA and ATTY. FEDERICO D. RICAFORT, complainants, vs. ATTY. ERNESTO S. SALUNAT, respondent.

Facts: This is an administrative case filed by Benedicto Hornilla and Federico Ricafort against Atty. Ernesto Salunat for illegal and unethical practice and conflict of interest. Complainants alleged that respondent is a member of the ASSA Law and Associates, which was the retained counsel of the Philippine Public School Teachers Association (PPSTA). Complainants, who are members of the PPSTA, filed an intra-corporate case against its members of the Board of Directors before the Securities and Exchange Commission, which was docketed as SEC Case No. 05-97-5657, and a complaint before the Office of the Ombudsman, docketed as OMB Case No. 0-970695, for unlawful spending and the undervalued sale of real property of the PPSTA. Respondent entered his appearance as counsel for the PPSTA Board members in the said cases. Complainants contend that respondent was guilty of conflict of interest because he was engaged by the PPSTA, of which complainants were members, and was being paid out of its corporate funds where complainants have contributed. Despite being told by PPSTA members of the said conflict of interest, respondent refused to withdraw his appearance in the said cases.

In his Answer, respondent stressed that he entered his appearance as counsel for the PPSTA Board Members for and in behalf of the ASSA Law and Associates. Respondent claims that it was complainant Atty. Ricafort who instigated, orchestrated and indiscriminately filed the said cases against members of the PPSTA and its Board. He denied that he ensured the victory of the PPSTA Board in the case he was handling. He merely assured the Board that the truth will come out and that the case before the Ombudsman will be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, considering that respondents therein are not public officials, but private employees. Anent the SEC case, respondent alleged that the same was being handled by the law firm of Atty. Eduardo de Mesa, and not ASSA.
Issue: Whether or not respondent was guilty of violating Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) when he represented the assailed directors of the corporation of which he is a retained counsel. Held: Rule 15.03 of the CPR mandates: A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by written consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts.

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 lawyers 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.

In other jurisdictions, the prevailing rule is that a situation wherein a lawyer represents both the corporation and its assailed directors unavoidably gives rise to a conflict of interest. The interest of the corporate client is paramount and should not be influenced by any interest of the individual corporate officials. The rulings in these cases have persuasive effect upon us. Thus, a lawyer engaged as counsel for a corporation cannot represent members of the same corporations board of directors in a derivative suit brought against them. To do so would be tantamount to representing conflicting interests, which is prohibited by the CPR.
In the given case, the records show that SEC Case No. 05-97-5657 was filed by the PPSTA against its own Board of Directors. Respondent admits that the ASSA Law Firm, of which he is the Managing Partner, was the retained counsel of PPSTA. Yet, he appeared as counsel of record for the respondent Board of Directors in the said case. Accordingly, respondent Atty. Ernesto Salunat is found GUILTY of representing conflicting interests and is admonished to observe a higher degree of fidelity in the practice of his profession.

You might also like