[go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd
Upload
60 views1 page

Double

Atty. Davis was found guilty of violating the rule against conflicting interests. The complainant had retained the Davis & Sabling law office for an ejectment case, with Atty. Sabling as the assigned lawyer. However, Atty. Davis later appeared as counsel for one of the defendants in the same ejectment case filed by the complainant, creating a conflict of interest. While Atty. Davis argued he never obtained confidential information from the complainant, as the law office represented the complainant he was still prohibited from representing opposing interests without consent. He was suspended from practice for six months.

Uploaded by

Jaimie Lyn Tan
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
60 views1 page

Double

Atty. Davis was found guilty of violating the rule against conflicting interests. The complainant had retained the Davis & Sabling law office for an ejectment case, with Atty. Sabling as the assigned lawyer. However, Atty. Davis later appeared as counsel for one of the defendants in the same ejectment case filed by the complainant, creating a conflict of interest. While Atty. Davis argued he never obtained confidential information from the complainant, as the law office represented the complainant he was still prohibited from representing opposing interests without consent. He was suspended from practice for six months.

Uploaded by

Jaimie Lyn Tan
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

DOUBLE-DEALING

Which is a violation of Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional Conduct which provides
that…. A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by written consent of all
concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts.

What happened in this case is that the complainant asked for the services of Davis &
Sabling Law Office with Atty Davis (the respondent) in this case and Atty. Amos Saganib
Sabling (Atty. Sabling) for an ejectment case through retainer agreement.

Conflict arises when Atty Davis appeared as counsel for Balageo, who was impleaded as
one of the defendants in the ejectment case complainant filed before the MTCC of
Baguio City

So there is conflicting interest already. As to the contention of Atty Davis he maintained


that he never obtained any knowledge or information regarding the business of
complainant who used to consult only Atty. Sabling and that he never took advantage of
the Retainer Agreement between complainant and Davis and Sabling Law Office.

Respondent argues that while complainant is a client of Davis & Sabling Law office, her
case is actually handled only by his partner Atty. Sabling.

Respondent's argument that he never took advantage of any information acquired by his
law firm in the course of its professional dealings with the complainant, even assuming
it to be true, is of no moment.

4 Atty. Riz Tingalon L. Davis is found GUILTY of violating Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility and is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law
for a period of six (6) months effective upon receipt of this Resolution.

You might also like