View full case

ADELITA S. VILLAMOR v. ATTY. ELY GALLAND A. JUMAO-AS

FACTS:

Adelita Villamor filed a complaint against Atty. Ely Galland Jumao-as for violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Villamor alleged that Retubado and Atty. Jumao-as persuaded her to organize a lending company, with Retubado handling operations and Atty. Jumao-as handling the legal side. Atty. Jumao-as registered the company with the SEC and drafted legal documents. Villamor was informed that she could borrow from Debbie Yu and Atty. Jumao-as provided her with a loan. However, Villamor did not receive a copy of the promissory note. Later, she discovered that Atty. Jumao-as and Retubado owned a significant number of shares in the company despite their minimal contribution. Atty. Jumao-as also requested Villamor to issue a postdated check in the name of Yu as security and later joined Yu's lending company. Atty. Jumao-as sent a demand letter to Villamor on behalf of Yu, prompting Villamor to file a complaint, claiming that Atty. Jumao-as represented conflicting interests and breached her trust. Atty. Jumao-as denied any lawyer-client relationship with Villamor, stating that his participation was solely for the incorporation of the company. The Investigating Commissioner found Atty. Jumao-as guilty and recommended a one-year suspension, which was increased to two years by the Board of Governors. Atty. Jumao-as sought reconsideration but was denied.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether Atty. Ely Galland A. Jumao-as represented conflicting interests in violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

  2. Whether the lawyer-client relationship between Villamor and Atty. Jumao-as existed despite the absence of any express or written agreement.

RULING:

  1. Atty. Ely Galland A. Jumao-as was found guilty of representing conflicting interests. The Supreme Court adopted the findings of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and approved its recommendation to suspend Atty. Jumao-as from the practice of law for two (2) years.

  2. The Supreme Court ruled that a lawyer-client relationship did exist between Villamor and Atty. Jumao-as. This relationship was inferred from the interactions and legal consultations conducted between Villamor and Atty. Jumao-as during the incorporation and operation of the lending business, despite the absence of any express or written agreement or arrangement on attorney’s fees.

PRINCIPLES:

  1. Conflict of Interest:

    • Canon 15, Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility: A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by written consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts.

    • Criteria for determining conflict of interest: (1) Whether a lawyer's duty to one client requires them to oppose the interests of another client; (2) Whether acceptance of a new relationship would prevent the full discharge of a lawyer's duty of undivided loyalty; (3) Whether a lawyer would use against a former client any confidential information acquired.

  2. Lawyer-Client Relationship:

    • The lawyer-client relationship begins from the moment a client seeks the lawyer's advice upon a legal concern, including consultations on transactions, legal concerns, or representation in cases.

    • This relationship and its associated duties can exist without express or written agreements or arrangements regarding attorney’s fees, inferred from conduct and interactions between the parties.

  3. Disciplinary Actions for Lawyers:

    • Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court provides for disbarment or suspension of attorneys for various forms of misconduct, including representing conflicting interests.

    • Jurisprudence suggests that penalties for representing conflicting interests range from suspension for one to three years.