Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Santos Ventura V Atty Richard Funk
Santos Ventura V Atty Richard Funk
Santos Ventura v Atty Richard Funk name of Mabalacat Institute so a new title could be issued to it, separate
A.C. No. 9094 from the properties of Hocorma Foundation.
August 15, 2012 When Santos issued the SPA, Atty. Funk was Mabalacat Institute's
By: HAPPY director and counsel. He was not yet Hocorma Foundation's counsel.
Topic: Obligations of the agent When Santos executed the deeds of conveyances, Atty. Funk's clients
Petitioners: Santos Ventura Hocorma Foundation, Inc, represented by Gabriel H. were only Santos and Mabalacat Institute.
Abad After Santos died, Atty. Funk was elected President of Mabalacat
Respondents: Atty. Richard V. Funk Institute, a position he had since held.
Ponente: Abad, J. Atty. Funk claims that when Hocorma Foundation refused to pay his
DOCTRINE: An attorney owes his client undivided allegiance. attorney's fees, he severed his professional relationship with it. He filed a
complaint against the foundation for collection of his attorney's fees. The
FACTS: trial court, the Court of Appeals (CA), and the Supreme Court decided the
Complainant Hocorma Foundation filed a complaint for disbarment claim in his favor.
against respondent Atty. Richard Funk. Alleged that: CBD found Atty. Funk guilty of violation of Canon 15, Rule 15.03 of the
o Atty. Funk used to work as corporate secretary, counsel, chief CPR.
executive officer, and trustee of the foundation from 1983 to
ISSUE:
1985.
o He also served as its counsel in several criminal and civil cases. W/N Atty. Funk betrayed the trust and confidence of a former client
when he filed several actions against such client on behalf of a new one.
o Atty. Funk filed an action for quieting of title and damages
against Hocorma Foundation on behalf of Mabalacat Institute.
RULING:
o Atty. Funk did so using information that he acquired while
YES. Canon 15, Rule 15.03 of the CPR provides that a lawyer cannot
serving as its counsel in violation of the Code of Professional
represent conflicting interests except by written consent of all concerned
Responsibility and in breach of attorney-client relationship.
given after a full disclosure of the facts. Here, it is undeniable that Atty.
Atty. Funk averred that Don Teodoro V. Santos organized Mabalacat
Funk was formerly the legal counsel of Hocorma Foundation. Years after
Institute in 1950 and Hocorma Foundation in 1979.
terminating his relationship with the foundation, he filed a complaint
Santos hired him to assist Santos and the organizations he established,
against it on behalf of another client, the Mabalacat Institute, without the
including the Mabalacat Institute, in its legal problems.
foundation's written consent.
The Mabalacat Institute made Atty. Funk serve as a director and legal
An attorney owes his client undivided allegiance. Because of the highly
counsel.
fiduciary nature of their relationship, sound public policy dictates that he
When Santos got involved in various litigations, he sold or donated
be prohibited from representing conflicting interests or discharging
substantial portions of his real and personal properties to the Hocorma
inconsistent duties. An attorney may not, without being guilty of
Foundation.
professional misconduct, act as counsel for a person whose interest
Santos hired Atty. Funk for this purpose. The latter emphasized that, in all conflicts with that of his present or former client. This rule is so absolute
these, the attorney-client relationship was always between Santos and that good faith and honest intention on the erring lawyer's part does not
him. He was more of Santos' personal lawyer than the lawyer of Hocorma make it inoperative.
Foundation.
Atty. Funk also claimed that Santos executed a SPA in his favor. The reason for this is that a lawyer acquires knowledge of his former
o The SPA authorized him to advise Hocorma Foundation and client's doings, whether documented or not, that he would ordinarily not
follow up with it Santos' sale or donation of a 5-hectare land in have acquired were it not for the trust and confidence that his client
Pampanga to Mabalacat Institute. placed on him in the light of their relationship. It would simply be
The SPA also authorized Atty. Funk to register the 5-hectare land in the impossible for the lawyer to identify and erase such entrusted knowledge
with faultless precision or lock the same into an iron box when suing the
former client on behalf of a new one.