Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Santos Ventura V Atty Richard Funk

    Uploaded by

    moniquehadjirul
    139 views2 pages
    Atty. Funk was accused of violating the Code of Professional Responsibility by representing conflicting interests without consent. He had previously served as legal counsel to Hocorma Foundation from 1983 to 1985. Years later, he filed a complaint against Hocorma Foundation on behalf of Mabalacat Institute. The Supreme Court ruled that Atty. Funk betrayed the trust and confidence of his former client, Hocorma Foundation, as an attorney owes undivided allegiance and is prohibited from representing conflicting interests without client consent, even if the attorney's intentions were good faith. An attorney acquires privileged knowledge about a client that cannot be erased or undisclosed when representing a new client against the former.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    20. Santos Ventura v Atty Richard Funk

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Atty. Funk was accused of violating the Code of Professional Responsibility by representing conflicting interests without consent. He had previously served as legal counsel to Hocorma Foundation from 1983 to 1985. Years later, he filed a complaint against Hocorma Foundation on behalf of Mabalacat Institute. The Supreme Court ruled that Atty. Funk betrayed the trust and confidence of his former client, Hocorma Foundation, as an attorney owes undivided allegiance and is prohibited from representing conflicting interests without client consent, even if the attorney's intentions were good faith. An attorney acquires privileged knowledge about a client that cannot be erased or undisclosed when representing a new client against the former.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    139 views2 pages

    Santos Ventura V Atty Richard Funk

    Uploaded by

    moniquehadjirul
    Atty. Funk was accused of violating the Code of Professional Responsibility by representing conflicting interests without consent. He had previously served as legal counsel to Hocorma Foundation from 1983 to 1985. Years later, he filed a complaint against Hocorma Foundation on behalf of Mabalacat Institute. The Supreme Court ruled that Atty. Funk betrayed the trust and confidence of his former client, Hocorma Foundation, as an attorney owes undivided allegiance and is prohibited from representing conflicting interests without client consent, even if the attorney's intentions were good faith. An attorney acquires privileged knowledge about a client that cannot be erased or undisclosed when representing a new client against the former.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    20.

    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.

    You might also like