Scribd
Upload
64 views2 pages

de Guzman v. de Dios

Oblicon

Uploaded by

Jonel L. Sembrana
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
64 views2 pages

de Guzman v. de Dios

Oblicon

Uploaded by

Jonel L. Sembrana
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/ 2

Administrative Case No.

4943       January 26, 2001


DIANA D. DE GUZMAN, complainant,
vs.
ATTY. LOURDES I. DE DIOS, respondent.
PARDO, J.:

FACTS:
In 1995, complainant engaged the services of respondent as counsel in order to form a
corporation, which would engage in hotel and restaurant business in Olongapo City.
On January 10, 1996, with the assistance of Atty. De Dios, complainant registered Suzuki
Beach Hotel, Inc. (SBHI) with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Complainant paid
respondent a monthly retainer fee of P 5,000.00.
On December 15, 1997, the corporation required complainant to pay her unpaid
subscribed shares of stock amounting to two million two hundred and thirty five thousand pesos
(P2,235,000.00) or 22,350 shares, on or before December 30, 1997. On January 29, 1998,
complainant received notice of the public auction sale of her delinquent shares and a copy of a
board resolution dated January 6, 1998 authorizing such sale.
Complainant soon learned that her shares had been acquired by Ramon del Rosario, one
of the incorporators of SBHI. The sale ousted complainant from the corporation completely.
While respondent rose to be president of the corporation, complainant lost all her life's savings
invested therein.
Complainant alleged that she relied on the advice of Atty. de Dios and believed that as
the majority stockholder, Atty. de Dios would help her with the management of the corporation.
To save the corporation from bankruptcy, respondent advised all concerned stockholders
that it was proper to call for the payment of unpaid subscriptions and subsequent sale of the
delinquent shares. These led to the auction of the unpaid shares of complainant and hence, the
ouster of complainant from the corporation.
On October 22, 1999, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines issued a resolution finding
that the acts of respondent were not motivated by ill will as she acted in the best interest of her
client, SBHI. The IBP found that complainant failed to present convincing proof of her attorney-
client relationship with respondent other than the pleadings respondent filed in the trial court
where complainant was one of the parties.

ISSUE: Whether or not the respondent violates a prohibition against conflicting interest. (YES)

HELD:
Respondent claims that there was no attorney-client relationship between her and
complainant. The claim has no merit. It was complainant who retained respondent to form a
corporation. She appeared as counsel on behalf of complainant.
There was evidence of collusion between the board of directors and respondent. Indeed,
the board of directors now included respondent as the president, Ramon del Rosario as secretary,
Hikoi Suzuki as chairman, Agnes Rodriguez as treasurer and Takayuki Sato as director. The
present situation shows a clear case of conflict of interest of the respondent.
Lawyers must conduct themselves, especially in their dealings with their clients and the
public at large, with honesty and integrity in a manner beyond reproach.
Clearly, respondent violated the prohibition against representing conflicting interests and
engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
As a lawyer, respondent is bound by her oath to do no falsehood or consent to its
commission and to conduct herself as a lawyer according to the best of her knowledge and
discretion. The lawyer's oath is a source of obligations and violation thereof is a ground for
suspension, disbarment, or other disciplinary action. The acts of respondent Atty. de Dios are
clearly in violation of her solemn oath as a lawyer that this Court will not tolerate.
DISPOSITION:
WHEREFORE, the Court finds respondent. Atty. Lourdes I. de Dios remiss in her sworn
duty to her client, and to the bar. The Court hereby SUSPENDS her from the practice of law for
six (6) months, with warning that a repetition of the charges will be dealt with more severely.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy