Hornilla vs. Atty. Salunat Essay Sample free essay sample

A attorney shall non stand for conflicting involvements except bywritten consent of all concerned given after a full revelation of the facts. | Fact: * This administrative instance is filed by Benedicto Hornilla and Federico Ricafort against Atty. Ernesto Salunat for illegal and unethical pattern and struggle of involvement. * Plaintiffs alleged that respondent is a member of the ASSA Law and Associates. which was the maintained advocate of the Philippine Public School Teachers Association ( PPSTA ) . * Complainants. who are members of the PPSTA. filed an intra-corporate instance against its members of the Board of Directors before the Securities and Exchange Commission. which was docketed as SEC Case No. 05-97-5657. and a ailment before the Office of the Ombudsman. docketed as OMB Case No. 0-97-0695. for improper disbursement and the undervalued sale of existent belongings of the PPSTA. * Respondent entered his visual aspect as advocate for the PPSTA Board members in the said instan ces. We will write a custom essay sample on Hornilla vs. Atty. Salunat Essay Sample or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page * Plaintiffs contend that respondent was guilty of struggle of involvement because he was engaged by the PPSTA. of which plaintiffs were members. and was being paid out of its corporate financess where plaintiffs have contributed. Despite being told by PPSTA members of the said struggle of involvement. respondent refused to retreat his visual aspect in the said instances. * In his Answer. respondent stressed that he entered his visual aspect as advocate for the PPSTA Board Members for and in behalf of the ASSA Law and Associates. * Respondent claims that it was complainant Atty. Ricafort who instigated. orchestrated and randomly filed the said instances against members of the PPSTA and its Board. He denied that he ensured the triumph of the PPSTA Board in the instance he was managing. He simply assured the Board that the truth will come out and that the instance before the Ombudsman will be dismissed for deficiency of legal power. sing that respondents therein are non public functionaries. but private employees. * Anent the SEC instance. respondent alleged that the same was being handled by the jurisprudence house of Atty. Eduardo de Mesa. and non ASSA. Issue: Whether or non respondent was guilty of go againsting Rule 15. 03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility ( CPR ) when he represented the assailed managers of the corporation of which he is a maintained advocate. Yes. | Opinion: There is struggle of involvement when a attorney represents inconsistent involvements of two or more opponent parties. The trial is â€Å"whether or non in behalf of one client. it is the lawyer’s responsibility to contend for an issue or claim. but it is his responsibility to oppose it for the other client. In brief. if he argues for one client. this statement will be opposed by him when he argues for the other client. Answering Atty. Ernesto Salunat is found GUILTY of stand foring conflicting involvements and is admonished to detect a higher grade of fidelity in the pattern of his profession. He is farther warned that a repeat of the same or similar Acts of the Apostless will be dealt with more badly.