G.R. No.

L-961 September 21, 1949

BLANDINA GAMBOA HILADO, petitioner,

vs.

JOSE GUTIERREZ DAVID, VICENTE J. FRANCISCO, JACOB ASSAD and SELIM JACOB
ASSAD, respondents.

FACTS:

Petitioner alleged that she and the counsel for the defendant had an attorney-client relationship
with her when, before the trial of the case, she went to defendant’s counsel, gave him the
papers of the case and other information relevant thereto, although she was not able to pay him
legal fees. “That respondent’s law firm mailed to the plaintiff a written opinion over his signature
on the merits of her case; that this opinion was reached on the basis of papers she had
submitted at his office; that Mrs. Hilado's purpose in submitting those papers was to secure
Attorney Francisco's professional services.” Atty. Francisco appeared as counsel for defendant
and plaintiff did not object to it until (4) months after. Then, plaintiff moved to dismiss the case
between her and defendant.

Issue:

Was there an attorney-client relationship between plaintiff and Atty. Francisco?

Held:

YES. In order to constitute the relation a professional one and not merely one of principal and
agent, the attorneys must be employed either to give advice upon a legal point, to prosecute or
defend an action in court of justice, or to prepare and draft, in legal form such papers as deeds,
bills, contracts and the like.

To constitute professional employment it is not essential that the client should have employed
the attorney professionally on any previous occasion. It is not necessary that any retainer
should have been paid, promised, or charged for; neither is it material that the attorney
consulted did not afterward undertake the case about which the consultation was had. If a
person, in respect to his business affairs or troubles of any kind, consults with his attorney in his
professional capacity with the view to obtaining professional advice or assistance, and the
attorney voluntarily permits or acquiesces in such consultation, then the professional
employment must be regarded as established.

“An attorney is employed-that is, he is engaged in his professional capacity as a lawyer or

counselor-when he is listening to his client's preliminary statement of his case, or when he is
giving advice thereon, just as truly as when he is drawing his client's pleadings, or advocating
his client's cause in open court. An acceptance of the relation is implied on the part of the
attorney from his acting in behalf of his client in pursuance of a request by the latter.”
That only copies of pleadings already filed in court were furnished to Attorney Agrava and that,
this being so, no secret communication was transmitted to him by the plaintiff, would not vary
the situation even if we should discard Mrs. Hilado's statement that other papers, personal and
private in character, were turned in by her. Precedents are at hand to support the doctrine that
the mere relation of attorney and client ought to preclude the attorney from accepting the
opposite party's retainer in the same litigation regardless of what information was received by
him from his first client.

An attorney, on terminating his employment, cannot thereafter act as counsel against his client
in the same general matter, even though, while acting for his former client, he acquired no
knowledge which could operate to his client's disadvantage in the subsequent adverse
employment

"A retaining fee is a preliminary fee given to an attorney or counsel to insure and secure his
future services, and induce him to act for the client. It is intended to remunerate counsel for
being deprived, by being retained by one party, of the opportunity of rendering services to the
other and of receiving pay from him, and the payment of such fee, in the absence of an express
understanding to the contrary, is neither made nor received in payment of the services
contemplated; its payment has no relation to the obligation of the client to pay his attorney for
the services which he has retained him to perform."
Blandina Hilado vs Jose Gutierrez David
84 Phil 569 – Legal Ethics – Existence of Attorney-Client Relationship
In April 1945, Blandina Hilado filed a complaint to have some deeds of sale
annulled against Selim Assad. Attorney Delgado Dizon represented Hilado.
Assad was represented by a certain Atty. Ohnick.
In January 1946, Atty. Vicente Francisco replaced Atty. Ohnick as counsel
for Assad and he thenafter entered his appearance in court.
In May 1946 or four months later, Atty. Dizon filed a motion to have Atty.
Francisco be disqualified because Atty. Dizon found out that in June 1945,
Hilado approached Atty. Francisco to ask for additional legal opinion
regarding her case and for which Atty. Francisco sent Hilado a legal opinion
letter.
Atty. Francisco opposed the motion for his disqualification. In his opposition,
he said that no material information was relayed to him by Hilado; that in fact,
upon hearing Hilado’s story, Atty. Francisco advised her that her case will
not win in court; but that later, Hilado returned with a copy of
the Complaint prepared by Atty. Dizon; that however, when Hilado returned,
Atty. Francisco was not around but an associate in his firm was there (a
certain Atty. Federico Agrava); that Atty. Agrava attended to Hilado; that after
Hilado left, leaving behind the legal documents, Atty. Agrava then prepared
a legal opinion letter where it was stated that Hilado has no cause of action
to file suit; that Atty. Agrava had Atty. Francisco sign the letter; that Atty.
Francisco did not read the letter as Atty. Agrava said that it was merely a
letter explaining why the firm cannot take on Hilado’s case.
Atty. Francisco also pointed out that he was not paid for his advice; that no
confidential information was relayed because all Hilado brought was a copy
of the Complaint which was already filed in court; and that, if any, Hilado
already waived her right to disqualify Atty. Francisco because he was already
representing Assad in court for four months in the said case.
Judge Jose Gutierrez David ruled in favor of Atty. Francisco.
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Francisco should be disqualified in the said civil
case.
HELD: Yes. There already existed an attorney-client relationship between
Hilado and Atty. Francisco. Hence, Atty. Francisco cannot act as counsel
against Hilado without the latter’s consent.
As ruled by the Supreme Court, to constitute an attorney-client relationship,
it is not necessary that any retainer should have been paid, promised, or
charged for; neither is it material that the attorney consulted did not afterward
undertake the case about which the consultation was had. If a person, in
respect to his business affairs or troubles of any kind, consults with his
attorney in his professional capacity with the view to obtaining professional
advice or assistance, and the attorney voluntarily permits or acquiesces in
such consultation, then the professional employment must be regarded as
established.
Further:
An attorney is employed-that is, he is engaged in his professional capacity
as a lawyer or counselor-when he is listening to his client’s preliminary
statement of his case, or when he is giving advice thereon, just as truly as
when he is drawing his client’s pleadings, or advocating his client’s cause in
open court.
Anent the issue of what information was relayed by Hilado to Atty.
Francisco: It does not matter if the information relayed is confidential or not.
So long as the attorney-client relationship is established, the lawyer is
proscribed from taking other representations against the client.
Anent the issue that the legal opinion was not actually written by Atty.
Francisco but was only signed by him: It still binds him because Atty. Agrava,
assuming that he was the real author, was part of the same law firm. An
information obtained from a client by a member or assistant of a law firm is
information imparted to the firm, his associates or his employers.
Anent the issue of the fact that it took Hilado four months from the time Atty.
Francisco filed his entry of appearance to file a disqualification: It does not
matter. The length of time is not a waiver of her right. The right of a client to
have a lawyer be disqualified, based on previous atty-client relationship, as
counsel against her does not prescribe. Professional confidence once
reposed can never be divested by expiration of professional employment.