Santos Ventura Hocorma Foundation, Inc. v Atty. Richard Funk A.C. No. 9094 Au!ust Au!ust "#, $0"$% FAC&S' Hocorma Foundation filed a complaint for disbarment against respondent. It alleged that respondent used to work as corporate secretary, counsel, chief executive officer, and trustee of the foundation from 19! to 19". He also served as its counsel in several criminal and civil cases. #omplainant alleged that respondent filed an action for $uieting of title and damages against Hoco Hocorm rma a on beha behalf lf of %aba %abala laca catt inst instit itut ute e usin using g info inform rmat atio ion n he ac$u ac$uir ired ed whil while e with with the the foundation. &s a defense, &tty. Funk contended that he was hired by %abalacat Institute by 'on (eodoro )antos in 19* to serve as director and legal counsel. He emphasi+ed that, in all these, the attorneyc attorneyclient lient relatio relationship nship was was always always between between )antos )antos and him. him. He was was more of )antos)antospersonal lawyer than the lawyer of Hocorma Foundation. )antos left for &merica to get medical treatment. (he former and &tty. Funk agreed that the latter would be paid for his legal services out of the properties that )antos donated or sold to the Hocorma Hocorma Foundation. Foundation. &tty. &tty. Funk also claimed claimed that he was authori+ed authori+ed to advise advise Hocorma Hocorma and follow follow up with it )antos)antos- sale or donation donation of a "hect "hectare are land in ampanga ampanga to %abalac %abalacat at Instit Institute ute.. &tty. &tty. Funk Funk was was to collec collectt all expens expenses es for the proper property ty transf transfer er from from Hocorm Hocorma a Foundation out of funds that )antos provided. It was was )antos- intention since 19"/ to give the land to %abalacat Institute free of rent and expenses. &ccording to &tty. Funk, )antos suggested to the complainant his inclusion in that board, a suggestion that the foundation followed. &fter )antos died, respondent was elected resident of %abalacat Institute. (he foundation later refused to pay &tty. Funk-s fees, thus he severed his ties with Hocorma. Four years later, he filed a suit against Hocorma. (he trial court, #& and )# decided in favor of the respondent. &fter hearing, the #ommittee #ommittee on 0ar 'iscipline #0'2 found &tty. &tty. Funk to have violated violated #anon 1", 3ule 1"./! of the #32 with the aggravating circumstance of a pattern of misconduct consisting consisting of four court appearances appearances against against his former client, client, the Hocorma Foundatio Foundation. n. (he #0' recommended &tty. Funk-s suspension from the practice of law for one year. 3espondent moved for reconsideration but was denied. ISS()' 4hethe 4hetherr or not &tty. &tty. Funk betray betrayed ed the trust trust and confiden confidence ce of a former former client client in violation of the #3 when when he filed several actions against such client client on behalf of a new one. H)*+' H)*+' #anon 1", 3ule 1"./! of the #3 provides that a lawyer cannot represent conflicting interests interests except except by written written consent of all concerned given given after a full disclosure disclosure of the facts. facts. Here, it is undeniable that &tty. Funk was formerly the legal counsel of Hocorma Foundation. 5ears after terminating his relationship with the foundation, he filed a complaint against it on behalf of another client without the foundation-s written consent. &n attorney owes owes his client undivided allegiance. allegiance. 0ecause of the highly fiduciary nature of of their relationshi relationship, p, sound public policy policy dictates dictates that he be prohibited prohibited from representi representing ng conflictin conflicting g intere interests sts or discha dischargi rging ng incons inconsist istent ent duties duties.. (he reason reason for this this is that that a lawyer lawyer ac$uir ac$uires es
knowledge of his former client-s doings, whether documented or not, that he would ordinarily not have ac$uired were it not for the trust and confidence that his client placed on him in the light of their relationship. 3espondent collected attorney-s fees from the foundation. (hus, he had an obligation not to use any knowledge he ac$uired during that relationship, including the fact that the property under litigation existed at all, when he sued the foundation. 4H636F736, the #ourt &FFI3%) the resolution of the 0oard of the I0 )8)6') &tty. 3ichard Funk from the practice of law for one year effective immediately.
