Palm v. Iledan

GARCI A,Jul i eAnnJoyE.  JD 12 CaseDi ge ston2009LegalEt hi csCase

REBECCA J.PALM,Comp mpl ai nant ,  vs.  ATTY.FELI PE I LEDAN,JR. ,Res pondent .  A. C.No.8242,Oct ober2,2009

  RebeccaJ.Pal mi st hepr esi dentofCom mt t ech,whi ch hi r edAt t y .Fel i pe FACTS: I l edan,Jr .asi t sret ai nedcounsel .Shefil edacaseofdi sbarme mentagai nstAt t y . I l e danf orbr e ac hoft heat t or ne y c l i e ntpr i v i l e geandc onfli c to fi nt e r e s t s .  The bas i s oft he cl ai m ofbr eac h oft he l awy er c l i entr el at i onshi p oc cur r ed dur i nga meet i ng.At t y .I l edan cl ai med t hatt hest ockhol der s’meet i ngcannot t akepl acevi at el econf er enci ngbecauset heyhaveyett oam me end t hebyl awsof t hecor por at i ont oal l ow suchmodeofcomm mmuni cat i ons.Pal m cl ai mst hi swasa  br e ac hoft heat t or ne y cl i entpr i vi l egeofconfident i al i t y .  The basi s oft he confli ctofi nt e r es t ss t e mme df r om At t y .I l edan be i ng t he counse lofSol edadwhowasfil edwi t hanEst af acasebyCom mt t ec h. I SSUE:Whet herornot( a)r espondentv i ol at ed t heConfident i al i t yofLawyer Cl i e ntRe l at i o ns hi p;and ( b)r e s po nde nti sgui l t yo fr e pr e s ent i ngan i nt e r e s ti n c o nfli c twi t ht hato faf o r me me rc l i e nt RULI NG: G:No.Al t hough t he i nf or mat i on about t he nec es si t yt o ame mend t he co r por at e byl aws may hav e bee n gi v en t or es pondent ,i t coul d not be

consi der eda confident i ali nf or mat i on. Theamendment ,r epealoradopt i on of ne w byl aws may be effec t ed by “ t he boar d ofdi r ec t or s ort r us t ee s,by a maj ori t yvot et her eof ,andt heowner sofatl eastamaj ori t yoft heout st andi ng c api t als t o c k,o ratl e as tama j o r i t yofme mbe r so fano ns t o c kc o r po r a t i o n. ”I t meanst hes t ockhol der sar eawar eoft hepr opose damendment st ot hebyl aws. Fur t her ,whenev eranyamendmentoradopt i onofnew byl awsi smade,copi es oft he ame ndment s or t he ne w byl aws ar e fil ed wi t ht he Se curi t i es and Exc hange Commi ssi on ( SEC) and at t ac hed t o t he or i gi nal ar t i cl es of i ncor por at i onandbyl aws.Thedocument sarepubl i cr ecor dsandcoul dnotbe consi der edconfident i al . I ti s set t l ed t hatt he mer er el at i on ofat t orney and cl i entdoes notr ai se a pr esumpt i onofconfident i al i t y .Thecl i entmusti nt endt hecommuni cat i ont obe confident i al .Si ncet hepr oposedamendment smus tbeappr ov edbyatl eas ta maj or i t yoft hest ockhol der s,andcopi esoft heamendedbyl awsmustbefil ed  wi t ht heSEC,t hei nf or mat i onc oul dnothav ebe eni nt endedt obeconfident i al .  Thus,t he di sc l osur e made by r es pondentdur i ng t he s t oc khol de r s ’me e t i ng c o ul dno tbec ons i de r e dav i o l at i o no fhi sc l i e nt ’ ss e c r e t sandc o nfide nc ewi t hi n t hecont empl at i onofCanon21oft heCodeofPr of essi onalResponsi bi l i t y .  The Cour t al so finds no c onfli ct ofi nt e r es t whe nr espondent r epr e sent ed Sol edad i n a cas efil ed by Comt ec h. Thecas ewher er es pondentr epr es ent s Sol edadi sanEst af acasefil edbyComt ec hagai nsti t sf or merofficer .Ther ewas not hi ngi nt her ecor dst hatwoul dshow t hatr espondentusedagai nstComt ec h any confident i ali nf ormat i on acqui r ed whi l e he was st i l lComt ech’ sr et ai ned counsel . Furt her ,r espondentmadet her epr esent at i on af t ert het ermi nat i on of hi sr et ai neragr eementwi t h Comt ec h. A l awyer ’ si mmut abl edut yt oaf ormer cl i ent does not co v er t r ansac t i ons t hat occ ur r ed bey ond t he l awye r ’ s

empl oymentwi t ht hecl i ent .Thei nt entoft hel aw i st oi mposeupon t hel awyer t he dut yt o pr ot ectt he cl i ent ’ si nt er est s onl y on mat t er st hathe pr evi ousl y handl ed f ort hef ormercl i entand notf ormat t er st hataroseaf t ert hel awyer c l i e ntr e l at i o ns hi phast e r mi nat e d.  TheCour tDI SMI SSED t hecompl ai ntag ai ns tAt t y .Fel i peI l eda,Jr .f or l ac kofme r i t .