#lawstudentinmanila

[sleepylawstudentph]

01.09.2017 » trying to study smart for my last class in credit before midterm exams...... still ~floating~ bcos of the holidaze haaah #takemeback 🤤❄️

[sleepylawstudentph]

01.11.2017

follow spree day!! starting this month, i'll be following everyone who i haven't followed every 11th of the month. hope to meet all of you soon!!!! <3

[sleepylawstudentph]

cancelled classes >>>>>>>>>

[sleepylawstudentph]

mondays with atp

wasnt able to study good last night, i really find it hard to understand my readings and books these days. but i cant *skip-class-to-skip-recit* todayyyyy huhu

gotta fight for my life!!

[chertinlum]

DIANA DE GUZMAN VS. ATTY. LOURDES DE DIOS CASE DIGEST

DIANA DE GUZMAN VS ATTY. LOURDES DE DIOS ADMINISTRATIVE CASE  NO. 4943  JANUARY 26, 2001

FACTS: Respondent Atty. Lourdes de Dios was the counsel of complainant Diana de Guzman to form a corporation to have a hotel and restaurant business in Olongapo City. Following the advices of Atty. De Dios, De Guzman registered Suzuki Beach Hotel, Inc. with the Securities and Exchange Commission.  Complainant had unpaid subscribed shares of stock worth more than 2 million pesos in which the corporation urges her to pay on or before December 30, 1997. Her delinquent shares was authorized for public auction sale and acquired by one of the incorporators named Ramon Del Rosario, in this sale complainant was ousted in the corporation. The respondent became the president in the corporation while complainant lost her life savings. Despite the legal counsel she had rendered to the complainant even she had been paid P5,000 she explained that she merely appeared as her counsel and signed pleadings, complainant thought that she would help her with the management in the corporation. Respondent alleged that the complainant misappropriated the funds and property on the corporation and that the land actually belongs to the Japanese investors. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines stated that the respondent was not motivated by ill-will and acted according to the best interest of SBHI. Issue: Whether or not respondent violated Canon 15, Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility for representing conflicting interests and of Article 1491 in the Civil Code of the Philippines for acquiring property in litigation. Held: Yes. Atty. De Dios apparently violated the prohibition against representing conflicting interests and engaging unlawful, dishonesy, immoral or deceitful conduct. Lawyers  who violate their oath and engage in deceitful conduct have no place in legal profession.  The court finds merit in the side of the complainant; she was ousted in the corporation provided that she was the majority stockholder without explanation on what happened to her shares. Respondent’s denial of the attorney-client relationship between her and complainant, the court finds no merit as she appeared as her counsel and was the one who retained by the complainant to form a the corporation. Her position the board of directors as the president has been an evidence of collusion between the board of directors and respondent and shows that there really was a conflicting interest.   Her violation to the Lawyer’s Oath leads her to suspension to the practice of law for 6 months.