Title
Santos Ventura Hocorma Foundation, Inc. vs. Funk
Case
A.C. No. 9094
Decision Date
Aug 15, 2012
Atty. Richard Funk suspended for one year for representing conflicting interests against former client Hocorma Foundation, violating CPR rules on fiduciary duty and confidentiality.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 131116)

Factual Background

The complaint asserts that Atty. Funk, who served as the corporate secretary, counsel, and trustee for the Hocorma Foundation from 1983 to 1985, violated the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) by filing an action for quieting of title and damages against the foundation on behalf of Mabalacat Institute, Inc., utilizing confidential information obtained during his tenure as counsel.

Respondent’s Defense

In his defense, Atty. Funk claimed his professional relationship was primarily with Don Teodoro V. Santos, who organized both Mabalacat Institute and Hocorma Foundation. He argued that Santos hired him as a personal lawyer, not specifically for the foundation, which purportedly limited his obligations to Hocorma Foundation.

Special Power of Attorney

Atty. Funk further contended that he had entered into a retainer agreement with Santos, whereby his legal fees would be paid from properties transferred to the foundation. He argued that a Special Power of Attorney, executed by Santos, permitted him to oversee the property transfer to Mabalacat Institute, emphasizing his role as legal counsel specifically for Mabalacat Institute at the time the property dealings occurred.

Termination of Relationship

Atty. Funk claimed he severed his professional ties with the foundation in 1985 due to non-payment of fees, leading him to file a complaint against Hocorma Foundation in 1989 that received favorable rulings at the trial court, Court of Appeals, and the Supreme Court.

Committee on Bar Discipline Findings

The Committee on Bar Discipline (CBD) determined that Atty. Funk breached Canon 15, Rule 15.03 of the CPR, establishing a pattern of misconduct by representing conflicting interests over multiple court appearances against Hocorma Foundation, resulting in a recommendation for a one-year suspension.

Supreme Court Ruling

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of upholding the CBD's findings, affirming that Atty. Funk had indeed violated his fiduciary duties by representing Mabalacat Institute against Hocorma Foundation without written cons

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.