Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
CONFLICT OF INTEREST....................................................................3
Angara v. Sandiganbayan..................................................................3
Sadik v. Casar...................................................................................7
Aninon v. Sabitsana.........................................................................10
Samson v. Era.................................................................................12
Hadjula v. Madianda........................................................................17
Mercado v. Vitriolo...........................................................................19
Angara v. Sandiganbayan................................................................21
Genato v. Silapan............................................................................25
Saura v. Agdeppa............................................................................27
Maturan v. Gonzales........................................................................28
Problematic Areas in Legal Ethics CASES
Based on the Syllabus of Atty. Arnold C. 2
Abejaron
IMPRESCRIPTIBILITY OF DISBARMENT PROCEEDINGS As early as 1967, it was held that the defense of prescription does not
lie in administrative proceedings against lawyers. Likewise, in a 2004
Frias v. Bautista-Lozada case, it was declared that an administrative complaint against a
member of the bar does not prescribe.
EN BANC
Furthermore Rule VIII Section 1 of the Rules of Procedure of the CBD-
A.C. No. 6656 May 4, 2006 IBP was declared null and void. The CBD-IBP derives its authority to
[Formerly CBD-98-591] take cognizance of administrative complaints against lawyers from the
court, therefore its rules should be consistent to that of the latter. The
BOBIE ROSE V. FRIAS, Complainant, aforementioned rule runs afoul of the settled ruling of the Court , that
vs. being the case, it is void and of no legal effect for being ultra vires.
ATTY. CARMELITA S. BAUTISTA-LOZADA,* Respondent.
Ratio:
RESOLUTION
To allow prescription of administrative cases against lawyers, the
CORONA, J.: members of the bar would be emboldened to disregard the very oath
they took as lawyers, prescinding from the fact that as long as no
Facts:
private complainant would immediately come forward, they stand a
chance of being completely exonerated from whatever administrative
Atty. Carmelita Bautista-Lozada was suspended from the practice of
liability they ought to answer for. It is the duty of this Court to protect the
law. She however contends that the complaint against her has already
integrity of the practice of law as well as the administration of
prescribed pursuant to Rule VIII of the Rules of Procedure of the
justice. No matter how much time has elapsed from the time of the
Commission on Bar Discipline of the IBP which provide:
commission of the act complained of and the time of the institution of
the complaint, erring members of the bench and bar cannot escape the
SECTION 1. Prescription. A complaint for disbarment, suspension or
disciplining arm of the Court. This categorical pronouncement is aimed
discipline of attorneys prescribes in two (2) years from the date of the
at unscrupulous members of the bench and bar, to deter them from
professional misconduct.
committing acts which violate the Code of Professional Responsibility,
Issue: the Code of Judicial Conduct, or the Lawyer’s Oath.
Ruling:
Problematic Areas in Legal Ethics CASES
Based on the Syllabus of Atty. Arnold C. 3
Abejaron
CONFLICT OF INTEREST services for certain clients involving the organization and acquisition of
business associations which allegedly used coconut levy funds.
Angara v. Sandiganbayan
The PCGG then set the following conditions precedent for the exclusion
G.R. No. 105938 September 20, 1996 of petitioners, namely: (a) the disclosure of the identity of its clients; (b)
submission of documents substantiating the lawyer-client relationship;
TEODORO R. REGALA, EDGARDO J. ANGARA, AVELINO V. CRUZ, and (c) the submission of the deeds of assignments petitioners
JOSE C. CONCEPCION, ROGELIO A. VINLUAN, VICTOR P. executed in favor of its client covering their respective shareholdings.
LAZATIN and EDUARDO U. ESCUETA, petitioners,
vs. The ACCRA Lawyers however contend that revealing the identity of
THE HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN, First Division, REPUBLIC their client and the other information requested by the PCGG is
OF THE PHILIPPINES, ACTING THROUGH THE PRESIDENTIAL prohibited by the attorney-client privilege.
COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENT, and RAUL S.
ROCO, respondents. Issue:
G.R. No. 108113 September 20, 1996 WON the identity of the client is covered by the attorney-client privilege.
Yes!
PARAJA G. HAYUDINI, petitioner,
vs. Significance of the issue:
THE SANDIGANBAYAN and THE REPUBLIC OF THE
PHILIPPINES, respondents. The duty to keep as confidential all matters obtained through the
attorney-client relationship is explicitly mandated in Canon 17 of the
Facts: Code of Professional Responsibility which provides that:
Petitioners Teodoro Regala, Edgardo J. Angara, Avelino V. Cruz, Jose Canon 17. A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he shall
C. Concepcion, Rogelio A. Vinluan, Victor P. Lazatin, Eduardo U. be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him.
Escueta and Paraja G. Hayudini, and herein private respondent Raul S.
Roco, who all were then partners of the ACCRA Law firm were included Canon 15 of the Canons of Professional Ethics also demands a
as defendants in a case for recovery of alleged ill-gotten wealth filed lawyer's fidelity to client.
before the Sandiganbayan by the Republic of the Philippines.
Encouraging full disclosure to a lawyer by one seeking legal services
From the facts of the case, it seems that the ACCRA Lawyers were opens the door to a whole spectrum of legal options which would
impleaded as co-defendants in the case because they performed legal otherwise be circumscribed by limited information engendered by a fear
Problematic Areas in Legal Ethics CASES
Based on the Syllabus of Atty. Arnold C. 4
Abejaron
of disclosure. An effective lawyer-client relationship is largely dependent client's name would lead to establish said client's connection with the
upon the degree of confidence which exists between lawyer and client very fact in issue of the case, which is privileged information.
which in turn requires a situation which encourages a dynamic and
fruitful exchange and flow of information. It necessarily follows that in The link between the alleged criminal offense and the legal advice or
order to attain effective representation; the lawyer must invoke the legal service sought was duly establishes in the case at bar, by no less
privilege not as a matter of option but as a matter of duty and than the PCGG itself. The key lies in the three specific conditions laid
professional responsibility. down by the PCGG which constitutes petitioners' ticket to non-
prosecution should they accede thereto:
Ruling:
(a) the disclosure of the identity of its clients;
The identity of the client in the present case is considered as a
privileged communication although as a matter of public policy, a (b) submission of documents substantiating the lawyer-
client’s identity, in general, is not privileged. client relationship; and
The General rule that a client’s identity is not privileged is qualified by (c) the submission of the deeds of assignment
the following exceptions: petitioners executed in favor of their clients covering their
respective shareholdings.
1) Client identity is privileged where a strong probability exists that
revealing the client's name would implicate that client in the very activity From these conditions, particularly the third, we can readily deduce that
for which he sought the lawyer's advice. the clients indeed consulted the petitioners, in their capacity as lawyers,
regarding the financial and corporate structure, framework and set-up of
2) Where disclosure would open the client to civil liability; his identity is the corporations in question. In turn, petitioners gave their professional
privileged. advice in the form of, among others, the aforementioned deeds of
assignment covering their client's shareholdings.
3) Where the government's lawyers have no case against an attorney's
client unless, by revealing the client's name, the said name would There is no question that the preparation of the aforestated documents
furnish the only link that would form the chain of testimony necessary to was part and parcel of petitioners' legal service to their clients. More
convict an individual of a crime, the client's name is privileged. important, it constituted an integral part of their duties as lawyers.
Petitioners, therefore, have a legitimate fear that identifying their clients
The circumstances involving the engagement of lawyers in the case at would implicate them in the very activity for which legal advice had
bench, therefore, clearly reveal that the instant case falls under at least been sought, i.e., the alleged accumulation of ill-gotten wealth in the
two exceptions to the general rule. First, disclosure of the alleged aforementioned corporations.
Problematic Areas in Legal Ethics CASES
Based on the Syllabus of Atty. Arnold C. 5
Abejaron
Furthermore, under the third main exception, revelation of the client's
name would obviously provide the necessary link for the prosecution to
build its case, where none otherwise exists. It is the link, in the words of
Baird, "that would inevitably form the chain of testimony necessary to
convict the (client) of a . . . crime."
Facts:
Ruling:
Atty. Arquillo on his defense however, alleges that there was no conflict
When a lawyer represents two or more opposing parties, there is a
of interest in his representation as the respondent that he represented
conflict of interests, the existence of which is determined by three
was absolved by the labor arbiter of any personal liability for the illegal
separate tests:
dismissal of the complainants; thus it shows that all of the parties that
he represented were really on the same side. (1) when, in representation of one client, a lawyer is required to fight for
an issue or claim, but is also duty-bound to oppose it for another client;
Issue:
Problematic Areas in Legal Ethics CASES
Based on the Syllabus of Atty. Arnold C. 7
Abejaron
(2) when the acceptance of the new retainer will require an attorney to
perform an act that may injuriously affect the first client or, when called
upon in a new relation, to use against the first one any knowledge
acquired through their professional connection; or
(3) when the acceptance of a new relation would prevent the full
discharge of an attorney’s duty to give undivided fidelity and loyalty to
the client or would invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or double dealing in
the performance of that duty.
Now, in the present case, Judge Casar was charged with misconduct
On the issue of misappropriation, the court held that if indeed he was
for representing the complainants in a case after he became a
claiming attorney’s lien, then he should have known that to be entitled
municipal judge thus violating Rule 5.07 of the Code of Judicial
thereto he must comply with certain pre-conditions. The pertinent
Conduct which states that “A judge shall not engage in the private
section provides that with respect to judgments for payment of money, a
practice of law.” To make matters worse, he was also charged for
lawyer shall have a lien thereto "from and after the time when he shall
misappropriation for refusing to turn over the judgment award to the
have caused a statement of his claim of such lien to be entered upon
complainants contending that he has the right to retain the same until
the records of the court rendering such judgment . . . and shall have
he is paid for his expenses.
caused written notice thereof to be delivered to his client and the
adverse party." Now it appears that from 1993 until now, Judge Casar
On the issue of violating Rule 5.07, Judge Casar intimates that he is not
did not file the necessary pleadings to enforce his alleged lien. That
guilty of any misconduct because he accepted the case long before he
being the case, Judge Casar has no right to retain the judgment award.
became a judge. He also denies the issue of misappropriating the
Problematic Areas in Legal Ethics CASES
Based on the Syllabus of Atty. Arnold C. 9
Abejaron
In a desperate attempt to justify his retention of the judgment award, The integrity of the Judiciary rests not only upon the fact that it is able to
Judge Casar raised the defense that herein complainants are not administer justice but also upon the perception and confidence of the
entitled to claim the same as they are merely impostors. Judge Casar community that the people who run the system have done justice. At
states that the said complainants are just substitute witnesses procured times, the strict manner by which we apply the law may, in fact, do
to pose as claimant Makadaya Sadik as the real Makadaya Sadik justice but may not necessarily create confidence among the people
cannot appear before the court. that justice, indeed, is served. Hence, in order to create such
confidence, the people who run the judiciary, particularly judges and
He also declared that even before he filed the complaint in behalf of justices, must not only be proficient in both the substantive and
Sadik, he was already informed that the insurance policy of Lekiya Paito procedural aspects of the law, but more importantly, they must possess
was fraudulent. In his intent to keep the insurance proceeds for himself the highest integrity, probity, and unquestionable moral uprightness,
respondent Judge dug a hole for himself. His cure is worse than the both in their public and private lives. Only then can the people be
disease. reassured that the wheels of justice in this country run with fairness and
equity, thus creating confidence in the judicial system.
Due to the facts established of the judge’s propensity to transgress the
very law he is sworn to uphold makes him not only liable for the
charges of misconduct and misappropriation but also unfit to discharge
the functions of a judge. Hence, Judge Casar was dismissed from
service.
A.C. No. 5098 April 11, 2012 In Bautista vs. Barrios, it was held that a lawyer may not handle a case
to nullify a contract which he prepared and thereby take up inconsistent
JOSEFINA M. ANIÑON, Complainant, positions.
vs.
ATTY. CLEMENCIO SABITSANA, JR., Respondent. In re De la Rosa clearly suggests that a lawyer may not represent
conflicting interests in the absence of the written consent of all parties
DECISION concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts. In the present case,
no such written consent was secured by respondent before accepting
BRION, J.: employment as Mrs. Cañete’s counsel-of-record.
Ferdinand A. Samson has brought this complaint for disbarment For his defense, Atty Era contends that the Attorney-Client relationship
charging respondent Atty. Edgardo O. Era with violation of his trust and had already ended upon the execution of the compromise settlement of
confidence of a client by representing the interest of Emilia C. Sison, his
the criminal cases.
present client, in a manner that blatantly conflicted with his (Samson’s)
interest. 2) Issue: Whether or not a compromise settlement ends a lawyer-client
relationship which therefore allows the lawyer to represent the opposing
It was established Samson and his relatives were among the investors
party in another case.
who fell prey to the pyramiding scam perpetrated by ICS Corporation,
whose corporate officers were led by Sison. 3) Ruling: No. Atty. Era’s contention that the lawyer-client relationship
ended when Samson and his group entered into the compromise
Samson engaged Atty. Era to represent and assist him and his relatives
settlement with Sison on April 23, 2002 was unwarranted. The lawyer-
in the criminal prosecution of Sison and her group. Through the course
client relationship did not terminate as of then, for the fact remained that
of the engagement, Atty. Era called a meeting with Samson to discuss
he still needed to oversee the implementation of the settlement as well
the possibility of an amicable settlement with Sison and her cohorts.
as to proceed with the criminal cases until they were dismissed or
Samson’s party in turn acceded and executed the affidavit of desistance
otherwise concluded by the trial court. It is also relevant to indicate that
that Atty. Era prepared. Due to the amicable settlement, a deed of
Problematic Areas in Legal Ethics CASES
Based on the Syllabus of Atty. Arnold C. 15
Abejaron
the execution of a compromise settlement in the criminal cases did not Second, the prohibition against conflicts of interest seeks to enhance
ipso facto cause the termination of the cases not only because the the effectiveness of legal representation. To the extent that a conflict of
approval of the compromise by the trial court was still required, but also interest undermines the independence of the lawyer’s professional
judgment or inhibits a lawyer from working with appropriate vigor in the
because the compromise would have applied only to the civil aspect,
client’s behalf, the client’s expectation of effective representation could
and excluded the criminal aspect pursuant to Article 2034 of the Civil
be compromised.
Code.
Third, a client has a legal right to have the lawyer safeguard the client’s
There is conflict of interest when a lawyer represents inconsistent
confidential information. Preventing use of confidential client information
interests of two or more opposing parties. The test is "whether or not in against the interests of the client, either to benefit the lawyer’s personal
behalf of one client, it is the lawyer’s duty to fight for an issue or claim, interest, in aid of some other client, or to foster an assumed public
but it is his duty to oppose it for the other client. In brief, if he argues for purpose is facilitated through conflicts rules that reduce the opportunity
one client, this argument will be opposed by him when he argues for for such abuse.
the other client." This rule covers not only cases in which confidential
Fourth, conflicts rules help ensure that lawyers will not exploit clients,
communications have been confided, but also those in which no such as by inducing a client to make a gift to the lawyer.
confidence has been bestowed or will be used. Also, there is conflict of
interests if the acceptance of the new retainer will require the attorney Finally, some conflict-of-interest rules protect interests of the legal
to perform an act which will injuriously affect his first client in any matter system in obtaining adequate presentations to tribunals. In the absence
in which he represents him and also whether he will be called upon in of such rules, for example, a lawyer might appear on both sides of the
his new relation to use against his first client any knowledge acquired litigation, complicating the process of taking proof and compromise
through their connection. Another test of the inconsistency of interests adversary argumentation.
is whether the acceptance of a new relation will prevent an attorney
from the full discharge of his duty of undivided fidelity and loyalty to his
client or invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or double dealing in the
performance thereof.
4) Rationale for the rule: First, the law seeks to assure clients that their
lawyers will represent them with undivided loyalty. A client is entitled to
be represented by a lawyer whom the client can trust. Instilling such
confidence is an objective important in itself.
Problematic Areas in Legal Ethics CASES
Based on the Syllabus of Atty. Arnold C. 16
Abejaron
It appears that Luciana Abadilla sold the lot to Benito Bolisay and a new
Buted & Bolisay v. Hernando Transfer Certificate of Title over the lot was issued in the name of
complainant spouses.
THIRD DIVISION
When an action for specific performance was lodged by a couple
A.C. No. 1359 October 17, 1991 named Luis Sy and Elena Sy against Benito Bolisay as one of the
defendants, 2 the latter retained the services of respondent Atty.
GENEROSA BUTED and BENITO BOLISAY, petitioners, Hernando.
vs.
ATTY. HAROLD M. HERNANDO, respondent. Benito was then asserting ownership over the realty by virtue of a Deed
of Sale executed by Luciana Abadilla in his favor. Eventually, the Sy's
Jorge A. Dolorfino for petitioners.
were ordered to vacate the house subject of the lease. Respondent
avers that the relationship between himself and Benito Bolisay as
R E S O L
regards this case was terminated on 4 December 1969. 3
UTION
This Court went further in San Jose v. Cruz, 14 where the lawyer was ACCORDINGLY, the Court Resolved to SUSPEND Atty. Harold
charged with malpractice for having represented a new client whose M. Hernando from the practice of law for a period of five (5) months,
interest was opposed to those of his former clients in another case: with a WARNING that repetition of the same or similar offense will
An attorney owes loyalty to his client not only in the case in which he warrant a more severe penalty. A copy of this Resolution shall be
has represented him but also after the relation of attorney and client furnished to all courts and to the Office of the Bar Confidant and spread
has terminated and it is not a good practice to permit him afterwards to on the personal record of respondent.
defend in another case other persons against his former client under
the pretext that the case is distinct from, and independent of the former
case. 15 (Emphasis supplied)
FIRST DIVISION Hadjula therefore seeks the suspension and/or disbarment of Atty.
Madianda for the latter's act of disclosing personal secrets and
A.C. No. 6711 July 3, 2007
confidential information she revealed in the course of seeking
MA. LUISA HADJULA, complainant, respondent's legal advice.
vs.
ATTY. ROCELES F. MADIANDA, respondent.
Issue:
DECISION
The pressing issue in the present case is whether or not as between
GARCIA, J.:
Hadjula and Madianda there exists an attorney-client relationship
Facts: although Atty. Madianda did not actually handle the case for which his
legal advice was sought. Yes!
Complainant Hadjula claimed that sometime in 1998, she approached
Held:
respondent Atty. Madianda for some legal advice. In the course of their
conversation which was supposed to be kept confidential, she disclosed
The Court held in the present case that “the moment complainant
personal secrets and produced copies of a marriage contract, a birth
approached the then receptive respondent to seek legal advice, a
certificate and a baptismal certificate, only to be informed later by the
respondent that she (respondent) would refer the matter to a lawyer veritable lawyer-client relationship evolved between the two. Such
friend. It was malicious, so complainant states, of respondent to have relationship imposes upon the lawyer certain restrictions circumscribed
refused handling her case only after she had already heard her secrets by the ethics of the profession. Among the burdens of the relationship is
and so she filed criminal and disciplinary actions against the that which enjoins the lawyer, respondent in this instance, to keep
respondent. inviolate confidential information acquired or revealed during legal
consultations. The fact that one is, at the end of the day, not inclined to
According to Hadjula, Atty. Madianda in retaliation to the filing of the
aforesaid actions filed a COUNTER COMPLAINT with the Ombudsman handle the client's case is hardly of consequence. Of little moment, too,
charging her (complainant) with falsification of public documents and is the fact that no formal professional engagement follows the
Problematic Areas in Legal Ethics CASES
Based on the Syllabus of Atty. Arnold C. 20
Abejaron
consultation. Nor will it make any difference that no contract whatsoever
was executed by the parties to memorialize the relationship.”
(3) The legal advice must be sought from the attorney in his
professional capacity.
The Supreme Court thus held that applying the aforestated rules to the
case at bar, the evidence on record fails to substantiate complainant's
allegations. Complainant did not even specify the alleged
communication in confidence disclosed by respondent as she merely
alleged that “the filing of the said criminal complaint disclosed facts and
information relating to the civil case for annulment.” Due to the
foregoing, the case filed was dismissed for lack of merit.
The ACCRA Lawyers however contend that revealing the identity of The identity of the client in the present case is considered as a
their client and the other information requested by the PCGG is privileged communication although as a matter of public policy, a
prohibited by the attorney-client privilege. client’s identity, in general, is not privileged.
The duty to keep as confidential all matters obtained through the The circumstances involving the engagement of lawyers in the case at
attorney-client relationship is explicitly mandated in Canon 17 and bench reveal that the instant case falls under at least two exceptions to
Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. the general rule. First, disclosure of the alleged client's name would
lead to establish said client's connection with the very fact in issue of
the case, which is privileged information. The services of the ACCRA
Problematic Areas in Legal Ethics CASES
Based on the Syllabus of Atty. Arnold C. 24
Abejaron
Lawyers were availed of to organize the organizations which are
suspected to have been set up through the use of coconut levy funds,
by revealing therefore the identity of their client would establish a
connection between him and the establishment of the companies which
are the subject matter of the controversy.
Due to the foregoing, the court has no choice but to uphold petitioners'
right not to reveal the identity of their clients under pain of the breach of
fiduciary duty owing to their clients, because the facts of the instant
case clearly fall within recognized exceptions to the rule that the client's
name is not privileged information.
EN BANC Ruling:
UY CHICO, plaintiff-appellant, “”Of the very essence of the veil of secrecy which surrounds
vs. communications made between attorney and client, is that such
THE UNION LIFE ASSURANCE SOCIETY, LIMITED, ET communications are not intended for the information of third persons or
AL., defendants-appellees. to be acted upon by them, put of the purpose of advising the client as to
his rights. It is evident that a communication made by a client to his
Beaumont and Tenney for appellant. attorney for the express purpose of its being communicated to a third
Bruce, Lawrence, Ross and Block for appellees. person is essentially inconsistent with the confidential relation. When
the attorney has faithfully carried out his instructions be
TRENT, J.: delivering the communication to the third person for whom it was
intended and the latter acts upon it, it cannot, by any reasoning
Facts:
whatever, be classified in a legal sense as a privileged
communication between the attorney and his client. It is plain that
This case is an offshoot of a case which involves a dispute over two
such a communication, after reaching the party for whom it was
insurance policies. The parties involved in the original case are the
intended at least, is a communication between the client and a
insurance company and Uy Chico. Uy Chico seeks to recover the face
third person, and that the attorney simply occupies the role of
value of the two insurance policies. The insurance company however
intermediary or agent.”
contended that Uy Chico already agreed to a compromise settlement of
the policies and for that purpose introduced evidence showing that the
Simply stated, communications made between attorney and clients,
Uy Chico’s attorney had already surrendered the policies with the
which are intended for the information of third persons, cannot be later
understanding that such is submitted for compromise.
on classified under the scope of a privileged communication. That being
so, in the present case there should be no bar in calling the lawyer to
Uy Chico’s counsel was thus called to testify regarding the matter
the witness stand or admitting in evidence his statement on the grounds
however the former objected thereto on the ground that the testimony of
of the attorney-client privileged communication rule.
his counsel was privileged.
Facts: The issue therefore is Whether or not Atty. SIlapan committed breach of
trust and confidence by imputing to complainant illegal practices and
Herein respondent Atty. Silapan is formerly the counsel of complainant
disclosing complainant’s alleged intention to bribe government officials
Genato. Their relationship however turned sour when Atty. Silapan
in connection with a pending case. Yes!
failed to pay his loans from Genato and the checks he issued were
subsequently dishonoured. This led to the filing of a criminal case by Ruling:
Genato against the respondent for violation of BP 22 and a civil case for
Canon 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that:
judicial foreclosure of real estate mortgage.
In his answer in the foreclosure case, Atty. Silapan in essence made “ a lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and shall be mindful of
the trust and confidence reposed on him.”
the following allegations:
1. That complainant is a businessman who is engaged in the real estate An attorney is not permitted to disclose communications made to him in
his professional character by a client, unless the latter consents. This
business, trading and buy and sell of deficiency taxed imported cars,
obligation to preserve the confidences and secrets of a client arises at
shark loans and other shady deals and has many cases pending in
the inception of their relationship and is perpetual. It does not cease
court; and with the termination of the litigation, nor is it affected by cessation of the
attorney-client relationship. It even survives the death of the client.
2. Genato, his former client, wanted him (Atty. Silapan), to offer bribe
money to the review committee of the DOJ, the prosecutor and the
Problematic Areas in Legal Ethics CASES
Based on the Syllabus of Atty. Arnold C. 28
Abejaron
It must be stressed, however, that the privilege against disclosure of shield and a means to restrict a lawyer from disclosing information
confidential communications or information is limited only to which is not properly within his lawful employment.
communications which are legitimately and properly within the scope of
a lawful employment of a lawyer. It does not extend to those made in
contemplation of a crime or perpetration of a fraud. As in this case, the
complainant's alleged intention to bribe government officials in relation
to his case, is not covered by the privilege as the client does not consult
the lawyer professionally for it is not within the profession of a lawyer to
advise a client as to how he may commit a crime. The attorney-client
privilege does not attach, there being no professional employment in
the strict sense.
Be that as it may, it is of the view of the court that the disclosures made
by Atty. Silapan were not indispensable to protect his rights as they
were not pertinent to the foreclosure case. It was improper for the
respondent Atty. to use it against the complainant in the foreclosure
case as it was not the subject matter of litigation therein and
respondent's professional competence and legal advice were not being
attacked in the foreclosure case. Thus, the Court found Atty. Silapan
guilty of breach of fidelity.
x-----------------------------x Issue:
ADM. CASE No. 4429 February 17, 2000 Whether or not the request for the information regarding the sale of the
property and to account for the proceeds thereof is a violation of the
HELEN BALDORIA and RAYMUNDO SAURA, complainants, attorney-client privilege? No!
vs.
ATTY. LALAINE LILIBETH AGDEPPA, respondent. Ruling:
DE LEON, JR., J.: “The information requested by petitioners is not privileged. The
petitioners are only asking for the disclosure of the amount of the sale
Facts: or account for the proceeds. Petitioners certainly have the right to ask
for such information since they own the property as co-heirs to and as
Atty. Lalaine Lilibeth Agdeppa was charged for violation of her lawyer’s
co-administrators of the property. Hence, respondent cannot refuse to
oath and disregard of Sections 15, 22, 25, 29, 31 and 32 of the Canons
divulge such information to them and hide behind the cloak of the
of Professional Ethics.
attorney-client relationship.”
The said complaint is related to a settlement case handled by Atty.
Agdeppa involving a piece of property owned in common by herein Significance of the Issue:
petitioners and other siblings.
PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION RULE IS NOT AN IMPENETRABLE
CLOAK
Problematic Areas in Legal Ethics CASES
Based on the Syllabus of Atty. Arnold C. 30
Abejaron
This is Problem Area in Legal Ethics because of the well-established
rule that communications between the lawyer and his client is
privileged. However, this privilege cannot be used as a device to shield
fraud or to refuse disclosure of information which is clearly not within
the attorney-client privileged communication.
Problematic Areas in Legal Ethics CASES
Based on the Syllabus of Atty. Arnold C. 31
Abejaron
damages and by virtue of the same, favourable judgments were
Maturan v. Gonzales rendered in favor of Maturan and so Atty. Gonzales filed a motion for
issuance of a writ of execution.
EN BANC
The present dispute however arose when Atty. Gonzales undertook to
represent Celestino Yokingco, et al., and filed several cases on his
A.C. No. 2597 March 12, 1998 behalf including a Civil Case, which seeks to annul the judgment
rendered in Civil Case No. 2067. The said act led to the filing of the
GLORITO V. MATURAN, petitioner, present case.
vs.
ATTY. CONRADO S. GONZALES, respondent. Atty. Gonzales on his defense reasoned that he is not guilty of any
malicious, unethical or anomalous act as the filing of a motion for
RESOLUTION
issuance of writ of execution was the last and final act in the lawyer-
ROMERO, J.: client relationship and a formal withdrawal as counsel for the Casquejos
was unnecessary in order to sever the lawyer-client relationship
Facts: between them.
Now, Maturan engaged the services of Atty. Gonzales in ejecting the A lawyer-client relationship is not terminated by the filing of motion for
squatters and because the subject property is registered in the name of writ of execution. His acceptance of a case implies that he will
a certain Celestino Yokingco, Antonio Casquejo instituted a case for prosecute the case to its conclusion. He may not be permitted to
reconveyance of property and declaration of nullity against the former unilaterally terminate the same to the prejudice of his client.
docketed as Civil Case No. 2067.
That being the case, the court found Atty. Gonzales guilty of
Through the course of Atty. Gonzales’ engagement with Maturan, the representing conflicting interests. The court further explained:
former represented the latter inseveral cases for forcible entry and
Problematic Areas in Legal Ethics CASES
Based on the Syllabus of Atty. Arnold C. 32
Abejaron
“It is improper for a lawyer to appear as counsel for one party against
the adverse party who is his client in a related suit, as a lawyer is
prohibited from representing conflicting interests or discharging
inconsistent duties. He may not, without being guilty of professional
misconduct, act as counsel for a person whose interest conflicts with
that of his present or former client.”
Atty. Gonzales was thus found guilty of the charges against him and is
suspended from the practice of law for 2 years.
EN BANC ISSUES: Whether or not the testimony of Atty. Sanset is barred by the
attorney-client privilege.
G.R. Nos. 115439-41 July 16, 1997
HELD:
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner,
No. Statements and communications regarding the commission of a
vs.
crime already committed, made by a party who committed it, to an
HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN, MANSUETO V. HONRADA,
CEFERINO S. PAREDES, JR. and GENEROSO S. attorney, consulted as such, are privileged communications. However,
SANSAET, respondents. the communication between an attorney and client having to do with the
client's contemplated criminal acts, or in aid or furtherance thereof, are
REGALADO, J.: not covered by the cloak of privilege ordinarily existing in reference to
communications between an attorney and a client. The falsification not
Facts:
having been committed yet, these communications are outside the pale
Paredes, was the Provincial Attorney of Agusan del Sur, then Governor of the attorney client privilege.
of the same province and is at present a Congressman. Atty. Sansaet is
Moreover, Sansaet himself was a conspirator in the commission of the
a practicing attorney who served as counsel for Paredes in several
falsification. For the communication to be privileged, it must be for a
instances. In 1976, Paredes applied for a free patent over a piece of
lawful purpose or in furtherance of a lawful end. The existence of an
land and it was granted to him. But later, the Director of Lands found out
unlawful purpose prevents the privilege from attaching.
that Paredes obtained the same through fraudulent misrepresentations
in his application. A civil case was filed and Sansaet served as counsel
of Paredes. A criminal case for perjury was subsequently filed against
Paredes and Sansaet also served as counsel.