Frias vs Atty

8/12/2019 Frias vs Atty

1/29

FRIAS VS ATTY. BAUTISTA- LOZADAA.C. No. 6656 May 4, 2006

FACTS: Respondent Atty. Carmelita Bautista-Lozada seeks reconsideration ofthe Courts resolution finding her guilty of violating Rules !."# and $."% of

the Code of &rofessional Responsi'ility and of (ilfully diso'eying a final ande)ecutory decision of the Court of Appeals and suspending her from thepractice of la( for t(o years.

Respondent contends that* pursuant to Rule +,,, of the Rules of &rocedure ofthe Commission on Bar iscipline of the ,ntegrated Bar of the &hilippines* thecomplaint against her (as already 'arred 'y prescription. he also assertsthat her ecem'er /* 00" loan agreement (ith complainant complied (ithRule $."% 'ecause the interest of complainant (as fully protected.

ISSUE: 1hether or not a complaint for dis'arment is su'2ect to prescription.

1hether or not Rule +,,,* ection of the Rules of &rocedure of the CB-,B&is valid.

COMMENT: 3hese issues concern legal ethics 'ecause the rule onprescription (ill someho( pre2udice the aggrieved parties 'ecause of themisconducts done 'y a la(yer or a 2udge. Although* it may seem unfair forthe la(yers* yet* they have to face the conse4uences of their actions.La(yers kne( from the start that they are duty 'ound to o'ey the la(s ofthe land* o'serve candor (ith respect to their dealings and 'e of good moralstanding. 3o allo( prescription to set in for dis'arment cases* the la(s* (ithregards to the conduct and discipline of 2udges* (ould 'e su'2ect to a'useand (orst* it (ould lead to its mockery. &ractice of la( is a privilege and such

privilege entails great responsi'ility.

HELD: 56

As early as 0$/* (e have held that the defense of prescription does not liein administrative proceedings against la(yers.And in the 7""% case of Heckv. Santos* (e declared that an administrative complaint against a mem'er ofthe 'ar does not prescri'e. ,f the rule (ere other(ise* mem'ers of the 'ar(ould 'e em'oldened to disregard the very oath they took as la(yers*prescinding from the fact that as long as no private complainant (ouldimmediately come for(ard* they stand a chance of 'eing completelye)onerated from (hatever administrative lia'ility they ought to ans(er for

,t is the duty of this Court to protect the integrity of the practice of la( as(ell as the administration of 2ustice. No matter how much time has elapsedfrom the time of the 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 disciplining arm of the Court.3his categorical pronouncement isaimed at unscrupulous mem'ers of the 'ench and 'ar* to deter them fromcommitting acts (hich violate the Code of &rofessional Responsi'ility* the
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/may2006/ac_6656_2006.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/may2006/ac_6656_2006.html#fnt1


2/29

Code of 8udicial Conduct* or the La(yers 6ath. 3hus* even the lapse ofconsidera'le time from the commission of the offending act to the institutionof the administrative complaint (ill not erase the administrative culpa'ility ofa la(yer

SECOND ISSUE: 56.

Rule +,,,* ection of the Rules of &rocedure of the CB-,B& (hich providesfor a prescriptive period for the filing of administrative complaints againstla(yers runs afoul of the settled ruling of this Court. ,t should therefore 'estruck do(n as void and of no legal effect for 'eing ultra vires.

REALA VS SANDIANBAYAN.R. No. !0"!!# S$%&$'($) 20, !**6

FACTS: A complaint (as filed 'efore the andigan'ayan 'y the Repu'lic ofthe &hilippines* through the &C99 against duardo ;. Co2uangco* 8r.* as oneof the principal defendants* for the recovery of alleged ill-gotten (ealth*(hich includes shares of stocks in the named corporations in &C99 Case 5o.## regarding Coco Levy ayudini* andherein private respondent Raul . Roco* (ho all (ere then partners of theACCRA La( o(ever* respondent &C99 set the follo(ingconditions precedent for the e)clusion of petitioners* namely: a thedisclosure of the identity of its clients ' su'mission of documentssu'stantiating the la(yer-client relationship and c the su'mission of thedeeds of assignments petitioners e)ecuted in favor of its client covering theirrespective shareholdings. andigan'ayan promulgated the Resolution* herein4uestioned* denying the e)clusion of petitioners in &C99 Case 5o. ##* fortheir refusal to comply (ith the conditions re4uired 'y respondent &C99.>ence* this petition.


3/29

ISSUE: 1hether or not &C99 can compel petitioners to reveal their clientsname

COMMENT: 3his is an ethical issue for la(yers 'ecause it affects theattorney- client relationship. As a rule* la(yers should disclose the identity of

his client. 3his is also in consonance of the other partys right to kno( theopposing party. >o(ever* pro'lem arises if such disclosure (ould lead to theimplication of the said client. ,f that is the case* the la(yer should not 'e'ound to disclose the name of his client especially if the said disclosure isrelated to the very activity in (hich the client sought the la(yers advice.uch information is covered 'y the attorney- client privilege communication(hich should 'e respected 'y the courts. >o(ever* such privilege (ould notapply if said communication is in pursuant for a perpetuation of a crime.

HELD: 56

As a matter of pu'lic policy* a clientDs identity should not 'e shrouded in

mystery. =nder this premise* the general rule in our 2urisdiction as (ell as inthe =nited tates is that a la(yer may not invoke the privilege and refuse todivulge the name or identity of this client.


4/29


5/29

ISSUE: 1hether or not the condition re4uired 'y the respondent &C99 ofthe petitioners for their e)clusion as parties-defendants in &C99 Case 5o. ##violates the la(yer-client confidentiality privilege.

HELD: E

1e find that the condition precedent re4uired 'y the respondent &C99 of thepetitioners for their e)clusion as parties-defendants in &C99 Case 5o. ##violates the la(yer-client confidentiality privilege. 3he condition alsoconstitutes a transgression 'y respondents andigan'ayan and &C99 of thee4ual protection clause of the Constitution. ,t is grossly unfair to e)empt onesimilarly situated litigant from prosecution (ithout allo(ing the samee)emption to the others. ;oreover* the &C99s demand not only touchesupon the 4uestion of the identity of their clients 'ut also on documentsrelated to the suspected transactions* not only in violation of the attorney-client privilege 'ut also of the constitutional right against self-incrimination.1hichever (ay one looks at it* this is a fishing e)pedition* a free ride at the

e)pense of such rights.

COMMENT: 3he conditions violate the la(yer- client confidentiality privilege'ecause the conditions refer to the very activity (hich the clients sought theadvice of the petitioner la(yers. 3he la( treats (ith respect the rule onattorney- client privilege communication. 3he client should not 'e put intodou't as to (hether or not he (ill tell the la(yer the truth or the facts or(hether he should trust the la(yer. Attorney- client relationship is 'ased ontrust. 3hus* the communications 'y the client to the la(yer should not 'edisclosed unless it violates the la(.

NORTHESTERN UNIVERSITY, INC., a BEN A. NICOLAS /. A&&y.MACARIO D. AR1UILLOA.C. No. 66#2. A3& 2, 2005

FACTS: &etitioners filed a letter-complaint against respondent (here'y thelatter (as charged (ith deceit* malpractice* gross misconduct and?orviolation of his oath as attorney 'y representing conflicting interests. ,n itscomplaint* petitioners accuse respondent of engaging in conflicting interest ina case 'efore the 5LRC* Regional Ar'itration Branch 5o. * an


6/29

respondent filed a Complainants Consolidated !osition !aper, this timerepresenting some of the complainants in the very same consolidated case.@

ISSUE: 1hether or not respondent is guilty for representing conflictinginterest.

COMMENT: 3he issue concerns legal ethics 'ecause it touches upon the ruleon conflicting interest (ith respect to the dealings of a la(yer or a 2udge. 3herule against conflicting interest provides that a la(yer shall not representclients that are of conflicting interest or entertain a case (hich pre2udice theinterest of his client. 3he essence of this rule is for the la(yer to o'serveloyalty to his client since attorney- client relationship is 'ased on trust. 3hus*(hatever information disclosed 'y the client or any circumstances related tothe client* should not 'e used 'y the la(yer to the pre2udice of him. ,f thela(yer is allo(ed to represent conflicting interest* it (ill 'reak the trustreposed upon 'y the client to the la(yer.


7/29

interests arise (ith respect to the same general matter* ho(ever slight suchconflict may 'e. ,t applies even (hen the attorney acts from honestintentions or in good faith.

S:OUSES SADI; VS


8/29

great responsi'ility that the la(yer must o'serve and comply (ith. 3hus if ala(yer or 2udge has failed to comply (ith those responsi'ilities provided 'yla(* he should suffer the conse4uences of his actions.

R&6553 +,6LA3 R=L !."/ 6< 3> C6 6< 8=,C,AL C65=C3

Rule !."/ of the Code of 8udicial Conduct provides that @A 2udge shall notengage in the private practice of la(.

,n the case at 'ar* there is no dispute that (hen respondent agreed to filethe complaint in 'ehalf of ;akadaya adik and Linang ;inalang* he (as notyet a mem'er of the 2udiciary. >e (as a trial attorney of the Bureau of e continued to represent the plaintiffs in Civil Case 5o. 7/%/(hen he 2oined the Citizens Legal Assistance 6ffice in a private capacity.


9/29

dismissal of 9repalifeDs petition 'y the upreme Court until no(* he did notfile the necessary pleadings to enforce his alleged lien. ,t surfaces only (henthe administrative case (as filed.

R&6553 +,6LA3 3> LA1ER 6A3>

>e like(ise violated the AttorneyDs 6ath in agreeing to file Civil Case 5o.7/%/ for the purpose of claiming the insurance proceeds from 9repalifedespite his having 'een informed that the insurance policy of Lekiya &aito(as fraudulently applied for. Agreeing to handle the claim said to have arisenfrom a fraudulent act against the insurer certainly speaks of a moral fla( inhis character.

,ndeed* to 'e effective in his role* a 2udge must 'e a man of e)ceptionalintegrity and honesty. 3he special urgency for re4uiring these 4ualities in a

2udge is not hard to understand for the 2udge acts directly upon the property*li'erty* even life* of his countrymen. >ence* 'eing in a position of such grave

responsi'ility in the administration of 2ustice* a 2udge must conduct himself ina manner 'efitting the dignity of such e)alted office. Respondent 2udge*ho(ever* not only failed in this respect 'ut proved himself repeatedlyun(orthy of his post.

HORNILLA VS ATTY RICAFORT

A.C. No. 5"04 ornilla and


10/29

Respondent stressed that he entered his appearance as counsel for the&&3A Board ;em'ers for and in 'ehalf of the AA La( and Associates. >edenied that he ensured the victory of the &&3A Board >e merely assured theBoard that the truth (ill come out and that the case 'efore the 6m'udsman(ill 'e dismissed for lack of 2urisdiction* considering that respondents thereinare not pu'lic officials* 'ut private employees.

ISSUE: 1hether or not respondent is representing conflicting interest.

COMMENT: 3his is an ethical issue for la(yer or 2udges 'ecause it deals (iththe rule that la(yer should not represent conflicting interest. 3o allo( this* it(ould pre2udice the other party* (ho 'y dealing (ith the la(yer has reposedtrust to the latter of his case. ,n the present case* Atty Ricafort hasrepresented the mem'ers of &&3A (ho filed a case against the corporation.3o represent the corporation* to (hich his clients* mem'ers of &&3A filed acase* (ould definitely give rise to conflicting interest. Although* the la( doesnot prohi'it ho( many clients the la(yer can entertain* 'ut still the la(yer

should 'e vigilant in determining (hether or not there e)ists conflict ofinterest. 6ther(ise

HELD: E

,n cases of derivative suits* the prevailing rule is that a situation (herein ala(yer represents 'oth the corporation and its assailed directors unavoida'lygives rise to a conflict of interest. 3he interest of the corporate client isparamount and should not 'e influenced 'y any interest of the individualcorporate officials.%3he rulings in these cases have persuasive effect uponus. After due deli'eration on the (isdom of this doctrine* (e are sufficiently

convinced that a la(yer engaged as counsel for a corporation cannotrepresent mem'ers of the same corporations 'oard of directors in aderivative suit 'rought against them. 3o do so (ould 'e tantamount torepresenting conflicting interests* (hich is prohi'ited 'y the Code of&rofessional Responsi'ility.

,n the case at 'ar* the records sho( that C Case 5o. "!-0/-!$!/* entitled@&hilippine &u'lic chool 3eachers Assn.* ,nc.* et al. v. 007-00! Board ofirectors of the &hilippine &u'lic chool 3eachers Assn. &&3A* et al.*@ (asfiled 'y the &&3A against its o(n Board of irectors. Respondent admitsthat the AA La(


11/29

considering that the complaint in the 6m'udsman* al'eit in the name of theindividual mem'ers of the &&3A* (as 'rought in 'ehalf of and to protect theinterest of the corporation.


12/29

6n the 'asis of the attendant facts of the case* (e find su'stantial evidenceto support Atty. a'itsanas violation of the a'ove rule* as esta'lished 'y thefollo(ing circumstances on record:

6ne* his legal services (ere initially engaged 'y the complainant to

protect her interest over a certain property. 3he records sho( thatupon the legal advice of Atty. a'itsana* the eed of ale over theproperty (as prepared and e)ecuted in the complainants favor.

3(o* Atty. a'itsana met (ith Ienaida CaHete to discuss the latterslegal interest over the property su'2ect of the eed of ale. At thatpoint* Atty. a'itsana already had kno(ledge that Ienaida CaHetesinterest clashed (ith the complainants interests.

3hree* despite the kno(ledge of the clashing interests 'et(een his t(oclients* Atty. a'itsana accepted the engagement from IenaidaCaHete.


13/29

FACTS: o(ever* petitioner* upon verification of the title to theRegister of eeds* learned that they could not li4uidate the property 'ecauseit (as no longer registered under the name of ,C Corporation 'ut (asalready under the name of Bank 1ise ,nc. Later* petitioners discovered thatAtty. ra had already 'een entering his appearance as the counsel for isonin her other criminal cases in the other 'ranches of the R3C in uezon City

involving the same pyramiding scam that she and her ,C Corporation hadperpetrated.

ISSUE: 1hether not respondent is guilty of misconduct for representingconflicting interests.

COMMENT: 3his issue concerns legal ethics 'ecause it deals (ith theconduct that a la(yer is 'ound to o'serve (ith respect to his clients. ,t ismandated 'y the la( that a la(yer shall not represent conflicting interest.3his is in line (ith the principle that a la(yer must o'serve loyalty (ith hisclients. 3his rule still applies even though the relationship of the la(yer andthe client has already severed. ,t is not an e)cuse for the la(yer not torespect the rule despite termination of the relationship. ,n the present case*Attorney ra is still 'ound to o'serve the rule on conflicting interest despitethe termination of the relationship. 3his is also aimed for the protection ofthe client (ho reposed trust and confidence to the la(yer during thesu'sistence of the la(yer- client relationship.

HELD: E


14/29

Rule !."#* Canon ! of the Code of &rofessional Responsi'ility providesthat: @A la(yer shall not represent conflicting interests e)cept 'y (rittenconsent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts.@ Atty. rathus o(ed to amson and his group entire devotion to their genuine interest*and (arm zeal in the maintenance and defense of their rights. >e (ase)pected to e)ert his 'est efforts and a'ility to preserve the clients cause*for the un(avering loyalty displayed to his clients like(ise served the ends of

2ustice.

3he rule prohi'iting conflict of interest (as fashioned to prevent situations(herein a la(yer (ould 'e representing a client (hose interest is directlyadverse to any of his present or former clients. ,n the same (ay* a la(yermay only 'e allo(ed to represent a client involving the same or asu'stantially related matter that is materially adverse to the former clientonly if the former client consents to it after consultation. 3he rule is groundedin the fiduciary o'ligation of loyalty. 3hroughout the course of a la(yer-clientrelationship* the la(yer learns all the facts connected (ith the clientDs case*

including the (eak and strong points of the case. Gno(ledge and informationgathered in the course of the relationship must 'e treated as sacred andguarded (ith care. ,t 'ehoves la(yers not only to keep inviolate the clientsconfidence* 'ut also to avoid the appearance of treachery and dou'le-dealing* for only then can litigants 'e encouraged to entrust their secrets totheir la(yers* (hich is paramount in the administration of 2ustice. 3he natureof that relationship is* therefore* one of trust and confidence of the highestdegree.

Contrary to Atty. ras ill-conceived attempt to e)plain his disloyalty toamson and his group* the termination of the attorney-client relationship

does not 2ustify a la(yer to represent an interest adverse to or in conflict(ith that of the former client. 3he spirit 'ehind this rule is that the clientsconfidence once given should not 'e stripped 'y the mere e)piration of theprofessional employment. ven after the severance of the relation* a la(yershould not do anything that (ill in2uriously affect his former client in anymatter in (hich the la(yer previously represented the client. 5or should thela(yer disclose or use any of the clients confidences ac4uired in the previousrelation. ,n this regard* Canon / of the Code of &rofessional Responsi'ilitye)pressly declares that: @A la(yer o(es fidelity to the cause of his client andhe shall 'e mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him.@

,n the a'sence of the e)press consent from amson and his group after fulldisclosure to them of the conflict of interest* therefore* the most ethical thingfor Atty. ra to have done (as either to outrightly decline representing andentering his appearance as counsel for ison* or to advice ison to engageanother la(yer for herself. =nfortunately* he did neither* and should no(suffer the proper sanction.

ENEROSA BUTED a BENITO BOLISAY vs.ATTY. HAROLD M.HERNANDO


15/29

A.C. No. !#5* O9&o($) !+, !**!

FACTS:,n an action for partition instituted 'y 9enerosa as compulsory heirof the deceased 3eofilo Buted* respondent (as counsel for Luciana A'adillaand a certain Angela Buted. Respondent ultimately succeeded in defending

Luciana A'adillaDs claim of e)clusive o(nership over the lot. 1hen Lucianadied* respondent (ithdre( his appearance from that partition case.

,t appears that Luciana A'adilla sold the lot to Benito Bolisay and a ne(3ransfer Certificate of 3itle over the lot (as issued in the name ofcomplainant spouses. ;ean(hile* the pouses y filed an action for specificperformance against Benito Bolisay. 3he latter retained the services ofrespondent Atty. >ernando ho(ever claims that he rendered his services toBenito Bolisay free of charge.

ventually* the yDs (ere ordered to vacate the house su'2ect of the lease.6n 7# ernando testified that if the petition forcancellation of 3C3 (as granted* Lot 0%#0-B (ould no longer 'e o(ned 'ycomplainant spouses 'ut (ould 'e o(ned in common 'y all the heirs ofLuciana A'adilla.

Complainant spouses*manifested their disapproval thereof in a letter dated#" 8uly 0/%. Respondent ho(ever* pursued the case until it (as eventually

dismissed 'y the trial court on 7 eptem'er 0/% on the ground ofprescription.

ISSUE: 1hether or not respondent >ernando had a conflict of interestsunder the circumstances descri'ed a'ove.

COMMENT: 3his issue concerns legal ethics 'ecause it tackles a'out the ruleon conflicting of interest. ,t is a rule of la( that a la(yer should not representconflicting interest. 3his rule applies not(ithstanding (hether or notconfidential information (as disclosed 'y the la(yer to the other party. 3hefact that the parties in (hich the la(yer is representing are in conflict then

the rule applies. ,n instant case* it is evident that respondent is representingconflicting interest. 3he parties interest are adverse thus to represent one(ould pre2udice the other.

HELD: E

3hough as regards the first and second cases handled 'y respondent* noconflict of interest e)isted* the same cannot 'e said (ith respect to the


16/29

action for specific performance and the cadastral proceeding. By respondentDso(n admission* he defended the right of o(nership over Lot 0%#0-B ofcomplainant Benito Bolisay in the action for specific performance. >e assailedthis same right of o(nership (hen he su'se4uently filed a petition forcancellation of complainantsD 3ransfer Certificate of 3itle over that same lot.Respondent >ernando (as in a conflict of interest situation.

,t is clear from the a'ove-4uoted portion of the Canons of &rofessional thicsthat in cases (here a conflict of interests may e)ist* full disclosure of thefacts and e)press consent of all the parties concerned are necessary. 3hepresent Code of &rofessional Responsi'ility is stricter on this matterconsidering that consent of the parties is no( re4uired to 'e in (ritten form.,n the case at 'ar* such consent (as (anting.

Respondent persistently argues that contrary to the claims of complainantspouses* he had never seen nor taken hold of the 3ransfer Certificate of 3itlecovering Lot 5o. 0%#0-B nor o'tained any confidential information in

handling the action for specific performance. 3he contention of respondentis* in effect* that 'ecause complainant has not clearly sho(n that respondenthad o'tained any confidential information from Benito Bolisay (hilerepresenting the latter in the action for specific performance* respondentcannot 'e penalized for representing conflicting interests. 3hat is not the rulein this 2urisdiction. 3he rule here is* rather* that the mere fact thatrespondent had acted as counsel for Benito Bolisay in the action for specificperformance should have precluded respondent from acting or appearing ascounsel for the other side in the su'se4uent petition for cancellation of the3ransfer Certificate of 3itle of the spouses 9enerosa and Benito Bolisay. 3hereis no necessity for proving the actual transmission of confidential information

to an attorney in the course of his employment 'y his first client in order thathe may 'e precluded from accepting employment 'y the second orsu'se4uent client (here there are conflicting interests 'et(een the first andthe su'se4uent clients.

MA. LUISA HADad2ula filed criminal anddisciplinary actions against respondent* (hen the latter* then a mem'er of


17/29

the Bad2ula (ith violation of ection #a of Repu'lic Act 5o.

#"0* falsification of pu'lic documents and immorality* the last t(o charges'eing 'ased on the disclosures complainant earlier made to respondent. Andalso on the 'asis of the same disclosures* complainant further stated* adisciplinary case (as also instituted against her 'efore the &rofessionalRegulation Commission.

ISSUE: 1hether or not a la(yer- client relationship e)isted 'et(een >ad2ulaand Atty. ;adianda.

COMMENT: 3his is an ethical issue for la(yers or 2udges 'ecause it deals(ith the conduct that the la(yer or 2udge should o'serve in his dealings (ithhis client. A la(yer- client relationship e)ists the moment that the client asks

for a legal advice or assistance (ith respect (ith his affairs or trou'les of anykind. ,t is not essential that a contract 'e e)ecuted or that there is alreadypayment for the legal services rendered for the relationship to e)ist. 3he factthat the client approached the la(yer and asks the latter of his legal opiniona'out a certain matter* the la(yer- client relationship is deemed to e)ist.


18/29

client employed the attorney professionally on any previous occasion. ,t isnot necessary that any retainer 'e paid* promised* or charged neither is itmaterial that the attorney consulted did not after(ard handle the case for(hich his service had 'een sought. ,f a person* in respect to 'usiness affairsor trou'les of any kind* consults a la(yer (ith a vie( to o'tainingprofessional advice or assistance* and the attorney voluntarily permits orac4uiesces (ith the consultation* then the professional employments isesta'lished. Like(ise* a la(yer-client relationship e)ists not(ithstanding theclose personal relationship 'et(een the la(yer and the complainant or thenon-payment of the formerDs fees.

Respondent indeed 'reached his duty of preserving the confidence of a client.As found 'y the ,B& ,nvestigating Commissioner* the documents sho(n andthe information revealed in confidence to the respondent in the course of thelegal consultation in 4uestion* (ere used as 'ases in the criminal andadministrative complaints lodged against the complainant.

3he purpose of the rule of confidentiality is actually to protect the client frompossi'le 'reach of confidence as a result of a consultation (ith a la(yer.

ROSA F. MERCADO vs. ATTY.


19/29

ISSUE: 1hether or not the respondent violated the rule on privilegedcommunication 'et(een attorney-client (hen he filed the criminal case forfalsification

COMMENT: 3his issue concerns legal ethics 'ecause it deals (ith the

responsi'ilities (hich the la(yer ought to o'serve as mandated 'y the la(.3he rule on privileged communication 'et(een the attorney and the clientprovides that any information o'tained 'y the la(yer in the course of theattorney- client relationship should 'e kept confidential 'y the la(yer. uchprivilege still e)tends despite the termination of the relationship. 3his isaimed for the protection of the client. >o(ever* in order for one to invokesuch privilege* one must specify the facts in relation to the alleged violationof the rule. ;ere allegation (ould not suffice. ,t must 'e su'stantiated 'y thecomplainant.


20/29

,ndeed* complainant failed to attend the hearings at the ,B&. 1ithout anytestimony from the complainant as to the specific confidential informationallegedly divulged 'y respondent (ithout her consent* it is difficult* if notimpossi'le to determine if there (as any violation of the rule on privilegedcommunication. uch confidential information is a crucial link in esta'lishinga 'reach of the rule on privileged communication 'et(een attorney andclient. ,t is not enough to merely assert the attorney-client privilege. #/3he'urden of proving that the privilege applies is placed upon the partyasserting the privilege.

UY CHICO vs. THE UNION LIFE ASSURANCE SOCIETY, LIMITED, ET AL.R. No. L-*2#! 3he plaintiff seeks to recover the face value of t(o insurance policiesupon a stock of dry goods destroyed 'y fire. ometime 'efore the date of thefire* the plaintiff purchased his 'rotherDs interest in the 'usiness andcontinued to carry on the 'usiness under the fatherDs name. At the time ofthe fire @=y Layco@ (as heavily inde'ted and su'se4uent thereto thecreditors of the estate of the plaintiffDs father. uring the course of theseproceedings* the plaintiffDs attorney surrendered the policies of insurance tothe administrator of the estate* (ho compromised (ith the insurancecompany for one-half their face value* or &$*""". 3his money (as paid intocourt and is no( 'eing held 'y the sheriff. 3he plaintiff no( 'rings thisaction* maintaining that the policies and goods insured 'elonged to him and

not to the estate of his deceased father and alleges that he is not 'ound 'ythe compromise effected 'y the administrator of his fatherDs estate.

3he defendant insurance company sought to sho( that the plaintiff hadagreed to compromise settlement of the policies and for that purposeintroduced evidence sho(ing that the plaintiffDs attorney had surrendered thepolicies to the administrator (ith the understanding that such a compromise(as to 'e effected. 3he attorney (as then called for that purpose (hichplaintiff did not o'2ect. >o(ever* counsel of plaintiff su'se4uently (ithdre(the (aiver previously given 'y the plaintiff and o'2ected to the testimony ofthe attorney on the ground that it (as privileged.

ISSUE: 1hether or not the testimony of plaintiffs former counsel (asprivileged.

COMMENT: 3his is an ethical issue for la(yers or 2udges 'ecause it deals(ith the rule on privileged communication (hich the la(yer or 2udge isstrictly 'ound to o'serve. As a rule* any information disclosed 'y the client tothe la(yer should 'e kept confidential. >o(ever* the rule on privilege
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/ac_5108_2005.html#fnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/ac_5108_2005.html#fnt37


21/29

communication does not apply (hen the information (as given 'y the clientto the la(yer and such information is intended to 'e communicated to thirdpersons as instructed 'y the client. o(ever*the document of sale of the car (as issued in complainantDs name andfinanced through City 3rust Company.


22/29

u'se4uently* respondent failed to pay the amortization on the car and thefinancing firm sent demand letters to complainant. Complainant encashedrespondentDs postdated check 'ut it (as dishonored as respondentDs account

therein (as already closed. 3hus* complainant filed a criminal case againstrespondent for violation B& Blg. 77 and a civil case for 2udicial foreclosure ofreal estate mortgage.

>o(ever* in the foreclosure case* respondent averred that complainant is a'usinessman (ho is engaged in the real estate 'usiness* trading and 'uy andsell of deficiency ta)ed imported cars* shark loans and other shady deals andhas many cases pending in court. >e further contended that complainanteven (anted respondent to offer 'ri'e money to the mem'ers of the revie(committee of the epartment of 8ustice or to the prosecutors.

ISSUE: 1hether respondent committed a 'reach of trust and confidence 'yimputing to complainant illegal practices and disclosing complainantDs allegedintention to 'ri'e government officials in connection (ith a pending case.

COMMENT: 3his is an ethical issue for la(yers 'ecause it deals (ith theconduct that the la(yer ought to o'serve in his dealings (ith his client andhis duty to uphold the truth and the la(. As a rule* a la(yer is 'ound to keepany information disclosed 'y the client to the former 'y virtue of theattorney- client relationship. >o(ever* conflict arises (hen such informationis aimed for the perpetuation of a crime. ,n such cases* the rule on privilegecommunication does not apply. ,t is the duty of the la(yer to help the clientand uphold his interest. But if such is contrary to la(* the la(yer is not 'ound

to pursue the clients interest. 3he la(yer still has the duty to uphold the la(.

HELD: E.

Canon / of the Code of &rofessional Responsi'ility provides that a la(yero(es fidelity to the cause of his client and shall 'e mindful of the trust andconfidence reposed on him. 3he long-esta'lished rule is that an attorney isnot permitted to disclose communications made to him in his professionalcharacter 'y a client* unless the latter consents. 3his o'ligation to preservethe confidences and secrets of a client arises at the inception of theirrelationship. ,t even survives the death of the client.

>o(ever* the privilege against disclosure of confidential communications orinformation is limited only to communications (hich are legitimately andproperly (ithin the scope of a la(ful employment of a la(yer. ,t does note)tend to those made in contemplation of a crime or perpetration of a fraud.,f the unla(ful purpose is avo(ed* as in this case* the complainantDs allegedintention to 'ri'e government officials in relation to his case* thecommunication is not covered 'y the privilege as the client does not consultthe la(yer professionally. ,t is not (ithin the profession of a la(yer to advise


23/29

a client as to ho( he may commit a crime as a la(yer is not a gun for hire.3hus* the attorney-client privilege does not attach* there 'eing noprofessional employment in the strict sense.

Be that as it may* respondentDs e)planation that it (as necessary for him to

make the disclosures in his pleadings fails to satisfy us. 3he disclosures (erenot indispensa'le to protect his rights as they (ere not pertinent to theforeclosure case. ,t (as improper for the respondent to use it against thecomplainant in the foreclosure case as it (as not the su'2ect matter oflitigation therein and respondentDs professional competence and legal advice(ere not 'eing attacked in said case. A la(yer must conduct himself*especially in his dealings (ith his clients* (ith integrity in a manner that is'eyond reproach. >is relationship (ith his clients should 'e characterized 'ythe highest degree of good faith and fairness.

RAMON SAURA, 3(o 7 petitions* one 'y Ramon aura* 8r. and the other 'y >elen .Baldoria and Raymundo E. aura* (ere filed 'efore this Court charging Atty.Lalaine Lili'eth Agdeppa for violation of her la(yerDs oath and disregard ofections !* 77* 7!* 70* # and #7 of the Canons of &rofessional thics.

Respondent handled the settlement of the property of Ramon aura.>o(ever* the negotiations for the settlement dragged on for three years.&etitioners then learned that the administrators of the property of the lateRamon aura* (ith the assistance of respondent* (ho in fact notarized the

eed of ale* sold the property to andal(ood Real state and evelopmentCorporation (ithout the kno(ledge and participation of petitioners.&etitioners allege that despite repeated demands* respondent have refused todisclose the amount of the sale. 3he petitioners have thus 'een constrainedto institute criminal and civil actions.

uring the scheduled hearing of the case* respondent did not appear despitereceipt of the copy of the petition. 3o date* no response has 'een forthcoming from Atty. Agdeppa.

ISSUE: 1hether or not the re4uest for the information a'out the sale of theproperty and account for the proceeds violates the attorney- client privilege.

COMMENT: 3his is an ethical issue 'ecause it affects the relation of thela(yer to the client (ith respect to the rule on privilege communication.=nder the rule on privilege communication* a la(yer is 'ound to keepinformation ac4uired 'y the la(yer from the client 'y virtue of the attorney -client relationship. 3his is in line (ith the principle that the attorney- clientrelationship is 'ased on trust and confidence. 3hus* the la(yer is 'ound too'serve loyalty to his client. 3his rule is intended for the protection of the


24/29

client. >o(ever* the rule does not apply (hen the information disclosed is notrelated to the la(yers employment and is intended to 'e disclosed to otherpersons.

HELD: 56.

3he re4uest for the information regarding the sale of the property and toaccount for the proceeds is not a violation of the attorney-client privilege.Rule #"* ection 7% ' of the Rules of Court provides:

ec. 7%. Dis$ualification b% reason of privileged communication. M 3hefollo(ing persons cannot testify as to matters learned in confidence inthe follo(ing cases:) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )' An attorney cannot* (ithout the consent of his client* 'e e)aminedas to any communication made 'y the client to him* or his advicegiven thereon in the course of* or (ith a vie( to* professional

employment* nor can an attorneyDs secretary* stenographer* or clerk 'ee)amined* (ithout the consent of the client and his employer*concerning any fact the kno(ledge of (hich has 'een ac4uired in suchcapacity.

3he information re4uested 'y petitioners is not privileged. 3he petitioners areonly asking for the disclosure of the amount of the sale or account for theproceeds. &etitioners certainly have the right to ask for such informationsince they o(n the property as co-heirs of the late Ramon . aura and asco-administrators of the property. >ence* respondent cannot refuse to

divulge such information to them and hide 'ehind the cloak of the attorney-client relationship.

LORITO V. MATURAN vs. ATTY. CONRADO S. ONZALESA.C. No. 25*+ Ma)9 !2, !**"

FACTS: A complaint for dis'arment (as filed 'y 9lorito +. ;aturan againsthis counsel* Atty. Conrado . 9onzales* charging him (ith immoral* unethical*and anomalous acts.

pouses Cas4ue2o instituted 9lorito +. ;aturan* as their attorney-in-fact*through a pecial &o(er of Attorney &A authorizing ;aturan to filee2ectment cases against the s4uatters and criminal cases for violation of &//7. &etitioner engaged the services of respondent in e2ecting severals4uatters occupying the lot. Respondent 9onzales filed Civil Case 5o. /F#- for


25/29

;ean(hile* Antonio Cas4ue2o had* ho(ever* filed a case for reconvenyance ofproperty and declaration of nullity against Celestino Eokingco docketed asCivil Case 5o. 7"$/. ,n the interim* the parties to Civil Case 5o. 7"$/entered into a compromise agreement* (hich (as 2udicially approved in a

2udgment dated ;arch 7F* 0F#.

1hile the motion for issuance of a (rit of e)ecution (as pending* and(ithout (ithdra(ing as counsel for petitioner* respondent filed* on 'ehalf ofCelestino Eokingco* et al.* Civil Case 5o. 7/%$* an action to annul the

2udgment rendered in Civil Case 5o. 7"$/. Respondent* again on 'ehalf ofCelestino Eokingco* et al.* also filed pecial Civil Case 5o. $ for in2unction(ith a prayer for preliminary in2unction* (ith damages* against petitioner.

ISSUE: 1hether or not respondent is guilty of representing conflictinginterests.

COMMENT: 3his issue concerns legal ethics 'ecause it deals (ith the rule onconflicting interests. 3he la( provides that a la(yer should not 'e allo(ed torepresent conflicting interests. Aside of the effect that it (ill pre2udice theparties* the la(yer is 'ound to o'serve this rule 'ecause a la(yer o(esloyalty to his client* (ho has reposed some trust and confidence to thela(yer. ,n the instant case* it is clear that there e)ist conflicting interest'et(een the t(o parties (hich respondent represents.


26/29

3his Court finds respondentDs actuations violative of Canon $ of the Canons of&rofessional thics (hich provide in part:

,t is unprofessional to represent conflicting interests* e)cept 'ye)press consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the

facts. 1ithin the meaning of this canon* a la(yer represents conflictinginterests (hen* in 'ehalf of one client* it is his duty to contend for that(hich duty to another client re4uires him to oppose.

;oreover* respondentDs 2ustification for his actions reveal a patent ignoranceof the fiduciary o'ligations (hich a la(yer o(es to his client. A la(yer-clientrelationship is not terminated 'y the filing of a motion for a (rit of e)ecution.>is acceptance of a case implies that he (ill prosecute the case to itsconclusion. >e may not 'e permitted to unilaterally terminate the same tothe pre2udice of his client.

:EO:LE OF THE :HILI::INESvs. SANDIANBAYAN.R. No. !!54#*-4! e claimed that

respondent >onrada* in conspiracy (ith his herein co-respondents* simulatedand certified as true copies certain documents purporting to 'e a notice ofarraignment* dated 8uly * 0F!* and transcripts of stenographic notessupposedly taken during the arraignment of &aredes on the per2urycharge. 3hese falsified documents (ere anne)ed to respondent &aredesDmotion for reconsideration of the 3anod'ayan resolution for the filing of agraft charge against him* in order to support his contention that the same(ould constitute dou'le 2eopardy.

9elacio attached to his letter a certification that no notice of arraignment (asever received 'y the 6ffice of the &rovincial


27/29

of dou'le 2eopardy 'y making it appear that the per2ury case had 'eendismissed 'y the trial court after he had 'een arraigned therein.

A motion (as filed 'y the &eople for the discharge of ansaet as a state(itness. >o(ever* the same (as denied 'y the andigan'ayan on the ground

that it is covered 'y the attorney- client privilege.

ISSUE: (hether or not the pro2ected testimony of respondent ansaet* asproposed state (itness* is 'arred 'y the attorney-client privilege

COMMENT: 3his is an ethical issue for la(yers or 2udges 'ecause it deals(ith the situation on (hether or not a la(yer can divulge the informationcommunicated 'y the client to the la(yer. As a rule* a la(yer should keep theinformation disclosed 'y client confidential. >o(ever* this rule is nota'solute. 1hen such information (as given to the la(yer for theperpetuation of a crime* the rule on confidential information does not apply.3he rule only applies to those information the client divulged to the la(yer 'y

virtue of the past crime committed 'y the former 'y (hich the client soughtthe advice of the la(yer. 3he instant case falls to the e)ception on the rule onprivilege communication. 3he information given to respondent (as made atthe time (hen &aredes and >onorada (as

HELD: 56

3he attorney-client privilege cannot apply in these cases* as the facts thereofand actuations of 'oth respondents therein constitute an e)ception to therule. onradathat have already 'een committed and consummated.

3he Court repro'ates the last assumption (hich is fla(ed 'y a some(hatinaccurate 'asis. ,t is true that b% now* insofar as the falsifications to 'etestified to in respondent court are concerned* those crimes (ere necessarilycommitted in the past. But for the application of the attorney-client privilege*ho(ever* the period to 'e considered is the date when the privilegedcommunication was made b% the client to the attorne% in relation to either acrime committed in the past or with respect to a crime intended to be

committed in the future. ,n other (ords* if the client seeks his la(yerDs


28/29

advice (ith respect to a crime that the former has theretofore committed* heis given the protection of a virtual confessional seal (hich the attorney-clientprivilege declares cannot 'e 'roken 'y the attorney (ithout the clientDsconsent. 3he same privileged confidentiality* ho(ever* does not attach (ithregard to a crime (hich a client intends to commit thereafter or in the futureand for purposes of (hich he seeks the la(yerDs advice.

tatements and communications regarding the commission of acrime alread% committed* made 'y a party (ho committed it* to an attorney*consulted as such* areprivilegedcommunications. Contrarily* the un'rokenstream of 2udicial dicta is to the effect that communications 'et(een attorneyand client having to do (ith the clientDscontemplated criminal acts, or in aidor furtherance thereof, are not covered b% the cloak of privilegesordinarilye)isting in reference to communications 'et(een attorney and client.mphases supplied.

,n the present cases* the testimony sought to 'e elicited from ansate as

state (itness are the communications made to him 'y physical acts and?oraccompanying (ords of &arades at the time he and >onrada* either (ith theactive or passive participation of ansaet* (ere a'out to falsify* or in theprocess of falsifying* the documents (hich (ere later filed in the 3anod'ayan'y ansaet and culminated in the criminal charges no( pending inrespondent andigan'ayan. Clearly* therefore* the confidentialcommunications thus made 'y &aredes to ansaet (ere for purposes of andin reference to the crime of falsification (hich had not %et been committedinthe past 'y &aredes 'ut (hich he* in confederacy (ith his present co-respondents* later committed. >aving 'een made for purposes ofafutureoffense* those communications are outside the pale of the attorney-

client privilege.

onrada concocted and foistedupon the authorities. ,t is (ell settled that in order that a communication'et(een a la(yer and his client may 'e privileged* it must 'e for a la(fulpurpose or in furtherance of a la(ful end. 3he e)istence of an unla(fulpurpose prevents the privilege from attaching. ,n fact* it has also 'eenpointed out to the Court that the @prosecution of the honora'le relation ofattorney and client (ill not 'e permitted under the guise of privilege* andevery communication made to an attorney 'y a client for a criminal purposeis a conspiracy or attempt at a conspiracy (hich is not only la(ful to divulge*'ut (hich the attorney under certain circumstances may 'e 'ound to discloseat once in the interest of 2ustice.@

,t is evident* therefore* that it (as error for respondent andigan'ayan toinsist that such unla(ful communications intended for an illegal purposecontrived 'y conspirators are nonetheless covered 'y the so-called mantle ofprivilege. 3o prevent a conniving counsel from revealing the genesis of acrime (hich (as later committed pursuant to a conspiracy* 'ecause of the


29/29

o'2ection thereto of his conspiring client* (ould 'e one of the (orsttravesties in the rules of evidence and practice in the no'le profession of la(.

Frias vs Atty

Documents

Transcript of Frias vs Atty