Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Complainant Vs Vs Respondent: Second Division
Complainant Vs Vs Respondent: Second Division
DECISION
PUNO , J : p
Rosa F. Mercado led the instant administrative complaint against Atty. Julito D.
Vitriolo, seeking his disbarment from the practice of law. The complainant alleged that
respondent maliciously instituted a criminal case for falsi cation of public document
against her, a former client, based on con dential information gained from their attorney-
client relationship.
Let us first hearken to the facts.
Complainant is a Senior Education Program Specialist of the Standards
Development Division, O ce of Programs and Standards while respondent is a Deputy
Executive Director IV of the Commission on Higher Education (CHED). 1
Complainant's husband led Civil Case No. 40537 entitled " Ruben G. Mercado v.
Rosa C. Francisco," for annulment of their marriage with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
Pasig City. This annulment case had been dismissed by the trial court, and the dismissal
became final and executory on July 15, 1992. 2
In August 1992, Atty. Anastacio P. de Leon, counsel of complainant, died. On
February 7, 1994, respondent entered his appearance before the trial court as
collaborating counsel for complainant. 3
On March 16, 1994, respondent led his Notice of Substitution of Counsel, 4
informing the RTC of Pasig City that he has been appointed as counsel for the
complainant, in substitution of Atty. de Leon.
It also appears that on April 13, 1999, respondent led a criminal action against
complainant before the O ce of the City Prosecutor, Pasig City, entitled " Atty. Julito
Vitriolo, et al. v. Rose Dela Cruz F. Mercado ," and docketed as I.S. No. PSG 99-9823, for
violation of Articles 171 and 172 (falsi cation of public document) of the Revised Penal
Code. 5 Respondent alleged that complainant made false entries in the Certi cates of Live
Birth of her children, Angelica and Katelyn Anne. More speci cally, complainant allegedly
indicated in said Certi cates of Live Birth that she is married to a certain Ferdinand
Fernandez, and that their marriage was solemnized on April 11, 1979, when in truth, she is
legally married to Ruben G. Mercado and their marriage took place on April 11, 1978.
Complainant denied the accusations of respondent against her. She denied using
any other name than "Rosa F. Mercado." She also insisted that she has gotten married only
once, on April 11, 1978, to Ruben G. Mercado.
In addition, complainant Mercado cited other charges against respondent that are
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
pending before or decided upon by other tribunals — (1) libel suit before the O ce of the
City Prosecutor, Pasig City; 6 (2) administrative case for dishonesty, grave misconduct,
conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, pursuit of private business, vocation
or profession without the permission required by Civil Service rules and regulations, and
violations of the "Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act," before the then Presidential
Commission Against Graft and Corruption; 7 (3) complaint for dishonesty, grave
misconduct, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service before the O ce of
the Ombudsman, where he was found guilty of misconduct and meted out the penalty of
one month suspension without pay; 8 and, (4) the Information for violation of Section 7(b)
(2) of Republic Act No. 6713, as amended, otherwise known as the Code of Conduct and
Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees before the Sandiganbayan. 9
Complainant Mercado alleged that said criminal complaint for falsi cation of public
document (I.S. No. PSG 99-9823) disclosed con dential facts and information relating to
the civil case for annulment, then handled by respondent Vitriolo as her counsel. This
prompted complainant Mercado to bring this action against respondent. She claims that,
in ling the criminal case for falsi cation, respondent is guilty of breaching their privileged
and confidential lawyer-client relationship, and should be disbarred. ITECSH
The IBP Commission on Bar Discipline set two dates for hearing but complainant
failed to appear in both. Investigating Commissioner Rosalina R. Datiles thus granted
respondent's motion to le his memorandum, and the case was submitted for resolution
based on the pleadings submitted by the parties. 1 4
On June 21, 2003, the IBP Board of Governors approved the report of investigating
commissioner Datiles, nding the respondent guilty of violating the rule on privileged
communication between attorney and client, and recommending his suspension from the
practice of law for one (1) year.
On the other hand, a communication from a (prospective) client to a lawyer for some
purpose other than on account of the (prospective) attorney-client relation is not
privileged. Instructive is the case of P eider v. Palanca , 2 5 where the client and his wife
leased to their attorney a 1,328-hectare agricultural land for a period of ten years. In their
contract, the parties agreed, among others, that a speci ed portion of the lease rentals
would be paid to the client-lessors, and the remainder would be delivered by counsel-
lessee to client's listed creditors. The client alleged that the list of creditors which he had
"con dentially" supplied counsel for the purpose of carrying out the terms of payment
contained in the lease contract was disclosed by counsel, in violation of their lawyer-client
relation, to parties whose interests are adverse to those of the client. As the client himself,
however, states, in the execution of the terms of the aforesaid lease contract between the
parties, he furnished counsel with the "con dential" list of his creditors. We ruled that this
indicates that client delivered the list of his creditors to counsel not because of the
professional relation then existing between them, but on account of the lease agreement.
We then held that a violation of the con dence that accompanied the delivery of that list
would partake more of a private and civil wrong than of a breach of the delity owing from
a lawyer to his client.
(2) The client made the communication in confidence.
The mere relation of attorney and client does not raise a presumption of
confidentiality. 2 6 The client must intend the communication to be confidential. 2 7
A con dential communication refers to information transmitted by voluntary act of
disclosure between attorney and client in con dence and by means which, so far as the
client is aware, discloses the information to no third person other than one reasonably
necessary for the transmission of the information or the accomplishment of the purpose
for which it was given. 2 8
Our jurisprudence on the matter rests on quiescent ground. Thus, a compromise
agreement prepared by a lawyer pursuant to the instruction of his client and delivered to
the opposing party, 2 9 an offer and counter-offer for settlement, 3 0 or a document given by
a client to his counsel not in his professional capacity, 3 1 are not privileged
communications, the element of confidentiality not being present. 3 2
(3) The legal advice must be sought from the attorney in his professional
capacity. 3 3
The communication made by a client to his attorney must not be intended for mere
information, but for the purpose of seeking legal advice from his attorney as to his rights
or obligations. The communication must have been transmitted by a client to his attorney
for the purpose of seeking legal advice. 3 4
If the client seeks an accounting service, 3 5 or business or personal assistance, 3 6
and not legal advice, the privilege does not attach to a communication disclosed for such
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
purpose.
Applying all these rules to the case at bar, we hold that the evidence on record fails
to substantiate complainant's allegations. We note that complainant did not even specify
the alleged communication in con dence disclosed by respondent. All her claims were
couched in general terms and lacked speci city. She contends that respondent violated
the rule on privileged communication when he instituted a criminal action against her for
falsi cation of public documents because the criminal complaint disclosed facts relating
to the civil case for annulment then handled by respondent. She did not, however, spell out
these facts which will determine the merit of her complaint. The Court cannot be involved
in a guessing game as to the existence of facts which the complainant must prove.
Indeed, complainant failed to attend the hearings at the IBP. Without any testimony
from the complainant as to the speci c con dential information allegedly divulged by
respondent without her consent, it is di cult, if not impossible to determine if there was
any violation of the rule on privileged communication. Such con dential information is a
crucial link in establishing a breach of the rule on privileged communication between
attorney and client. It is not enough to merely assert the attorney-client privilege. 3 7 The
burden of proving that the privilege applies is placed upon the party asserting the privilege.
38
SO ORDERED.
Austria-Martinez, Callejo, Sr. and Chico-Nazario, JJ., concur.
Tinga, J., is out of the country.
Footnotes
1. Rollo, p. 1.
2. Id. at 12.
3. Id. at 10.
4. Id. at 11.
5. Id. at 16-25.
6. Id. at 36-39.
7. Id. at 40-46.
8. Id. at 152-160.
9. Rollo, Vol. IV, pp. 4-5.
10. Rollo, p. 90.
11. Rollo, Vol. III, p. 1.
12. Rollo, pp. 91-92.
13. Id. at 61.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
14. Rollo, Vol. IV, p. 21.
15. Regala v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 105938, September 20, 1996, 262 SCRA 122, 138,
citing Agpalo, Ruben, Legal Ethics, 1992 ed., p. 136.
16. Hilado v. David, 84 Phil 569, 578 (1949), citing J. Wigmore's Evidence §§ 2285, 2290,
2291 (1923).
17. Hilado v. David, 84 Phil 569, 579 (1949).
18. Agpalo, Ruben, Legal and Judicial Ethics, 2002 ed., pp. 177-178.
19. Canon 21, Code of Professional Responsibility.
20. Canon 37 of the Canons of Professional Ethics; In re Miller, 357 N.C. 316 (2003), citing
Glover v. Patten, 165 U.S. 394, 407-408 (1897).
21. In re Williams, 57 Ill.2d 63 (1974), citing People v. Gerold, 265 Ill 448 (1914).
22. 8 J. Wigmore, Evidence §2292 (McNaughton rev. 1961).
23. Rule 15.02, Code of Professional Responsibility — A lawyer shall be bound by the rule
on privileged communication in respect of matters disclosed to him by a prospective
client.
24. Agpalo, Legal and Judicial Ethics, 2002 ed., pp. 186-187, citing Comments of IBP
Committee that drafted the Code, p. 81.
25. Adm. Case No. 927, September 28, 1970, 35 SCRA 75.
26. Hitpold v. Stern, 82 A2d 123, 26 ALR2d 852 (1951).
27. Uy Chico v. Union Life Assurance Society, 29 Phil 163, 165 (1915); City & County of San
Francisco v. Superior Court, 231 P2d 26 (1951).
28. Brown v. Saint Paul City R. Co., 62 NW2d 688, 44 ALR 535 (1954).
29. Uy Chico v. Union Life Assurance Society, 29 Phil 163 (1915).
30. Hiltold v. Stern, 82 A2d 123, 26 ALR2d 852 (1951).
31. Pfleider v. Palanca, Adm. Case No. 927, September 28, 1970, 35 SCRA 75.
32. Agpalo, Legal and Judicial Ethics, 2002 ed., p. 267.