Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Mercado-v.-Atty.-Vitriolo-A.C.-No.-5108-DIGEST

    Uploaded by

    Rhea Calabines
    96 views1 page
    Atty. Julio Vitriolo had previously represented Rosa Mercado in an annulment case. Years later, he filed a criminal falsification case against Mercado regarding certificates of live birth. Mercado then filed a complaint alleging Vitriolo breached attorney-client privilege by disclosing confidential information from the annulment case. However, the court ruled against Mercado because she did not specify which confidential communications were disclosed or appear at IBP hearings to testify about the allegations. The elements of attorney-client privilege were not met.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    3. Mercado-v.-Atty.-Vitriolo-A.C.-No.-5108-DIGEST

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Atty. Julio Vitriolo had previously represented Rosa Mercado in an annulment case. Years later, he filed a criminal falsification case against Mercado regarding certificates of live birth. Mercado then filed a complaint alleging Vitriolo breached attorney-client privilege by disclosing confidential information from the annulment case. However, the court ruled against Mercado because she did not specify which confidential communications were disclosed or appear at IBP hearings to testify about the allegations. The elements of attorney-client privilege were not met.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf or txt
    96 views1 page

    Mercado-v.-Atty.-Vitriolo-A.C.-No.-5108-DIGEST

    Uploaded by

    Rhea Calabines
    Atty. Julio Vitriolo had previously represented Rosa Mercado in an annulment case. Years later, he filed a criminal falsification case against Mercado regarding certificates of live birth. Mercado then filed a complaint alleging Vitriolo breached attorney-client privilege by disclosing confidential information from the annulment case. However, the court ruled against Mercado because she did not specify which confidential communications were disclosed or appear at IBP hearings to testify about the allegations. The elements of attorney-client privilege were not met.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 1

    ROSA F. MERCADO v. ATTY. JULIO D.

    VITRIOLO
    A.C. No. 5108
    May 26, 2005

    FACTS

    Respondent Atty. Julio D. Vitriolo had acted as counsel of complainant Rosa F. Mercado
    in an annulment case. Several years later, on April 13, 1999, Atty. Vitriolo filed a criminal action
    against Mercado for falsification of public document. Atty. Vitriolo alleged that complainant made
    false entries in the Certificates of Live Birth of her children, Angelica and Katelyn Anne. In
    response, Mercado filed this complaint, alleging that said criminal complaint disclosed confidential
    facts and information relating to the civil case for annulment, then handled by Atty. Vitriolo as her
    counsel. She claims that, in filing the criminal case for falsification, respondent is guilty of
    breaching their privileged and confidential lawyer-client relationship, and should be disbarred.
    However, she did not appear at any of the scheduled hearings at the IBP.

    ISSUE

    Whether Atty. Vitriolo violated the rule on privileged communication between attorney and
    client when he filed a criminal case for falsification of public document against his former client

    RULING

    NO. The elements of attorney-client privilege are (1) there exists an attorney-client
    relationship, or a prospective attorney-client relationship, and it is by reason of this
    relationship that the client made the communication, and (2) the client made the
    communication in confidence. In the case at bar, complainant did not even specify the alleged
    communication in confidence disclosed by respondent. All her claims were couched in general
    terms and lacked specificity. She also failed to appear the IBP hearings, hence the lack of any
    testimony on the allegations.

    You might also like