Mercado vs Vitriolo 459 SCRA 1 May 26, 2005
Subject: Basic Legal Ethics
FACTS
Mercado filed a
complaint against Atty. Vitriolo, seeking his disbarment for maliciously
instituting a case for falsification of public document against her based on
confidential information gained from their attorney-client relationship.
Mercado's husband
filed a civil case for annulment of their marriage with RTC which was
dismissed. Atty. Anastacio P. de Leon, then counsel of Mercado, died so Atty.
Vitriolo entered his appearance as collaborating counsel. It also appears that
Atty. Vitriolo filed a criminal action against Mercado for falsification of
public document for false entries in the Certificates of Live Birth of her
children.
Mercado denied
using any other name than Rosa F. Mercado and insisted that she has gotten
married only once. Mercado alleged that said criminal complaint disclosed confidential
facts and information relating to the civil case for annulment, then handled by
the lawyer as her counsel so that the lawyer is guilty of breaching their
privileged and confidential lawyer-client relationship.
Atty. Vitriolo
maintains that his filing of the criminal complaint does not violate the rule
on privileged communication between attorney and client because the bases are
the two certificates of live birth which are public documents and in no way
connected with the confidence taken during his engagement as counsel.
The IBP Board of
Governors approved the report finding the lawyer 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. Upon receiving a copy of
the IBP report and recommendation, Mercado wrote CJ Davide a letter of
desistance however, the court said that the letter imparting forgiveness is
inconsequential in disbarment proceedings.
ISSUE
Whether or not
Atty. Vitriolo violated the rule on privileged communication between attorney
and client.
RULING
No.
The rule in
engaging the services of an attorney, the client reposes on him special powers
of trust and confidence. Their relationship is strictly personal and highly
confidential and fiduciary. The relation is of such delicate, exacting and
confidential nature that is required by necessity and public interest. On the
rule on attorney-client privilege. the factors essential to establish the
existence of the privilege. (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. (2) The client made the
communication in confidence. (3) The legal advice must be sought from the
attorney in his professional capacity.
In this case, the
evidence on record fails to substantiate complainant’s allegations. Mercado did
not even specify the alleged communication in confidence disclosed. All her
claims were couched in general terms and lacked specificity. She contends that
respondent violated the rule on privileged communication when he instituted a
criminal action against her for falsification of public documents because the
criminal complaint disclosed facts relating to the civil case for annulment
then handled by the lawyer but did not 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, Mercado failed to attend the hearings at the IBP. Without any testimony
as to the specific confidential information allegedly divulged without her
consent, it is difficult, if not impossible to determine if there was any
violation of the rule on privileged communication. Such confidential
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. The burden of proving that the
privilege applies is placed upon the party asserting the privilege. Therefore,
the complaint against respondent Atty. Julito D. Vitriolo is hereby DISMISSED
for lack of merit.
No comments:
Post a Comment