Burbe vs.

Magulta

FACTS: Burbe, seeking legal services of Atty. Magulta, deposited the amount of 25,000 in favor of the
respondent for filing of a necessary complaint. He waited for months but there seemed to be NO PROGRESS in
his case so he frequented Magulta’s office and there he was told repeatedly to wait. However, per personally
checking the progress of this case in the Office of the Clerk of Court, it was discovered that there was no record
of said case. Atty. Magulta reimbursed Burbe to appease his feelings but Burbe continued to file a complaint for
the inconvenience and deception he was put under. Respondent veered that he never deceived the complainant
because the latter never paid for the additional services he requested.

Issue: WON Atty Magulta misinterpreted the funds given to him as filing fee

Held: Yes.Atty. Magulta is suspended from the practice of law for 1 year. Practice of the law is a profession not a
business. Lawyering is not primarily meant to be a money-making venture, and law advocacy is not a capital that
necessary yields profit. Filing the Regquill complaint was necessary and the respondent failed to fulfill.
Respondent suspended from practice for a year.

The contention that there was no lawyer-client relationship is untenable. This relation was established
from the very first moment the complainant asked the respondent for legal advice re farmer's business.
The Court consistently held that once lawyers agree to take up the cause of a client, they owe fidelity to such
cause and must always be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in them. They owe entire devotion to the
interest of the client.
 Hilado vs. Judge David

FACTS

Blandina Hilado filed a complaint to have some deeds of sale annulled against Selim Assad. Attorney Delgado
Dizon represented Hilado. Assad was represented by a certain Atty. Ohnick. Atty. Vicente Francisco replaced
Atty. Ohnick as counsel for Assad . Four months later, Atty. Dizon filed a motion to have Atty. Francisco be
disqualified because Atty. Dizon found out that Hilado approached Atty. Francisco to ask for additional legal
opinion regarding her case and for which Atty. Francisco sent Hilado a legal opinion letter. Atty. Francisco
opposed the motion for his disqualification. In his opposition, he said that no material information was relayed to
him by Hilado; that in fact, upon hearing Hilado’s story, Atty. Francisco advised her that her case will not win in
court; but that later, Hilado returned with a copy of the Complaint prepared by Atty. Dizon; that however, when
Hilado returned, Atty. Francisco was not around but an associate in his firm was there (a certain Atty. Federico
Agrava); that Atty. Agrava attended to Hilado; that after Hilado left, leaving behind the legal documents, Atty.
Agrava then prepared a legal opinion letter where it was stated that Hilado has no cause of action to file suit; that
Atty. Agrava had Atty. Francisco sign the letter; that Atty. Francisco did not read the letter as Atty. Agrava said
that it was merely a letter explaining why the firm cannot take on Hilado’s case. Atty. Francisco also pointed out
that he was not paid for his advice; that no confidential information was relayed because all Hilado brought was a
copy of the Complaint which was already filed in court; and that, if any, Hilado already waived her right to
disqualify Atty. Francisco because he was already representing Assad in court for four months in the said case.

Judge Jose Gutierrez David ruled in favor of Atty. Francisco.

ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Francisco should be disqualified in the said civil case.

HELD:

Yes. There already existed an attorney-client relationship between Hilado and Atty. Francisco. Hence, Atty.
Francisco cannot act as counsel against Hilado without the latter’s consent. As ruled by the Supreme
Court, to constitute an attorney-client relationship, it is not necessary that any retainer should have been paid,
promised, or charged for; neither is it material that the attorney consulted did not afterward undertake the case
about which the consultation was had. If a person, in respect to his business affairs or troubles of any kind,
consults with his attorney in his professional capacity with the view to obtaining professional advice or
assistance, and the attorney voluntarily permits or acquiesces in such consultation, then the professional
employment must be regarded as established. Section 19 (e) of Rule 127 imposes upon an attorney the duty
“to maintain inviolate the confidence, and at every peril to himself, to preserve the secrets of his client.”
Communications between attorney and client are, in a great number of litigations, a complicated affair, consisting
of entangled relevant and irrelevant, secret and well known facts. In the complexity of what is said in the course
of the dealings between an attorney and a client, inquiry of the nature suggested would lead to the revelation, in
advance of the trial, of other matters that might only further prejudice the complainant’s cause. We conclude
therefore that the motion for disqualification should be allowed.
 William Uy vs. Fermon Gonzales

A.C. No. 5280 March 30, 2004

WILLIAM S. UY, complainant,
vs. ATTY. FERMIN L. GONZALES, respondent.

FACTS: William S. Uy filed before this Court an administrative case against Atty. Fermin L. Gonzales for violation of the
confidentiality of their lawyer-client relationship.

The complainant alleges that sometime in April 1999, he engaged the services of respondent lawyer to prepare and file a
petition for the issuance of a new certificate of title. After confiding with respondent the circumstances surrounding the lost
title and discussing the fees and costs, respondent prepared, finalized and submitted to him a petition to be filed before the
Regional Trial Court of Tayug, Pangasinan. When the petition was about to be filed, respondent went to his (complainant’s)
office at Virra Mall, Greenhills and demanded a certain amount from him other than what they had previously agreed upon.
Respondent left his office after reasoning with him. Expecting that said petition would be filed, he was shocked to find out
later that instead of filing the petition for the issuance of a new certificate of title, respondent filed a letter-complaint dated
July 26, 1999 against him with the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Tayug, Pangasinan for "Falsification of Public
Documents." The letter-complaint contained facts and circumstances pertaining to the transfer certificate of title that was the
subject matter of the petition which respondent was supposed to have filed.

According to the complainant, with the execution of the letter-complaint, respondent violated his oath as a lawyer and
grossly disregarded his duty to preserve the secrets of his client. Respondent unceremoniously turned against him just
because he refused to grant respondent’s request for additional compensation. Respondent’s act tarnished his reputation
and social standing.

In compliance with this Court’s Resolution dated July 31, 2000, respondent filed his Comment narrating his version, as
follows: On December 17, 1998, he offered to redeem from complainant a 4.9 hectare-property situated in Brgy. Gonzales,
Umingan, Pangasinan covered by TCT No. T-33122 which the latter acquired by purchase from his (respondent’s) son, the
late Fermin C. Gonzales, Jr.. On the same date, he paid complainant P340,000.00 and demanded the delivery of TCT No.
T-33122 as well as the execution of the Deed of Redemption. Upon request, he gave complainant additional time to locate
said title or until after Christmas to deliver the same and execute the Deed of Redemption. After the said period, he went to
complainant’s office and demanded the delivery of the title and the execution of the Deed of Redemption. Instead,
complainant gave him photocopies of TCT No. T-33122 and TCT No. T-5165. Complainant explained that he had already
transferred the title of the property, covered by TCT No.T-5165 to his children Michael and Cristina Uy and that TCT No.
T-5165 was misplaced and cannot be located despite efforts to locate it. Wanting to protect his interest over the property
coupled with his desire to get hold of TCT No. T-5165 the earliest possible time, he offered his assistance pro bono to
prepare a petition for lost title provided that all necessary expenses incident thereto including expenses for transportation
and others, estimated at P20,000.00, will be shouldered by complainant. To these, complainant agreed.

On April 9, 1999, he submitted to complainant a draft of the petition for the lost title ready for signing and notarization. On
April 14, 1999, he went to complainant’s office informing him that the petition is ready for filing and needs funds for
expenses. Complainant who was with a client asked him to wait at the anteroom where he waited for almost two hours until
he found out that complainant had already left without leaving any instructions nor funds for the filing of the petition.
Complainant’s conduct infuriated him which prompted him to give a handwritten letter telling complainant that he is
withdrawing the petition he prepared and that complainant should get another lawyer to file the petition.

Respondent maintains that the lawyer-client relationship between him and complainant was terminated when he gave the
handwritten letter to complainant; that there was no longer any professional relationship between the two of them when he
filed the letter-complaint for falsification of public document; that the facts and allegations contained in the letter-complaint
for falsification were culled from public documents procured from the Office of the Register of Deeds in Tayug, Pangasinan.
In a Resolution dated October 18, 2000, the Court referred the case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for
investigation, report and recommendation. But both parties failed to attend, so the hearing was reset. On April 29, 2003,
Commissioner Villanueva-Maala received a letter from one Atty. Augusto M. Macam dated April 24, 2003, stating that his
client, William S. Uy, had lost interest in pursuing the complaint he filed against Atty. Gonzales and requesting that the case
against Atty. Gonzales be dismissed.

The Investigating Commissioner recommended that the respondent be SUSPENDED for a period of SIX (6) MONTHS. This
was later on adopted and approved by the IBP Board of Governors.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondent violated any Canon of the Code of Professional Responsibility upon filing an
affidavit-complaint against his client.

RULING:
No. While it is true that a lawyer may be disbarred or suspended for any misconduct, whether in his professional or private
capacity, which shows him to be wanting in moral character, in honesty, probity and good demeanor or unworthy to continue
as an officer of the court, complainant failed to prove any of the circumstances enumerated above that would warrant the
disbarment or suspension of herein respondent.

Notwithstanding respondent’s own perception on the matter, a scrutiny of the records reveals that the relationship between
complainant and respondent stemmed from a personal transaction or dealings between them rather than the practice of law
by respondent.Respondent dealt with complainant only because he redeemed a property which complainant had earlier
purchased from his (complainant’s) son. It is not refuted that respondent paid complainant P340,000.00 and gave him ample
time to produce its title and execute the Deed of Redemption. However, despite the period given to him, complainant failed
to fulfill his end of the bargain because of the alleged loss of the title which he had admitted to respondent as having
prematurely transferred to his children, thus prompting respondent to offer his assistance so as to secure the issuance of a
new title to the property, in lieu of the lost one, with complainant assuming the expenses therefor.

There is no attorney-client relationship. Considering the attendant peculiar circumstances, Rule 21.01 of the CPR
cannot apply to the present case. Evidently, the facts alleged in the complaint for "Estafa Through Falsification of
Public Documents" filed by respondent against complainant were obtained by respondent due to his personal
dealings with complainant. Respondent volunteered his service to hasten the issuance of the certificate of title of the land
he has redeemed from complainant. Respondent’s immediate objective was to secure the title of the property that
complainant had earlier bought from his son. Clearly, there was no attorney-client relationship between respondent and
complainant. The preparation and the proposed filing of the petition was only incidental to their personal transaction.

The alleged "secrets" of complainant were not specified by him in his affidavit-complaint. Whatever facts alleged by
respondent against complainant were not obtained by respondent in his professional capacity but as a redemptioner of a
property originally owned by his deceased son and therefore, when respondent filed the complaint for estafa against herein
complainant, which necessarily involved alleging facts that would constitute estafa, respondent was not, in any way,
violating Canon 21. There is no way we can equate the filing of the affidavit-complaint against herein complainant to a
misconduct that is wanting in moral character, in honesty, probity and good demeanor or that renders him unworthy to
continue as an officer of the court. To hold otherwise would be precluding any lawyer from instituting a case against
anyone to protect his personal or proprietary interests.

The decision of the IBP was set aside and the case was dismissed for lack of merit.

NOTE:
There is no relation to Canon 14 – A lawyer shall not refuse his services to the needy.
 Mercado vs. Vitriolo
Facts
Administrative complaint was filed against Atty. Julito D. Vitriolo, due to alleged that respondent maliciously
instituted a criminal case for falsification of public documents against complainant, a former client, based on
confidential information gained from their attorney-client relationship in the annulment case previously handled
by the respondent.

Respondent maintains that his filing of the criminal complaint for falsification of public documents against
complainant does not violate the rule on privileged communication between attorney and client because the
bases of the falsification case are two certificates of live birth which are public documents and in no way
connected with the confidence taken during the engagement of respondent as counsel. According to respondent,
the complainant confided to him as then counsel only matters of facts relating to the annulment case. Nothing
was said about the alleged falsification of the entries in the birth certificates of her two daughters. The birth
certificates are filed in the Records Division of CHED and are accessible to anyone.

Issue
Whether or not respondent violated the rule on privileged communication between attorney and client when he
filed a criminal case for falsification of public documents against his former client.

Ruling
The complaint DISMISSED for lack of merit. Complainant did not even specify the alleged communication in
confidence disclosed by respondent. All her claims were couched in general terms and lacked specificity. Such
confidential information is a crucial link in establishing a breach of the rule on privileged communication between
attorney and client. The burden of proving that the privilege applies is placed upon the party asserting the
privilege.

The mere relation of attorney and client does not raise a presumption of confidentiality. The client must
intend the communication to be confidential. A confidential communication refers to information transmitted
by voluntary act of disclosure between attorney and client in confidence 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. 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. If the client seeks an accounting service, or business or
personal assistance, and not legal advice, the privilege does not attach to a communication disclosed for such
purpose.
Doctrine
The rule on attorney-client privilege. Dean Wigmore cites the factors essential to establish the existence
of the privilege.
(1) Where legal advice of any kind is sought.
(2) from a professional legal adviser in his capacity as such.
(3) the communications relating to that purpose.
(4) made in confidence.
(5) by the client.
(6) are at his instance permanently protected.
(7) from disclosure by himself or by the legal advisor.
(8) except the protection be waived.