Mercado vs.

Vitriolo
Privileged communication rule
FACTS:

Atty. Vitriolo represented Rose Mercado in an annulment case filed by her husband.
Thereafter, a criminal action against her was filed by the former for falsification of public
document alleging that that complainant made false entries in the Certificates of Live Birth of her
children. More specifically, complainant allegedly indicated in said Certificates 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.
Mercado denied the accusations of respondent against her and charges Atty. Vitriolo for
the criminal complaint disclosed confidential facts and information relating to the civil case for
annulment handled by Vitriolo as her counsel.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Julito Vitriolo violates the rule on privileged communication
between attorney and client?

HELD:
NO. The evidence on record fails to substantiate Mercado’s allegations. She did not even
specify the alleged communication in confidence disclosed by Atty. Vitriolo. All of Mercado’s
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 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.
Without any testimony from the complainant as to the specific confidential information
allegedly divulged by respondent 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.
 Lydia Castro-Justo vs. Galing, A.C. No. 6174, November 16, 2011
Conflict of interest
FACTS:

Complainant Lydia Castro-Justo engaged the services of respondent Atty. Rodolfo Galing
in connection with dishonored checks issued by Manila City Councilor Arlene W. Koa. After she
paid his professional fees, the respondent drafted and sent a letter to Ms. Koa demanding
payment of the checks. Respondent advised complainant to wait for the lapse of the period
indicated in the demand letter before filing her complaint.
Complainant filed a criminal complaint against Ms. Koa for estafa and violation of Batas
Pambansa Blg. 22 before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Manila. Later, she received a copy
of a Motion for Consolidation5 filed by respondent for and on behalf of Ms. Koa, the accused in
the criminal cases, Further, respondent appeared as counsel for Ms. Koa before the prosecutor
of Manila.
Complainant submits that by representing conflicting interests, respondent violated the
Code of Professional Responsibility. He admitted that he drafted a demand letter for complainant
but argued that it was made only in deference to their long standing friendship and not by reason
of a professional engagement as professed by complainant. He denied receiving any professional
fee for the services he rendered. It was allegedly their understanding that complainant would
have to retain the services of another lawyer. He alleged that complainant, based on that
agreement, engaged the services of Atty. Manuel A. Ao.
Respondent argued that no lawyer-client relationship existed between him and
complainant because there was no professional fee paid for the services he rendered.
Complainant filed the instant administrative complaint against Atty.Galing seeking his
disbarment from the practice of law for violation of Canon 15 of Code of Professional
Responsibility and conflict of interest.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondent violated Canon 15 Rule 15.03 of Code of Professional
Responsibility.
HELD:
Yes, he was found guilty of violating Canon 15, Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility by representing conflicting interests and for his daring audacity and for the
pronounced malignancy of his act. Under Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
states that [a] lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by written consent of all
concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts.
Respondent was therefore bound to refrain from representing parties with conflicting
interests in a controversy. The prohibition against representing conflicting interest is founded on
principles of public policy and good taste.
Furthermore, a lawyer-client relationship can exist notwithstanding the close friendship
between complainant and respondent. The relationship was established the moment
complainant sought legal advice from respondent regarding the dishonored checks. By drafting
the demand letter respondent further affirmed such relationship. The fact that the demand letter
was not utilized in the criminal complaint filed and that respondent was not eventually engaged
by complainant to represent her in the criminal cases is of no moment. In the course of the
lawyer-client relationship, the lawyer learns of the facts connected with the client’s case,
including the weak and strong points of the case. The nature of the relationship is, therefore, one
of trust and confidence of the highest degree.
It behooves lawyers not only to keep inviolate the clients confidence, but also to avoid
the appearance of treachery and double-dealing for only then can litigants be encouraged to
entrust their secrets to their lawyers, which is of paramount importance in the administration of
justice.
The excuse proffered by respondent that it was not him but Atty. Ao who was eventually
engaged by complainant will not exonerate him from the clear violation of Rule 15.03 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility. The take- over of a clients cause of action by another lawyer does
not give the former lawyer the right to represent the opposing party. It is not only malpractice
but also constitutes a violation of the confidence resulting from the attorney-client relationship.
Considering that it is respondents first infraction, the disbarment sought in the complaint
is deemed to be too severe. As recommended by the Board of Governors of the IBP, respondent
is suspended from the practice of law for one (1) year.