TABLE OF CONTENTS

Articles634-657 1
Notes:

Case Title
entiality Canons 17 and 21. Atty Client Privilege

Regala v Sandiganbayan

Lorenzana Food Corp v

Doria

Facts

Recovery of Ill gotten wealth Eduardo Cojuangco

Shares of stocks in named corps
Def: Regala, Angara, Cruz, Vinluan, Roco : Partners of Accra

Doctrine/ Notes

I: should partners be excluded?

H: yes,
No COA
o If ID revealed, client would be implicated
in which he sought lawyers advice; may
possible action against client
o There are alternative sources of info avai
PROSEC
o Lawyer client relationship: mote than me
duty of trust, more than oprdinary agent,
o Utmost good faith: uberrimae fidei
o If ID revealed: it would be BREACH OF FID
DUTY

Documents delivered substantiate equity holdings

Partners acknowledged they assisted in organization and
acquisition of companies in civil case

There are rules fiduciary duty to client

High degree of fidelity and GF

Roco excluded by PCGG rocod undertook to reveal

identity of principals whom he acted as stockholder

Code of civil procedure FORBIDS counsel w/o

reveal communication made by client in cour
employment (Sec 24)

Other parthers opposed: they should also be excluded.

Since roco was excluded. (roco actually did not reveal
identity of client in PCGG case 33)

Rule 138: maintain inviolate (perfect?) confid

Canon 15: entire devotion to interest of client

SB: Denied exclusion of partners since they refused to

comply
MR denied Certiorari : SB GADLEJ
SC: SB looking for bigger fish. Fishing expedition. No valid
coa against partners. Should be excluded
SB Resos set aside. SB ordered to exclude ACCRA partners
from case RP v E Cojuangco Jr.

Canon 17. A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause

client and he shall be mindful of the trust and
confidence reposed in him.

Under constitution: right to counsel includes

confidentiality

EXCEPTION to rule that clients may be reveal

1.

ID is privileged where STRONG PROB

that revealing such would IMPLICATE
very activity he sought lawyers advic

Other issue: equal protection; PCGG violated

Roco exempted.

Atty Daria
Admin charge : negligence and betrayal filed by Lorenzana
Food
Daria hired by LFC LFC emoployee Violeta filed illegal

I: Daria guilty of negligence?

H: YES
Delay in appearance, prejudicial to LFC
Canon 18 lawyer shall A LAWYER SHALL SER
CLIENT WITH COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE

Case Title

Genato v Atty Silapan

Mercado v Vitrolio

Facts
dismissal in DOLE another case, Daria resched through
call to Labor Arbiter LA didnt receive notice to move
and DECIDED based on Violetas affidavit LFC to pay
Violeta Hanopol Appeal by Daria granted Daria
resigned turned over to Atty Udarbe
Still no one appeared LA revived decision for LFC to pay
Re: Betrayal
GM sent memo to Employee san juan re: double liquidation
and unliq CAs, EXECOM inc DARIA investigated. San Juan
placed in preventive suspension.
San Juan sought assistance of Daria in counteraffid against
LFC
SC: Daria Guilty of negligence and betrayal of former
clients confidence.
Case: for Disbarment against Atty Silapan for breaking
confide lawyer client relationship should be held admin.
Liable.
Client: Genato
Def: Atty Silapan
Re: rental of office space by silapan from Genato.
Silapan borrowed 200k for dp of car
PDCs issued and mortgaged hous in qc, didnt surrender
title since sub to reconstitution proceedings
Car issued in complainants name
Romero borr money fr Genato. SIlapan got comm and paid
car arrears.
Silapan failed to pay financing firm
Firm demanded from Genato.
1st Case: BP 22 case against Silapan and judic foreclosure
of mortgage; Silapan countered, said that Genato engaged
in unfair business practices, offered bribes for his other
pending cases (DOJ)

Doctrine/ Notes

Canon 18.03: not neglect legal matter liable

negligent
Canon 37 preserve clients confi dence
Canon 17: A LAWYER OWES FIDELITY TO THE
HIS CLIENT AND HE SHALL BE MINDFUL OF TH
AND CONFIDENCE REPOSED IN HIM.

Here, Daria assisted San Juan, he also investi

such when he was still an employee of LFC

Daria Defense: Counter Aff was done by frien

Enriquez. said that he asked enriquez to de
name but former didnt.

Doctrine
GR: C <3 L confidentiality must be upheld
EGR: if for the purpose of crime or perpetratio

I: Silapan should be held admin liable for viol

confide of client lawyer privilege (canon 17).
trust present?
H: Yes
IBP decision correct. Suspension ok

Protection given to client is perpetual. And do

cease with termination of litigation. But exten
with legitimate and lawful employment of em

Here, silapans explanation that it was necess

disclose the business practices of Genato not
indispensable to foreclosure case since not su
litgation

Reduced sentence 1 year 6 mos since 1st a

complaint

SC: reduced penalty. 6 mos suspension since 1st admin

complaint
Mercaod annulment atty died substituted by vitrolio
Vitrolio filed case for falsification of pub doc - false entries
in birth cert of children
Disbarment case filed by Mercado facts based on prev
status as client
Respondent claimed that the pending cases against him
are not grounds for disbarment, and that he is presumed to
be innocent until proven otherwise
Cited cases pending against vitrolio - he says not grd for
disbarment

respondent maintains that his filing of the cri

complaint for falsification of public document
complainant does not violate the rule on priv
communication between attorney and client
the bases of the falsification case are two cer
of live birth which are public documents and
connected with the confidence taken during t
engagement of respondent as counsel.
I: violated rule on priv communication?

IBP: yes, suspend 1 year

SC: CASE dismissed
Communication made by prospective client fo

ii

Case Title

People v Sandiganbayan

Facts

Doctrine/ Notes
purpose not for prospective client atty relnsh
covered did not specify info she says was u
atty
Client must inted commn to be confidential
Info must be to seek legal advice

Mercado failed to attend hearings no t

on alleged confidential info used by Vitr
burden with her- failed to satisfy burden

factors essential to establish the existence of

privilege
(1) There exists an attorney-client relatio
a prospective attorney-client relation
it is by reason of this relationship tha
client made the communication.

Certiorari
Atty Generoso SAnsaet used as state witness petitioner
filed motion to discharge SB denied hence current case
Resp Paredes provincial atty og Agusan governor then
congressman
Sansaet served as his counsel
Paredes applied fr free patent
DOL found he obtained such due to fraud
Civil case filed Sansaet was counsel of Paredes
Perjury and graft filed ag both
Gelacio taxpayer - initiated charges saying both acted
in conspiracy they did not file for arraignment ( attached
to mr by paredes so that action would be barred by double
jeopardy)
To void responsbilit said he did so upon instigation by
paredes discharge imseld as go witness. SB claimed atty
client privilege and resolved to deny the dischare

(2) The client made the communication

confidence.
(3) The legal advice must be sought from
attorney in his professional capacity
Whether or not the testimony of Atty. Sanset
by the attorney-client privilege? NO

Here sansaet was conspirator, and for illega

for aid of such illegal act.

Statements and communications regarding th

commission of a crime already committed, m
party who committed it, to an attorney, consu
such, are privileged communications. Howeve
communication between an attorney and clie
to do with the client's contemplated criminal
aid or furtherance thereof, are not covered by
of privilege ordinarily existing in reference to
communications between an attorney and a c
falsification not having been committed yet,
communications are outside the pale of the a
client privilege.
Moreover, Sansaet himself was a conspirator
commission of the falsification. For the comm
to be privileged, it must be for a lawful purpo
furtherance of a lawful end. The existence of
unlawful purpose prevents the privilege from

Privilege not confined to verbal written comm

period to be considered is the date when the
communication was made by the client to the
in relation to either a crime committed in the
with respect to a crime intended to be comm
the future.

Statement and communication regarding com

of crime alredy commited are PRIVELEGED CO

iii

Case Title

Facts

Doctrine/ Notes
Since sansaet was conspirator privilege does
since for unlawful act

SB wrong reliefs by petitioner should be giv

course by SB

iv