SCENARIO III

Three years later, on March 2001, Manuel went on a business trip. The
plane on which he boarded crashed into the Pacific Ocean, with few survivors
and many passengers unaccounted for. Despite efforts to locate Manuel’s body,
he was never found. Wendy was devastated. She felt in her heart that Manuel
was truly dead.
About a year and a half passed since the plane crash, Wendy met another
man, Omar. They fell in love, and decided to marry on June 2003. But in the
months of January and February 2003, Wendy received information from three
different sources indicating that Manuel may be alive, and is living in Hong Kong.
Despite efforts to verify, there was no confirmation from the Hong Kong
authorities.
Wendy informs Louis that she has broken off her engagement to Omar and
asks Louis to help her locate Manuel. Louis feels guilty about Wendy being so
concerned about Manuel, whom he considered undeserving of her love. Not
wanting to see Wendy more depressed and anguished, he finally tells Wendy that
Ben is the child of Manuel with Cora. Wendy was shocked and furious at both
Manuel and Louis. To gain back Wendy’s trust, Louis suggests that she should
disregard any information about Manuel since these were all hearsay. Thus, he
says, having received no news that Manuel may be alive, she can secure a
declaration of presumptive death in a summary proceeding before her June
wedding. He adds that he would do this without compensation as proof of his
friendship and remorse. He tells her of his uncle who is a family court judge and
assures her that their case will be “raffled” to his court.

QUESTIONS:

A. Did Louis violate his lawyer-client confidentiality when he told Wendy

that Ben was Manuel’s child?

Having been able to establish in the previous scenario through

jurisprudence 1 of the existence of an attorney-client relationship between
Manuel and Louis, the latter is now duty-bound to maintain the confidentiality
between him and Manuel, his client.

Such confidentiality not only is effective during the client’s lifetime but
remains subsisting even after the death of the client. In this regard, Louis must
always bear in mind that he should always conduct himself as a lawyer according

1Hilado vs David, 84 Phil. 569, Junio vs. Grupo, Administrative Case No. 5020 (December 18,
2001).
to the best of his knowledge and discretion, with all good fidelity as well to the
courts as to his clients and that he imposed upon himself this voluntary
obligation, inter alia, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion.

Moreover, to embolden the above-mentioned sacred obligation, the Code

of Professional Responsibility is even more emphatic and clear regarding the
necessity of maintaining confidentiality when the same was re-echoed in Canon
21 which provides:

“CANON 21 - A LAWYER SHALL PRESERVE THE CONFIDENCE

AND SECRETS OF HIS CLIENT EVEN AFTER THE ATTORNEY-
CLIENT RELATION IS TERMINATED.” (Emphasis supplied).

While the general rule is that a lawyer shall not reveal the secrets and
confidences of his client, such rules is not cast in iron as it admits of certain
exceptions such as when he was authorized by his client after acquainting the
latter of the consequences of the disclosure; or when required by law; and, when
necessary to collect his (i.e. the lawyer) fees or to defend himself, his employees
or associates or by judicial action. 2 None of these exceptions, however, is
obtaining in the case as to warrant Louis to disclose Manuel’s secrets.

Even assuming arguendo that Manuel survives the plane crash, with more
reason that Louis should not disclose any of his secrets save for the exceptions
already mentioned. Again, a lawyer is reminded by the Code of Professional
Responsibility not to use information given by his client to the latter’s
disadvantage nor shall he use the same to his advantage. There can be no other
meaning to this than for a lawyer to keep the confidentiality of information
provided by his client during the latter’s lifetime. Rule 21.02 of the said Code
thus provides:

“Rule 21.02 - A lawyer shall not, to the disadvantage of his

client, use information acquired in the course of employment,
nor shall he use the same to his own advantage or that of a
third person, unless the client with full knowledge of the
circumstances consents thereto.”

On the other side of the spectrum, one may argue that the mere relation
of attorney and client does not raise a presumption of confidentiality, but when
the client must have intend the communication to be confidential,3 then such

2 Rule 21.01, Canon 21

3 Uy Chico v. Union Life Assurance Society, 29 Phil 163, 165 (1915)
communication must be treated as confidential. In recalling the events in
Manuel’s story, he first approached Louis at a birthday party with the intention
of seeking legal advice regarding the planned simulation of birth. Thereafter,
Manuel confessed to Louis through e-mail that the child Cora have been carrying
was his. Such communication made by Manuel was not given by him as mere
information, but for the purpose of seeking legal advice, as opposed to an
occasion where a client seeks an accounting service, or business or personal
assistance. In this particular case the privilege does not attach to a
communication disclosed for such purpose.4 Clearly then, these overt acts by
Manuel was meant to be kept secret, especially to Wendy, for obvious reasons.

As if the Lawyer’s Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility were

not sufficient, Section 20 ( e ), Rule 1385 of the Rules of Court emboldens the
said duty of an attorney, thus it is so provided:

“SEC. 20. Duties of attorneys. — It is the duty of an attorney:

xxx xxx xxx

(e) To maintain inviolate the confidence, and at every peril to

himself, to preserve the secrets of his client, and to accept no
compensation in connection with his client's business except
from him or with his knowledge and approval;

xxx xxx xxx.”

(Underscoring supplied).

Verily, lawyer-client confidentiality transcends even death such that its

violation is made a punishable offense by the Revised Penal Code, particularly
Article 209 (Betrayal of Trust by an Attorney or Solicitor — Revelation of
Secrets).6

4 Rosa F. Mercado, complainant, vs. Atty. Julito D. Vitriolo, respondent, A.C. No. 5108, May 26,
2005
5 Attorneys and Admission to the Bar
6 ARTICLE 209. Betrayal of Trust by an Attorney or Solicitor — Revelation of Secrets. —

In addition to the proper administrative action, the penalty of prisión correccional in its
minimum period, or a fine ranging from 200 to 1,000 pesos, or both, shall be imposed upon
any attorney-at-law or solicitor (procurador judicial) who, by any malicious breach of
professional duty or inexcusable negligence or ignorance, shall prejudice his client, or reveal
any of the secrets of the latter learned by him in his professional capacity.

The same penalty shall be imposed upon an attorney-at-law or solicitor (procurador judicial)
who, having undertaken the defense of a client or having received confidential information from
said client in a case, shall undertake the defense of the opposing party in the same case,
without the consent of his first client.
 In applying the aforementioned disquisitions, Louis must keep Manuel’s
secret, even if the latter’s lips are now permanently sealed.