Mercado V Vitriolo

Mercado v.
Vitriolo Issue: WON there was a breach in the privileged and confidential
May 26, 2005 lawyer-client relationship [NO]
J. Puno
Dispositive: IN VIEW WHEREOF, the complaint against respondent Atty.
Ortiz
Julito D. Vitriolo is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED.
Facts:
Ratio:
- Rosa Mercado filed an administrative complaint against Atty.
According to the Court1, the factors essential to establish the existence of
Julito Vitriolo seeking his disbarment from the practice of law
the privilege are as follows:
- Vitriolo was Mercado’s counsel in the annulment case of the
marriage of the latter and her husband 1. There exists an attorney-client relationship, or a prospective
- Respondent Vitriolo then filed a criminal action against attorney-client relationship, and it is by reason of this
complainant Mercado before the Office of the City Prosecutor, relationship that the client made the communication
Pasig City for violation of Articles 171 and 172 (falsification of 2. The client made the communication in confidence
public document) of the Revised Penal Code 3. The legal advice must be sought from the attorney in his
o Allegation: Mercado made false entries in the Certificates professional capacity
of Live Birth of her children
o Mercado allegedly indicated in said Certificates of Live RELATIONSHIP
Birth that she is married to a certain Ferdinand Privilege attaches even if the prospective client does not thereafter
Fernandez, and that their marriage was solemnized on retain the lawyer or the latter declines the employment. The reason for
April 11, 1979, when in truth, she is legally married to this is to make the prospective client free to discuss whatever he wishes
Ruben G. Mercado and their marriage took place on April with the lawyer without fear that what he tells the lawyer will be
11, 1978. divulged or used against him, and for the lawyer to be equally free to
- Mercado alleged that said criminal complaint disclosed obtain information from the prospective client. Communication from a
confidential facts and information relating to the civil case (prospective) client to a lawyer for some purpose other than on account
for annulment, then handled by respondent Vitriolo as her of the (prospective) attorney-client relation is not privileged.
counsel. She claims the respondent is guilty of breaching their
privileged and confidential lawyer-client relationship, and MADE IN CONFIDENCE
should be disbarred. The mere relation of attorney and client does not raise a presumption of
- Vitriolo: The filing of the criminal complaint does not violate the confidentiality. The client must intend the communication to be
rule on privileged communication because the bases of the confidential. A confidential communication refers to information
falsification case are two certificates of live birth which are
public documents and in no way connected with the confidence 1
According to Dean Wigmore, these are the factors:
taken during the engagement of respondent as counsel. (1) Where legal advice of any kind is sought
According to respondent, the complainant confided to him as (2) from a professional legal adviser in his capacity as such
(3) the communications relating to that purpose
then counsel only matters of facts relating to the annulment case. (4) made in confidence
- SC referred the case to the IBP. IBP found the respondent GUILTY (5) by the client
(6) are at his instance permanently protected
and suspended him for one year. (7) from disclosure by himself or by the legal advisor
(8) except the protection be waived
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.
SOUGHT IN HIS PROFESSIONAL CAPACITY
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.
AS APPLIED
The evidence adduced by the complainant fails to substantiate her
allegations. She did not even specify the alleged communication in
confidence disclosed by respondent. The claims she made against
Vitriolo were general and lacked specificity. The Court cannot be
involved in a guessing game as to the existence of facts which the
complainant must prove.
She failed to attend the hearings at the IBP. Without any testimony from
the complainant as to the specific confidential information, 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

Mercado V Vitriolo

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mercado V Vitriolo

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mercado V Vitriolo

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mercado v.

You might also like