William Ong Genato vs. Atty. Essex L.
Silapan
A.C. No. 4078 July 14, 2003
FACTS:
Respondent Atty. Essex L. Silapan rented a small office space in complainant’s building
for his law practice and was introduced to Atty. Benjamin Dacanay, complainant’s retained lawyer,
who let respondent handle some complainant’s cases.
The conflict between the parties started when respondent borrowed P200,000.00 from
complainant. With the money borrowed from complainant, respondent purchased a new car. In
return, respondent issued to complainant a postdated check to answer for the six (6) months interest
on the loan. However, the document of sale of the car was issued in complainants name and
financed through City Trust Company. Respondent also mortgaged to complainant his house and
lot in Quezon City but did not surrender its title claiming that it was the subject of reconstitution
proceedings.
Subsequently, respondent failed to pay the amortization on the car and respondent failed
to heed complainants repeated demands for payment. Complainant then filed a criminal case
against respondent for violation of BP Blg. 22 and a civil case for judicial foreclosure of real estate
mortgage.
Respondent however alleged in his answer defenses which are irrelevant to the foreclosure
case, such as, that complainant is engaged in buy and sell of deficiency taxed imported cars, shark
loans and other shady deals and has many cases pending in court and that in exchange of the
transfer of ownership of the car from complainant to respondent, the former asked the latter to
offer bribe money to the members of the review committee of the Department of Justice where a
petition for review of the resolution of the Investigating Prosecutor was pending at the time or to
offer bribe money to the prosecutor assigned and even to the presiding Judge.
As a consequence, complainant gripes that the foregoing allegations are false, immaterial
to the foreclosure case and maliciously designed to defame him. He charged that in making such
allegations, respondent is guilty of breaking their confidential lawyer-client relationship and
should be held administratively liable therefor.
In his comment, respondent however said that there was nothing libelous in his imputations
of dishonest business practices to complainant and his revelation of complainants desire to bribe
government officials in relation to his pending criminal case. He claimed to have made these
statements in the course of judicial proceedings to defend his case and discredit complainant’s
credibility.
Consequently, complainant filed this complaint for disbarment.
ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent is guilty of breaking his confidential lawyer-client relationship with
complainant.
RULING:
Yes. Canon 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that a lawyer owes
fidelity to the cause of his client and shall be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed on
him. The long-established rule is that an attorney is not permitted to disclose communications
made to him in his professional character by a client, unless the latter consents. This obligation to
preserve the confidences and secrets of a client arises at the inception of their relationship. The
protection given to the client is perpetual and does not cease with the termination of the litigation,
nor is it affected by the party’s ceasing to employ the attorney and retaining another, or by any
other change of relation between them. It even survives the death of the client.
It must be stressed, however, that the privilege against disclosure of confidential
communications or information is limited only to communications which are legitimately and
properly within the scope of a lawful employment of a lawyer. It does not extend to those made in
contemplation of a crime or perpetration of a fraud. If the unlawful purpose is avowed, as in this
case, the complainant’s alleged intention to bribe government officials in relation to his case, the
communication is not covered by the privilege as the client does not consult the lawyer
professionally. It is not within the profession of a lawyer to advise a client as to how he may
commit a crime as a lawyer is not a gun for hire. Thus, the attorney-client privilege does not attach,
there being no professional employment in the strict sense.
Be that as it may, respondent’s explanation that it was necessary for him to make the
disclosures in his pleadings fails to satisfy us. The disclosures were not indispensable to protect
his rights as they were not pertinent to the foreclosure case. It was improper for the respondent to
use it against the complainant in the foreclosure case as it was not the subject matter of litigation
therein and respondent’s professional competence and legal advice were not being attacked in said
case. A lawyer must conduct himself, especially in his dealings with his clients, with integrity in a
manner that is beyond reproach. His relationship with his clients should be characterized by the
highest degree of good faith and fairness.
Thus, the Court agrees with the evaluation of the IBP that respondent’s allegations and
disclosures in the foreclosure case amount to a breach of fidelity sufficient to warrant the
imposition of disciplinary sanction against him.
