Mercado v. Vitriolo

Mercado v. Vitriolo (Short title) AC # 5108 | May 26, 2005 Petitioner: Rosa F. Mercado Respondent:  Att. Julito D. Vitriolo (Rule 130, Section 24b)

1.

2. FACTS 1. Mercado filed a complaint complaint against Atty. Vitriolo, Vitriolo, seeking his his disbarment for maliciously instituting a case for falsification of public document against her based on confidential information gained from their attorney-client relationship. 2. Mercado's husband husband filed a civil case for annulment annulment of their their marriage with RTC which was dismissed. 3. Atty. Anastacio Anastacio P. de Leon, then counsel of Mercado, died died so Atty. Atty. Vitriolo entered his appearance as collaborating counsel. 4. It also appears appears that Atty. Vitriolo filed a criminal criminal action against Mercado for falsification of public document for false entries in the Certificates of Live Birth of her children. 5. Mercado denied denied using any other name name than Rosa F. Mercado and and insisted that she has gotten married only once. 6. Mercado alleged alleged that said criminal complaint disclosed disclosed confidential confidential facts and information relating to the civil case for annulment, then handled by the lawyer as her counsel so that the lawyer is guilty of breaching their privileged and confidential lawyer-client relationship. 7. Atty. Vitriolo maintains that his filing of of the criminal criminal complaint does not violate the rule on privileged communication between attorney and client because the bases are the two certificates of live birth which are public documents and in no way connected with the confidence taken during his engagement as counsel. 8. The IBP Board of Governors Governors approved approved the report report finding the lawyer lawyer guilty of violating the rule on privileged communication between attorney and client, and recommending his suspension from the practice of law for one (1) year. 9. Upon receiving receiving a copy of the IBP report report and recommendation, recommendation, Mercado wrote CJ Davide a letter of desistance however, the court said that the letter imparting forgiveness is inconsequential in disbarment proceedings. ISSUE/S 1. W/N Atty. Vitriolo Vitriolo violated the rule on on privileged privileged communication communication between attorney and client. RULING & RATIO 1. No.

3. 4.

5.

6. 7.

8.

In engaging the the services of an attorney, the client reposes reposes on him special powers of trust and confidence. Their relationship is strictly personal and highly confidential and fiduciary. The relation is of such delicate, exacting and confidential nature that is required by necessity and public interest. On the rule on attorney-client privilege. the factors essential to establish the existence of the privilege. (1) There exists an attorney-client relationship, or a prospective attorney-client relationship, and it is by reason of this relationship that the client made the communication. (2) The client made the communication in confidence. (3) The legal advice must be sought from the attorney in his professional capacity. Applying all these rules to to the case at bar, bar, the evidence on record fails to substantiate complainants allegations. allegations. Mercado did not even specify specify the alleged communication communication in confidence disclosed. All her claims were couched in general terms and lacked specificity. She contends that respondent respondent violated 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 the lawyer but did not spell out these facts which will determine the merit of her complaint. The Court cannot be involved involved in a guessing guessing game as to the existence of facts which the complainant must prove. Indeed, Mercado failed to attend the hearings at the IBP. Without any testimony as to the specific confidential information allegedly divulged 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.

DISPOSITION IN VIEW WHEREOF, the complaint against respondent Atty. Julito D. Vitriolo is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. ORDERED.