Ma Luisa Hadjula vs Atty Madianda AC 6711 ( Canlas, P.A) Facts Complainant alleed t!at s!e and "espondent used to #e $"iends as t!ey #ot! %o"&ed at t!e 'FP ('u"eau o$ Fi"e P"otection). Complainant claimed t!at s!e app"oac!ed "espondent $o" some leal advice and in t!e cou"se o$ t!ei" conve"sation, s!e disclosed pe"sonal sec"ets and p"oduced copies o$ ma""iae ce"ti$icate, #aptismal ce"ti$icate etc. Ho%eve", "espondent "e$used to !ave !e" as client and instead di"ected !e" to a la%ye" $"iend. Complainant $iled c"iminal and disciplina"y actions aainst "espondent in "elation to t!e alleed demand $o" a cellula" p!one #y t!e "espondent to "ant complainants as t!e latte" %as pa"t o$ 'FP p"omotion #oa"d C*+-/ C*MPLA0- %as $iled #y t!e "espondent #ased on t!e in$o"mation s!e "eceived $"om complainant %!en t!e latte" t"ied to see& leal se"vices $"om !e". (Anti "a$t and co""uption 0mmo"al conduct ) 0ssue2 3!et!e" t!e act o$ "espondent in usin t!e in$o"mation s!e ac4ui"ed $"om complainant %!en t!e latte" t"ied to see& leal advice $"om !e" %as a violation o$ t!e "ule on con$identiality. /ulin2 5es
-
-!e moment complainant app"oac!ed t!e t!en "eceptive "espondent to see& leal advice, a ve"ita#le la%ye"client "elations!ip evolved #et%een t!e t%o. 8uc! "elations!ip imposes upon t!e la%ye" ce"tain "est"ictions ci"cumsc"i#ed #y t!e et!ics o$ t!e p"o$ession. Amon Amon t!e #u"dens o$ t!e "elations!ip is t!at %!ic! enjoins t!e la%ye", "espondent in t!is instance, to &eep inviolate con$idential in$o"mation ac4ui"ed o" "evealed du"in leal consultations. -!e $act t!at one is, at t!e end o$ t!e day, not inclined to !andle t!e clients case is !a"dly o$ conse4uence. *$ little moment, too, is t!e $act t!at no $o"mal p"o$essional enaement $ollo%s t!e consultation. o" %ill it ma&e any di$$e"ence t!at no cont"act %!atsoeve" %as e9ecuted #y t!e pa"ties to memo"iali:e t!e "elations!ip
-
3!at at #ottom is #e$o"e t!e Cou"t is t%o $o"me" $"iends becoming bitter enemies and $ilin c!a"es and counte"c!a"es aainst eac! ot!e" usin %!ateve" convenient tools and data %e"e "eadily availa#le.
/ollon vs a"aval AC. 6;<; ( Canlas, P.A ) Facts Complainant %ent to t!e "espondent o$$ice to see& !is assistance in a case $iled #e$o"e t!e complainant in t!e M-C $o" Collection o$ 8um o$ Money Complainant t!en delive"ed all necessa"y documents to t!e "espondent includin t!e payment o$ =,>>> pesos as $ilin $ees and se"vice $ees. A$te" seve"al $ollo%ups to in4ui"e as to t!e status o$ t!e case, "espondent in$o"med petitione" t!at t!e case !ad yet to #e $iled as !e %as ve"y #usy. Complainant t!en opted to %it!d"a% t!e amount paid to Atty a"aval #ecause o$ t!e latte"s $ailu"e to comply %it! t!ei" a"eement. ?espite t!e demand !o%eve", "espondent $ailed to "etu"n t!e money to t!e complainant. 0ssue2 3!et!e" t!e act committed #y "espondent is a violation o$ CP/ /ulin /ule 1@.>@ o$ t!e Code o$ P"o$essional /esponsi#ility "e4ui"es t!at la%ye"s ive t!ei" candid and #est opinion to t!ei" clients on t!e me"it o" lac& o$ me"it o$ t!e case, neit!e" ove"statin no" unde"statin t!ei" evaluation t!e"eo$. no%in %!et!e" a case %ould !ave some p"ospect o$ success is not only a $unction, #ut also an o#liation on t!e pa"t o$ la%ye"s. 0$ t!ey $ind t!at t!ei" clients cause is de$enseless, t!en it is t!ei" #ounden duty to advise t!e latte" to ac4uiesce and su#mit, "at!e" t!an to t"ave"se t!e incont"ove"ti#le. -!e $ailu"e o$ "espondent to $ul$ill t!is #asic unde"ta&in constitutes a violation o$ !is duty to o#se"ve cando", $ai"ness and loyalty in all !is dealins and t"ansactions %it! !is clients /espondent s!ould !ave iven !e" a candid, !onest opinion on t!e me"its and t!e status o$ t!e case. Appa"ently, t!e civil suit #et%een /osita Bulaton and complainant !ad #een decided aainst t!e latte". 0n $act, t!e judment !ad lon #ecome $inal and e9ecuto"y. 'ut !e %it!!eld suc! vital in$o"mation $"om complainant. 0nstead, !e demanded P=,>>> as $ilin and se"vice $ee and t!e"e#y ave !e" !ope t!at !e" case %ould #e acted upon.
