Problem Areas In Legal Ethics Summaries.docx

Regala et al vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 105938, 20 September 1996 Whether lawyer-client confidentiality privilege may be invoked by the petitioners to refuse disclosing the names of their clients The corporate clients of Angara, Abello, Concepcion, Regala and Cruz Law Offices consulted them regarding corporate structure and financial matters upon which legal advice were given by petitioners Teodoro Regala, Edgardo J. Angara, Avelino V. Cruz, Jose C. Concepcion, Rogelio A. Vinluan, Victor P. Lazatin, Eduardo U. Escueta and Paraja G. Hayudini. Said corporation is subject to investigation by the Presidential Commission on Good Government involving ill-gotten wealth. Petitioners refuse to provide information on fear that it may implicate them in the very activity from which legal advice was sought from them and it may breach the fiduciary relationship of the petitioner with their client. Genato vs. Silapan, A.C. No. 4078, 14 July 2003 Whether Silapan committed a breach of trust and confidence by imputing to Genato illegal practices and disclosing Genato’s alleged intention to bribe government officials in connection with a pending case. William O. Genato became a client of Essex L. Silapan when he rented a small office space in Genato’s building in Quezon City for his law practice. The conflict between the parties started when Silapan borrowed ₱200,000.00 from Genato which he intended to use as downpayment for the purchase of a new car. In return, Silapan issued to Genato a postdated check in the amount of ₱176,528.00 to answer for the six months interest on the loan. He likewise mortgaged to Genato his house and lot in Quezon City but did not surrender its title claiming that it was the subject of reconstitution proceedings before the Quezon City Register of Deeds. With the money borrowed from Genato, Silapan purchased a new car. However, the document of sale of the car was issued in Genato’s name and financed through City Trust Company. Subsequently, Silapan failed to pay the amortization on the car and the financing firm sent demand letters to Genato. Genato tried to encash Silapan’s postdated check with the drawee bank but it was dishonored as Silapan’s account therein was already closed. Silapan failed to heed Genato’s repeated demands for payment. Genato then filed a criminal case against Silapan for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 and a civil case for judicial foreclosure of real estate mortgage. In the foreclosure case, Silapan made the allegation in his Answer that Genato is a businessman who is engaged in the real estate business, trading and buy and sell of deficiency taxed imported cars, shark loans and other shady deals and has many cases pending in court. Genato gripes that the 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. Consequently, he filed this complaint for disbarment, praying also that an administrative sanction be meted against respondent for his issuance of a bouncing check. Uy vs. Gonzalaes, A.C. No.5280, 30 March 2004

Whether Gonzales violated confidentiality of lawyer-client relationship Fermin L. Gonzales offered to redeem property purchased by William S. Uy from the late Fermin C. Gonzales on December 17, 1998. He paid ₱340,000.00 and demanded the delivery of the Transfer Certificate of Title as well as the execution of the Deed of Redemption. Uy had already transferred the title of the property, covered by TCT No. T-5165 to his children Michael and Cristina Uy and that TCT No. T-5165 was misplaced and cannot be located despite efforts to locate it. Gonzales offered his assistance pro bono to prepare a petition for lost title provided that all necessary expenses incident thereto including expenses for transportation and others, estimated at ₱20,000.00, will be shouldered by Uy. Gonzales submitted to complainant a draft of the petition for the lost title ready for signing and notarization on April 9, 1999. He went to Uy's office informing him that the petition is ready for filing and needs funds for expenses but Uy snubbed him. This conduct infuriated him which prompted him to give a handwritten letter telling complainant that he is withdrawing the petition he prepared and that complainant should get another lawyer to file the petition. Gonzales later filed a letter-complaint dated July 26, 1999 against Uy for Falsification of Public Documents. Uy then filed an administrative case against Gonzales for violation of the confidentiality of their lawyer-client relationship. Hadjula vs. Madianda, A.C. No. 6711, 3 July 2007 Whether Madianda violated attorney-client privilege communication during a legal consultation Ma. Luisa Hadjula alleged that she and Roceles Madianda used to be friends as they both worked at the Bureau of Fire Protection where Madianda was the Chief Legal Officer while she was the Chief Nurse of the Medical, Dental and Nursing Services. Hadjula claimed that, sometime in 1998, she approached Madianda for some legal advice. Hadjula disclosed personal secrets but was informed later by the Madianda that she would refer the matter to a lawyer friend. Hadjula was up for promotion and Madianda, a member of the BFP promotion board, demanded a cellular phone in exchange for the Hadjula's promotion. Hadjula filed criminal and disciplinary actions against Madianda in 2000. Madianda filed a counter complaint with the Ombudsman charging Hadjula with violation of Section 3(a) of Republic Act No. 3019, falsification of public documents and immorality, the last two charges being based on the disclosures Hadjula earlier made to Madianda. And also on the basis of the same disclosures, Hadjula further stated, a disciplinary case was also instituted against her before the Professional Regulation Commission. Hadjula seeks the suspension and/or disbarment of Madianda for the latter’s act of disclosing personal secrets and confidential information she revealed in the course of seeking Silapans legal advice.