Virgo-and-hadluja-case.docx

Virgo vs Amorin A.C No. 7861 Facts: Whilhelmina Virgo (complainant) filed with IBP a Complaint for disbarment against Atty. Amorin (respondent) alleging that: She and her husband owned a house in Loyola Grand Villas which Atty. Amorin offered to buy. They agreed at the price of P45m with spouses Virgo retaining the certificates of title so that respondent could borrow from banks using the name of the complainant who had good credit standing. Atty. Amorin was kind and accommodating and offered to be complainant's legal consultant on several occasions free of charge. Atty. Amorin prepared Deeds of Sale bearing different amounts which the spouses signed. However, Atty. Amorin only paid P20m, P10m of which came from loans made by complainant using the property as collateral. Respondent then issued three checks to cover the P25m balance, which however, were dishonored. After several demands made by the complainant, Respondent amorin failed to pay hence an Estafa and B.P. 22 case was filed against him. Atty. Amorin in turn, filed one civil and nine criminal case against the complainant which damaged her good business reputation and credit standing. Atty. Amorin in his answer, avers that the property was not sold to him personally but to Loveland Estate Developers, Inc. (LEDI) of which he is the President. He further alleges that he never offered her legal services. Further, It is also not true that he paid complainant P25m with three checks. Complainant stole 3 blank checks from him and forged the same which was his basis for filing falsification and perjury cases against complainant. A Mandatory Conference was held before the IBP Investigating Commissioner. Complainant, in her Position Paper, asserts that attorney-client relationship existed between her and Atty. Amorin. The respondent in his memorandum insists that there was no attorney-client relationship since there was no specific case or transaction which represented her or gave her professional advice. The Commissioner of the IBP-CBD found Atty. Amorin guilty of misconduct and recommending his suspension from the practice of law for six months. The IBP Board of Governors then adopted and approved, with modification, the Report and Recommendation of the Investigation Commissioner; and considering Respondent's violation of Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and Rule 1.02 of the Canons of Responsibility when he used his legal knowledge and training to induce complainant to part with her property and eventually defraud her in the process, Atty. Oliver V. Amorin is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one year. Issue: Whether or not there was an establishment or attorney-client relationship between the parties Held: No attorney-client relationship exists between the parties when the legal acts done were only incidental to their personal transaction. Complainant attached other letters sent by respondent, plus a draft Memorandum of Agreement, which talk about the complainant's property in Tanay, its excavation for possible hidden treasure, their supposed sharing in the expenses and Atty. Amorin's interest in buying the said property. Rather than

bolstering complainant's claim that there exists an attorney-client relationship between them, such letters actually strengthen the idea that the relationship of complainant and Atty. Amorin is mainly personal or business in nature, and that whatever legal services may have been rendered or given to them by Atty. Amorin for free were only incidental to said relationship. Noteworthy also is the fact that complainant was not able to specify any act or transaction in which Atty. Amorin acted as her or her husband's counsel. Since the court cannot ascertain whether Atty. Amorin committed acts in violation of his oath as a lawyer concerning the sale and conveyance of the Virgo Mansion, as a matter of prudence and so as not to preempt the conclusions that will be drawn by the court where the case is pending, the Court deems it wise to DISMISS the present case without prejudice to the filing of another one, depending on the final outcome of the civil case. Hadluja v Madianda A.C. No. 6711 Facts: In said affidavit-complaint, complainant alleged that she and respondent used to be friends as they both worked at the Bureau of Fire Protection (BFP). Complainant claimed that she approached respondent for some legal advice. Complainant further alleged that, in the course of their conversation which was supposed to be kept confidential, she disclosed personal secrets and produced copies of a marriage contract, a birth certificate and a baptismal certificate, only to be informed later by the respondent that she (respondent) would refer the matter to a lawyer friend. It was malicious, so complainant states, of respondent to have refused handling her case only after she had already heard her secrets. Continuing, complainant averred that her friendship with Atty. Madianda soured after she filed, in the later part of 2000, a criminal and disciplinary actions against the latter. Atty. Madianda, in retaliation to the filing of the aforesaid actions, filed a Counter Complaint with the Ombudsman charging Hadluja with violation of Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, falsification of public documents and immorality, the last two charges being based on the disclosures complainant earlier made to respondent. In her (Complainant) answer, styled as Counter-Affidavit, Atty. Madianda denied giving legal advice to the complainant and denied the existence of a lawyer-client relationship between them. Atty. Madianda also stated the observation that the supposed confidential data and sensitive documents adverted to are in fact matters of common knowledge in the BFP. The Investigating Commissioner of the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline came out with a Report and Recommendation, stating that the information related by complainant to the respondent is protected under the attorney-client privilege communication; and accordingly recommended that respondent be reprimanded. IBP Board of Governors thereafter issued a resolution adopting and approving, the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner. Issue: Whether or not lawyer-client relationship was established.

Held: It was the complainant who went to respondent, a lawyer who incidentally was also then a friend, to bare what she considered personal secrets and sensitive documents for the purpose of obtaining legal advice and assistance. The moment complainant approached the then receptive respondent to seek legal advice, a veritable lawyer-client relationship evolved between the two. Such relationship imposes upon the lawyer certain restrictions circumscribed by the ethics of the profession. Among the burdens of the relationship is that which enjoins the lawyer, respondent in this instance, to keep inviolate confidential information acquired or revealed during legal consultations. The court found that respondent indeed breached his duty of preserving the confidence of a client. As found by the IBP Investigating Commissioner, the documents shown and the information revealed in confidence to the respondent in the course of the legal consultation in question, were used as bases in the criminal and administrative complaints lodged against the complainant. The seriousness of the respondents offense notwithstanding, the Court feels that there is room for compassion, absent compelling evidence that the respondent acted with ill-will. Without meaning to condone the error of respondents ways, what at bottom is before the Court is two former friends becoming bitter enemies and filing charges and counter-charges against each other using whatever convenient tools and data were readily available. Unfortunately, the personal information respondent gathered from her conversation with complainant became handy in her quest to even the score. At the end of the day, it appears clear to us that respondent was actuated by the urge to retaliate without perhaps realizing that, in the process of giving vent to a negative sentiment, she was violating the rule on confidentiality.