FIRST DIVISION
|
MA. LUISA HADJULA, Complainant, -
versus - ATTY.
ROCELES F. MADIANDA, Respondent. |
A.C. No. 6711
Present: PUNO, C.J.,
Chairperson, *SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, AZCUNA, and GARCIA, JJ. Promulgated: July 3, 2007 |
x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
D E C I S I O N
GARCIA, J.:
Under
consideration is Resolution No. XVI-2004-472 of the Board of Governors,
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), relative to the complaint for disbarment
filed by herein complainant Ma. Luisa Hadjula against respondent Atty. Roceles
F. Madianda.
The
case started when, in an AFFIDAVIT-COMPLAINT[1]
bearing date
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) whereat
respondent was the Chief Legal Officer while she was the Chief Nurse of the
Medical, Dental and Nursing Services. Complainant claimed that, sometime in
1998, 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 respondent soured after her filing,
in the later part of 2000, of criminal and disciplinary actions against the
latter. What, per complainant’s account, precipitated the filing was when
respondent, then a member of the BFP promotion board, demanded a cellular phone
in exchange for the complainant’s promotion.
According
to complainant, respondent, in retaliation to the filing of the aforesaid actions,
filed a COUNTER COMPLAINT[3]
with the Ombudsman charging her (complainant) with violation of Section 3(a) of Republic
Act No. 3019,[4]
falsification of public documents and immorality, the last two charges being based on the disclosures
complainant earlier made to respondent. And also on the basis of the same
disclosures, complainant further stated,
a disciplinary case was also instituted against her before the Professional
Regulation Commission.
Complainant
seeks the suspension and/or disbarment of respondent for the latter’s act of disclosing
personal secrets and confidential information she revealed in the course of seeking
respondent’s legal advice.
In
an order dated
In her answer, styled as COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT,[5]
respondent denied giving legal advice to the complainant and dismissed any
suggestion about the existence of a lawyer-client relationship between them.
Respondent 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 relevant portions of the
answer read:
5. I specifically deny the allegation of
F/SUPT. MA. LUISA C. HADJULA in paragraph 4 of her AFFIDAVIT-COMPLAINT for
reason that she never WAS MY CLIENT nor we ever had any LAWYER-CLIENT
RELATIONSHIP that ever existed ever since and that never obtained any legal
advice from me regarding her PERSONAL PROBLEMS or PERSONAL SECRETS. She likewise never delivered to me legal
documents much more told me some confidential information or secrets. That is because I never entertain LEGAL
QUERIES or CONSULTATION regarding PERSONAL MATTERS since I know as a LAWYER of
the Bureau of Fire Protection that I am not allowed to privately practice law
and it might also result to CONFLICT OF INTEREST. As a matter of fact, whenever there will be
PERSONAL MATTERS referred to me, I just referred them to private law practitioners
and never entertain the same, NOR listen to their stories or examine or accept
any document.
9. I specifically deny the allegation of
F/SUPT. MA. LUISA C. HADJULA in paragraph 8 of her AFFIDAVIT-COMPLAINT, the
truth of the matter is that her ILLICIT RELATIONSHIP and her illegal and
unlawful activities are known in the Bureau of Fire Protection since she also
filed CHILD SUPPORT case against her lover … where she has a child ….
Moreover, the alleged
DOCUMENTS she purportedly have shown to me sometime in 1998, are all part of
public records ….
Furthermore, F/SUPT. MA.
LUISA C. HADJULA, is filing the instant case just to get even with me or to
force me to settle and withdraw the CASES I FILED AGAINST HER since she knows
that she will certainly be DISMISSED FROM SERVICE, REMOVED FROM THE PRC ROLL
and CRIMINALLY CONVICTED of her ILLICIT, IMMORAL, ILLEGAL and UNLAWFUL ACTS.
On
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it
is respectfully recommended that respondent Atty. Roceles Madianda be
reprimanded for revealing the secrets of the complainant.
On
RESOLVED to ADOPT and
APPROVE, as it is hereby ADOPTED and APPROVED, the Report and Recommendation of
the Investigating Commissioner of the above-entitled case, herein made part of
this Resolution as Annex “A”; and , finding the recommendation fully supported
by the evidence on record and the applicable laws and rules, and considering
the actuation of revealing information given to respondent during a legal
consultation, Atty. Roceles Madianda is hereby REPRIMANDED.
We AGREE
with the recommendation and the premises holding it together.
As it were, complainant 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 fact that one is, at
the end of the day, not inclined to handle the client’s case is hardly of consequence.
Of little moment, too, is the fact that no formal professional engagement
follows the consultation. Nor will it make
any difference that no contract whatsoever was executed by the parties to memorialize
the relationship. As we said in Burbe v. Magulta,[6] -
A lawyer-client
relationship was established from the very first moment complainant asked
respondent for legal advise regarding the former’s business. To constitute
professional employment, it is not essential that the client employed the
attorney professionally on any previous occasion.
It is not necessary that
any retainer be paid, promised, or charged; neither is it material that the
attorney consulted did not afterward handle the case for which his service had
been sought.
It a person, in respect
to business affairs or troubles of any kind, consults a lawyer with a view to
obtaining professional advice or assistance, and the attorney voluntarily
permits or acquiesces with the consultation, then the professional employments
is established.
Likewise, a
lawyer-client relationship exists notwithstanding the close personal
relationship between the lawyer and the complainant or the non-payment of the
former’s fees.
Dean
Wigmore lists the essential factors to establish the existence of the attorney-client
privilege communication, viz:
(1) Where legal advice of any kind is sought (2) from a
professional legal adviser in his capacity as such, (3) the communications
relating to that purpose, (4) made in confidence (5) by the client, (6) are at
his instance permanently protected (7) from disclosure by himself or by the
legal advisor, (8) except the protection be waived.[7]
With
the view we take of this case, 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
purpose of the rule of confidentiality is actually to protect the client from
possible breach of confidence as a result of a consultation with a lawyer.
The
seriousness of the respondent’s 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 respondent’s 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.
IN
VIEW WHEREOF, respondent Atty. Roceles F. Madianda is hereby
REPRIMANDED and admonished to be
circumspect in her handling of information acquired as a result of a lawyer-client
relationship. She is also STERNLY WARNED
against a repetition of the same
or similar act complained of.
SO ORDERED.
CANCIO
C. GARCIA
Associate Justice
WE
CONCUR:
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief
Justice
Chairperson
(On leave)
|
ANGELINA
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ Associate
Justice |
RENATO C.
CORONA Associate
Justice |
ADOLFO S. AZCUNA
Associate
Justice