Mercado v Vitriolo (A.C. No. 5108. May 26, 2005)

FACTS:

Rosa F. Mercado filed the instant administrative complaint against Atty. Julito D. Vitriolo, seeking his disbarment from the practice of law. The complainant alleged that respondent maliciously instituted a criminal case for falsification of public document against her, a former client, based on confidential information gained from their attorney-client relationship.It appears that the respondent filed a criminal action against complainant before the Office of the City Prosecutor,Pasig City.Respondent alleged that complainant made false entries in the Certificates of Live Birth of her children.More specifically,she allegedly indicated in said Certificates of Live Birth that she is married to a certain Ferdinand Fernandez, and that their marriage was solemnized on April 11, 1979, when in truth, she is legally married to Ruben G. Mercado and their marriage took place on April 11, 1978.According to the respondent, hi action does not violate the rule on privileged communication between attorney and client because the bases of the falsification case are two certificates of live birth which are public documents and in no way connected with the confidence taken during the engagement of respondent as counsel.

ISSUE:

Whether or not respondent violated the rule on privileged communication between attorney and client when he filed a criminal case for falsification of public document against his former client.

HELD:

No,In engaging the services of an attorney, the client 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.The mere relation of attorney and client does not raise a presumption of confidentiality. The client must intend the communication to be confidential.Applying all these rules to the case at bar, they hold that the evidence on record fails to substantiate complainants allegations. complainant did not even specify the alleged communication in confidence disclosed by respondent. All her claims were couched in general terms and lacked specificity. She contends that respondent 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 respondent. She did not, however, spell out these facts which will determine the merit of her complaint. Also, The complainant had failed to appear during the hearings of IBP. Without her testimony it is impossible to determine if there was any violation of the rule on privileged communication. The case was dismissed against the respondent was dismissed due to lack of merit.