Genato v. Silapan
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: William Ong Genato and Atty. Essex L. Silapan entered a legal relationship in 1992 when Genato provided Silapan office space and retained him for legal cases. Silapan borrowed P200,000.00 from Genato for a car purchase, issuing a postdated check and a real estate mortgage as security. However, Silapan failed to pay the car amortizations and the postdated check was dishonored upon presentment due to the account being closed. Procedural History: Genato filed a criminal case for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (BP 22) and a civil case for judicial foreclosure of the real estate mortgage. In his Answer to the foreclosure case, Silapan alleged that Genato was involved in 'shady deals' and had previously asked Silapan to offer bribe money to Department of Justice (DOJ) officials and judges in a separate criminal case. Genato then filed the present administrative complaint for disbarment with the Supreme Court, which referred the matter to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP). The Petition: The complainant charges the respondent with breaking the confidential lawyer-client relationship by making false, immaterial, and defamatory allegations in the foreclosure case. The respondent defends his actions by claiming the disclosures were necessary to protect his honor and to establish the complainant's criminal propensity. He further argues that the attorney-client privilege does not apply to communications regarding the commission of a crime, such as the alleged bribery attempt.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent committed a breach of trust and confidence by disclosing the complainant's alleged illegal practices and intention to bribe government officials. Whether the respondent should be sanctioned for the issuance of a bouncing check.
Ruling
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Essex L. Silapan is ordered suspended from the practice of law for a period of six (6) months effective upon receipt of this Decision.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: Canon 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) provides that a lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and shall be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed on him. The long-established rule is that an attorney is not permitted to disclose communications made to him in his professional character by a client, unless the latter consents. This obligation to preserve the confidences and secrets of a client arises at the inception of their relationship and is perpetual, surviving even the death of the client. While the privilege does not extend to communications made in contemplation of a crime or fraud, the disclosure must still be necessary to protect the lawyer's rights. In this case, the respondent's disclosures regarding the complainant's alleged 'shady deals' and bribery attempts were not pertinent to the foreclosure case. It was improper for the respondent to use such information against the complainant as it was not the subject matter of the litigation. Consequently, the Court found that the respondent's allegations and disclosures amounted to a breach of fidelity sufficient to warrant disciplinary sanction. On Issue 2: The complainant also requested administrative sanctions against the respondent for the issuance of a bouncing check. The Court noted that the criminal case for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (BP 22) was still pending before the trial court. It is the policy of the Court not to delve into the merits of various criminal and civil cases pending between parties in an administrative proceeding. The trial court is the proper forum to ascertain the truth or falsity of the allegations regarding the check's issuance and its consideration. Therefore, the respondent's liability for the bouncing check has yet to be determined by the court handling the criminal case. For this reason, the Supreme Court declined to sanction the respondent for the issuance of the check at this time.
Main Doctrine
The attorney-client privilege is a fundamental rule of ethics that protects communications made in professional confidence and survives the termination of the legal relationship. While the privilege does not extend to communications made in contemplation of a crime or fraud (the 'crime-fraud exception'), a lawyer is still bound by the duty of fidelity to the client. Disclosing a client's alleged illegal acts in a pleading where such acts are irrelevant to the subject matter of the litigation constitutes a breach of professional ethics and warrants disciplinary action.