Mercado v. Vitriolo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Rosa F. Mercado filed an administrative complaint for disbarment against respondent Atty. Julito D. Vitriolo. The respondent, who had previously served as collaborating counsel for the complainant in an annulment case, filed a criminal action for falsification of public documents against her. The respondent alleged that the complainant made false entries in the Certificates of Live Birth of her children, specifically regarding her marital status and the date of her marriage. The complainant denied these accusations and asserted that she used only one name and was married only once to Ruben G. Mercado on April 11, 1978. Procedural History: The criminal action for falsification was filed before the Office of the City Prosecutor, Pasig City. The complainant also cited other pending or decided cases against the respondent before various tribunals. The administrative case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation. The complainant failed to appear at the scheduled hearings before the IBP. The IBP Board of Governors found the respondent guilty of violating the rule on privileged communication and recommended a one-year suspension. Subsequently, the complainant sent a letter of desistance to the Chief Justice, expressing forgiveness. The Petition: The complainant sought the disbarment of the respondent, alleging that his institution of the criminal case for falsification of public documents breached their privileged and confidential lawyer-client relationship, as the criminal complaint disclosed confidential facts and information relating to the civil annulment case previously handled by the respondent.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent violated the rule on privileged communication between attorney and client by filing a criminal case for falsification of public document against his former client, specifically regarding the disclosure of confidential information. Whether the complainant sufficiently substantiated her allegations of breach of privileged communication, including providing specific details of the confidential information allegedly divulged and attending the IBP hearings.
Ruling
The complaint against respondent Atty. Julito D. Vitriolo is DISMISSED for lack of merit.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of violation of privileged communication: The Court held that the evidence on record failed to substantiate the complainant's allegations because she did not specify the alleged communication in confidence that was disclosed by the respondent. Her claims were general and lacked specificity. The Court emphasized that it cannot engage in a guessing game regarding the existence of facts that the complainant must prove. The filing of a criminal complaint for falsification of public documents does not inherently violate the attorney-client privilege if the basis of the complaint involves public documents not connected with the confidences gained during the engagement. The respondent maintained that the certificates of live birth were public documents accessible to anyone and not related to matters confided to him during their attorney-client relationship. On the sufficiency of substantiation of allegations: The Court noted that the complainant failed to attend the hearings at the IBP. Without testimony from the complainant regarding the specific confidential information allegedly divulged by the respondent without her consent, it was difficult, if not impossible, to determine if there was any violation of the rule on privileged communication. The Court reiterated that confidential information is a crucial link in establishing a breach of this rule, and it is not enough to merely assert the privilege. The burden of proving that the privilege applies rests upon the party asserting it. Since the complainant failed to present evidence to support her claim, her allegations remained unsubstantiated.
Main Doctrine
The filing of a criminal case for falsification of public documents against a former client does not violate the rule on privileged communication between attorney and client if the basis of the falsification case are public documents not connected with the confidences gained during the attorney-client engagement, and if the client fails to specify the confidential information allegedly divulged.