You are on page 1of 3

Case Title Facts Issue Decision Applicable Comment

Castillo vs. Castillo was accused Whether the suit is SC: No The Court adopted its own
Sandiganbayan of having acted as violative of the ruling in the Regala case, viz:
dummy, nominee lawyer-client “an argument is advanced that
and/or agent of the confidentiality the invocation by
Marcoses, et al. in privilege petitioner of the privilege of
establishing Hotel attorney-client confidentiality
Properties, Inc at this state of the proceedings
is premature and that
In a motion to they should wait until they are
dismiss, petitioner called to testify and examine
contended that the as witnesses as to matters
complaint filed learned in confidence
against Castillo is before they can raise their
violative of the objection. But petitioners are
lawyer-client not mere witnesses. They are
confidentiality co-principals in the case for
privilege (since recovery of alleged ill-gotten
Castillo is attorney- wealth. They have made their
in-fact) position clear from the very
beginning that they are
not willing to testify and they
cannot be compelled to testify
in view of their constitutional
right against selfincrimination
and of their fundamental legal
right to maintain inviolate the
privilege of attorney-client

Dalisay vs. Complainant Violation of CPR IBP-CBD: dismissed Rule 19.02 It is axiomatic that no lawyer
Mauricio contends that: (1) is obliged to act either as
respondent violated refund the amount of adviser or advocate for every
the principle of P56,000.00 person who may wish to
confidentiality become his client. He has the
between a right to decline employment.
lawyer and his client SC: Suspension for 6 But once he accepts money
when he filed mos from a client, an
falsification charges attorneyclient
against her; (2) relationship is established,
respondent should giving rise to the duty of
have returned her fidelity to the client’s cause.
money; (3) From then on, he is
respondent should expected to be mindful of the
have verified the trust and confidence reposed
authenticity of her in him. He must serve the
documents earlier if client with competence and
he really believed diligence, and champion the
that latter’s cause with
they are falsified; and wholehearted devotion.
(4) his refusal to
return her money
despite this Court’s
directive constitutes
Lee vs. Dr. Lee then accused Violation of CPR IBP-CBD: Suspension Rule 21.01 the termination of the relation
Simando Atty. Simando of for 6 mos of attorney and client provides
violating the trust no justification for a lawyer to
and confidence represent an interest adverse
which she gave upon SC: Suspension for 6 to or in conflict with that of
him as her lawyer, mos plus warning the former client. The reason
and even took for the rule is that the client’s
advantage of their confidence once reposed
professional cannot be divested by the
relationship in order expiration of the professional
to get a loan for his employment. Consequently, a
client lawyer should not, even after
the severance of the relation
with his client, do anything
which will injuriously affect
his former client in any matter
in which he previously
represented him nor should he
disclose or use any of the
client’s confidences acquired
in the previous relation.