In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements in

Problem Areas in Legal Ethics

Submitted by:

PASIA, NORVIE AINE

MANTAC, RYAN

DIESTRO, TANYA LYNNE

LLB 3B

Submitted to:

ATTY. JOSE MARI BENJAMIN FRANCISCO U. TIROL

30 MARCH 2019
 TITLE SANG PAPER NYEHEHEHE

As the world heads towards the digital age, everything or anything becomes
more and more accessible. There is always an answer to every question. With
just one click, solutions to a complicated problem will be provided. The world we
have today makes life easier than the world we had in the past. It makes the
lives of the every people more convenient and facile.Modernization paved way to
innovation and advancement. Through the invention of radio, television, internet
and any other form of medium, information are easily provided. The internet
being the most visible sign of modernization has become the most effective
channel of communication and has become a significant part of every people’s
lives.

As our society heads towards the digital age, anything and everything can
easily be accessed with just one click. There is always an answer to every
question; solutions to complicated problems. The world we have today makes life
so much easier, convenient and facile than the world we had in the past.
Modernization paved the way to innovation and advancement. Through the
invention of radio, television, internet, and any other form of medium,
information are easily provided. The internet being the most visible sign of
modernization has become one of the most effective channels of communication
and has become a significant part of everyone’s lives.

We now live and work in a world of instant gratification and instant

communication. Our ability to share and consume information on a grand scale
has never been greater until the development of the cyberspace and other
effective channels or medium of communication such as radio and television.
Nowadays, with that development, answers legal problems can be easily found
anywhere even without consulting to an actual lawyer. Whether is it a good or a
bad thing is not the point of this discussion but our group wants to know when
does the attorney-client privilege applies when a lawyer gives a legal advice
through any of these medium: radio, television and the internet. Does the
privilege immediate applies when a person ask for a piece of legal advice and
was answered by a lawyer through an internet forum or on a radio segment or
on a television program?

We now live and work in a fast paced world—a world of instant gratification
and instant communication. Our ability to share and consume information on a
grand scale has never been greater until the development of cyberspace, as well
as other effective medium of communication such as radio and television.
 With the current developments happening around us, a wide variety of
information can be had by anyone who has access to any medium of
communication. Such information can be as simple as how to cook an egg or it
could be as complex as asking for legal advice. Because of technology, people
get answers to their legal inquiries from actual lawyers without consulting them
personally. Whether it is a good or a bad thing will not be the point of the
discussion of this paper as our group will not focus on the question of whether or
not the attorney-client privilege applies when a lawyer gives out legal advice
through any of these medium: radio, television, and the internet; does such
privilege immediately apply when a person ask for a legal advice and
subsequently answered by a lawyer through an internet forum, a radio segment,
or a television program?

ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE IN ABSTRACT

A lawyer-client relationship was established from the very first moment

complainant asked respondent for legal advice 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. If 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 employment 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.1

In the creation of lawyer-client relationship, there are rules, ethical conduct

and duties that breathe life into it, among those, the fiduciary duty to his client
which is of a very delicate, exacting and confidential character, requiring a very
high degree of fidelity and good faith, that is required by reason of necessity and
public interest based on the hypothesis that abstinence from seeking legal advice
in a good cause is an evil which is fatal to the administration of justice. It is also
the strict sense of fidelity of a lawyer to his client that distinguishes him from any
other professional in society. This conception is entrenched and embodies
centuries of established and stable tradition. Considerations favoring
confidentiality in lawyer-client relationships are many and serve several
constitutional and policy concerns. In the constitutional sphere, the privilege

1Dominador P. BurbeVs. Atty. Alberto C. Magulta, [AC No. 99-634. June 10, 2002]
gives flesh to one of the most sacrosanct rights available to the accused, the
right to counsel. If a client were made to choose between legal representation
without effective communication and disclosure and legal representation with all
his secrets revealed then he might be compelled, in some instances, to either opt
to stay away from the judicial system or to lose the right to counsel. If the price
of disclosure is too high, or if it amounts to self incrimination, then the flow of
information would be curtailed thereby rendering the right practically
nugatory. The threat this represents against another sacrosanct individual right,
the right to be presumed innocent is at once self-evident. Encouraging full
disclosure to a lawyer by one seeking legal services opens the door to a whole
spectrum of legal options which would otherwise be circumscribed by limited
information engendered by a fear of disclosure. An effective lawyer-client
relationship is largely between lawyer and client which in turn requires a
situation which encourages a dynamic and fruitful exchange and flow of
information. It necessarily follows that in order to attain effective representation,
the lawyer must invoke the privilege not as a matter of option but as a matter of
duty and professional responsibility.2

In the case of Coquia, Jorge R., Attorney and Client Privileged

Communication, 262 SCRA 194, the reason behind the rule on attorney-client
privilege was discussed.

To wit:

“We all should be reminded of the public policy and interest involved in
protecting the attorney-client privilege. The privilege is meant to encourage
the client to make full disclosure to his attorney and to place unrestricted
confidence in him in matters affecting his rights or obligations. The privilege
founded on the grounds of public policy proceeds on the premise that
benefits derived from there justify the risk that unjust decisions may
sometimes result from the suppression of relevant evidence. A contrary rule
will discourage the client from reposing his trust and confidence to an
attorney which is detrimental to the administration of justice.”

A brief discussion of the nature of the relationship between attorney and

client and the rule on attorney-client privilege that is designed to protect such
relation is in order.3

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

2Teodoro R. Regala, Edgardo J. Angara, Avelino V. Cruz, Jose C. Concepcion, Rogelio A. Vinluan, Victor P.
Lazatin, And Eduardo U. Escueta, Vs. The Honorable Sandiganbayan, First Division, Republic Of The
Philippines, Acting Through The Presidential Commission On Good Government, And Raul S. Roco, [G.R. No.
105938. September 20, 1996]
3Rosa f. Mercado vs. Atty. Julito d. Vitriolo, A.C. No. 5108, May 26, 2005
confidential nature that is required by necessity and public interest. Only by such
confidentiality and protection will a person be encouraged to repose his
confidence in an attorney. The hypothesis is that abstinence from seeking legal
advice in a good cause is an evil which is fatal to the administration of
justice. Thus, the preservation and protection of that relation will encourage a
client to entrust his legal problems to an attorney, which is of paramount
importance to the administration of justice. One rule adopted to serve this
purpose is the attorney-client privilege: an attorney is to keep inviolate his clients
secrets or confidence and not to abuse them. Thus, the duty of a lawyer to
preserve his client’s secrets and confidence outlasts the termination of the
attorney-client relationship, and continues even after the client’s death. It is the
glory of the legal profession that its fidelity to its client can be depended on, and
that a man may safely go to a lawyer and converse with him upon his rights or
supposed rights in any litigation with absolute assurance that the lawyers tongue
is tied from ever disclosing it. With full disclosure of the facts of the case by the
client to his attorney, adequate legal representation will result in the
ascertainment and enforcement of rights or the prosecution or defense of the
clients cause.4

Now, we go to the rule on attorney-client privilege. Dean Wigmore cites the

factors essential to establish the existence of the privilege, viz:5

(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.

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.

ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE ON DIFFERENT WAVELENGTHS

I. Attorney-Client Relationship in the World Wide Web

The World Wide Web is the universe of network-accessible information, an

embodiment of human knowledge.6 It has been one of the most effective
channels of communication in the digital era.

4 Ibid.
5Ibid.
6 https://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/World-Wide-Web
 According to Google Consumer Survey on November 2013, 96% of people
seeking legal advice use a search engine.7 The survey reflects that most people
use the internet to seek legal advice than to go to a law firm and consult an
actual attorney.

Today, while the legal profession retains its historical ambivalence toward
technological advances, laypeople are gravitating to the Internet to seek help
with their daily legal problems, and they are beginning to find such help. A
growing number of lawyers have begun to use the medium of cyberspace to give
specific legal advice to laypeople who request it. This little-known phenomenon
poses fundamental questions about the very nature of attorney-client
relationships in the Digital Age.8

Nowadays, specific websites are created to facilitate requests for legal

advice. These sites encourage people to post legal questions and seek advice
and lawyers registered or facilitating such site will response to their questions.
The questions and answers are publicly available to anyone who accesses the
website.

Example of legal question posted online through The Manila Times Online-
Legal Advice by Atty. Persida Acosta:

7 https://www.natlawreview.com/article/legal-marketing-stats-lawyers-need-to-know
8 Attorney-Client Relationship in Cyberspace: The Peril and The Promise, Duke Law Journal, Volume 49:147,
page 151
Dear PAO,

I am single and working as a Branch Manager in one of the famous banks here in the country. I executed a Deed of
Donation, and donated two of my condominium units to my only brother on July 29, 2018. My brother accepted my
donation and was grateful. He, together with his family, moved to one of the units after two weeks. However, I am now
thinking of revoking the donation I made because of an incident, which occurred last month; he tried to kill me by
stabbing me on my shoulder when I did not allow him to use my credit card. I then asked him to move out of my
condominium unit. Is it still possible to revoke the donation I had given him? - Pauline

Dear Pauline,

To answer your question, we shall refer to the provisions of the Civil Code, to wit:
“Article 765. The donation may also be revoked at the instance of the donor, by reason of ingratitude in the following
cases:
(1) If the donee should commit some offense against the person, the honor or the property of the donor, or of his wife or
children under his parental authority;
(2) If the donee imputes to the donor any criminal offense, or any act involving moral turpitude, even though he should
prove it, unless the crime or the act has been committed against the donee himself, his wife or children under his
authority;
(3) If he unduly refuses him support when the donee is legally or morally bound to give support to the donor.
“Article 769. The action granted to the donor by reason of ingratitude cannot be renounced in advance. This action
prescribes within one year, to be counted from the time the donor had knowledge of the fact and it was possible for him
to bring the action.” (Emphases supplied)
Applying the above-mentioned provisions in your situation, you may file a petition before the court for the revocation of
your donation to your brother due to the stab wounds he inflicted upon you last month. The commission of an offense
against the person, honor or the property of the donor or his wife and children is a ground for revocation of donation by
reason of ingratitude. The law likewise provides that the donor has one year to file the petition, to be counted from the
time he had knowledge of any act of ingratitude and it was possible for him to bring the said action.
This opinion is solely based on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. The opinion may vary when
the facts are changed or further elaborated. We hope that we were able to enlighten you on the matter.
Editor’s note: Dear PAO is a daily column of the Public Attorney’s Office. Questions for Chief Acosta may be sent to
dearpao@manilatimes.net
SOURCE: https://www.manilatimes.net/revocation-of-a-donation/528108/

This kind of situation has provided an overview of how laymen currently use
the medium of cyberspace or the internet to seek legal advice.

Not only are there endless variations on these types of communication, but
the rapid technological changes that have characterized the Internet in recent
years, no doubt will yield further innovations not anticipated here. Although the
proliferation of this activity has received little publicity, what may be most
surprising to the casual observer is not that so many laypeople want legal advice
to help them solve their problems. Rather, it is that so many lawyers are
apparently willing to provide it.9

The emergence of these new and largely unexamined methods of delivering

legal services has profound implications for the practice of law in the twenty-first
century. Online advice-giving raises a host of ethical issues. Public exchanges of
often-sensitive personal information and specific legal advice present questions
of confidentiality. Lawyers answering legal questions about which they have little
or no expertise may violate the duty of competency. The possibility that a lawyer
might inadvertently create a conflict of interest by answering legal questions

9 Duke Law Journal 1999: Volume 49:147; The potential use of discussion groups for marketing legal services
is discussed in some detail in JACOBSEN, supra note 6, at 130 (quoting a lawyer as saying: “I know one
American lawyer who has generated over $500,000 in business in 18 months on the newsgroups.”). Jacobsen
notes that some newsgroups seem to be “full of people seeking free legal advice.” Id. At 132
from someone with an interest adverse to a current or former client is
particularly troubling in the sometimes-anonymous world of cyberspace.10

In the past few years, a handful of bar opinions from several jurisdictions
have reached varying conclusions about whether the giving of legal advice online
creates an attorney-client relationship,but as yet there has not been a detailed
legal analysis of the issue.11

In the Philippines, there’sno jurisprudence yet to clear the issue on whether

the giving of legal advice through internet forums or chatrooms, can create an
attorney-client relationship. The Code of Professional Responsibility does not also
provide any regulation or rules regarding such matter.

However, the question on whether the giving of legal advice to people online
can create an attorney-client relationship can be viewed from a doctrinal point of
view, by examining both the Restatement of the Law Governing Lawyers and the
case law that addresses formation of attorney-client relationships. This review
demonstrates that courts traditionally have been willing to infer attorney-client
relationships when lawyers give specific legal advice to laypeople under
circumstances in which it would be reasonable for them to rely on the advice.
Courts have treated the giving of legal advice as the essence of the practice of
law, and under certain circumstances, advice that is specific to the unique set of
facts advanced by the questioner is likely to provide a basis for imposing all the
duties inherent in a more traditional attorney-client relationship. Indeed, even
without the creation of a formal attorney-client relationship, lawyers may incur
obligations from their receipt of confidential information, such as in preliminary
consultations to determine whether to take a case.12

The Restatement thus contemplates that the attorney-client relationship

arises either by consent of both parties, or under an estoppels theory, where the
putative client reasonably has relied on the lawyer to perform legal services. The
Restatement’s approach generally is to treat the relationship as a product of
contract law. The online posting of a specific legal question by a layperson
manifests the intent to have a lawyer perform legal services—specifically, to
provide legal advice. The lawyer can manifest consent to perform legal services
in a number of ways. Most simply, he can post a public message or send a
private e-mail message to the putative client expressly stating his consent to give
the legal advice. The lawyer can also manifest consent by performance—that is,
by providing the requested legal advice. Moreover, even if the lawyer does not
wish to enter into a professional relationship with the online questioner,

10Attorney-Client Relationship in Cyberspace: The Peril and The Promise, Duke Law Journal, Volume 49:147,
page 156
11Attorney-Client Relationship in Cyberspace: The Peril and The Promise, Duke Law Journal, Volume 49:147,
page 159
12Attorney-Client Relationship in Cyberspace: The Peril and The Promise, Duke Law Journal, Volume 49:147,
page 160
furnishing specific legal advice in response to the question, without more, can
constitute consent regardless of the lawyer’s subjective intent. Indeed, under the
Restatement test described above, a lawyer posting such advice online without
disclaiming any intent to create an attorney-client relationship could still incur the
obligations of a professional relationship if the lawyer knows or reasonably
should know that the questioner is reasonably relying on the lawyer’s advice.
Most importantly, a careful examination of the law suggests that the attorney-
client relationship cannot easily be disclaimed and that, under certain
circumstances, even an explicit disclaimer may not suffice to shield an online
lawyer from potential liability for the legal advice given.13

The giving of legal advice is one of the essences of being a lawyer. As what
the Lawyer’s Oath provides, “I will conduct myself as a lawyer according to the
best of my knowledge and discretion.” As such, when a lawyer answers a legal
question posted by a specific person through the internet, such lawyer is giving
that person an idea or some sort of solution to his or her legal problems. Hence,
it is possible for an attorney-client relationship to arise, and therefore the
application of the attorney-client privilege is possible.

However, when a lawyer answer a general legal question or provides general

information about the law, the privilege is unlikely to apply. The act providing
general information is not a request for a specific legal advice.

In connection to Canon 5 of the Code of Profession Responsibility, “A lawyer

shall keep abreast of legal developments; participate in continuing legal
education programs, support efforts to achieve high standards in law schools as
well as in the practical training of law students and assist in disseminating
information regarding the law and jurisprudence.” Hence when a lawyer gives
general information or answers to a general legal question, the applicability of
the attorney-client privilege is unlikely since, there is no specific person
pertaining thereto and that, such act is but an exercise of the lawyer’s duty to
the society, which is to assist in disseminating legal information.

Therefore, the application of attorney-client privilege when a lawyer gives

legal advice online or through the internet depends on the approach use by the
lawyer on how to answer to such questions. Hence, when a lawyer respond to a
specific legal question posted by a particular person, an attorney-client
relationship is likely to arise which gives way to the privilege to apply. However,
when a lawyer, provides a general information or answer a legal question in a
general sense, the privilege is unlikely to be applicable since no attorney-client
relationship has been established as there is no particular person to whom the
lawyer is responding to. Such general answers will be treated as a legal opinion
or a way to educate people or a means to the fulfillment of a lawyer’s duty which

13Attorney-Client Relationship in Cyberspace: The Peril and The Promise, Duke Law Journal, Volume 49:147,
page 169-170
is to help in the dissemination of legal information to secure the proper
administration of justice in the society.

II. ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE IN KILOHERTZ (RADIO)

The radio as a means of spreading legal advice is not new. The radio as a
mass medium emerged in the late 1920s with the evolution of network
broadcasting.14 In fact, in the United Sates, the American Bar Association as
early as 1933 recognized the educational value of the radio as a mass medium,
which lead them to sponsor their own radio series, which aimed to acquaint the
layman with the efforts being made by the bar to improve the administration of
justice and to show the great difficulties in such a task.15

In 1936, a new vehicle for disseminating legal advice over the airwaves was
created. This “radio court” emerged during a time of widespread economic
hardship and many ordinary citizens saw this as a means to solve their legal
needs, which sparked the attention of the organized bar. This radio talk show
called the Good Will Court from New York City dealt with real legal cases told by
real people to real judges sitting unofficially.16

The success of such kind of radio program triggered numerous copycat

programs in the United States,17 which the organized bar of the United States
began to mobilize against the proliferating of radio courts.

Such activity was criticized by a lot of people, especially by fellow lawyers. A

special committee by the New York County Lawyer’s Association adopted a rule
banning the participation by lawyers in such activities, citing several concerns
such as the lack of confidentiality, inadequacy of the advice given as a “snap
judgment”, lack of dignity inherent in such proceedings, as they exploited
“morbid curiosity”, among other things. There were also concerns of the
possibility that uninformed listeners might erroneously rely on the advice given.

However, the most noteworthy concern by the committee was focused on the
ethical aspect of such activity:

The attitude of members of the bar to this program is not due to any belief
that their practice is in the remotest way affected by these operations. They
are interested, however, in its legal and ethical aspects. The conduct of
litigants in these broadcasts frequently indicates their belief that they are

14 Erik Barnouw, A Tower in Babel: A History of Broadcasting in the United States to 1933 (1966); Erik Barnouw,
The Golden Web: A History of Broadcasting in the United States 1933-53(1968); J. Fred MacDonald, Don’t Touch
That Dial!: Radio Programming in American Life, 1920-1960 (1979).
15 “The Lawyer and the Public” A.B.A.K.1,1 (1933)
16 Attorney-Client Relationship in Cyberspace: The Peril and The Promise, Duke Law Journal, Volume 49:147
17 Alfred Bartlett, The President’s Message, 11 STATE B.J. ST. CAL. 267, 267 (1936); Rosenthal, 12 N.E.2d at 820.
See also ABA Comm. on Professional Ethics and Grievances, Formal Op. 166 (1936), reprinted in ABA OPINIONS,
supra note 183, at 436.
 really appearing before a court. When wrong advice is given, the litigant
apparently has no recourse where he has been misguided.18

Furthermore, the committee rejected the notion that such type of program
had any educational value, further asserting that judges on the program were
“using the power of their office and the influence of their names to promote the
business interest of other, in violation of the spirit and intent of the ABA’s Canon
of Judicial Ethics.”

Due to the continued fight against such activity, in 1936, the Appellate
Division of the New York Supreme Court acceded to the demand of the New York
Country Lawyers’ Association and issued a new rule for lawyers admitted to the
practice in New York City and surrounding counties that would “prohibit them
from taking part in ‘good-will courts’ broadcast over the air.”19 The rule itself did
not expressly mention radio “courts,” but provided:

No attorney shall advise inquirers or render any opinion to them through or

in connection with a publicity medium of any kind in respect to their specific
legal problems, whether or not such attorney shall be compensated for his
services. Any attorney who violates the rule shall be deemed to be guilty of
professional misconduct.20

The take-away in all of these is that the legal precedent from such activity
discussed is that it demonstrates the giving of specific legal advice to laypeople,
which can create an attorney-client relationship, which such fact alone should
dictate caution to lawyers who engage in such activity outside formally created
relationships.

Looking at it from a different perspective, it could be said that the story of

the Good Will Court’s demise is the tale of a selfless group of lawyers who, with
the sole motivation of protecting innocent laypeople, put a quick end to a
mockery of legal practice and, in so doing, restored some dignity to an already-
tarnished profession. However, just like any other story, the tale of the Good Will
Court has an alternative interpretation, which stands as an innovative use of
modern technology to meet the wide-spread need for legal assistance in a time
of great economic hardship.

18 Attorney-Client Relationship in Cyberspace: The Peril and The Promise, Duke Law Journal
19 Lawyers Barred on Radio ‘Courts’, N.Y. TIMES, Dec. 17, 1936
20 Quarterly Review of Decisions: Radio, 9 AIR L. REV. 297, 300 n.9 (1938).
III. ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE IN AIR TIME (TV)

Could be there anattorney-client relationship arose if a person asked a lawyer

for legal advice or opinion on the television program? And such be subject to an
attorney-client privilege of communication?

Television (TV) is one of the world’s most important means of communication.

It is an electronic system of transmitting transient images of fixed or moving
objects together with sound over a wire or through space by apparatus that
converts light and sound into electrical waves and reconverts them into visible
light rays and audible sound.21 Through TV, as a medium,shows us information
programs, like the news, documentaries, and sports events.

There are TV programs which are provide legal-oriented shows. Such

programs intend to inform the televiewers of what are the legal rights and
obligations of each individual. In United Sates of America for instance, with
television's influence on American culture, assured by the 1980s, more and more
federal and state judicial opinions sought to connect with readers by citing a
broad array of dramas, sitcoms, and reality shows.22 The TV programs aim to
inform the citizens by means of digital medium.

In the Philippine setting, it is not new that there are television programs
which present legal-related shows wherein a lawyer is being engaged in giving
legal information or opinion or advice on the legal matters of the show. ABS-
CBN’s Ipaglaban Mo!, a show that present real life dramatic legal case stories
and provides lessons from the court decisions to inform viewers of their rights
and obligations23and TV5’s Face-to-Face, a talk show where the host will play as
moderator to her guests who have issues with one another and discuss their
issues on national television24 and there are three advisers, one of them, is a
lawyer, are some of the TV programs where a lawyer gives their legal advices or
opinion. The prime question to be asked is if there will be an attorney-client
relationship arises in these instances.

A lawyer-client relationship was established from the very first moment

complainant asked respondent for legal advice regarding the formers business.
Likewise, a lawyer-client relationship exists notwithstanding the close personal
relationship between the lawyer and the complainant or the nonpayment of the
formers fees.25 In the case ofIpaglaban Mo!, the mere giving of information by
the lawyer of the certain rights and obligation does not arises the existence of

21https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/television
22 Scattered earlier decisions employing references to television shows include United States v. Butenko, 494
F.2d 593, 611 (3d Cir. 1974) (The Lone Ranger), and Crawford v. State, 264 So. 2d 554, 558 (Ala. Crim. App.
1972) (Perry Mason)
23 https://www.pressreader.com/philippines/the-freeman/20140503/281775627168025
24 http://www.starmometer.com/2010/03/19/amy-perez-hosts-1st-talakserye-face-to-face-on-tv5/
25 Ibid.
an attorney-client relationshipfor there is no certain or particular person has been
given such information or opinion but rather for the general public. On the other
hand, the Face-to-Face TV show, it could be assumed that there has an
existence ofan attorney-client relationship considering that one of the advisers,
being a lawyer, provides a legal advices and possible actions or steps that a
subject person could be properly done. However, there is nothing yet in the
Philippine jurisprudence that decided on whether it could be considered that
giving of legal advice or opinion in the televised program arises the attorney-
client relationship.

Assuming arguendo that there is an existing lawyer-client relationship

between the lawyer in the show and the person who is the guest of that show, is
the information given by that person be covered of the privilege of
communication? The answer may be in the affirmative if an Iowa Opinion 93-8,
be put as a reference which opined that “[t]he public broadcasting of an
interview between a client and a lawyer would be in violation of the lawyer’s
responsibility to protect the confidences of clients.” 26Such opinion is likewise
applicable in our territory since the Code of Professional Responsibility provides
the rules that the lawyers must protect the interest of their client. However, it
must also be put into consideration that the TV programs are being televised
nationwide which the person seeking for legal advice or opinion should have
aware the possibility that the information they had given will be publicized. The
option that may be available for such person is to hide his or her identification.
Generally, a lawyer may not invoke privilege communication to refuse revealing a
client’s identity.(Regala vs. Sandiganbayan)27 Subject to exceptions: (1) when by
divulging such identity, it would implicate the client to that same controversy for
which the lawyer’s services were required. (2) It would open client to civil
liability. And (3) the disclosure of such identity will provide for the only link in
order to convict the accused, otherwise, the government has no case. There
would be no problem if the person concerned had been aware, knowingly and
voluntarily allow himself to be identified in such show. But for lawyers to avoid
any violations of the Code must adhere to what is provided in the rules.

IV. CONCLUSION

The question as to the existence of an attorney-client relationship in

televised program where the lawyer gives his opinion or advices to the person
featured in the show cannot be determined since there has no subsisting
jurisprudence to finally resolve this matter. But considering that Code of
Professional Responsibility provides that the lawyers shall at all times uphold the
integrity and dignity of the legal profession28 which serves a reminder to the

26 Iowa Sup. Ct. Bd. of Prof’l Ethics & Conduct, Op. 93-8 (1993)
27 262 SCRA 122, September 20, 1996
28Code of Profesional Responsibility, Canon 7
lawyers that they must observe at all times what they are expected to do. The
lawyers in the TV programs where they appear must and will always observe the
rules provided by the Code of Professional Responsibility whether or not there is
existence of attorney-client relationship.
V. REFERENCES

 Dominador P. BurbeVs. Atty. Alberto C. Magulta, [AC No. 99-634. June 10,
2002]
 Coquia, Jorge R., Attorney and Client Privileged Communication, 262 SCRA
194
 https://www.manilatimes.net/attorney-client-privilege-and-the-bir/410760/
 Rosa f. Mercado vs. Atty. Julito d. Vitriolo, A.C. No. 5108, May 26, 2005
 https://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/World-Wide-Web
 https://www.natlawreview.com/article/legal-marketing-stats-lawyers-need-
to-know
 Teodoro R. Regala, Edgardo J. Angara, Avelino V. Cruz, Jose C. Concepcion,
Rogelio A. Vinluan, Victor P. Lazatin, And Eduardo U. Escueta, Vs. The
Honorable Sandiganbayan, First Division, Republic Of The Philippines, Acting
Through The Presidential Commission On Good Government, And Raul S.
Roco, [G.R. No. 105938. September 20, 1996]
 Attorney-Client Relationship in Cyberspace: The Peril and The Promise,
Duke Law Journal 1999, Volume 49:147
 Duke Law Journal 1999: Volume 49:147; The potential use of discussion
groups for marketing legal services is discussed in some detail in
JACOBSEN, supra note 6, at 130 (quoting a lawyer as saying: “I know one
American lawyer who has generated over $500,000 in business in 18
months on the newsgroups.”). Jacobsen notes that some newsgroups seem
to be “full of people seeking free legal advice.” Id. At 132
 https://www.manilatimes.net/revocation-of-a-donation/528108/
 http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2009/01/lawyer-client-relationship.html
 http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/syllabus/sept/105938_syl.html
 https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/television
 https://www.pressreader.com/philippines/the
freeman/20140503/281775627168025
 http://www.starmometer.com/2010/03/19/amy-perez-hosts-1st-talakserye-
face-to-face-on-tv5/
 https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1579&cont
ext=facpubs