Ma Luisa Hadjula vs Atty Madianda

Facts: Complainant and respondent used to be friends, both worked at the Bureau of Fire
Protection. Complainant claimed that she approached respondent for some legal advice and
disclosed personal secrets and produced copies of marriage certificate, baptismal certificate etc.
Respondent refused to have her as client and directed her to a lawyer friend.

Complainant filed criminal and disciplinary actions against respondent – in relation to the alleged
demand for a cellular phone by the respondent to grant complainant’s as the latter was part of BFP
promotion board.

COUNTER COMPLAINT was filed based on the information she received from complainant when
the she tried to seek legal services.

Issue: WON the act of respondent in using the information she acquired from complainant when the
latter tried to seek legal advice from her was a violation of the rule on confidentiality.

Ruling:Yes. When complainant approached the then receptive respondent to seek legal advice,
lawyer-client relationship evolved between the two. Such relationship imposes upon the lawyer
certain restrictions circumscribed by the ethics of the profession. The fact that one is not inclined to
handle the client’s case is hardly of consequence. Of little moment, too, is the fact that no formal
professional engagement follows the consultation. Nor will it make any difference that no contract
whatsoever was executed by the parties to memorialize the relationship.