Code of Professional

Responsibility and
Accountability (CPRA)
Canon 3 - Fidelity

Reported by: Nilfpe Criss H. Salcedo

Section 27
Confidentiality of privileged
communication.
Section 27 – Confidentiality of Privileged
Communication
CPRA
• A lawyer shall maintain the confidences of
the client, and shall respect data privacy
laws. The duty of confidentiality shall
continue even after the termination of the
lawyer-client engagement.
CPR
• CANON 21 - A lawyer shall preserve the
confidence and secrets of his client even
after the attorney-client relation is
terminated.
 Confidentiality of Privileged Communication
• intended for or restricted to the use
of a particular person, group,
Confidentiality or class
• entrusted with confidences
• Private
• one made bona fide upon any
Privileged subject matter

Communication • party communicating has an

interest, or in reference to which he
has a duty
• Protected relationship
Confidentiality of
Privileged Communication  Where legal advice of any kind is sought
Requisites of Privilege  From a professional legal adviser in his
capacity as such
 The communications relating to that purpose
 Made in confidence
 By the client
 Are at his instance permanently protected
 From disclosure by himself or the legal advisor
 Except the protection be waived
 Confidentiality of Privileged Communication
Complainant filed an administrative complaint against the respondent, seeking his disbarment from the practice of law
due to filing of criminal case for falsification of public document based on confidential information gained from their
attorney-client relationship.

Respondent was the legal counsel who represented the complainant for the annulment of her marriage. The
respondent filed a criminal case against the complainant alleging that the complainant made false entries in the
Certificates of Live Birth of her children.

Mercado vs. Atty. Vitrilo

A.C. No. 5108, May 26, 2005
The complainant denies the accusation and filed the administrative case against the respondent on the grounds
of breaching their privileged and confidential client-lawyer relationship for disclosing confidential facts and
information related to civil case for annulment.

Facts
The respondent filed a motion to dismiss the case filed by the complainant where he alleged that he did not violate the
rule on privileged communication between attorney and client because the bases of the falsification cases filed was the
two certificate of live births, which are public documents and the matter only confided to him were the matters related
to annulment case.
 Confidentiality of Privileged Communication

The Court referred the case to the Integrated Bar of the

Philippines for investigation, report and
recommendation.

Mercado vs. Atty. Vitrilo

A.C. No. 5108, May 26, 2005

The IBP Board of Governors approved the report of the

Facts investigating commissioner which found the respondent
guilty of violating the rule on privileged communication
between attorney and client.
 Confidentiality of Privileged Communication

Whether respondent violated the rule

Mercado vs. Atty. Vitrilo
A.C. No. 5108, May 26, 2005
Issue
on privileged communication between
attorney and client when he filed a
criminal case for falsification of public
document against his former client.
 Confidentiality of Privileged Communication

The complaint filed against the respondent was dismissed for lack
of merit.

Mercado vs. Atty. Vitrilo
A.C. No. 5108, May 26, 2005
The factors essential to establish the existence of the privilege are: (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; and (8)
except the protection be waived.

Ruling
Applying all these rules to the case at bar, the evidence on record fails to substantiate complainant's
allegations. The complainant did not specify the alleged communication in confidence disclosed by
respondent. She contends that respondent violated the rule on privileged communication when he
instituted a criminal action against her for falsification of public documents because the criminal
complaint disclosed facts relating to the civil case for annulment then handled by respondent. She did
not, however, spell out these facts which will determine the merit of her complaint.
Section 28
Protecting client confidences
Section 28 – Protecting client confidences
CPRA
• A lawyer shall not reveal the confidences of
the client, including data from the client’s
files, except;
(a) When a written informed consent is
obtained from the client;
(b) When required by law, such as anti-
money laundering statutes, or the Rules of Court.
(c) To the extent necessary, to collect
the lawyer’s fees;
(d) In defense of the lawyer, or the
lawyer’s employees or associates; or
(e) By judicial order, but only if
material.
CPR
• Rule 21.03 – A lawyer shall not, without the
written consent of his client, give information
from his files to an outside agency seeking such
information for auditing, statistical, bookkeeping,
accounting, data processing, or any similar
purpose.
• Rule 21.01 - A lawyer shall not reveal the
confidence or secret of his client except:
o When authorized by the client after acquainting
him of the consequences of the disclosure;
o When required by law;
o When necessary to collect his fees or to defend
himself, his employees or associates or by
judicial action.
 Protecting Client Confidences

Complainant filed an administrative disciplinary case against the respondent for violation of the
Lawyer’s Oath and Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR).

Respondent was the legal counsel who represented the complainant for the two cases of estafa
and/or violation of BP No. 22 filed against Rosita Mawili and Genera Legetimas in 2001.

Simonetti vs. Atty. Marapao

A.C. No. 10297, March 9, 2022
Eight years later, complainant was sued by Eufronia Guitan and Victoria Huan for Declaration
of Nullity of Public Document and Private Document, wherein the respondent appeared as the
legal counsel of Guitan and Huan.
Facts

Complainant filed a Verified Letter-Complaint, expressing Atty. Marapao’s failure to preserve the
confidence and secrets of a client when he used privileged information to file cases against her eight
years later.
 Protecting Client Confidences

The Court referred the case to the Integrated Bar of the

Philippines for investigation, report and
recommendation.

Simonetti vs. Atty. Marapao

A.C. No. 10297, March 9, 2022

The IBP Board of Governors approved the report of the

Facts investigating commissioner which found the respondent
not guilty on violating the rule on privileged
communication between attorney and client.
 Protecting Client Confidences

Whether respondent violated

the ethical rules regarding
Simonetti vs. Atty. Marapao
A.C. No. 10297, March 9, 2022
privileged communication
between attorney and client.
Issue
 Protecting Client Confidences

The administrative disciplinary case filed against the respondent

was dismissed for lack of merit.

Simonetti vs. Atty. Marapao The ruling of the Court illuminated pararellism with the case
A.C. No. 10297, March 9, 2022 of Mercado vs. Atty. Vitriolo.

Ruling
The complainant failed to discharge such burden in this case. The records bear no specific demonstration
of how the respondent utilized and divulged confidential information without complainant’s consent. At
most, all that complainant alleged was that "respondent used without his permission, knowledge or
information acquired during his term as lawyer for the complainant in filing frivolous case after frivolous
case." A statement as general as such cannot not aid the Court in ascertaining whether there was indeed
any violation on the rule on privileged communication.
Thank you!