8/9/2019 4) Hadjula vs. Madianda

1/4

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTManila

FIRST DIVISION

A.C. No. 6711 July 3, 2007

MA. LUISA HADJULA,complainant,vs.ATT. ROCELES F. MADIANDA,respondent.

D E C I S I O N

!ARCIA, J."

Under consideration is Resolution No. XVI-2!-!"2 of the #oardof $overnors, Inte%rated #ar of the Philippines &I#P', relative tothe complaint for disbarment filed b( herein complainant Ma.)uisa *ad+ula a%ainst respondent tt(. Roceles . Madianda.

he case started /hen, in anAFFIDAVIT-COMPLAINT0bearin%date 1eptember ", 22 and filed /ith the I#P ommission on#ar 3iscipline, complainant char%ed tt(. Roceles . Madianda/ith violation of rticle 242of the Revised Penal ode andanon Nos. 05.2 and 20.2 of the ode of ProfessionalResponsibilit(.

In said affidavit-complaint, complainant alle%ed that she andrespondent used to be friends as the( both /or6ed at the #ureauof ire Protection P' /hereat respondent /as the hief )e%al7fficer /hile she /as the hief Nurse of the Medical, 3ental andNursin% 1ervices. omplainant claimed that, sometime in 0448,she approached respondent for some le%al advice. omplainantfurther alle%ed that, in the course of their conversation /hich /assupposed to be 6ept confidential, she disclosed personal secretsand produced copies of a marria%e contract, a birth certificate and

a baptismal certificate, onl( to be informed later b( therespondent that she &respondent' /ould refer the matter to ala/(er friend. It /as malicious, so complainant states, ofrespondent to have refused handlin% her case onl( after she hadalread( heard her secrets.

ontinuin%, complainant averred that her friendship /ithrespondent soured after her filin%, in the later part of 2, ofcriminal and disciplinar( actions a%ainst the latter. 9hat, percomplainant:s account, precipitated the filin% /as /henrespondent, then a member of the #P promotion board,demanded a cellular phone in e;chan%e for the complainant:spromotion.

ccordin% to complainant, respondent, in retaliation to the filin% ofthe aforesaid actions, filed a 7UNor disbarment ofrespondent for the latter:s act of disclosin% personal secrets andconfidential information she revealed in the course of see6in%respondent:s le%al advice.

In an order dated 7ctober 2, 22, the I#P ommission on #ar3iscipline re?uired respondent to file her ans/er to the complaint.

In her ans/er, st(led as 7UN

8/9/2019 4) Hadjula vs. Madianda

2/4

are in fact matters of common 6no/led%e in the #P. herelevant portions of the ans/er read@

5. I specificall( den( the alle%ation of >1UP. M. )UI1. *3AU) in para%raph ! of her I3VI-

7MP)IN for reason that she never 91 MB )I

8/9/2019 4) Hadjula vs. Madianda

3/4

s it /ere, complainant /ent to respondent, a la/(er /hoincidentall( /as also then a friend, to bare /hat she consideredpersonal secrets and sensitive documents for the purpose ofobtainin% le%al advice and assistance. he moment complainantapproached the then receptive respondent to see6 le%al advice, a

veritable la/(er-client relationship evolved bet/een the t/o. 1uchrelationship imposes upon the la/(er certain restrictionscircumscribed b( the ethics of the profession. mon% the burdensof the relationship is that /hich en+oins the la/(er, respondent inthis instance, to 6eep inviolate confidential information ac?uiredor revealed durin% le%al consultations. he fact that one is, at theend of the da(, not inclined to handle the client:s case is hardl( ofconse?uence. 7f little moment, too, is the fact that no formalprofessional en%a%ement follo/s the consultation. Nor /ill itma6e an( difference that no contract /hatsoever /as e;ecutedb( the parties to memorialie the relationship. s /e said inBurbev. Mau!ta,J-

la/(er-client relationship /as established from the ver(first moment complainant as6ed respondent for le%aladvise re%ardin% the former:s business. o constituteprofessional emplo(ment, it is not essential that the clientemplo(ed the attorne( professionall( on an( previousoccasion.

It is not necessar( that an( retainer be paid, promised, orchar%edH neither is it material that the attorne( consulteddid not after/ard handle the case for /hich his service

had been sou%ht.

It a person, in respect to business affairs or troubles ofan( 6ind, consults a la/(er /ith a vie/ to obtainin%professional advice or assistance, and the attorne(voluntaril( permits or ac?uiesces /ith the consultation,then the professional emplo(ments is established.

)i6e/ise, a la/(er-client relationship e;istsnot/ithstandin% the close personal relationship bet/een

the la/(er and the complainant or the non-pa(ment of theformer:s fees.

3ean 9i%more lists the essential factors to establish thee;istence of the attorne(-client privile%e communication, vi@

&0' 9here le%al advice of an( 6ind is sou%ht &2' from aprofessional le%al adviser in his capacit( as such, &=' thecommunications relatin% to that purpose, &!' made inconfidence &5' b( the client, &J' are at his instancepermanentl( protected &"' from disclosure b( himself orb( the le%al advisor, &8' e;cept the protection be /aived."

9ith the vie/ /e ta6e of this case, respondent indeed breachedhis dut( of preservin% the confidence of a client. s found b( theI#P Investi%atin% ommissioner, the documents sho/n and the

information revealed in confidence to the respondent in thecourse of the le%al consultation in ?uestion, /ere used as basesin the criminal and administrative complaints lod%ed a%ainst thecomplainant.

he purpose of the rule of confidentialit( is actuall( to protect theclient from possible breach of confidence as a result of aconsultation /ith a la/(er.

he seriousness of the respondent:s offense not/ithstandin%, theourt feels that there is room for compassion, absent compellin%

evidence that the respondent acted /ith ill-/ill. 9ithout meanin%to condone the error of respondent:s /a(s, /hat at bottom isbefore the ourt is t/o former friends becomin% bitter enemiesand filin% char%es and counter-char%es a%ainst each other usin%/hatever convenient tools and data /ere readil( available.Unfortunatel(, the personal information respondent %athered fromher conversation /ith complainant became hand( in her ?uest toeven the score. t the end of the da(, it appears clear to us thatrespondent /as actuated b( the ur%e to retaliate /ithout perhaps

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jul2007/ac_6711_2007.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jul2007/ac_6711_2007.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jul2007/ac_6711_2007.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jul2007/ac_6711_2007.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jul2007/ac_6711_2007.html#fnt7

8/9/2019 4) Hadjula vs. Madianda

4/4

realiin% that, in the process of %ivin% vent to a ne%ativesentiment, she /as violatin% the rule on confidentialit(.

IN VIE# #HEREOF, respondent tt(. Roceles . Madianda ishereb( REPRIMANDEDand admonished to be circumspect in

her handlin% of information ac?uired as a result of a la/(er-clientrelationship. 1he is alsoSTERNL #ARNEDa%ainst a repetitionof the same or similar act complained of.

SO ORDERED.