Canon 21 A lawyer shall preserve the confidences and secrets of

his client even after the attorney-client relation is terminated.

Requisites of the Atty-Client Privilege:
1. There exists and attorney and client relationship or a kind of
consultancy relationship with a prospective client. That is, legal
advice is what is sought. (includes those appointed as counsel de
officio)
2. The communication was made by the client to the lawyer in the
course of the lawyers professional employment
3. The communication must be intended to be confidential.
The party who avers that the communication is privileged has the
burden of proof to establish the existence of the privileged.

Rule 138, Section 20 (e) Duties of attorneys XXX To

maintain inviolate the confidence, and at every peril to himself, to
preserve the secrets of his client, and to accept no compensation in
connection with his clients business except from him or with his
knowledge and approval.
Rule 130, Section 21 (b) Disqualification by reason of mental
incapacity or immaturity Children whose mental maturity is such
as to render them incapable of perceiving the facts respecting
which they are examined and of relating them truthfully. (Ask Sir
Banez if this is the correct provision, if not, see next provision
because it is probably the correct one.)
Rule 130, Section 24 (b) Disqualification by reason of
privileged communication. An attorney, without the consent of
his client, be examined as to any communication made by the client
to him, or his advice given thereon in the course of, or with a view
to, professional employment, nor can an attorneys secretary,
stenographer, or clerk be examined, without the consent of the
client and his employer, concerning any fact the knowledge of which
as been acquired in such capacity.
Article 208, Revised Penal Code Prosecution of offenses;
negligence and tolerance The penalty of prision correccional in
its minimum period and suspension shall be imposed upon any
public officer, or officer of the law, who, in dereliction of the duties
of his office, shall maliciously refrain from instituting prosecution for
the punishment of violators of the law, or shall tolerate the
commission of offenses. (Might be wrong provision. See next one.)
Article 209 Betrayal of trust by an attorney or solicitor
Revelation of secrets In addition to the proper administrative
action, the penalty of prision correccional in its minimum period, or
a fine ranging from 200-1,000 pesos or both, shall be imposed upon
any atty-at-law or solicitor who, by any malicious breach of
professional duty or of inexcusable negligence or ignorance, shall

prejudice his client or reveal any of the secrets of the latter learned
by him in his professional capacity.
Rule 21.01 Revelation of secrets and confidences allowed A
lawyer shall not reveal the confidences or secrets of his client except:
a. When authorized by the client after acquainting him of the
consequences of the disclosure;
b. When required by law;
Requisites of lawful purpose: In People v. Sandiganbayan, it
was established that it must be for a lawful purpose or in
furtherance of a lawful end.
c. When necessary to collect his fees or to defend himself, his
employees or associates or by judicial action
Payment of retainer is not necessary before an attorney can be required to
safeguard a prospective clients secret acquire by the attorney during the
course of consultation with the prospective client, even if the atty did not
accept the employment.
Rule 21.02 Use of information in course of employment allowed
A lawyer shall not, to the disadvantage of his client, use information
acquired in the course of employment, nor shall he use the same to his
own advantage or that of a third person, unless the client with full
knowledge of the circumstances consents thereto.
Rule 21.03 Prohibition of giving information to outside agency
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 21.04 Protection from Disclosure A lawyer may disclose the
affairs of a client of the firm to partners or associates thereof unless
prohibited by the client.
Rule 21.05 Protection from Disclosure A lawyer shall adopt such
measures as may be required to prevent those whose services are utilized
by him, from disclosing or using confidences or secrets of the client.
Rule 21.06 Prohibition of Indiscreet conversation A lawyer shall
avoid indiscreet conversation about a clients affairs even with members
of his family.
Rule 21.07 Not to reveal that a lawyer was consulted A lawyer
shall not reveal that he has been consulted about a particular case except
to avoid possible conflict of interest.

Rule 15.01 A lawyer, in conferring with a prospective client, shall

ascertain as soon as practicable whether the matter would involve a

conflict with another client or his own interest, and if so, shall
forthwith inform the prospective client.
Rule 14.03 A lawyer may not refuse to accept representation of
an indigent client unless:
o He is in no position to carry out the work effectively or
competently
o He labors under a conflict of interest between him and the
prospective client or between a present client and a
prospective client.

84 Phil 569 Legal Ethics Existence of Attorney-Client

Relationship
In April 1945, Blandina Hilado filed a complaint to have some deeds
of sale annulled against Selim Assad. Attorney Delgado Dizon
represented Hilado. Assad was represented by a certain Atty.
Ohnick.
In January 1946, Atty. Vicente Francisco replaced Atty. Ohnick as
counsel for Assad and he thenafter entered his appearance in
court.
In May 1946 or four months later, Atty. Dizon filed a motion to have
Atty. Francisco be disqualified because Atty. Dizon found out that in
June 1945, Hilado approached Atty. Francisco to ask for additional
legal opinion regarding her case and for which Atty. Francisco sent
Hilado a legal opinion letter.
Atty. Francisco opposed the motion for his disqualification. In his
opposition, he said that no material information was relayed to him
by Hilado; that in fact, upon hearing Hilados story, Atty. Francisco
advised her that her case will not win in court; but that later, Hilado

returned with a copy of the Complaint prepared by Atty. Dizon; that

however, when Hilado returned, Atty. Francisco was not around but
an associate in his firm was there (a certain Atty. Federico Agrava);
that Atty. Agrava attended to Hilado; that after Hilado left, leaving
behind the legal documents, Atty. Agrava then prepared a legal
opinion letter where it was stated that Hilado has no cause of action
to file suit; that Atty. Agrava had Atty. Francisco sign the letter; that
Atty. Francisco did not read the letter as Atty. Agrava said that it was
merely a letter explaining why the firm cannot take on Hilados case.
Atty. Francisco also pointed out that he was not paid for his advice;
that no confidential information was relayed because all Hilado
brought was a copy of the Complaint which was already filed in
court; and that, if any, Hilado already waived her right to disqualify
Atty. Francisco because he was already representing Assad in court
for four months in the said case.
Judge Jose Gutierrez David ruled in favor of Atty. Francisco.
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Francisco should be disqualified in the
said civil case.
HELD: Yes. There already existed an attorney-client relationship
between Hilado and Atty. Francisco. Hence, Atty. Francisco cannot
act as counsel against Hilado without the latters consent.
As ruled by the Supreme Court, to constitute an attorney-client
relationship, it is not necessary that any retainer should have been
paid, promised, or charged for; neither is it material that the attorney
consulted did not afterward undertake the case about which the
consultation was had. If a person, in respect to his business affairs
or troubles of any kind, consults with his attorney in his professional
capacity with the view to obtaining professional advice or

assistance, and the attorney voluntarily permits or acquiesces in

such consultation, then the professional employment must be
regarded as established.
Further:
An attorney is employed-that is, he is engaged in his professional
capacity as a lawyer or counselor-when he is listening to his clients
preliminary statement of his case, or when he is giving advice
thereon, just as truly as when he is drawing his clients pleadings, or
advocating his clients cause in open court.
Anent the issue of what information was relayed by Hilado to Atty.
Francisco: It does not matter if the information relayed is
confidential or not. So long as the attorney-client relationship is
established, the lawyer is proscribed from taking other
representations against the client.
Anent the issue that the legal opinion was not actually written by
Atty. Francisco but was only signed by him: It still binds him
because Atty. Agrava, assuming that he was the real author, was
part of the same law firm. An information obtained from a client by a
member or assistant of a law firm is information imparted to the
firm, his associates or his employers.
Anent the issue of the fact that it took Hilado four months from the
time Atty. Francisco filed his entry of appearance to file a
disqualification: It does not matter. The length of time is not a waiver
of her right. The right of a client to have a lawyer be disqualified,
based on previous atty-client relationship, as counsel against her
does not prescribe. Professional confidence once reposed can
never be divested by expiration of professional employment.