G

E
N
A
T
O
v
.
S
I
L
A
P
A
N

Estela Romualdez Case

57 Phil 148
Facts: The accused Estela Romualdez and Luis Mabuhay were charged with the crime of falsification
of public and official documents. The accused Estela Romualdez was the secretary of Honorable
Norberto Romualdez, one of the Justices of the Supreme Court. The latter was then the Head of the Bar
Examination Committee. Because of such functions, she had under her care the computations and other
papers and documents for the admission of the candidate to the Bar held in the month of August and
September 1926. At that time, aside from the Committee of Bar Examiners, a Committee of Correctors
was also appointed. The work of the Committee of Bar Examiners was to prepare the test questions on
their respective subjects and a memorandum of authorities and legal provisions as well as jurisprudence
as sources of the questions. The work of reviewing and grading the test booklets were entrusted to the
Committee of Correctors who were furnished the notes and set of rules. The information filed alleged
that the accused Estela Romualdez and Luis Mabunay conspired together and erased the grade of 58%
given by the correctors to the composition in Remedial Law and replaced it and, instead, wrote 64%.
She also crossed out and replaced the grade of the latter in Civil law from 63% and wrote 75%. With
the said changes, Mabunay obtained an average of 75%. In the said examination, the Supreme Court
considered the Grade of 70% as 75% as passing average. The accused Estela Romualdez contended
that she has the authority to make such alteration, both in her capacity as the private secretary of the
Chairman of the Examination Committee and as the correctors and at the same time supervisor of the
Correctors. The authority was given by the then Chairman himself, Justice Norberto Romualdez. She
further contended that she did not know Luis Mabuhay and the first time he saw him was on the first
day of the trial. Furthermore, she alleged that her revision of the compositions of her co-accused was
due only and solely to a happy coincidence.
Issues:
1. Whether Estela Romualdez was guilty of Falsification; and
2. Whether Estela Romualdez was authorized to make the alterations.
Held:
1. Yes. The acts of the accused Estela Romualdez were covered by paragraphs 2, 3 and 6 of
article 300 of the Penal Code. She made the alterations in the grades given by the "correctors" in the
papers in question in such a way as to make it appear that said "correctors" had participated therein,
because she blotted out the grades of the "correctors" and wrote new and increased grades opposite
their initials, without indicating by her own initials that she had made the alterations. She, in that way,
attributed to the "correctors" statements other than those in fact made by them.
2. No. If it be admitted that the accused E. R. was given the authority which she claims to have
received, nevertheless she was not authorized to change the grades now in question because when she
made the changes she already knew that the papers belonged to her co-accused. The Chairman of the
Bar Examination Committee was presumed to have discharged his duties in accordance with the law
and it was inconceivable that he would without any warrant of law give or attempt to give the accused
Estela Romualdez the unlimited authority which she claimed to have received, thereby enabling her to
alter at will any grade on any paper, without making any record thereof or any report to anybody. The
mere statement of such claim showed that it was preposterous.
In Re: Lanuevo 66 SCRA 254 August 29, 1975

FACTS: This is an administrative proceeding against Victorio Lanueva who was the Bar Confidant during
the 1971 Bar Examination emanating from the revelation of one Oscar Landicho, a bar examinee of the
same bar exam, in his confidential letter that the result of the bar exam of one of the bar examinee later
identified as Ramon Galang was raised before the result was released to make him pass the bar. Acting
upon said letter, the court called the 5 bar examiners and the Bar Confident Lanuevo to submit their sworn
statements on the matter. It appears that each of the 5 bar examiners were approached by Lanuevo with
the examination booklet asking them to re-evaluate the grades of the bar examiner explaining that it is a
practice policy in bar exams that he will review the grades obtained in all subjects by an examinee and
when he finds a candidate to have extraordinary high grades in other subjects and low grade in one subject
he can bring it to the examiner for reconsideration to help the candidate pass. In good faith of trust and
confidence to the authority of Lanuevo, the examiners re-evaluated the exam of the candidate and
reconsider the grade they give for each subject matter. Further investigation also revealed that Ramon
Galang was charged with crime of slight physical injuries in the Mla. MTC but did not revealed the
information in his application to take the bar examination.
ISSUE: WON Lanuevo has the authority to ask bar examiners to re-evaluate and re-correct the
examination result of a bar candidate.
RULING: The court ruled that it is evident that Lanuevo has deceptively staged a plot to convince each
examiner individually to re-evaluate the grades of Galang in order to help him pass the bar without prior
authorization of the Court. His duty as a Bar Confident is limited only as a custodian of the examination
notebooks after they are corrected by the examiners where he is tasked to tally the general average of the
bar candidate. All requests for re-evaluation of grades from the bar exam shall be made by the candidate
themselves. With the facts fully established that Lanuevo initiated the re-evaluation of the exam answers of
Galang without the authority of the Court, he has breached the trust and confidence given to him by the
court and was disbarred with his name stricken out from the rolls of attorneys. Galang was likewise
disbarred for fraudulently concealing the criminal charges against him in his application for the bar exam
while under oath constituting perjury. The court believed that the 5 bar examiners acted in good faith and
thereby absolved from the case but reminded to perform their duties with due care.

Regala v Sandiganbayan GR. No. 105938 9.20.96

F: Corporation clients of petitioner consulted them regarding corporate structure and financial matters upon
which legal advice were given by petitioners. Said corporation is subject to investigation by the PCGG involving
ill gotten wealth. Petitioner refuses to provide information on fear that it may implicate them in the very activity
from which legal advice was sought from them and it may breach the fiduciary relationship of the petitioner with
their client.
I: WON fiduciary duty may be asserted by petitioner on refusal to disclose names of their clients (privilege
information)
R: SC upheld the right of petitioners to refuse disclosure of names of their clients under the pain of breach of
fiduciary relationship with their client.
As a general rule, a lawyer MAY NOT INVOKE THE PRIVILEGE BECAUSE:
1.The court has the right to know that the client whose privilege is sought to be protected is flesh and blood.
2.Privilege begins to exist only after the atty-client relationship has been established.
3.Privilege generally pertains to be the subject matter of the relationship.
4.With due process consideration, the opposing party should know his adversary.
EXCEPTION: LAWYERS MAY INVOKE THE PRIVILEGE WHEN:
1.Strong probability exists that revealing the clients name would implicate the client in the very activity for which
he sought the lawyers advice.

2.Disclosure would open to civil liability of client. (present in this case)

3.Government lawyers have no case against the lawyers client unless by revealing the clients name it would
provide them the only link that would form the chain of testimony necessary to convict an individual of a crime.
(present in this case)
4.Relevant to the subject matter of the legal problem on which client seeks legal assistance. (present in this
case)
5.Nature of atty-client relationship has been previously disclosed and it is the identity which is intended to be
confidential.
Old Code of Civil Procedure enacted by the Philippine Commission on August 7, 1901:Section 383 of the Code
specifically "forbids counsel, without authority of his client to reveal any communication made by the client to him
or his advice given thereon in the course of professional employment." 28 Passed on into various provisions of
the Rules of Court, the attorney-client privilege, as currently worded provides:Sec. 24. Disqualification by reason
of privileged communication. The following persons cannot testify as to matters learned in confidence in the
following cases:An attorney cannot, 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, can an attorney's secretary, stenographer, or clerk be examined, without the consent of the client
and his employer, concerning any fact the knowledge of which has been acquired in such capacity. 29Further,
Rule 138 of the Rules of Court states:Sec. 20. It is the duty of an attorney: (e) 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 client's business except from him or with his knowledge and approval.This duty is explicitly
mandated in Canon 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which provides that:Canon 17. A lawyer owes
fidelity to the cause of his client and he shall be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him.Canon 15 of
the Canons of Professional Ethics also demands a lawyer's fidelity to client:The lawyers owes "entire devotion to
the interest of the client, warm zeal in the maintenance and defense of his rights and the exertion of his utmost
learning and ability," to the end that nothing be taken or be withheld from him, save by the rules of law, legally
applied. No fear of judicial disfavor or public popularity should restrain him from the full discharge of his duty. In
the judicial forum the client is entitled to the benefit of any and every remedy and defense that is authorized by
the law of the land, and he may expect his lawyer to assert every such remedy or defense. But it is steadfastly to
be borne in mind that the great trust of the lawyer is to be performed within and not without the bounds of the
law. The office of attorney does not permit, much less does it demand of him for any client, violation of law or any
manner of fraud or chicanery. He must obey his own conscience and not that of his client.

GENATO VS. SILAPAN

Their relationship started out fine. The lawyer was given a small space
within the complainants building so he can use it for office space.
Eventually, the complainant entrusted several legal matters to the
lawyer. Later, the lawyer borrowed some money from the complainant
so he can buy a new car, to which the complainant acceded by lending
him P200,000.00. The lawyer issued a check in favour of complainant to
cover the first six months interest of the loan. He also executed a real
estate mortgage in favour of the complainant, but did not surrender the
title to complainant.
Later, the lawyer failed to pay the amortisation on his car, the financing
company sent demand letters to complainant, who is named as the
borrower, hence the complainant encashed the checks issued by the
lawyerfor payment, but it was dishonoured for reason account closed.
He also filed an action for judicial foreclosure of mortgage.
In his answer to the civil action, the lawyer alleged, quoting the decision:

12. That on January 29, 1993, before paying for the next installment on

his car on January 30, 1993, defendant Essex L. Silapan asked the
complainant to execute a Deed of Sale transferring ownership of the car
to him but the latter said that he will only do so after the termination of
his criminal case at Branch 138 of the Regional Trial Court of Makati,
Metro Manila, x x x where he (complainant) wanted Essex L. Silapan, his
former counsel in that case, to offer bribe money to the members of the
review committee of the Department of Justice where a petition for
review of the resolution of the Investigating Prosecutor was pending at
the time, x x x or, in the event that the said petition for review is denied,
he wanted Essex L. Silapan to offer bribe money to the prosecutor
assigned at the above-mentioned Court, and even to the presiding Judge,
for his eventual acquittal, which defendant Essex L. Silapan all refused to
do not only because such acts are immoral and illegal, but also because
the complainant confided to him that he was really involved in the
commission of the crime that was charged of in the above-mentioned
case. (emphasis supplied)
Complainant felt aggrieved on the allegations made by the lawyer in his
answer, alleging that it is irrelevant to the civil action and violated
lawyer-client confidentiality, thus he filed a disbarment case against the
lawyer.
May the lawyer be made liable for violating lawyer-client relationship if
he alleges or imputes illegal activity on the part of his client?
Canon 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that a
lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and shall be mindful of the
trust and confidence reposed on him. The long-established rule is that an
attorney is not permitted to disclose communications made to him in his
professional character by a client, unless the latter consents. This
obligation to preserve the confidences and secrets of a client arises at
the inception of their relationship. The protection given to the client is
perpetual and does not cease with the termination of the litigation, nor is
it affected by the partys ceasing to employ the attorney and retaining
another, or by any other change of relation between them. It even
survives the death of the client.
It must be stressed, however, that the privilege against disclosure of
confidential communications or information is limited only to
communications which are legitimately and properly within the scope of
a lawful employment of a lawyer. It does not extend to those made in
contemplation of a crime or perpetration of a fraud. If the unlawful
purpose is avowed, as in this case, the complainants alleged intention to
bribe government officials in relation to his case, the communication is
not covered by the privilege as the client does not consult the lawyer
professionally. It is not within the profession of a lawyer to advise a client

as to how he may commit a crime as a lawyer is not a gun for hire. Thus,
the attorney-client privilege does not attach, there being no professional
employment in the strict sense.
Be that as it may, respondents explanation that it was necessary for him
to make the disclosures in his pleadings fails to satisfy us. The
disclosures were not indispensable to protect his rights as they were not
pertinent to the foreclosure case. It was improper for the respondent to
use it against the complainant in the foreclosure case as it was not the
subject matter of litigation therein and respondents professional
competence and legal advice were not being attacked in said case. A
lawyer must conduct himself, especially in his dealings with his clients,
with integrity in a manner that is beyond reproach. His relationship with
his clients should be characterized by the highest degree of good faith
and fairness.
The lawyer was suspended from the practice of law for six months.