View full case

ROSA F. MERCADO v. ATTY. JULITO D. VITRIOLO

FACTS:

Rosa F. Mercado filed an administrative complaint seeking the disbarment of Atty. Julito D. Vitriolo. Mercado claims that Vitriolo maliciously filed a criminal case against her for falsification of public document using confidential information obtained during their attorney-client relationship. Mercado had a marriage annulment case, which was dismissed and became final on July 15, 1992. After her lawyer passed away, Vitriolo entered as collaborating counsel on her behalf. Vitriolo later substituted as Mercado's counsel and filed a criminal action against her for falsification of public document. Mercado denied the allegations and argued that the criminal complaint breached the privileged and confidential lawyer-client relationship. Vitriolo filed a motion to dismiss, asserting that the disbarment complaint is hearsay and irrelevant. The case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, and the IBP Board of Governors found Vitriolo guilty of violating the rule on privileged communication and recommended his suspension from the practice of law for one year. Mercado later wrote a letter of desistance clarifying that the merits of the various cases against Vitriolo would not be examined in this case.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the respondent, Atty. Julito D. Vitriolo, violated the rule on privileged communication between attorney and client by filing a criminal case against the complainant, Rosa F. Mercado, based on confidential information gained during their attorney-client relationship.

  2. Whether the pendency of other criminal and administrative cases against the respondent is a ground for disbarment.

RULING:

  1. Yes. The Supreme Court found Atty. Julito D. Vitriolo guilty of violating the rule on privileged communication between attorney and client. By filing a criminal case for falsification of public document against his former client, Rosa F. Mercado, based on confidential information obtained during their attorney-client relationship, he breached their privileged and confidential relationship. As a result, Atty. Vitriolo was suspended from the practice of law for one year.

  2. No. The pendency of other criminal and administrative cases against the respondent is not a ground for disbarment. The Supreme Court emphasized that it shall not inquire into the merits of the cases filed against the respondent and that it is the duty of the tribunals handling these cases to determine his guilt or innocence.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Rule on privileged communication between attorney and client - It is a fundamental principle that communications or information between attorney and client are privileged and confidential. Attorneys are prohibited from using such confidential information against their former clients.

  • Disbarment - Disbarment is a disciplinary action against a lawyer that involves the removal of his or her privilege to practice law. It is imposed as a penalty for serious misconduct or violation of ethical rules.

  • Duty of tribunals - It is the duty of the tribunals where criminal or administrative cases are pending to determine the guilt or innocence of an accused individual. The Supreme Court does not inquire into the merits of such cases.