A.

Did Andrew violate his lawyer-client confidentiality when he told Jasmine that John was Jester's child with
Espy?
i. Code of Professional Responsibility, Canons 21,21.01. and 21.02;
ii. Rules of Court, Rule 138, section 20 (e); and
We think that the grey area of this scenario is the fact that Jester told his friend Atty. Andrew the
reason why he wanted to simulate the birth of John through an email. It is the question on whether or not
such disclosure of Jester was done as a client of lawyer (Atty. Andrew) or as a friend of the latter.
The thing is Jester and Jasmine was the client of Atty. Andrew to whom the latter is bound to obey
the rule on privileged communication between him and his client Jester and Jasmine. It was only Jester,
however, who knows the truth about Johns real biological parents so Jester alone confided the truth to Atty.
Andrew. Can we say that Atty. Andrew has two separate clients in the herein case, to wit: Jointly Jester and
Jasmine while the other one is Jester only. Thus, if this is the case then Atty. Andrew will be violating Canon
21 on the rule on privileged communication between him and his client (Jester alone) for telling the real
parents of John. Atty. Andrew must not disclosed the matter told by Jester to him because it tantamouns in
violating Canon 21, 21.01 and 21.02 and Rule 138 Sec. 20 (e). To wit:
CANON 21 - A LAWYER SHALL PRESERVE THE CONFIDENCE AND SECRETS OF HIS CLIENT EVEN
AFTER THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATION IS TERMINATED.
Rule 21.01 - 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;
(c) When necessary to collect his fees or to defend himself, his employees or associates or by judicial
action.
Rule 21.02 - 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 138. Section 20. Duties of attorneys. 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;
On the other hand, and for which our group sees more of great weight is that there is only one
client. The client is the couple Jester and Jasmine. The disclosure, however, made by Jester to Atty. Andrew
was done not in an attorney-client relationship but as a high school buddies (as friends) consequently the
disclosure made by Atty. Andrew to Jasmine in the herein scenario would neither impute Atty. Andrew in
violation of Canon 21 of the Code of Professional Responsibility nor Rule 138 Sec. 20(e) of the Rules of
Court. The information of Atty. Andrew of Johns real parents was not acquired through an attorney-client
relationship but as a friend of Jester. It is based on prior facts that Atty. Andrew as a friend of Jester and
Jasmine was helping the latter to locate Jester. More so, the disclosure of Atty. Andrew was patently made
as a friend of the couple because the former felt guilty about Jasmines concern to Jester. Therefore, it only
tells us that such disclosure was done as a friend in connection again from the fact that the Jesters
information about the truth of Johns parents was not a secret to be protected under the rules on privilege
communication but, it is a secret between two friends (Jester and Andrew) confiding to each other.

iii. Revised Penal Code, Art. 209.

ART. 209. Betrayal of trust by an attorney or solicitor. - Revelation of secrets. - In addition to the proper
administrative action, the penalty of prision correctional in its minimum period, or a fine ranging from 200 to
1,000 pesos, or both, shall be imposed upon 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. The same penalty shall be imposed upon an attorney-at-law or solicitor (procurator
judicial) who, having undertaken the defense of a client or having received confidential information from said
client in a case, shall undertake the defense of the opposing party in the same case, without the consent of
his first client.
The law provides the following rules on the attorney-client confidentiality rule.
1. The obligation to keep secrets covers only lawful purposes.
2. The mere establishment of a client-lawyer relationship does not raise a presumption of confidentiality.
There must be such intent or that the communication relayed by the client to the lawyer be treated as
confidential.
3. Prohibition applies, even if the prospective client did not thereafter actually engage the lawyer.
4. The confidential nature of information is lost when a third person obtains the information and releases the
same.
Exceptions:
1. Announcements of a clients intention to commit a crime
2. Client jumped bail and lawyer knows his whereabouts; or client is living somewhere under an assumed
name.
3. Communication involves the commission of future fraud or crime but crimes/frauds already committed
falls within the privilege.
For the application of the attorney-client privilege the period to be considered is the date when the privileged
communication was made by the client to the attorney in relation to either a crime committed in the past or
with respect to a crime intended to be committed in the future. In other words, if the client seeks his lawyers
advice with respect to a crime that the former has theretofore committed, he is given the protection of a
virtual confessional seal which the attorney-client privilege declares cannot be broken by the attorney
without the clients consent. The same privileged confidentiality, however, does not attach with regard to a
crime which a client intends to commit thereafter or in the future and for purposes of which he seeks the
lawyers advice. The secret which is the subject of the present controversy was the fact that John is Jesters
son with Espy. When Jester revealed such information to Andrew, Jester confided that the reason for
wanting to simulate the birth of John was to be with the latter. Simulation of birth is a crime punishable under
the law. It is clear therefore that Andrew did not violate his lawyer-client confidentiality because the
communication involves the commission of future fraud simulation of birth of John. Therefore, it is covered
under the third exception wherein a lawyer may reveal the secret of his client without violating lawyer-client
confidentiality rule.

B. Comment on advice on securing a declaration of presumptive death of Jester. Is unconfirmed information

enough to destroy the spouse's "well-founded belief" that the absentee spouse is dead?
i. Civil Code, Articles 390-391
Article 390. After an absence of seven years, it being unknown whether or not the absentee still lives, he
shall be presumed dead for all purposes, except for those of succession.
The absentee shall not be presumed dead for the purpose of opening his succession till after an absence of
ten years. If he disappeared after the age of seventy-five years, an absence of five years shall be sufficient
in order that his succession may be opened. (n)
Article 391. The following shall be presumed dead for all purposes, including the division of the estate
among the heirs:
(1) A person on board a vessel lost during a sea voyage, or an aeroplane which is missing, who has not
been heard of for four years since the loss of the vessel or aeroplane;
(2) A person in the armed forces who has taken part in war, and has been missing for four years;
(3) A person who has been in danger of death under other circumstances and his existence has not been
known for four years. (n)
- Under Article 390 and 391 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, Jasmine may not yet secure a declaration of
presumptive death of Jester since the latter is only absent for almost two years. The law speaks of specific
period of absence (seven, ten, five or four years), depending on the situation and purpose.
ii. Family Code, Article 41
Art. 41.A marriage contracted by any person during subsistence of a previous marriage shall be null and
void, unless before the celebration of the subsequent marriage, the prior spouse had been absent for four

consecutive years and the spouse present has a well-founded belief that the absent spouse was already
dead. In case of disappearance where there is danger of death under the circumstances set forth in the
provisions of Article 391 of the Civil Code, an absence of only two years shall be sufficient.
For the purpose of contracting the subsequent marriage under the preceding paragraph, the spouse present
must institute a summary proceeding as provided in this Code for the declaration of presumptive death of
the absentee, without prejudice to the effect of appearance of the absent spouse.
- Under Article 41 of the Family Code, two years shall be sufficient to secure a declaration of presumptive
death for the purpose of remarriage if there is danger of death, when the absentee disappeared, under the
circumstances set forth in Article 391 of the Civil Code of the Philippines. Here, Jester had been absent
since March 2010 and Jasmine and Richard supposed wedding date is on June 2012; hence, two years had
already lapsed if they will pursue their planned wedding. Also, Jester's disappearance is one of the
provisions set forth in Article 391 of the Civil Code. Therefore, Jasmine may now secure a declaration of
presumptive death in a summary proceeding. Nevertheless, she must show that she is under a well-founded
belief that Jester was already dead.
iii. RP vs. CA and Alan Alegro, GR 159614, December 9,2005 {JON}
Yes. The mere fact that the information, about whether the spouse is dead or not, is unconfirmed negates
the character of belief of the other spouse, that the spouse is dead, as well-founded.

The belief of the present spouse must be the result of proper and honest to goodness
inquiries and efforts to ascertain the whereabouts of the absent spouse and whether the absent
spouse is still alive or is already dead. Whether or not the spouse present acted on a well-founded
belief of death of the absent spouse depends upon the inquiries to be drawn from a great many
circumstances occurring before and after the disappearance of the absent spouse and the nature
and extent of the inquiries made by present spouse

C. Comment on the ethical questions involved in Andrew's planned legal strategy.

i. On disregarding unconfirmed information about Jester: Code of Professional Responsibility, Canons 1,
1.01, 1.02;
CANON 1 - A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF THE LAND AND
PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW AND LEGAL PROCESSES.
- A lawyer, as a servant of the law is supposed to be a good example to the Filipino citizens in upholding and
obeying the laws of the land. He has a duty or responsibility greater than to the private citizen in observing
and promoting the respect due to the courts. Considering the given facts, Andrew's suggestion to Jasmine
on filing the declaration of presumptive death although the information about Jester's death was not
confirmed is unethical. Even though Jester's absence for 2 years is a sufficient ground on filing the
declaration of presumptive death on summary proceeding still, the requirement of the law that the spouse
present has a well-founded belief of his death does not appear in this case because earnest effort must be
shown to support such belief and not a mere suspicion only. It appears in this case that Jasmine asked for
help to locate Jester meaning she believes that his still alive and such fact is contrary to what the law speaks
of. Moreover, Andrew's statement to take the information as hearsay is untenable since, Jasmine has a
chance of acquiring personal knowledge about Jester's death if she's not precluded by Andrew. Hence, the
acts of Andrew fail to employ the means that are consistent with truth and honor, and to counsel such
actions or proceedings that appear as just.
Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
- Andrew, as a lawyer, should be guided to do good and to avoid wrong. His suggestion to the
commencement of proceeding as well as, to push through Jasmine's wedding is well grounded with any
corrupt motive and interest. Also, he wants Jasmine to lie for having any information on the possibility of
locating Jester again to mislead the court. His main reason in rendering his service to Jasmine is motivated
for his own gain or benefit. Hence, his action is unethical considering his engaged in unlawful and dishonest
conduct.
Rule 1.02 - A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening
confidence in the legal system.
- Andrew, as a lawyer, should not promote or engaged himself in any scheme which he knows to be
transgressing the law. He should not therefore advice Jasmine in commencing to the proceeding without
confirming first whether Jester was already dead or not considering also that, he knew of Jasmine's belief
that Jester was still alive. The court does not countenance any wrongdoing nor allow those granted with the

privilege to practice law to cause people's trust and confidence with the legal system be doubtful or
questionable.
ii. On the insinuation about influence on the family court judge: Code of Professional Responsibility, Canons
15.06 and 15.07 {ESPI}
It is improper and highly unbecoming of a lawyer to give such assurance to his client or to even think of
insinuating such strategy. Under Canon 15.07 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, a lawyer shall
impress a client compliance with the laws and principle of fairness. He should refrain from actuations that
would show or even suggest impartiality in the bench. Such actions would result to lost of faith and
confidence in the Bar. The integrity and impartiality so highly protected by all the members of the Bar can
easily be destroyed by such actions even if he wants to really help his client. While a lawyer owes his entire
devotion to the interest of his client and zeal in the defense of his client and zeal in the defense of his clients
rights, they are also officers of the court, bound to exert every effort to assist in the spedy and efficient
administration of justice. They should not misuse the rules of procedure to defeat the ends of justice or
unduly delay a case, impede the execution of a judgment or misuse of court process (Eternal Gardens
Memorial v Court of Appeals 293 SCRA 622).
The law profession asks that each member observe candor and honesty in giving advise or opinion on the
merits and probable results of the clients case, neither overstating nor understating the prospects of the
case. In this case, Andrew unnecessarily gave assurance to Jasmine of the result of a case yet to be filed.
Such assurance, is what is being avoided by Canon 15.07 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. It is
improper for him to say or insinuate that he has connections and can influence any judge or court
members/official, prosecutors and others, especially if the purpose is to enhance his legal standing and to
entrench the confidence of the client that his case will win.
Canon 15, impresses the importance of maintaining honesty, good faith and integrity in his dealings with his
clients. No matter how bad he wants to win, a lawyer must always exercise all remedies available to him
within the bounds of law. The law never permits illegal, immoral or dishonest means to advance his clients
cause.