Republic of the Philippines

Office of the e are Coidaait

BASIC LEGAL ETHICS

Group Work No. 2

EH 303

Alaba, Josef Alexandre

Alolor, Florizza
Caballes, James Nathaniel
Crabajales, Rey Constantine
Honato, Paul Wilfred
Lim, Marvi Irish
Maningo, Pancho
Oxinio, Evan
 Republic of the Philippines
Office of the e are Coidaait

Atty. Josef Alaba and Atty. James Caballes, complainant AC No. 00001
v For
Atty Jimmy Berluti, defendant Disbarment

Verifed Disbarree t Coeplari t

Jimmy Berluti violated the rule on privileged communication. Rule 15.02 of

the Code of Professional Responsibility which states that a lawyer shall be bound by
the rule on privileged communication in respect of matters disclosed to him by a
prospective client.

Jimmy's frm's client was an insurance company, trying to reach a settlement

with the opposing party. His client was the insurer of an individual who had
accidentally hit a child, the opposing party. In later events, the frm's head
physician discovered a life-threatening arterial issue that the boy is now facing due
to the accident. If not immediately disclosed to the victim, the latter could die. Upon
obtaining such information, Jimmy now faced the dilemma between morality and
ethics.

In the end, Jimmy called an ambulance for the boy, which consequently
revealed the information that their client specifcally did not want to reveal to the
other party. Therefore, Jimmy violated the privileged communication between him
and his client.

Although this is a unique or rare situation, given that the information was
acquired through work product, and that the client of Jimmy Berluti and his
colleagues were instructed to not reveal such information, it was clear that their
client's intention was for it to be confdential information. It may be immoral, but it
is what the law on ethics states, thus, revealing the client's privilege information is
thereby unethical. In this case, the essence of the requisites are present, namely:
the existence of an attorney-client relationship; communication is made by client to
lawyer in the course of the lawyer's professional employment (in this situation, the
party's medical assistance team had found out about the subject information, which
thereafter the client did not want to release to the other party); communication is
intended to be confdential. That being said, Atty. Jimmy Berluti had violated the
said provisions governing privilege communication.

In light of the forgoing, we, Petitioners in this case hereby requests Atty
Jimmy Berluti be disbarred.
 Republic of the Philippines
Office of the e are Coidaait

Atty. Josef Alaba and Atty. James Caballes, complainant AC No. 00001
v For
Atty Jimmy Berluti, defendant Disbarment
Represented by Atty. Rey Crabajales and. Atty Paul Honato

A swer to the Disbarree t Coeplari t Filed

Our client Berluti did not violate Rule 15.02 of Philippine Legal Ethics on
privileged communication. In fact, our client did what was ethical—revealing the
condition of the boy to save him from certain death or substantial bodily harm and
to prevent Berluti’s client from committing fraud. Privilege is limited or has
reference only to communications which are within the ambit of lawful employment
and does not extend to those transmitted in the contemplation of future crimes or
frauds.

O Alleged Violartio of Rule 15.02

The rule states that a lawyer shall be bound by the rule on privilege
communication in respect of matters disclosed to him by a prospective client. This
rule is not absolute and is subject to limitations and exceptions. One such exception
is imminent or possible commission of a future crime or fraud by the client. The
frm’s client—and Berluti—is duty-bound to disclose the condition of the boy to the
latter’s family and to the court during litigation, but insurer-client chose not to and
even instructed counsel not to disclose such crucial information at the possible cost
of the boy’s life. Since the physician of the insurance company only found out about
the condition of the boy during litigation, the non-disclosure does not count as a
past crime, but that of a future crime. Berluti is therefore not duty-bound not to
disclose such information.

Rule 1.6: Confidentiality of Information

The American Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 1.6 Paragraph B and its sub-
paragraph 1 provides that:

(b) A lawyer may reveal information relating to the representation of a client to the
extent the lawyer reasonably believes necessary:

(1) to prevent reasonably certain death or substantial bodily harm;

 Republic of the Philippines
Office of the e are Coidaait

As previously discussed, non-disclosure of the condition of the boy would and

could have resulted to his death or at least substantial bodily harm that might result
to further permanent damage aside from the permanent damage to his memory
and capability to learn that the boy already sufered. Atty. Berluti may have been
driven by his emotion in disclosing the condition of the boy which his client the
insurance company chose not to disclose, but Berluti did so in good faith. He did so
to prevent the death or bodily harm to the boy. As such, Berluti may have acted
because of emotion, but did not commit any ethical violation. He did not violate the
client-attorney privilege.
 Republic of the Philippines
Office of the e are Coidaait

Atty. Josef Alaba and Atty. James Caballes, complainant AC No. 00001
v For
Atty Jimmy Berluti, defendant Disbarment
Represented by Atty. Rey Crabajales and. Atty Paul Honato

Decisio

In the case-at-bar we have two extremes that have been at the forefront of
many debates regarding law and morality present. These two topics have always
been polar opposites much like fre and ice, and it is these two radically diferent
perspectives that the court must consider to resolve the issue at hand. On one hand
is the perspective of legal positivism and on the other hand we have legal
naturalism.

Respondent Atty. Berluti refutes the claim complaint against him and puts up
the defense of good faith. He claims that Rule 15.02 is not absolute and invokes the
limitation that allows lawyers to break the attorney-client confdentiality. Berluti
claims that the instruction of his frm’s client falls constitutes a crime of fraud
which, if not disclosed, would be a future crime. Knowledge of commission of a
future crime of the client falls within the exceptions of the privileged
communication. We agree.

The defense of the respondent is meritorious. It is evident that Rule 15.02

was violated when Atty. Barluti disregarded his client’s wish not to reveal the
plaintif's medical condition that could seriously hurt their case for a lower
settlement. While that may be so, Atty. Berluti’s actions were not only honorable,
but also justifed. Rule 15.02 has its limits, one of which is that privilege is limited,
or has reference only to communications which are within the ambit of lawful
employment and does not extend to those transmitted in the contemplation of
future crimes or frauds. In which case, the information regarding the aneurysm of
the plaintif would fall in line with. It is with much deliberation from this Court that
We have come to the decision that Atty. Berluti must not be suspended for
breaching attorney-client privilege. The court decided that the profession of law is
better served with people like Atty. Berluti in it, than out of it.

WHEREFORE, in view of all of the above, the Court dismisses Atty. Berluti’s
alleged breach of Rule 15.02 of Philippine Legal Ethics.

SO ORDERED.
 Republic of the Philippines
Office of the e are Coidaait

Rearctio
Parper
 Republic of the Philippines
Office of the e are Coidaait

Rearctio Parper: “The Ho or Code”, the Prarctice, Searso 6, Episode 7

INTRODUCTION

Lawyers are oftentimes called liars. People outside the legal profession tend
to believe that most lawyers fabricate evidences, manufacture false statements or
conceal truth just to ensure a judgement favorable to their client. However,
unknown to these people, what lawyers do in court— what lawyers do for their
clients, it’s not something that is voluntary and personal in nature. There is always a
legal code by which lawyers live by.

Enshrined within the Code of Professional Responsibility, the duties and

responsibilities endowed upon the lawyer that they owe to the legal profession as
well as to the courts:

Canon 7: Duty to uphold the dignity of the legal profession

Canon 8: Duty of professional courtesy
Canon 15: Duty to observe candor, fairness and loyalty
Canon 17: Duty of fdelity to the cause of clients

The Ho or Code: The Prarctice

Season 6, Episode 7 of the series “Honor Code: The Practice”, presented a

scenario where there is confict between what is moral and what is legal.

The plot of the case revolved around a personal injury- suit. The suit alleges
that a boy was hit by a car driven by the client of the lawyers Bobby, Eugene and
Jimmy. Due to the impact, the boy sufered partial memory loss and minor broken
bones.

In the course of a medical checkup, however, it was found out that the boy
sufered more than the simple injury that was alleged in the complaint. The child
developed aneurysm; whereas, if not immediately operated, could lead to the
child’s death. However, during the time of discovery, disclosure of such fact was
legally impossible.

As instructed by the defendant, the doctor is barred from disclosing his

fndings to the victim’s family. Hence, in response to this dilemma, the doctor
transferred the burden of information to the lawyers of the client by informing them
the actual damage brought by the accident.

Upon learning of the undisclosed facts, the lawyers faced a serious struggle—
a struggle of whether they should stick to what the Code provides in accordance
with privileged information or proceed with what is morally right which is to disclose
 Republic of the Philippines
Office of the e are Coidaait

the information to the victim to prevent the latter from dying. Nevertheless, if they
have chosen the former, the public will once again criticize the legal system for
being heartless; But, if they chose the latter, the lawyers will have to face a
disbarment charge for breaking the text of the Legal Code they are supposed to, at
all times, uphold.

What is moral and what is legal have been century-old considered as

separate and distinct. Yet, there are instances where both are intertwined. In which
case, analyzing the dilemma in the legal perspective, the duties and responsibilities
of a lawyer towards the legal profession and to the courts must be dissected.

I. Duty to uphold the dig ity of legarl professio

Under this Canon, the lawyer is therefore bound to uphold the integrity and
dignity of the legal profession. But the main question is: What comprises dignity and
integrity? How would one identify if what he is doing is in accordance with what the
legal profession expects him to do? The answer would have been easy—the Legal
Code. Nevertheless, it must be understood that while the Legal Code has its text, it
also has a soul that speaks the purpose for which it was instituted.

When the Lawyer Jimmy Berluti exposed the information he has acquired
during his employment and such information constituted an important factor in the
legal proceedings— he, by plain language of the Code, violated the principle of
privileged communication.

It must be noted that upon learning such crucial information, Jimmy did not
extend his earnest eforts to reach his client and convince the latter to change his
mind. He was totally consumed by his inner thoughts and personal judgment
whether to solve the dilemma in a moral or legal manner. It must be noted, that rule
on privileged information is founded in order to imprint the idea that clients need
not to hide any facts to his lawyer. Thereby stated, the act of Jimmy is an act that
diminishes the trust and confdence of clients reposed to the lawyers.

Nevertheless, such disclosure is not something to be entirely frowned upon.

While it is true that the Legal Code provides the mandatory character on the rules of
privileged information, the same Code does not intend to deprive the right of an
individual to life. Embedded within the Constitution, every person has the right to
life... It, being the supreme law of the land, Jimmy is still legally justifed. The
Constitution promotes the sanctity of human life and it cannot in any way be
diminished by legislation, treaty or statutory codes.

In summary, even if Jimmy is ethically correct in substance, his means of

attaining was prejudicial to the client. His act of proceeding without seeking advice
 Republic of the Philippines
Office of the e are Coidaait

from his co- lawyers nor applied earnest eforts to obtain his client’s consent,
makes his stand of being morally right procedurally fawed.

II. Duty of Professio arl Courtesy

In the scene where lawyer Jimmy Berluti was called by the board of American
bar for his disbarment case to explain his side, Jimmy did not control his emotions
and lashed out to the board his frustration. And in a snap, he told the board that
they cannot judge him. He also told the board that he does not care how good of a
judge they are and that they are not his idea of human being

Under Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, a lawyer, in his

professional dealing shall not use language which is abusive, ofensive or otherwise
improper. Jimmy could have explained his side properly without lashing out his
negative emotions towards the board.

A lawyer’s language should be forceful but dignifed, emphatic but respectful

as beftting an advocate and in keeping with the dignity of the legal profession.
Jimmy keeps on asserting his morality against the rules imposed by the board and
legal ethics. He was not right in exposing their client’s intention in the case and he
violated the principle of privileged communication. Although he is morally correct,
he ought to be respectful to the board.

The lawyer’s arguments, whether written or oral should be gracious to the

court and be of such words as may be properly addressed by one gentleman to the
other. There are many ways to tell the judge that at some point, they should
consider Jimmy’s position and reason of his violation of the Code. Jimmy ought to be
careful with his dealings with the court particularly the way he speak to the board.

III. Duty to observe car dor, farir ess ar d loyarlty

Under this Canon, a lawyer shall be bound by the rule on privilege

communication in respect of matters disclosed to him by a prospective client. Thus,
a lawyer should be vigilant in protecting the privacy of information disclosed to him
by the client.

Jimmy Berluti disclosed vital information of his client to the opposing party.
Although, he is morally right it is clear that he violated the principle on privileged
communication. That is, to protect the information that was shared by his client.
 Republic of the Philippines
Office of the e are Coidaait

It is clear that when the doctor told their frm about the medical condition of
the boy, the client stated that they have no intention on releasing the information
even after the case is over. Their client gave them a full confdence and trust with
their case. Thus, Jimmy should take into consideration the consent of their client
before disclosing the information to the boy’s family.

IV. Duty of fdelity to the caruse of clie ts

A lawyer owes fdelity to the cause of his client and shall be mindful of the
trust and confdence reposed in him. But the lawyer owes a higher loyalty to the
courts. Thus, when the confict between the client and the court arises, his frst duty
is to render loyalty and obedience to the courts.

Jimmy Berluti should always consider the cause of his client’s case. But if he
thinks that it is not morally good, he should have withdrawn and showed decency to
quit from the case so that he will not cause any harm on his client’s cause. This
move was also advised by one of his colleague and his colleague was right. His
colleague was also right in reporting him to the bar because he violated their code
of ethics. It is just also right for his colleague to report his violation. As a lawyer,
they have an obligation to the court to be obedient and abide by the rules.

Co clusio

Episode 7 of the series “Honor Code: The Practice” shows us that between
morality and the law, particularly legal ethics, there is a thin line of distinction
between the two even though both have diferent concepts and oftentimes
considered mutually exclusive. Many lawyers, however, will come across such
dilemma in their practice.

But as pointed out in the episode, the lawyer is bound by their duties to the
society, the legal profession, the client and to the court. The paramount
consideration of their practice goes to the client’s trust. If there is a rule, as a
lawyer we must follow it. There is no excuse for doing the contrary because the
rules ought to decide what is right and not what we thought was right.

Nevertheless, when the rule is laid down, the court is not precluded in making
interpretations. Hence, while it is true that Jimmy violated some provisions
enshrined in the texts of the Legal Code, such code cannot be strictly applied
against Jimmy in exchange for morality, otherwise it defeats the purpose of the laws
governing ethics.
Republic of the Philippines
Office of the e are Coidaait