THE LAWYER AS COUNSEL DE OFFICIO

Dilemma: Attorney-client privilege and relationship in a counsel de officio: (1) Can a lawyer decline an appointment as counsel de officio? (2) Does an attorney-client privilege exist under this relationship?

Alex was a poor but deserving student. He worked his way through law school and determined to alleviate his life so that his two young children cannot experience what he has gone through in life. After passing the bar, the law firm where he worked as a liaison and paralegal hired him as one of its associate lawyers. Despite of the increase of his salary as a lawyer, Alex was still not financially stable. He incurred a lot of debts, most especially when his youngest child was hospitalized. They were still living in a slum settlement. On one legal representation for his firm, he saw his neighbor Anton at the court. Anton was charged with Sale or Pushing of Dangerous Drugs and Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drug. A saturation drive was conducted at their barangay and Anton was arrested without a proper search warrant and warrant of arrest. Alex has known Anton as a troublemaker; in fact, he had some occasions of altercations with him in the past involving domestic matters. During the arraignment, since Anton does not have a lawyer and he does not have the capacity to hire a lawyer of his own choice, the court appointed Alex as his counsel de officio.

For Class Discussion Faculty Guide a. Can Alex decline the courts appointment as counsel de officio of Anton? Due to his altercations with him in the past, Alex is hesitant to represent Anton. Alex has second thoughts about the innocence of Anton since he saw him on occasions

buying appliances despite of having no steady income. He is afraid that the police officers would associate him as a coddler of Anton. If he would accept the court

appointment, Alex knows it as a pro bono case and he does not afford pro bono cases yet at this point. As a new associate lawyer, he does not have the luxury of time and the resources attending the case of Anton. I. Consider the following: a. Code of Professional Responsibility, Canon 14, Rules 14.01, 14.02, 14.03 b. 1987 Constitution, Section 14 (2), Article III c. Rules of Court, Rule 116, Section 7 d. People vs Holgado [G.R. No. L-2809, March 22, 1950] even the most intelligent or educated man may have no skill in the science of law, particularly in the rules of procedure, and without counsel, he may be convicted not because he is guilty but because he does not know how to establish his innocence.

b. As counsel de officio, does an attorney-client privilege exist between Alex and Anton? Since Anton does not have a retainer fee, Alex would like to believe that there is no existing attorney-client relationship between him and Anton; however, he learned in law school that an attorney-client relationship exists even without retainer. During their counseling, Anton told him that aside from his present crimes against the Dangerous Drugs Act, he confessed to him in confidence that he was also into robbery and killed one person in the process, and he was not caught because he has a coddler who is a high

ranking officer. Can Alex, out of sense of duty, divulge this new found information to the prosecution? I. Consider the following: a. Code of Professional Responsibility, Canon 17, Rule 15.02 b. 1987 Constitution, Section 3, Article III c. Revised Penal Code, Article 209

c.

Supposing after the termination of their attorney-client relationship and Alex became a member of the prosecution, can Alex now divulged the robbery with murder case of Anton? Alex defended Anton successfully by assailing the absence of entrapment procedures of the police officers and the inadmissibility of the drugs on his person, due to the fruits of poisonous tree doctrine and the absence of search warrant and warrant of arrest issued against him. Because of this he became an overnight sensation and his name got the attention of the Department of Justice. Thereafter, he was appointed as a public prosecutor. Alex did not forget the confession of Anton because the person killed was his friend, and his young wife and children are now suffering because of this senseless killing. For the sake of justice, is it legal, ethical and moral for Alex now to prosecute Anton on the basis of confession which the latter reposed to him during their attorneyclient relationship? I. Consider the following: a. Code of Professional Responsibility, Canon 21, Rule 21.01 b. Revised Penal Code, Article 209

c. Mercado vs Vitriolo [A.C. No. 5108, May 26, 2005 the duty of a lawyer to preserve his clients secrets and confidence outlasts the termination of the attorney-client relationship, and continues even after the clients death.