Republic of the Philippines

Supreme Court
Manila

EN BANC

Atty. Eugene Young, A.C. No. 0001

Complainant,
Present:
DY, Chairperson,
ALFECHE,
ATILLO,
-versus- CUIZON,
GAZO,
NACORDA,
SIAO,
TAYABAN.

Atty. Jimmy Berluti, Promulgated:

Respondent. February 14, 2017

X------------------------------------------x
RESOLUTION
DY, A.:

This is a disbarment case filed by Atty. Eugene Young (complainant)

against his co-counsel and associate of Donnell, Young, Dole & Frutt Law
Firm, Atty. Jimmy Berluti in Civil Case No. 123-4556. The complainant
alleged that respondent breached the lawyer-client privilege when the latter
disclosed to the opposing party information that was revealed to them by
their client in confidence.
Let us first attend to the facts of the case.
 -insert facts here-
In a Resolution dated January 31, 2017, the Board of Governors of the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) adopted and approved the findings
of its Investigating Commissioner. The IBP Investigating Commissioner
found that respondent violated Canon 21, and 21.01 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility (the Code). She recommended that respondent
be suspended from the practice of law for two (2) years.
We agree with the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating
Commissioner as adopted by the Board of Governors of the IBP with
modifications.
Respondent argued that the circumstances that revolve around the
case are extremely exigent as telling the parents of the child was crucial to
save a life. It would have been against his personal morality and conscience
if he would sit quietly and say nothing while an innocent child could die if
the information was not revealed to them. He argued that the life of the child
should hold more water than the duty of the lawyer-client privilege as it
would be the honorable thing to do.
We agree to respondents belief that lawyers must be honorable, but
the court must stand ground that it is of utmost importance to uphold the
sanctity and significance of the lawyer-client privilege over emotion and
conscience. Legal ethics and morality are not only two distinct concepts, but
are also mutually exclusive. If lawyers let personal morality be their
compass, the system and all the participants in it will be lost. Rules are
carved out and in the legal profession, there is a Code that all lawyers have
to live with. As officers of the court, lawyers have to abide by the law. This
Code is quite strict; and the strictest, and the most paramount, is client trust
what the client tells the lawyer is sacrosanct.1
In Maturan v. Gonzales we reiterated that the lawyer-client relationship
is one of trust and confidence of the highest degree.2 This relationship is
accorded as strictly confidential and fiduciary in nature. This confidential

1 American Bar Commissioner in The Practice, Season 6, Episode 7, The Honor Code.
2 Maturan v. Gonzales, A.C. No. 2597, 12 March 1998, 287 SCRA 443, 446.
nature is required by necessity and public interest to preserve confidence in
an attorney, which is of paramount importance to the administration of
justice.3 Further, the Rules of Court makes it one of the duties of the lawyer
to maintain inviolate the confidences and at every peril to himself, preserve
the secrets of the client.4 Thus, the duty of a lawyer to keep the secrets and
maintain the clients confidence outlasts the termination of the lawyer-client
privilege. 5
Under Rule 21 and 21.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility it
is stated that:
Canon 21. A lawyer shall preserve the confidence and
secrets of his client even after the attorney-client
relation is terminated.
Canon 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.
The Code provides that generally, a lawyer must preserve the clients
confidences and secrets even after the relationship has terminated, or after
the death of the client. However, the Code provides for exceptions and only
in the three instances enumerated by the Code may the lawyer be excused
from this paramount duty. Nowhere does the case at bar fit into any of the
exceptions to the rule. It is a cardinal rule in statutory construction that when
the law is clear and free from any doubt or ambiguity, there is no room for
construction of interpretation. There is only room for application. As the

3 Hilado v. David, 84 Phil 569, 579 (1949).

4 Rule 138, Sec. 20 (e), RRC.
5 Canon 37 of the Canons of Professional Ethics.
statute is clear, plain, and free from ambiguity, it must be given its literal
meaning.6 Furthermore, if a statute enumerates the thing upon which it is to
operate, everything else must necessarily and by implication be excluded
from its operation and effect. This is precisely what the legal maxim expressio
unius est exclusio alterius shows that the mention of one thing implies the
exclusion of another thing not mentioned.7
With that having said, this court asked among ourselves if the
profession of law is better served with the respondent, Berluti, in it or out of
it. The court decides it is better to have him in it.8 As this is respondents first
infraction, the disbarment sought in the complaint and as recommended by
the Board of Governors of the IBP is too severe. The suspension from the
practice of law for two (2) months is warranted.
Accordingly, the Court resolved to SUSPEND Atty. Jimmy Berluti
from the practice of law for two (2) months, with a WARNING that a
repetition of the same or similar offense will warrant a more severe penalty.
Let copies of this Decision be furnished all courts, the Office of the Bar
Confidant and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for their information and
guidance. The Office of the Bar Confidant is directed to append a copy of
this Decision to respondents record as member of the Bar.
SO ORDERED.

ANDREA IVY R. DY
Associate Justice
Chairperson

6 Padua v. People, G.R. No. 168546, July 23, 2008, 559 SCRA 519, 531, citing R. Agpalo, Statutory Construction
124 (5thed., 2003).
7 Arnel U. Ty, et al. vs. National Bureau of Investigation Supervising Agent Marvin E. De Jemil,et al., G.R. No.

182147, December 15, 2010.

8 American Bar Commissioner in The Practice, Season 6, Episode 7, The Honor Code.
WE CONCUR:

WILFRED ALFECHE JAN GAZO

Associate Justice Associate Justice

LLOYD ATILLO JOAN NACORDA

Associate Justice Associate Justice

APRIL CUIZON JORDAN TAYABAN

Associate Justice Associate Justice