Violation of privilege and confidentiality

A lawyer is prohibited from publicizing or disclosing cases pending in Family Courts, obviously to prevent the exposure of confidential or derogatory information involving the parties to the cases. This is illustrated this case of Atty. Mario Manalo.

Attorney Manalo is the lawyer of Mila, who was sued by her husband Armando for Declaration of Nullity of their marriage. While the case was still pending, Atty. Manalo posted on Facebook (FB) a copy of the Petition in the nullity case and thereafter sent a link of the post to Romy, the son of Armando, stating as follows: “Paki tingnan mo ang iyong ama iho at huwag mo siyang gagayahin ha (Look at what your father did and don’t be like him).”

The post on FB is captioned “Wise and polygamous husband” and contains the following:

“After marrying a girl as his second wife while his first wife was still alive, when there was no doubt it was bigamous and crime of bigamy, this man still has the gall to file a petition to declare his second marriage void.

“In his petition he asked the Regional Trial Court to declare his marriage void because of lack of marriage license and not because his marriage is bigamous.

“If you wish to read his petition, a copy is attached here. His intention in filing the petition is to prevent his second wife’s criminal case of bigamy from succeeding by reason of prejudicial question.”

Because of the foregoing posts of Atty. Manalo, Armando filed an Administrative Complaint for his disbarment before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP).

In his verified answer, Atty. Manalo admitted that he published the subject post in his FB account and sent a link thereof to Armando’s son, Romy. However, he denied harassing Armando and insisted that he was only performing his duties as “spokesman-lawyer” of his client, Mila.

He asserted that he was not tarnishing the reputation of Armando when he published the post on FB and that his actions did not constitute libel as he was only telling the truth contained in the Petition for Declaration of Nullity of the marriage between Armando and Mila Valdez.

But the IBP found that Atty. Manalo breached the rule on the privacy and confidentiality of the Family Court proceedings and recommended that he be suspended from the practice of law for a period of one year. The IBP held that Atty. Manalo’s contentions that he was merely acting in his capacity as the “spokesman lawyer” of his client or that he was merely exercising his right to press freedom as a “journalist blogger” did not justify a violation of R.A 8369.

The Supreme Court (SC) upheld the IBP ruling that Atty. Manalo should be administratively liable for publishing the subject post and photograph of Armando’s Petition in his FB accounts. According to the SC, a lawyer is not allowed to divide his personality as an attorney at one time and mere citizen at another. Regardless of whether a lawyer is representing his client in court, acting as a supposed spokesperson outside of it or is merely practicing his right to press freedom as a “journalist blogger,” his duties to the society and his ethical obligations as a member of the Bar remain unchanged.

Here he violated the Family Court Act (RA 8369, Section 12) which prohibits the publication or disclosure of the records of Family Court cases. The use of intemperate language and unkind description has no place in the dignity of the judicial forum. Language abounds with countless possibilities for one to be emphatic but respectful, convincing but not derogatory, illuminating and offensive. A lawyer must employ only fair and honest means to attain the lawful objectives of his client. (Velasco vs. Causing, A.C. 12883, March 2, 2021.)

*      *      *

Email: [email protected]