3/30/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly The invocation of privileged communication on the part of Atty. Doctor as to the fact of the delivery of the amounts from complainant deserves no consideration. Atty. Doctor claimed that "he cannot in any manner be at liberty to discuss and answer the allegation of complainant in the absence of waiver or authority from his Taiwanese clients since the recitals of complainant, more particularly in paragraphs 4, 5, 6 and 8 of the complaint on ground of the privilege status of communication covered under the attorney client relationship."[27] The mere relation of attorney and client does not raise a presumption of confidentiality. The client must intend for the communication to be confidential. A confidential communication refers to information transmitted by voluntary act of disclosure between attorney and client in confidence and by means, which, so far as the client is aware, discloses the information to no third person other than one reasonably necessary for the transmission of the information or the accomplishment of the purpose for which it was given. Thus, a compromise agreement prepared by a lawyer pursuant to the instruction of his client and delivered to the opposing party, an offer and counter-offer for settlement, as in this case, or a document given by a client to his counsel not in his professional capacity, are not privileged communications, the element of confidentiality not being present.[28] We affirm the observation made by the IBP-CBD that Atty. Doctor did not even specify the alleged communication in confidence disclosed by the Taiwanese nationals. All his contentions were couched in general terms and lacked specificity. The burden of proving that the privilege applies is placed upon the party asserting the privilege.[29] Atty. Doctor failed to discharge this burden. Atty. Doctor's failure to return the money to complainant despite failure to use the same for the intended purpose is conduct indicative of lack of integrity and propriety and a violation of the trust reposed on him. His unjustified withholding of money belonging to the complainant warrants the imposition of disciplinary action. Jurisprudence provides instances where the lawyer commits similar acts against their respective clients and the Court imposed upon them the penalty of suspension from the practice of law for a period of two years.[30] In the case of Jinon v. Atty. Jiz,[31] the Court suspended the erring lawyer for such period for his failure to return the amount of P67,000.00 to his client for his legal services which he never performed. Also, in Agot v. Atty. Rivera,[32] the lawyer was also suspended for two years when he neglected his obligation to secure his client's visa and failed to return his client's money worth P350,000.00 despite demand. In the case of Luna v. Atty. Galarrita ,[33] the lawyer failed to promptly inform his client of his receipt of the proceeds of a settlement for the client, and further refused to tum over the amount received amounting to P100,000.00. The Court suspended him from the practice of law for two years. Guided by the foregoing, it is only proper that Atty. Doctor be meted the same penalty of suspension from the practice of law for two years, as recommended by the IBP Board of Governors. https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/66125 6/9