On
Article 209. Betrayal of trust by an attorney or solicitor. - Revelation of secrets. - In addition to the proper administrative action, the penalty of prision correccional in its minimum period, or a fine ranging from Forty thousand pesos (P40,000) to Two hundred thousand pesos (P200,000), or both, shall be imposed upon any attorney-at-law or any person duly authorized to represent and/or assist a party to a case who, by any malicious breach of professional duty or of inexcusable negligence or ignorance, shall prejudice his client, or reveal any of the secrets of the latter learned by him in his professional capacity.

The same penalty shall be imposed upon an attorney-at4aw or any person duly authorized to represent and/or assist a party to a case who, having undertaken the defense of a client or having received confidential information from said client in a case, shall undertake the defense of the opposing party in the same case, without the consent of his first client.

Acts punishable:
1. Causing damage to a client either
a. by any malicious breach of professional duty, or
b. by inexcusable negligence or ignorance.
2. Revealing any of the secrets of his client learned by him in his professional capacity. Here, damage is not necessary.
3. Undertaking the defense of the opposing party in the same case, without the consent of his 1st client, after having undertaken the defense of a client or having received confidential information from said client

Communications made with prospective clients to a lawyer to engage his professional services are already privileged even though the client-lawyer relationship did not eventually materialize.

The confidential matters or information must be confided to the lawyer in the latter’s professional capacity.

Mere malicious breach without damage is not violative of Article 209; at most, he will be liable administratively as a lawyer, e.g., suspension or disbarment under the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Several acts which would make a lawyer criminally liable:
(1)Maliciously causing damage to his client through a breach of his professional duty. The breach of professional duty must be malicious. If it is just incidental, it would not give rise to criminal liability, although it may be the subject of administrative discipline.
(2)Through gross ignorance, causing damage to the client;
(3)Inexcusable negligence;
(4)Revelation of secrets learned in his professional capacity;
(5)Undertaking the defense of the opposite party in a case without the consent of the first client whose defense has already been undertaken.

People v. Sandiganbayan
The Supreme Court held that not all information received by counsel from the client is classified as privileged. A distinction must be made between confidential communications relating to past crimes already committed, and future crimes intended to be committed by the client.