TITLE: Recto vs. Republic Jurisprudence provides that mental retardation per se does not affect credibility.

Jurisprudence provides that mental retardation per se does not affect credibility. A mentally retarded may
CITATION: 440 SCRA 79, G.R. No. 160421 October 4, 2004 be a credible witness. The acceptance of his or her testimony depends on the quality of his or her perceptions
TOPIC: Testimonial Evidence – Qualifications of Witnesses and the manner he or she can make them known to the court.

FACTS: As long as a witness’ testimony is straightforward, candid and unflawed by inconsistencies or contradictions
Sps. X filed an application in the RTC for registration of title of a lot which they bought from sisters Y and Z, who in its material points, and his or her demeanor is consistent with one who has been victimized to thus bolster
inherited such lot from their parents. Y testified that she became aware of her father’s possession of the subject credibility with the verity born out of human nature and experience, credibility can be accorded to him or
lot in the concept of owner when she was 13 years of age. The possession of the lot was corroborated by Z, her.
who testified that when she was 13 years of age, she first came to know that her father was the owner of the
subject lot. What qualifications should Y and Z possess for them to qualify as competent witnesses? TITLE: People vs. Santos
CITATION: 501 SCRA 325, G.R. No. 172322 September 8, 2006
ANSWER: TOPIC: Testimonial Evidence – Mental Incapacity or Immaturity
A person is competent to be a witness if (a) he is capable of perceiving at the time of the occurrence of the
fact and (b) he can make his perception known. The requirements of a child’s competence as a witness are: FACTS:
(a) capacity of observation; (b) capacity of recollection; and (c) capacity of communication. X was charged with Rape in an Information for allegedly sexually assaulting 5-year-old Y. The victim, who was
(Note: Hi all! Giingon ra bitaw sa case nga competent sila but wala gyud gi-discuss ngano. Lahi ilang gi-focus already six years old when she testified in court, positively identified the X during the trial and testified on the
sa case. Gipaagian ra ni nga topic. 😊 ) affidavit she executed before the police officers. X wanted to impeach the credibility of the victim. If you are
the judge, will you admit the testimony of Y?
TITLE: People vs. Deauna
CITATION: 386 SCRA 136, G.R. Nos. 143200-01 August 1, 2002 ANSWER:
TOPIC: Testimonial Evidence – Mental Incapacity or Immaturity Yes.

FACTS:
X was charged with 2 counts of rape, with her daughter Y as the victim. The trial court convicted X. During the
pendency of the appeal, Y submitted numerous letters and manifestations, including an affidavit of
desistance, stating that her father had not raped her, and that she had been insane when she testified in
court. An expert witness testified that Y was diagnosed with psychosis a few weeks before she testified on her
affidavit of desistance. However, the records reveal that it was not yet present at the time of the rape incidents
or immediately thereafter. Is the subsequent insanity of Y a sufficient ground to discredit her first testimonies?
Testimonies of rape victims who are young and immature deserve full credence considering that no young
woman, especially one of tender age, would concoct a story of defloration, allow an examination of her
private parts, and thereafter pervert herself by being subject to a public trial if she was not motivated solely
by the desire to obtain justice for the wrong committed against her.
In the case at bar, it is beyond the mind-set of a six-year old child to fabricate a malicious accusation against
X if the crime did not truly transpire.

ANSWER: Thus, Y’s testimony will be admitted.

No.
TITLE: Lezama vs. Rodriguez
Unsoundness of mind does not per se render a witness incompetent. The general rule is that lunatics or persons CITATION: 23 SCRA 1166, No. L-25643 June 27, 1968
affected with insanity are admissible as witnesses, if they have sufficient understanding to apprehend the TOPIC: Testimonial Evidence – Marital Disqualification
obligation of an oath and are capable of giving correct accounts of the matters that they have seen or heard
with respect to the questions at issue. FACTS:
X Co. filed an action for the annulment of a judgment rendered against it. The complaint charges “fraudulent
In this case, Y was competent to testify as witness for the prosecution. The longstanding rule is that when a conspiracy” on the part of the spouses H and W and one M to make it appear that the X Co. was indebted
woman says that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape has been to M.
committed. Moreover, it is not impossible that he or his family may have been taken advantage of her lack
of mental fortitude to persuade her to write those letters. Lastly, mere retraction by a prosecution witness does W is called upon to testify as an adverse party witness on the basis of her following participation in the alleged
not necessarily vitiate her original testimony. fraudulent scheme: “that it was W who, as Secretary of the company, signed the minutes of the meeting
during which H was allegedly authorized to negotiate the loan and that it was she who made the entry in the
TITLE: People vs. Macapal, Jr. books of the corporation.”
CITATION: 463 SCRA 387, G.R. No. 155335 July 14, 2005
TOPIC: Testimonial Evidence – Mental Incapacity or Immaturity H and W objected invoking that a husband cannot be examined for or against his wife without her consent;
nor a wife for or against her husband without his consent, except in a civil case by one against the other, or
FACTS: in a criminal case for a crime committed by one against the other.
An information for rape was filed against X for raping Y, 23-year old illiterate who appears to be mentally
retarded. A psychiatrist opined that while the mental capacity of Y is comparable to that of a child between Is the objection proper?
9 to 12 years old, she could testify in court but under closed door and leading questions should be avoided
as retarded people may be suggestible and wish to please others. X argued that Y, a mental retardate, is ANSWER:
incompetent to establish his identity for, so he contends, it is not easy to ascertain the identity of a rapist when Yes.
the victim is deprived of reason. Can a mental retardate be allowed to testify in court?
The general rule is that a wife cannot be examined “for or against her husband without his consent.” However,
ANSWER: “when husband and wife are parties to an action, there is no reason why either may not be examined as a
Yes. witness for or against himself or herself alone,” and his or her testimony could operate only against himself or
herself.
However, in this case, the interests of H and W are interrelated since the main charge is collusive fraud X held 1,000 shares of stock of XY Co., of which 545 shares had not been fully paid for, but for which he had
between the spouses and a third person. Whether W’s testimony will turn out to be adverse or beneficial to executed promissory notes. When X died, XY Co. filed a claim against his estate. In his answer, the
her own interest, the inevitable result would be to pit her against her husband. administrator denied the indebtedness of the X to the XY Co. The evidence for XY Co. consisted of the
testimony of A (the chief accountant) and B (assistant accountant). Are the testimonies of A and B admissible?
Thus, the objection is proper.
ANSWER:
TITLE: Alvarez vs. Ramirez Yes.
CITATION: 473 SCRA 72, G.R. No. 143439 October 14, 2005
TOPIC: Testimonial Evidence – Marital Disqualification Rule 123, section 26 (c) of the Rules of Court (a.k.a. “Dead man’s statute”) provides disqualifies only parties or
assignors of parties from testifying, the officers and/or stockholders of a corporation are not disqualified from
FACTS: testifying, for or against the corporation which is a party to an action upon a claim or demand against the
A complaint for arson was filed against H by Y (sister of the H’s estranged wife, W) for allegedly setting fire to estate of a deceased person, as to any matter of fact occurring before the death of such deceased person.
the house of his sister-in-law knowing fully well that his wife was there. The private prosecutor called W to the
witness stand as the first witness against H, her husband. H filed a motion to disqualify W from testifying against In the case at bar, A and B are merely officers of XY Co. and not parties nor assignor of parties to the case.
him pursuant to Rule 130 of the Revised Rules of Court on marital disqualification. If you are the judge, will you
grant the motion? Thus, their testimonies are admissible.

ANSWER: TITLE: Go Chi Gun, et al. vs. Co Cho, et al.

No. CITATION: 96 Phil. 622, No. L-5208 February 28, 1955
TOPIC: Testimonial Evidence – Dead Man’s Statute
One of the purposes of marital disqualification provided in Section 22, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules of Court
is to guard the security and confidences of private life, even at the risk of an occasional failure of justice, and FACTS:
to prevent domestic disunion and unhappiness. Y instituted judicial proceedings for the distribution of the estate of his father X. Upon the termination of the
proceedings, Y instituted guardianship proceedings for his minor brothers and sisters, and he was appointed
In the case at bar, the relationship between H and W was already strained prior to the commission of the guardian for their persons and properties. Later on, Y died. A and B filed a complaint alleging that they were
offense. Consequently, the preservation of the marriage between H and W is no longer an interest the State purposely kept in complete and absolute ignorance of the intestate proceedings of their deceased father X.
aims to protect. A and B testified as to a supposed statement, made to them by the Y during his lifetime that their common
father X had not left any properties. Are the testimonies of A and B admissible?
Thus, the motion to disqualify must be denied.
ANSWER:
TITLE: Tongco vs. Vianzon Yes.
CITATION: 50 Phil. 698, No. 27498 September 20, 1927
TOPIC: Testimonial Evidence – Dead Man’s Statute The Rules provide that parties or assignors of parties to an action or proceeding, or persons in whose behalf
an action or proceeding is prosecuted, against an executor or administrator or other representative of a
FACTS: deceased person, upon a claim or demand against the estate of such deceased person, cannot testify as to
H and W are married. Before the death of H, he had presented claims in a cadastral case to ask for titles to any matter of fact occurring before the death of such deceased person.
certain properties in the name of the conjugal partnership consisting of himself and his wife. The decrees were
issued after H’s death but were subsequently annulled and new ones were issued as exclusive properties of In this case, the properties subject of the action had already been distributed among the other heirs when
W. The administratrix of the estate began action against W for the recovery of specified property and for the action was brought. The properties no longer belong to the deceased X, and therefore the heirs are sued
damages. During trial, W testified that that the property in question belonged exclusively to her. Is W’s in their personal capacity and not as representatives of the deceased.
testimony admissible?
Thus, their testimonies are admissible.
ANSWER:
Yes. TITLE: Asturias vs. Court of Appeals
CITATION: 9 SCRA 131, No. L-17895 September 30, 1963
The Rules provide that parties or assignors of parties to an action or proceeding, or persons in whose behalf TOPIC: Testimonial Evidence – Dead Man’s Statute (a.k.a Survivorship Disqualification)
an action or proceeding is prosecuted, against an executor or administrator or other representative of a
deceased person, upon a claim or demand against the estate of such deceased person, cannot testify as to FACTS:
any matter of fact occurring before the death of such deceased person. A pacto de retro sale was executed by X in favor of Sps. Y. X remained in possession of the land. When Sps. Y
died, their heirs tried to enter the property. X filed a forcible entry case against them. X testified on the other
In the case at bar, the action is filed by the administratrix to enforce a demand "by" the estate. The case was terms agreed upon which are not expressed in the contract. One of the heirs was also made to testify. It was
not brought "against" the administratrix of the estate, nor were they brought upon claims "against" the estate. only in the Supreme Court that the heirs objected to the admissibility of X’s testimony. Should SC sustain the
objection?
Thus, W’s testimony is admissible.
ANSWER:
TITLE: Lichauoo vs. Atlantic Gulf & Pacific Co. No.
CITATION: 84 Phil. 330, No. L-2016 August 23, 1949
TOPIC: Testimonial Evidence – Dead Man’s Statute Section 23, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court provides that parties or assignor of parties to a case against an
executor or administrator or other representative of a deceased person or upon a claim or demand against
FACTS:
the estate of such deceased person, cannot testify as to any matter of fact occurring before the death of
such deceased person. FACTS:
X filed a complaint against W and D (the wife and daughter of deceased H) for winding up of their partnership
In this case, the heirs are deemed to have waived the benefit and protection of the survivorship affairs. W and D filed their answer with a compulsory counterclaim. During trial, X testified that he and H orally
disqualification rule, where no timely objection has been made against the admission of such evidence and entered into a partnership but the business was registered under H’s name as sole proprietor. W and D argued
one of the heirs was made to testify on such prohibited matters covered by the exclusion rule. that the court is prohibited from hearing X’s testimony citing the “Dead Man’s Statute.” Is X’s testimony
admissible in evidence?
TITLE: Guerrero vs. St. Clare’s Realty Co., Ltd
CITATION: 124 SCRA 553, No. L-58164 September 2, 1983 ANSWER:
TOPIC: Testimonial Evidence – Dead Man’s Statute Yes.

FACTS: Before the Dead Man’s Statute can be succesfully invoked, it is necessary that:
X inherited a parcel of land which he entrusted to his sister Y for cultivation. Later, it was found out that his 1. The witness is a party or assignor of a party to a case, or persons in whose behalf a case is
cousin Z was able to have the lot titled in his name based on a ‘Deed of Sale of Land’ purportedly executed prosecuted;
by Y. X filed a complaint against Z alleging that the deed was fraudulent. During trial, Y’s daughter testified as 2. The action is against an executor or administrator, or other representative of a deceased person or
a witness of the plaintiffs that the disputed lot was merely mortgaged to Z. Z’s counsel objected on the ground a person of unsound mind;
that the said witness was testifying “on matters which are prohibited under Sec. 20(a), Rule 130, of the Rules 3. The subject matter of the action is a claim or demand against the estate of such deceased person
of Court.” Is the objection proper? or against a person of unsound mind; and
4. His testimony refers to any matter of fact which occurred before the death of such deceased
(Take note!! Old case ni. Bale Sec. 23 na ni sa new rules.) person, or before such person became of unsound mind.

ANSWER: Here, W and D effectively removed the case from the ambit of the Dead Man’s Statute with their filing of
No. compulsory counterclaim since it is considered as having been brought by the respresentatives of the
deceased and not against it.
The disqualification embodied in Sec. 20(a), Rule 130, of the Rules of Court covers only parties or assignors of
parties to a case, or persons in whose behalf a case is prosecuted. Thus, X’s testimony is admissible.

In this case, Y’s daughter is not a party to the present case and she is not an assignor of the parties nor a TITLE: Zeigler v. Moore
“person in whose behalf a case is prosecuted.” She is a mere witness by whose testimony the plaintiffs aimed CITATION: 335 P.2d 425 (1959)
to establish that Y did not really sell but merely mortgaged the property to Z. TOPIC: Testimonial Evidence – Dead Man’s Statute

Thus, the objection is improper. FACTS:

X sued one Y for damages alleging that her automobile was struck in the rear by a car driven by Y. Later, Y
TITLE: Razon vs. Intermediate Appellate Court died and Z was substituted as his administrator before trial. At the trial, the court excluded under the dead
CITATION: 207 SCRA 234, G.R. No. 74306, G.R. No. 74315 March 16, 1992 man's rule certain testimony of the X as to the road conditions prior to the incident, her medical bills, her pain
TOPIC: Testimonial Evidence – Dead Man’s Statute and suffering; and of X’s witness, sheriff S, who made the accident report. Is the court correct?

FACTS:
Stock certificate No. 003 for 1,500 shares of stock of ABC Corp. was issued in the name X. The certificate of
stock was in the possession of A who refused to deliver said shares to Y, son of X who is also the administrator
of X’s estate. Y filed a case against A. During trial, A testified that he and X had an oral agreement that the
ownership of the shares of stock was actually vested in A unless the X opted to pay the same. Is the “dead
man’s statute” applicable in this case?
ANSWER:
No.
Under the dead man’s rule, the following persons cannot be witnesses: "Parties to an action against an
executor or administrator upon a claim or demand against the estate of a deceased person, as to any matter
of fact occurring before the death of such deceased person."

ANSWER: In this case, X’s testimony was a description of her own actions and the road conditions which were merely of
No. her own knowledge. Also, the sheriff is not excluded because he is a disinterested party.

The prohibition contemplated in the “dead man’s statute” is applicable to a case against the administrator Thus, the court is incorrect.
or its representative of an estate upon a claim against the estate of the deceased person.
TITLE: United States vs. Antipolo
In this case, the case was filed by Y, the administrator of X’s estate, to recover shares of stock allegedly owned CITATION: 37 Phil. 726
by X. It is clear that the testimony of A is not within the prohibition of the rule. The case was not filed against TOPIC: Privileged Communication - Marital Communications
the administrator of the estate, nor was it filed upon claims against the estate.
FACTS:
Thus, it is inapplicable. X was prosecuted for the murder of Y. During trial, the judge refused to permit Z, the widow of Y, to testify as
a witness on behalf of the defense concerning certain alleged dying declarations concerning the cause of
his death. Defense counsel insisted that Z is competent, arguing that Y is not the party to the case but the
TITLE: Sunga-Chan vs. Chua Government and that the marriage of Y to Z having been dissolved by the death of her husband, she is no
CITATION: 363 SCRA 249 longer his wife, and therefore not subject to any disqualification arising from the status of marriage. Is the
TOPIC: Testimonial Evidence – Dead Man’s Statute judge correct in not allowing Z to testify?
 marriage, does not shed his/her integrity or his right to privacy as an individual and the constitutional
ANSWER: protection is ever available to him or to her.
No.
Thus, the documents are inadmissible.
On grounds of public policy, the wife can not testify against her husband as to what came to her from him
confidentially or by reason of the marriage relation, but this rule does not apply to a dying communication TITLE: People vs. Francisco
made by the husband to the wife on the trial of the one who killed him. CITATION: 78 Phil. 694, No. L-568 July 16, 1947
TOPIC: Privileged Communication – Marital Communication
In this case, Z’s testimony is supposed to be about her husband’s dying declarations concerning the cause of
his death. Such communication is in no sense confidential. On the contrary, it is made for the express purpose FACTS:
that it may be communicated after the death of the declarant to the authorities concerned in inquiring into H was charged with the crime of parricide for killing his child. During trial, H imputed to his wife the killing of
the cause of his death. their little son. When prosecution is about to present the wife as a witness, the counsel of H argued that her
testimony is admissible. Is the counsel correct?
Thus, the judge is incorrect.
ANSWER:
TITLE: People vs. Carlos No.
CITATION: 47 Phil. 626, No. 22948 March 17, 1925
TOPIC: Privileged Communication – Marital Communication Case law instructs that when the marital and domestic relations are so strained that there is no more harmony
to be preserved nor peace and tranquility which may be disturbed, the prohibition of husband and wife
FACTS: testifying for or against each other is not anymore applicable.
During a post-operation visit, A’s wife told him that Dr. X raped her. Later, A went to the office of the Dr. X and
killed him. A admits that he killed the deceased but maintains that he did so in self-defense. During trial, a In the instant case, the wife herself the right to testify, at least, in self-defense. By his said act, the husband—
letter seized by the police in searching A’s effects on the day of his arrest was presented. It was written to A himself exercising the very right which he would deny to his wife upon the ground of their marital relations—
by his wife two days before the commission of the crime and shows that the writer feared that A contemplated must be taken to have waived all objection to the latter's testimony upon rebuttal.
resorting to physical violence in dealing with Dr. X. Is the letter considered privileged communication?
Thus, the counsel is incorrect.
ANSWER:
No. TITLE: Lacurom vs. Jacoba
CITATION: A.C. No. 5921 March 10, 2006
Where a privileged communication from one spouse to the other comes into the hands of a third party, TOPIC: Privileged Communication – Marital Communication
without collusion or voluntary disclosure on the part of either of the spouses, the privilege is thereby
extinguished and the communication, if otherwise competent, becomes admissible in evidence. FACTS:
In a civil case, Atty. W filed a motion for reconsideration which includes the following statements: “This
In the case at bar, the letter was not obtained from the wife herself. RESOLUTION of REVERSAL is an ABHORRENT NULLITY as it is entirely DEVOID of factual and legal basis. It is a
Legal MONSTROSITY x x x HOW HORRIBLE and TERRIBLE! The mistakes are very patent and glaring! x x x”
Thus, the letter is not considered privileged communication.
The Judge L ordered Atty. W to explain why she should not be held in contempt of court. In her explanation,
TITLE: Zulueta vs. Court of Appeals Atty. W recounted that her husband Atty. H made her sign the pleading.
CITATION: 253 SCRA 699, G.R. No. 107383 February 20, 1996
TOPIC: Privileged Communication – Marital Communication Judge L issued another order directing Atty. H to explain why he should not be held in contempt. His Answer
did not contain a denial of his wife’s account. Instead, he impliedly admitted authorship of the motion by
FACTS: stating that he trained his guns and fired at the errors which he perceived and believed to be gigantic and
W entered the clinic of her husband Dr. H, and in the presence of her mother, a driver and H’s secretary, monumental.
forcibly opened the drawers and cabinet in her husband’s clinic and took 157 documents consisting of private
correspondence between H and his alleged paramours, greeting cards, cancelled checks, diaries, H’s Against Atty. W’s statements implicating him, Atty. H invoked the marital privilege rule in evidence. Is the
passport, and photographs. The documents and papers were seized for use in evidence in a case for legal invocation of the rule proper?
separation and for disqualification from the practice of medicine which W had filed against her husband. Are
the documents admissible in evidence? ANSWER:
No.
ANSWER:
No. The marital privilege rule, being a rule of evidence, may be waived by failure of the claimant to object timely
to its presentation or by any conduct that may be construed as implied consent.
The constitutional injunction declaring the privacy of communication and correspondence to be inviolable is
no less applicable simply because it is the wife who is the party against whom the constitutional provision is to In this case, Atty. H impliedly admitted authorship of the motion through his Answer.
be enforced. Any violation of this provision renders the evidence obtained inadmissible “for any purpose in
any proceeding.” Thus, the invocation is improper.

In this case, the marriage of W and H do not justify any one of them in breaking the drawers and cabinets of TITLE: Barton vs. Leyte Asphalt & Mineral Oil Co.
the other and in ransacking them for any telltale evidence of marital infidelity. A person, by contracting CITATION: 46 Phil. 938, No. 21237 March 22, 1924
TOPIC: Privileged Communication – Atty-Client Privilege
 ANSWER:
FACTS: Yes.
X filed a case for damages against Y. X is authorized to sell the products of Y in Australia and New Zealand.
During trial, Y offered in evidence a copy of letters written by X to his attorney. X’s attorney announced that: The communications by X Co’s employees to counsel are covered by the attorney-client privilege insofar as
"x x x unless such an explanation is made, explaining fully how this carbon copy came into the possession of the responses to the questionnaires and any notes reflecting responses to interview questions are concerned.
the defendant company, or any one representing it, we propose to object to its admission on the ground that
it is a confidential communication between client and lawyer." TITLE: People vs. Sandiganbayan
CITATION: 275 SCRA 505, G.R. Nos. 115439-41 July 16, 1997
Are the letters admissible in evidence? TOPIC: Privileged Communication – Atty-Client Privilege

ANSWER:
Yes.
The law protects 'the client from the effect of disclosures made by him to his attorney in the confidence of the
legal relation, but when such a document, containing admissions of the client, comes to the hand of a third
party, and reaches the adversary, it is admissible in evidence.
FACTS:
Atty. S served as counsel for P in several instances pertinent to the criminal charges filed against him. Later, a
case for falsification of public documents was filed against Atty. S, P, and H. The prosecution moved for the
discharge of Atty. S as a state witness. The basic postulate was that, except for the eyewitness testimony of
Atty. S, there was no other direct evidence to prove the confabulated falsification of documents by H and P.
If you are the judge, will you allow Atty. S to be discharged as state witness?

In this case, the letters were not offered by X’s attorney but by the adverse party. It is immaterial as to how the ANSWER:
adversary acquired possession. Yes.

Thus, they are admissible. Case law instructs that the attorney-client privilege does not attach with regard to a crime which a client
intends to commit thereafter or in the future and for purposes of which he seeks the lawyer’s advice.
TITLE: Orient Insurance Co. vs. Revilla and Teal Motor Co.
CITATION: 54 Phil. 919, No. 34098 September 17, 1930 In this case, the testimony sought to be elicited from Atty. S as state witness are the communications made to
TOPIC: Privileged Communication – Atty-Client Privilege him by Pat the time he and H,were about to falsify, or in the process of falsifying, the documents. The
confidential communications made by P to Atty. S were for purposes of the crime of falsification which was
FACTS: yet to be committed.
X filed a case against Y to recover fire insurance policies. Mr. P, president of X, said: "I received a letter from
our attorneys urging me to file these cases." TITLE: Mercado vs. Vitriolo
CITATION: 459 SCRA 1, Adm. Case No. 5108 May 26, 2005
The attorney for Y interposed, saying: "I ask that the witness be required to produce the letter referred to, or TOPIC: Privileged Communication – Atty-Client Privilege
else his answer be stricken out. (To the witness) Have you got the letter there?" The witness replied that he had
the letter with him. Upon being asked about the other part of the letter, the witness said that the other part FACTS:
contained private matter, "between the attorney and ourselves". Atty. X filed a criminal complaint against Y for falsification of public documents. Y alleged that said criminal
complaint disclosed confidential facts and information relating to a previous civil case for annulment, then
Can Mr. P refuse to show the other part of the letter under the atty-client privilege? handled by Atty. X as her counsel. Y filed a disbarment case against Atty. X. Did Atty. X violate the rule on
privileged communication between attorney and client when he filed a criminal case for falsification of public
ANSWER: document against his former client.?
No.
ANSWER:
When part of a writing is introduced in evidence by one litigant, his adversary is entitled to use other parts of No.
the same writing, so far as relevant to the issues in the case; and to this end the attorney of the latter has a
right to inspect the writing and to require its production in court. The factors essential to establish the existence of the privilege are:
(1) Where legal advice of any kind is sought (2) from a professional legal adviser in his capacity as
In this case, Mr. P’s introduction in evidence of part of the letter waives privilege as to other parts of the same such, (3) the communications relating to that purpose, (4) made in confidence (5) by the client,
letter. (6) are at his instance permanently protected (7) from disclosure by himself or by the legal advisor,
(8) except the protection be waived.
Thus, Mr. P cannot refuse.
In the case at bar, Y did not specify the alleged communication in confidence disclosed by Atty. X. All her
TITLE: Upjohn Co. v. United States claims were couched in general terms and lacked specificity.
CITATION: 449 U.S. 383 (1981)
TOPIC: Privileged Communication – Atty-Client Privilege TITLE: Regala vs. Sandiganbayan
CITATION: 262 SCRA 122, G.R. No. 105938, G.R. No. 108113 September 20, 1996
FACTS: TOPIC: Privileged Communication – Atty-Client Privilege
IRS began a tax audit and sent summons to X Co. that demanded all of the files that were relevant to the
investigation, including memoranda of interviews between the attorneys and the employees. X Co. cited the FACTS:
attorney-client privilege in refusing to produce the documents that were listed in the summons. It also argued PCGG filed a complaint against C and several partners of ACCRA Law Firm who previously represented C,
that they were protected as the work product of their attorneys, who had prepared them in anticipation of one of which is R. Later, PCGG wanted to exclude R as defendant on his undertaking that he will reveal the
litigation. Is X Co’s contention tenable? identity of the principal/s for whom he acted as nominees/stockholder in one of the companies involved in
the case. The other ACCRA lawyers claimed that PCGG should also grant the same treatment to them. PCGG
set the following conditions precedent for their exclusion, namely: (a) the disclosure of the identity of its clients;
(b) submission of documents substantiating the lawyer-client relationship; and (c) the submission of the deeds
of assignments they executed in favor of its clients covering their respective shareholdings.
Are the conditions set by PCGG proper?
ANSWER:
No.
One of the requisites in order that the privilege may be successfully invoked is: x x x (b) the person against
whom the privilege is claimed is one duly authorized to practice medicine, surgery or obstetrics x x x.
In the instant case, the person against whom the privilege is claimed is not one duly authorized to practice
medicine, surgery or obstetrics. He is simply the patient’s husband who wishes to testify on a document
executed by medical practitioners.

An attorney is more than a mere agent or servant, because he possesses special powers of trust and
confidence reposed on him by his client. The law forbids counsel, without authority of his client to reveal any
communication made by the client to him or his advice given thereon in the course of professional
employment.

In this case, the conditions set by the PCGG would, in effect, exact from the ACCRA lawyers a link “that would
inevitably form the chain of testimony necessary to convict the (client) of a crime.”

TITLE: Lim vs. Court of Appeals

CITATION: 214 SCRA 273, G.R. No. 91114 September 25, 1992
TOPIC: Privileged Communication – Physician-Patient Privilege

FACTS:
H filed an annulment case against W alleging that W is suffering from a mental illness called schizophrenia
“before, during and after the marriage and until the present.” During trial, H’s counsel requested Dr. A’s
testimony as expert witness. W’s counsel objected on the ground that the testimony sought to be elicited from
the witness is privileged since the latter had examined the W in a professional capacity and had diagnosed
her to be suffering from schizophrenia. Can Dr. A testify?

ANSWER:
Yes.

In order that the privilege may be successfully claimed, the following requisites must concur:
1. the privilege is claimed in a civil case;
2. the person against whom the privilege is claimed is one duly authorized to practice medicine,
surgery or obstetrics;
3. such person acquired the information while he was attending to the patient in his professional
capacity;
4. the information was necessary to enable him to act in that capacity; and
5. the information was confidential, and, if disclosed, would blacken the reputation of the patient.

In this case, Dr. A was presented and qualified as an expert witness. Her expert opinion excluded whatever
information or knowledge she had about W which was acquired by reason of the physician-patient
relationship existing between them. As an expert witness, her testimony cannot then be excluded.

Thus, Dr. A can testify.

TITLE: Krohn vs. Court of Appeals

CITATION: 233 SCRA 146, G.R. No. 108854 June 14, 1994
TOPIC: Privileged Communication – Physician-Patient Privilege

FACTS:
H filed an annulment case against W on the ground of psychological incapacity. During trial, a confidential
psychiatric evaluation report is being presented in evidence. The witness testifying on the report is H and not
the physician who prepared the report. The subject of the evaluation report, W, invoking the rule on privileged
communication between physician and patient, seeks to enjoin H from disclosing the contents of the report.
Is W correct?

ANSWER:
No.