Professional Documents
Culture Documents
1
Evidence Case Digest Batch IV EH 404, 2017-2018
RULING RULING: It is true that Section 26(c), Rule 123 of the Rules of
Court provides:
Laura and Jose Cervantes are not parties in the
present case, and neither are they assignors of the parties
(c) Parties or assignors of parties to a case, or
nor persons in whose behalf a case is prosecuted. They are
persons in whose behalf a case is prosecuted,
mere witnesses by whose testimonies the petitioners against an executor administrator or other
aimed to establish that it was not Cristina who owned the representative of a deceased person, or against such
disputed land at the time of the alleged sale to Manuel, person of unsound mind, cannot testify as to any
and that Cristina merely mortgaged the property to matter of fact occurring before the death of such
Manuel. deceased person or before such person became of
The present case is not a claim or demand against unsound mind
the estate of the deceased Manuel Guerrero. The
defendants Guerreros are not the executors or However, there was a waiver of the prohibition when the
administrators or representatives of such deceased. They counsel for the administratrix extensively cross-examined the
are being sued as claimants of ownership in their witness on the very matters subject of the prohibition. It was
individual capacities of the disputed lot. The lot is not a for this reason that the trial judge eventually overruled the
part of the estate of Manuel Guerrero. Thus, the dead counsel's previous general and continuing objection and
man’s rule is clearly inapplicable. admitted the testimony of the witness. Furthermore, it is
difficult to believe that the counsel's lengthy cross-
examination on the prohibited matter was merely for the
purpose of establishing the "motive, prejudices and
predilection" of the witness.
2
Evidence Case Digest Batch IV EH 404, 2017-2018
RULING: Yes, the object and purpose of the rule is to ISSUE: Whether or not the widow was competent to
guard against the temptation to give false testimony in testify.
regard to the transaction in question on part of the
surviving party and further to put the two parties to a HELD: Yes.
suit upon terms of equality in regard to the opportunity
of giving testimony. It is designed to close the lips of the The object and purpose of the statute on the
party plaintiff when death has closed the lips of the prohibition is to guard against the temptation to give
party defendant, in order to remove from the surviving false testimony in regard to the transaction in question
party the temptation to falsehood and the possibility of on the part of the surviving party. However, it should
fictitious claims against the deceased. This case remain not be neglected the equally important rule that the law
within the ambit of the protection because the was designed to aid in arriving at the truth and was not
defendants-heirs are properly the representatives of designed to suppress the truth.
the deceased, not only because they succeeded to the
decedent’s right by decent or operation of law, but The actions were not brought against the administratrix
more importantly because they are so placed in of the estate, nor where they brought upon claims
litigation that they are called on to defend. Such against the estate. In the first case at bar, the action is
protection, however, was effectively waived when one by the administratrix to enforce a demand "by" the
counsel for petitioners crossed examined Vicente. A estate. In the second case at bar, the same analogy
waiver occurs when plaintiff’s deposition is taken by the holds true for the claim was presented in cadastral
representative of the estate or counsel for the proceedings where in one sense there is no plaintiff and
there is no defendant.
3
Evidence Case Digest Batch IV EH 404, 2017-2018
RULING:
NO. To hold that the statute disqualifies all persons
from testifying who are officers or stockholders of a
corporation would be equivalent to materially amending the
statute by judicial legislation. The Dead Man’s Statute
disqualifies only parties or assignors of parties; a corporation
has its own personality separate and distinct from its
4
Evidence Case Digest Batch IV EH 404, 2017-2018
5
Evidence Case Digest Batch IV EH 404, 2017-2018
6
Evidence Case Digest Batch IV EH 404, 2017-2018
7
Evidence Case Digest Batch IV EH 404, 2017-2018
Court followed this doctrine and ruled that here in this 12. Uy Chico v. Union Life
case, the illegality of the search and seizure was not 29 Phil. 163 (1915)
"directly litigated and established by a motion, made
before trial, for the return of the things seized”. Doctrine: Communication made by a client to his attorney for
the express purpose of its being communicated to a third
The letter must, however, be excluded for reasons not person is essentially inconsistent with the confidential relation
discussed in the briefs. The letter was written by the and cannot be classified in a legal sense as a privileged
wife of the defendant and if she had testified at the trial communication between the attorney and his client.
the letter might have been admissible to impeach her
Facts:
testimony, but she was not put on the witness-stand After the death of his father and before the date of the fire,
and the letter was therefore not offered for that plaintiff purchased his brother’s interest in the dry goods
purpose. If the defendant either by answer or otherwise business, took over and continued it under his father’s name,
had indicated his assent to the statements contained in “Uy Layco.” At the time of the fire, "Uy Layco" was indebted
the letter it might also have been admissible, but such is to the creditors of the estate of the plaintiff's father.
not the case here; the fact that he had the letter in his
possession is no indication of acquiescence or assent on The plaintiff now brings this action, maintaining that the
his part. The letter is therefore nothing but pure insurance policies belonged to him and alleges that he is not
hearsay and its admission in evidence violates the bound by the compromise effected by the administrator of
the estate, who compromised with the insurance company
constitutional right of the defendant in a criminal case
for one-half their face value, or P6,000.
to be confronted with the witnesses for the prosecution
and have the opportunity to cross-examine them. In this The defendant insurance company sought to show that it was
respect there can be no difference between an ordinary the plaintiff's attorney who had surrendered the policies to
communication and one originally privileged. the administrator with the understanding that such a
compromise was to be effected and agreed to by the plaintiff.
The defendant proves these allegations by presenting the
plaintiff’s attorney.
Issue:
Was the testimony in question privileged?
Ruling:
NO. When the attorney has faithfully carried out his
instructions be delivering the communication to the third
person for whom it was intended and the latter acts upon it,
it cannot, by any reasoning whatever, be classified in a legal
sense as a privileged communication between the attorney
and his client. It is plain that such a communication, after
reaching the party for whom it was intended at least, is a
communication between the client and a third person, and
that the attorney simply occupies the role of intermediary or
agent.
The evidence is sufficient to show that the plaintiff
acquiesced in the compromise settlement of the policies.
Having agreed to the compromise, he cannot now disavow it
and maintain an action for the recovery of their face value.
8
Evidence Case Digest Batch IV EH 404, 2017-2018
13. Regala v. Sandiganbayan petitioners ACCRA lawyers from revealing the identity of their
262 SCRA 124 (1996) client(s) and the other information requested by the PCGG.
In its "Comment," respondent PCGG set the following The courts finds that the condition precedent required by the
conditions precedent for the exclusion of petitioners, respondent PCGG of the petitioners for their exclusion as
namely: (a) the disclosure of the identity of its clients; (b) parties-defendants in PCGG Case No. 33 violates the lawyer-
submission of documents substantiating the lawyer-client client confidentiality privilege it also also constitutes a
relationship; and (c) the submission of the deeds of transgression by respondent Sandiganbayan and PCGG of the
assignments petitioners executed in favor of its clients equal protection clause of the Constitution for it is grossly
covering their respective shareholdings. unfair to exempt one similarly situated litigant from
prosecution without allowing the same exemption to the
Sandiganbayan promulgated the Resolution, herein others.
questioned, denying the exclusion of petitioners in PCGG Moreover, the PCGG's demand not only touches upon the
Case No. 33, for their refusal to comply with the conditions question of the identity of their clients but also on documents
required by respondent PCGG related to the suspected transactions, not only in violation of
the attorney-client privilege but also of the constitutional
Issue: right against self-incrimination. Whichever way one looks at
W/N Sandiganbayan is correct in not holding that, under the it, this is a fishing expedition, a free ride at the expense of
facts of this case, the attorney-client privilege prohibits such rights.
9
Evidence Case Digest Batch IV EH 404, 2017-2018
14. Barton v. Leyte Asphalt and Mineral Oil Co. 15. Orient Insurance v. Revilla
46 Phil. 938 (1924) 54 Phil. 919 (1930)
ISSUE Issue:
WON the letter should be excluded 1. Does the presentation of part of the letter
constitute waiver to present the whole
RULING
No. When papers are offered in evidence a court will take no document?
notice of how they were obtained, whether legally or illegally, 2. Are contract fees and other terms of employment
properly or improperly; nor will it form a collateral issue to between client and attorney privilege in nature?
try that question.
Even supposing that the letter was within the privilege which Ruling:
protects communications between attorney and client, this 1. Yes, the excerpt in question must be considered as
privilege was lost when the letter came to the hands of the proof submitted by defendant, and there can be no
adverse party and it makes no difference how the defense
question that, part of the letter having been
acquired possession. The law protects the client from the
effect of disclosures made by him to his attorney in the introduced, the whole letter could be properly
confidence of the legal relation, but when such a document, examined by Orient, in accordance with the express
containing admissions of the client, comes to the hand of a provision of Sec. 283 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
third party, and reaches the adversary, it is admissible in 2. No, although contracts between attorneys and
evidence. clients are inherently personal and considered
According to Wigmore: “Since the means of preserving secrecy private matters, contracts relating to fees are
of communication are entirely in the client's hands, and since the
privilege is a derogation from the general testimonial duty and essentially not privilege in nature. Privilege primarily
should be strictly construed, it would be improper to extend its refers to communications from client to attorney, an
prohibition to third persons who obtain knowledge of the idea which of course includes communications from
communications. One who overhears the communication, attorney to client relative to privileged matters.
whether with or without the client's knowledge, is not within the
Nevertheless, assuming arguendo that the letter
protection of the privilege. The same rule ought to apply to one
who surreptitiously reads or obtains possession of a document in contained privileged matters, such was waived by
original or copy.” introduction in evidence of part of the letter.
10
Evidence Case Digest Batch IV EH 404, 2017-2018
Doctrine: For the application of the attorney-client Doctrine: A communication divulged to "strangers" or
privilege, however, the period to be considered is the outsiders can scarcely be considered a confidential
date when the privileged communication was made by
communication between attorney and client. Also,
the client to the attorney in relation to either a crime
attorney-client privilege does not extend to
committed in the past.
communications regarding an intended crime.
FACTS:
Facts:
Respondent Paredes applied for and was granted a free
Appellant, Ana Gordon-Nikkar, was convicted after a trial by
patent over a lot of the Rosario Public Land Subdivision
jury on three counts of conspiracy to possess with intent to
Survey in 1976. However, it was cancelled because it was
distribute approximately four kilograms of cocaine, and the
reserved for a school site. The trial court nullified said patent
substantive charges of possession with intent to distribute
and title after finding that Paredes had obtained the same
and distribution of the cocaine.
through fraudulent misrepresentations in his application, a
case of perjury was then filed against him but was dismissed
On appeal, Ana exclaimedthat her conviction be reversed
on the ground of prescription.Another case was filed against
because one of her co-defendants, Brenda March and, was
Paredes for violation of Section 3(a) of Republic Act No. 3019
permitted to testify on allegedly privileged conversations
in that he used his former position as Provincial Attorney to
between appellant's attorney (Mr. Estrumsa) and his clients.
influence the Bureau of Lands officials to favorably act on his
application forfree patent. Sansaet served as counsel of
Brenda pled guilty to one count and testified for the
Paredes in these cases. To evade responsibility for his own
Government. Brenda claims that they had two meetings in
participation in the scheme, Sansaet claimed that he filed
the office Estrumsa. On each of these occasions, several of
falsified documents upon the inducement of Paredes. It was
the co-defendants were present. Brenda further testified that
then that respondent Sansaet offered totestify as a state
Estrumsa's suggestion was to give cover-up testimonies that
witness against his client Paredes, claiming that the latter
none of them possessed the cocaine, but merely happened to
contrived andinduced him to have the graft case dismissed on
be at a party where the cocaine was discovered.
the ground of double jeopardy by having him and co-
respondent prepare and falsify the subject documents.
Brenda, however, was not a client of Estrumsa, and it is
unclear whether all codefendants were Estrumsa's clients.
ISSUE: Whether the projected testimony of Sansaet, as
proposed state witness,is barred by the attorney-client Issue:
privilege W/N the statements in Estrumsa's office were protected by
attorney-client privilege.
RULING:
There is no privileged communication rule to talk about. Ruling:
The privilege applies only if the information was relayed by No. At least five persons were present at Estrumsa's office,
the client to the lawyer respecting a past crime. The and at least one of them (Brenda), and perhaps others, were
reckoning point is when the communication was given, not not clients of Estrumsa. A communication divulged to
when the lawyer was made to testify. The privilege is "strangers" or outsiders can scarcely be considered as
not confined to verbal or written communications but also confidential communication between attorney and client.
physical acts.
Yet even when considering the communication was
The confidential communications thus made by Paredes to privileged, Brenda’s testimony is admissible. The
Sansaet were for purposes of and in reference to the crime conversations dealt with plans to commit perjury so as to
hide criminal activity. Attorney-client privilege does not
of falsification which had not yet been committed in the
extend to communications regarding an intended crime. It
past by Paredes. Having been made for purposes of a
would be a perversion of the privilege to extend it so as to
future offense, those communications are outside the pale
protect communications designed to frustrate justice by
of the attorney-client privilege. committing other crimes to conceal past misdeeds.
11
Evidence Case Digest Batch IV EH 404, 2017-2018
12
Evidence Case Digest Batch IV EH 404, 2017-2018
RULING:
13
Evidence Case Digest Batch IV EH 404, 2017-2018
20. Krohn v CA
233 SCRA 146 21. Blue Cross Health v. Olivares
G.R. No. 169737, 12 February 2008
Principle: A patient’s husband who wishes to testify on a
document executed by a medical practitioner may be Doctrine: Refusal to present or allow the presentation of
admitted though without the force and effect of the Dr. Saniel's report was justified. It was privileged
testimony of the physician. communication between physician and patient.
14
Evidence Case Digest Batch IV EH 404, 2017-2018
could not just passively wait for Dr. Saniel's report to bail it prompt the latter to clam up, thus putting his own health
out. The mere reliance on a disputable presumption does at great risk.
not meet the strict standard required under our
jurisprudence. Josielene claimed that the hospital records subject of this
22. JOSIELENE LARA CHAN vs. JOHNNY T. CHAN case are not privileged since it is the "testimonial"
G.R. No. 179786(July 24, 2013) evidence of the physician that may be regarded as
privileged. To allow, however, the disclosure during
FACTS: discovery procedure of the hospital records — the results
Josielene Lara Chan filed a petition for the declaration of of tests that the physician ordered, the diagnosis of the
nullity of her marriage to Johnny Chan on the ground of patient's illness, and the advice or treatment he gave him
mental incapacity due to incessant drinking and excessive — would be to allow access to evidence that is
use of prohibited drugs. Johnny resisted the action, inadmissible without the patient's consent. Physician
claiming that it was Josielene who failed in her wifely memorializes all these information in the patient's records.
duties. He alleged that because of his desire to save their Disclosing them would be the equivalent of compelling the
marriage, he even agreed to marriage counseling but physician to testifies on privileged matters he gained while
when he and Josielene got to the hospital, two men dealing with the patient, without the latter's prior consent.
forcibly held him by both arms while another gave him an
injection.
RULING: Issue:
Yes. The physician-patient privileged communication rule
essentially means that a physician who gets information Whether or not Ermita correctly invoked the executive
while professionally attending a patient cannot in a civil privilege.
case be examined without the patient's consent as to any
facts which would blacken the latter's reputation. This rule Ruling:
is intended to encourage the patient to open up to the Yes. The elements of the said privilege are: 1) the
physician, relate to him the history of his ailment, and give communication relates to a non-delegable power of the
him access to his body, enabling the physician to make a President (power to enter into executive agreements
correct diagnosis of that ailment and provide the
without Legislature's concurrence is recognized); 2)
appropriate cure. Any fear that a physician could be
communication is received by a close advisor (Neri as
compelled in the future to come to court and narrate all
cabinet member is covered); 3) no compelling need to
that had transpired between him and the patient might
limit the privilege. The Senate Committee is wrong in
15
Evidence Case Digest Batch IV EH 404, 2017-2018
contending that the privilege violates the constitutional In April 2005 the Lee-Keh children filed with the RTC an
right of the people to public information. This right is ex parte request for the issuance of a subpoena ad
subject to limitations provided by law. One of the testificandum to compel Tiu, Emma Lee’s presumed
limitations is Section 24 (e) of Rule 130, Rules of Court. mother, to testify in the case. However, later on, the
Clearly, the right to obtain information in aid of subpoena was quashed by the RTC as it was oppressive
legislation cannot be equated with right to public and violated Section 25, Rule130 of the Rules of Court,
information, the former (except in highly qualified the rule on parental privilege, she being Emma Lee’s
sense) when exercised does not follow that the people stepmother. On the other hand, CA rendered a decision
are exercising the right to information. The delicate setting aside the RTC’s Order.
interplay of executive-legislative must prevail over the
right to information. The information sought by the
committee might impair our diplomatic and economic
relations with China given the confidential nature. Issue:
Whether or not court may compel Tiu to testify in the
correction of entry case that respondent Lee-Keh
children filed for the correction of the certificate of
birth of petitioner Emma Lee to show that she is not
Keh’s daughter.
24. EMMA K. LEE vs. COURT OF APPEALS, G.R. No.
177861, July13, 2010 Ruling:
Under Section 25, Rule 130 of the Rules of Evidence,
Facts: “No person may be compelled to testify against his
Spouses Lee and Keh entered the Philippines in the parents, other direct ascendants, children or other
1930sas immigrants from China. They had 11 children. direct descendants.”
In 1948, Leebrought from China a young woman (Tiu),
as housemaid. Respondent Lee-Keh’s children believed The afore-quoted rule is an adaptation from a similar
that Tiu left the household and had a relation with him. provision in Article 315 of the Civil Code that applies
Shortly after Keh died in 1989, the Lee-Keh children only in criminal cases. But those who revised the Rules
learned that Tiu’s children with Lee (collectively, the of Civil Procedure chose to extend the prohibition to all
Lee’s other children) claimed that they, too, were kinds of actions, whether civil, criminal, or
children of Lee and Keh. This prompted the Lee-Keh administrative, filed against parents and other direct
children to request the (NBI) to investigate the matter. ascendants or descendants.
After conducting such an investigation, the NBI But here Tiu, who invokes the filial privilege, claims that
concluded in its report it is not KEH SHIOK CHENG, but a she is the stepmother of petitioner Emma Lee. The
much younger woman, most probably TIU CHUAN privilege cannot apply to them because the rule applies
because in the hospital records Keh’s declared age did only to "direct" ascendants and descendants, a family
not coincide with her actual age when she supposedly tie connected by a common ancestry. A stepdaughter
gave birth to such other children, numbering eight. has no common ancestry by her stepmother. Relative
thereto, Article 965 of the New Civil Code provides:
On the basis of this report, the respondent Lee-Keh “The direct line is either descending or ascending. The
children filed two separate petitions, one of them former unites the head of the family with those who
before the (RTC) for the deletion from the certificate of descend from him. The latter bindsa person with those
live birth of the petitioner Emma Lee, one of Lee’s other from whom he descends.”
children, the name Keh and replace the same with the
name Tiu to indicate her true mother’s name. Consequently, Tiu can be compelled to testify against
petitioner Emma Lee.
16