Exceptions To Rule On Privilege

EXCEPTIONS TO RULE ON PRIVILEGE
Rule 21.01, CPR
a. When authorized by the client after acquainting him of the consequences of the disclosure;
b. When required by law;
c. When necessary to collect his fees or to defend himself, his employees or associates or by judicial
action.
Sec. 24 (b), Rule 130, Revised Rules on Evidence
General Rule: An attorney or person reasonably believed by the client to be licensed to engage in the
practice of law cannot, without the consent of the client, be examined as to any communication made by
the client to him or her, or his or her advice given thereon in the course of, or with a view to,
professional employment.
Exceptions:
1. Furtherance of crime or fraud;

2. Claimants through same deceased client;
3. Breach of duty by lawyer or client;
4. Document attested by the lawyer; and
5. Joint clients
Client’s Waiver of Privilege

General Rule: Only the client can waive the privilege.
Exception: The consent of the attorney is also needed when the person to be examined
with reference to any privileged communication is the attorney’s secretary, stenographer or clerk.
NOTE: Waiver of the privilege cannot be made partially.
Disclosure to Protect Attorney’s Right
 Par. 2, Canon 37
If a lawyer is accused by his client, he is not precluded from disclosing the truth in respect to
the accusation.
 An attorney suing the client for attorney’s fees may also disclose or use the confidential
information of his client, if such disclosure or use is necessary to enable him to secure his rights.
Communications as to Crime and Fraud
 Par. 2, Canon 37
The announced intention of a client to commit a crime is not included within the confidence
which he is bound to protect.
Period to be considered- is the date when the privileged communication was made by the client to the
attorney in relation to either a crime committed in the past or with respect to a crime intended to be
committed in the future.
1. Statements and communications regarding the commission of a crime already

committed, made by a party who committed it, to an attorney, consulted as such, are privileged
communication.
2. Communication between attorney and client having to do with the client’s contemplated
criminal acts, or in aid or furtherance thereof, are not covered by the cloak of the privilege.
+ORIENT INSURANCE COMPANY, petitioner,
vs.
E. P. REVILLA, Judge of First Instance of Manila, and TEAL MOTOR CO., INC., respondents.
G.R. No. 34098
FACTS:
Teal Motor instituted a civil action to recover from two fire insurance policies issued by the Orient
Insurance Company.
Orient alleged, by way of defense, that the suit was instituted only after three months from the time
notice of rejection was given to the plaintiff. Hence, pursuant to a clause of the policies, the benefits
under the policies are already deemed forfeited.
The plaintiff claimed that after being notified of the denial, a representative of Orient expressly requested
the plaintiff to defer judicial action stating that there is a possibility that an extrajudicial compromise
might be arranged in the matter.
The witness, E. M. Bachrach, while being examined in chief by the attorneys for the plaintiff, said that he
received on the 13th of July, a letter from their attorneys, urging him to file these cases. The attorney for
the defendant, interposed, asking that the witness produce the letter.
Witness only offered in evidence part of the letter supporting his testimony but refused to reveal the
other part as it contained private matter privileged in nature between the attorneys and TMC.
Attorney for the defendant, formally offered the letter in evidence. The attorney for the plaintiff again
objected, on the ground that the letter was of a privileged nature and that it was the personal property of
the witness.
ISSUE: Whether or not the presentation of part of the letter constitute waiver to present the whole
document.
HELD:
YES, the presentation of part of the letter constitute waiver to present the whole document. The witness
produced the letter and the part of it already quoted was read into the record. The excerpt in question
must therefore be considered as proof submitted by the plaintiff; and there can be no question that, part
of the letter having been introduced in behalf of the plaintiff, the whole of the letter could
properly be examined by the other party.
WILLIAM ONG GENATO, Complainant,

vs. ATTY. ESSEX L. SILAPAN, respondent.
A.C. No. 4078
FACTS:
The relationship between the complainant and respondent started when complainant's retained lawyer,
Atty. Benjamin Dacanay accommodated respondent in the office building owned by complainant, William
Genato, and made him handle some of the complainant’s cases.
Complainant and respondent engaged to subsequent transactions that led to the filing by the complainant
of a criminal case against respondent for violation of B.P. Blg. 22 and a civil case for judicial foreclosure
of real estate mortgage.
In his answer, respondent alleged that the complainant asked him to offer bribe money to the review
committee of the DOJ where the resolution of his criminal case was pending and in the event said
petition for review is denied, he wanted the respondent to offer bribe money to the prosecutor assigned
in said case and even to the presiding judge for his acquittal.
Complainant claims that in making such allegations, respondent is guilty of breaking their confidential
lawyer-client relationship and should be held administratively liable therefore.
Respondent claims that he did not violate confidential lawyer-client relationship because he made the
statements in the course of judicial proceedings to defend his case and discredit complainant's credibility.
ISSUE: Whether respondent’s disclosure of complainant's alleged intention to bribe government officials
is within the purview of their privileged communications.
HELD:
NO, respondent’s disclosure of complainant’s alleged intention to bribe government officials is within the
purview of their privileged communications.The privilege against disclosure of confidential
communications or information is limited only to communications which are legitimately and properly
within the scope of a lawful employment of a lawyer. It does not extend to those made in contemplation
of a crime or perpetration of a fraud.
It is not within the profession of a lawyer to advise a client as to how he may commit a crime as a lawyer
is not a gun for hire. Thus, the attorney-client privilege does not attach, there being no professional
employment in the strict sense.
Nevertheless, it was improper for the respondent to use such disclosures against the complainant in the
foreclosure case as it was not the subject matter of the litigation therein and the respondent's legal
advice were not being attacked. The Court agreed that respondent's allegations and disclosures in the
foreclosure case amount to a breach of fidelity sufficient to warrant imposition of disciplinary sanction
against him.

Exceptions To Rule On Privilege

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Exceptions To Rule On Privilege

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Exceptions To Rule On Privilege

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

EXCEPTIONS TO RULE ON PRIVILEGE

Rule 21.01, CPR

b. When required by law;

Sec. 24 (b), Rule 130, Revised Rules on Evidence

1. Furtherance of crime or fraud;

Client’s Waiver of Privilege

NOTE: Waiver of the privilege cannot be made partially.

Disclosure to Protect Attorney’s Right

Communications as to Crime and Fraud

1. Statements and communications regarding the commission of a crime already

WILLIAM ONG GENATO, Complainant,

You might also like