People of the Philippines, Petitioner, versus

Honorable Sandiganbayan, Mansueto V. Honrada, Ceferino S. Paredes, Jr.

and Generoso S. Sansaet, Respondents.
(G.R. No. 115439-41, July 16, 1997, En Banc)
REGALADO, J:
TOPIC: Attorney and Client (Rule 130, Sec. 24 (b))
FACTS:
In 1976, Paredes, applied for and was granted a free patent over a certain
lot in San Francisco, Agusan del Sur. In 1985, such patent was nullified
through a court action instituted by the Director Lands on the ground that
Paredes had made fraudulent representations to secure said patent. A case for
perjury was subsequently filed against him, though it was later dismissed for
having prescribed. However, a preliminary investigation for the violation of the
Anti-Graft law was commenced before the Tanod bayan on the ground that
Paredes allegedly used his position as Provincial Attorney to secure the patent.
The Tanod bayan issued a resolution recommending the filing of charges
against Paredes. A criminal case for violation of the Anti-Graft Law was filed
with the Sandiganbayan, but the same was later dismissed on the ground of
prescription. Gelacio, who initiated the perjury and graft charges against
Paredes, sought the investigation of Paredes, his counsel, Atty. Sansaet, and
one Honrada regarding alleged falsification of public documents, among which
are the notice of arraignments and transcripts of stenographic notes
supposedly taken during the arraignment of Paredes in the perjury case
previously dismissed. To evade liability, Atty. Sansaet revealed that said
falsification was made upon the isntigation and inducement of Paredes, who
contrived the scheme to dismiss the anti-graft case. The Ombudsman rejected
the governments motion for the discharge of Atty. Sansaet as state witness and
caused falsification charges to be filed against all the defendants. Another
motion filed with Sandiganbayan for the discharge of Sansaet as state witness
was denied by the Sandiganbayan on the ground that the proposed testimony
would fall under the Attorney-Client privilege.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the projected testimony of Atty. Sansaet covered by the
Attorney-Client privilege
HELD:
No. The Supreme Court ruled that there is a distinction between
confidential communications relating to past crimes already committed, and
future crimes intended to be committed, by the client. If the client seeks his
lawyers advice with respect to a crime that the former has theretofore
committed, he is given the protection of a virtual confessional seal which the
attorney-client privilege declares cannot be broken by the attorney without the
clients consent. The same privileged confidentiality, however, 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 lawyers advice. In the given

case, the testimony sought from Atty. Sansaet as state witness are
communications made to him by the physical acts and/or accompanying words
of Paredes at the time he and Honrada, either with active or passive
participation of Sansaet, were about to falsify or were in the process of
falsifying, the documents, which were later filed with the Tanodbayan. Clearly,
therefore, the confidential communications made by Paredes to Atty. Sansaet
were for the purpose of a crime not yet committed, and hence, are not barred
by the attorney-client privilege.
People of the Philippines, Petitioner, versus
The Honorable Sandiganbayan, Respondent.
(G.R. No. 105938, September 20, 1996, En Banc)
KAPUNAN, J:
TOPIC: Attorney and Client (Rule 130, Sec. 24 (b))
FACTS:
A complaint was filed by the PCGG against Eduardo Cojuangco, Jr. for
the recovery of alleged ill gotten wealth, which includes shares of stocks in
certain corporations. Cojuangcos co-defendants were Teodoro Regala, Edgardo
Angara, Avelino Cruz, Jose Concepcion, Rogelio Vinluan, Victor Lazatin,
Eduardo Escueta, Paraja Hayudini and private respondent Raul Roco, all then
partners of ACCRA Law Firm. They all admitted that they assisted in the
organization and acquisition of the aforesaid corporations by acting as
nominees-stockholders of the same. Due to Rocos promise that he would reveal
the identity of the pricipal/s for whom he acted as nominee/stockholder, Roco
was taken out of PCGGs amended complaint. The rest of the ACCRA lawyers
then insisted that they, too, should be granted the same treatment given to
Roco, but the Sandiganbayan denied their exclusion for not acceding to the
conditions set by PCGG, which included the disclosure of the identity of its
clients and the submission of pertinent documents.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the ACCRA lawyers are entitled to invoke the attorneyclient privilege in this case
HELD:
Yes. As a matter of public policy, a clients identity should not be cloaked
in mystery. The general rule is that a lawyer may not invoke the privilege and
refuse to divulge the name or identity of his client. However, there are certain
exceptions:
1) where a strong probability exists that revealing the clients name
would implicate said client in the very activity for which he sought the lawyers
advice;
2) where disclosure would open the client to civil liability; or
3) where the governments lawyers have no case against the attorneys
client unless, by revealing the clients name, the said name would furnish the
only link that would form the chain of testimony necessary to convict an
individual of a crime.

The given case falls under the aforesaid exceptions, and hence, attorneyclient privilege may be invoked. In the constitutional sphere, the privilege gives
flesh to one of the most sacrosanct rights available to the accused, the right to
counsel. If the price of disclosure is too high, or if it amounts to selfincrimination, then the flow of information would be curtailed thereby
rendering the right practically nugatory.

Carolina Abad Gonzales, Petitioner, versus

Court of Appeals, Respondents.
(G.R. No. 117740, July 16, 1997, 3rd Division)
ROMERO, J:

TOPIC: Physician and Patient (Rule 130 Section 24 (c))

FACTS:
Carolina Abad Gonzales, Dolores de Mesa Abad and Cesar de Mesa
Tioseco sought the settlement of the intestate estate of their brother, Ricardo.
During the special proceedings, they claimed that they were the only heirs of
Ricardo as he died a bachelor leaving no descendants or ascendants. Cecilia
Empaynado and Marian Empaynado filed a motion to set aside the special
proceedings concerning the estate of Ricardo alleging that Honoria was the
common law wife of Ricardo while Cecilia and Marian were their children and
that there is still another child named Rosemarie of Ricardo by another woman.
The trial court ruled in favor of the Empaynados, declaring Cecilia, Marian and
Rosemarie as the surviving legal heirs of Ricardo. The CA also ruled in favor of
the Empaynados. The Abads contended that the Empaynado children cant be
Ricardos since, by means of an affidavit of a physician named Dr. Pedro
Arenas, it is alleged that he was at the time infected with gonorrhea and as
consequence, is sterile.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Dr. Pedro Arenas affidavit is admissible under Section 24
(c) of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court.
HELD:
No. The Supreme Court declared that the rule on confidential
communications between physician and patient requires that:

a) the action in which the advice or treatment given or any information is

to be used is a civil case;
b) the relation of physician and patient existed between the person
claiming the privilege or his legal representative and the physician;
c) the advice or treatment given by him or any information was acquired
by the physician while professionally attending the patient;
d) the information was necessary for the performance of his professional
duty; and
e) the disclosure of the information would tend to blacken the reputation
of the patient.
The Abads do not disagree that the affidavit meets the first four
requisites. They assert, however, that the finding as to Ricardo Abad's "sterility"
does not blacken the character of the deceased. The Abads conveniently forget
that Ricardo Abad's "sterility" arose when the latter contracted gonorrhea, a
fact which most assuredly blackens his reputation. In fact, given that society
holds virility at a premium, sterility alone, without the attendant
embarrassment of contracting a sexually-transmitted disease, would be
sufficient to blacken the reputation of any patient. The Court held that the
affidavit is inadmissible in evidence and remains inadmissible in evidence,
notwithstanding the death of Ricardo Abad.

Nelly Lim, Petitioner, versus

The Court of Appeals, Respondents.
(G.R. No. 91114, September 25, 1992, 3rd Division)
DAVIDE, JR., J:
TOPIC: Physician and Patient (Rule 130 Section 24 (c))
FACTS:
On November 25, 1987, Juan Sim filed with Pangasinan RTC a petition for
annulment based on Article36, alleging that Nelly Lim is suffering from schizophrenia
before, during and after marriage and until the present. On January 11, 1989, Sim
announced he will present Dr Lydia Acampado, who is a psychiatrist, as a witness on
January 25, 1989. Petitioner opposed on the grounds that the testimony sought to be
elicited from the witness is privileged since Dr Acampado had examined Lim in a
professional capacity and had diagnosed her with schizophrenia. Subpoena was
issued on January 12, 1989.
On January 24, 1989, petitioner filed urgent motion to quash subpoena and
suspend proceedings which was overruled. Respondent claimed that Dr Acampado will be
presented as expert witness and would not testify on any information acquired while
attending to the petitioner as doctor.
On March 3, 1989, petitioner filed with CA petition for certiorari and prohibition
but was denied on September 18, 1989 on the ground that petitioner failed to establish the
confidential nature of the testimony obtained from Dr Acampado.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Dr Acampado can be presented as expert witness
HELD:
Yes. In order for patient-doctor privilege can be claimed, the following requisites
must concur:
1. Privilege claimed is in a civil case
2. The person against whom the privilege is claimed is one duly authorized to
practice medicine
3. Such person acquired the information while he was attending to the patient in
his professional capacity
4. The information was necessary for him to enable him to act in that capacity.
These requisites must concur with the 4 fundamental conditions necessary for
invoking doctor-patient confidentiality:
a. The communications must originate in a confidence that they will not be
disclosed
b. Element of confidentiality must be essential to the full and satisfactory
maintenance of the relation between the parties
c. The relation must be one which the opinion of the community ought to
be sedulously fostered
d. The injury that would inure to the relation by the disclosure of the
communications must be greater than the benefit thereby gain for
correct disposal of litigation
Dr. Acampado was only presented as an expert witness, she did not disclose
anything obtained in the course of her examination, interview and treatment of the
petitioner. There is nothing specific or concrete evidence offered to show that the
information obtained from Dr Acampado would blacken the petitioners reputation. Lastly,
she makes no claim in any of her proceedings that her counsel had objected to any
questions asked of the witness on the ground that it elicited an answer that would violate
the confidentiality privilege

Ma. Paz Fernandez Krohn, Petitioner, versus

Court of Appeals and Edgar Krohn Jr., Respondents.
(G.R. No. 108854, June 14, 1994, 1st Division)
BELLOSILLO, J:
TOPIC: Physician and Patient (Rule 130 Section 24 (c))
FACTS:
Ma. Paz Fernandez underwent psychological testing to ease her mental
strain. In 1973, she and her husband, Edgar Krohn, with whom she had three
kids, separated. Krohn was able to obtain a copy of the Psychiatric Evaluation
Report signed by one Dr. Banaeg and one Dr. Reyes. By virtue of such report,
he was able to obtain a decree nullifying his church marriage to Fernandez. A
voluntary dissolution of the conjugal partnership was granted by the Pasig
RTC, and in 1990, Krohn filed for the annulment of his marriage with the

Makati RTC. Krohn used the contents of the aforesaid Confidential Psychiatric
Evaluation Report in his testimony, to which Fernandez objected on the ground
of Physician-Patient privilege.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the Psychiatric Evaluation Report be prohibited as
evidence for being violative of the Physician-Patient privilege?
HELD:
No. The person against whom the privilege is being claimed is not one
duly authorized to practice medicine, surgery or obstetrics, as he is simply
Fernandezs husband who wishes to testify on a document executed by medical
practitioners. He is therefore not barred by the privilege, and neither can his
testimony be deemed a circumvention of the prohibition as his testimony
cannot have the same force and effect as a testimony made by a physician who
examined the patient and executed the report.