BABAO VS PEREZ

FACTS
Celestina allegedly entered into verbal agreement with Santiago whereby the latter
bound himself to improve the land in consideration of which Celestina in turn bound
herself to convey to Santiago � of land upon her death. But, Celestina sold the
land to Leovigildo before she died. Santiago files an action for recovery of the
land.

During the trial, the admission of the testimony of plaintiff as to what occurred
between Celestina and Santiago, with regard to the agreement was objected because
it is prohibited by prohibited by section 26(c) of Rule 123 of the Rules of Court.
But the court overruled the opposition saying that said rule did not apply where
the complaint against the estate of a deceased person alleges fraud, citing the
case of Ong Chua vs. Carr, 53 Phil., 980.

ISSUE
Whether or not the testimony of the plaintiff is inadmissible being a violation for
violation of Sec26(c) of Rule 123.

RULING
Yes, it is inadmisible.
The rule prohibits parties or assignors of parties to a case, or persons in whose
behalf case is prosecuted, against an executor or administrator of a deceased
person upon a claim or demand against the estate of such deceased person from
testifying as to any matter of fact occurring before the death of such deceased
person.
The case of Ong Chua vs Carr is inapplicable in this case because in that case the
witness was allowed to testify because the existence of fraud was first established
by sufficient and competent evidence. Here, however, the alleged fraud is
predicated upon the existence of the agreement itself which violates the rule of
petitio principii. Evidently, the fraud to exist must be established by evidence
aliunde and not by the same evidence which is to sought to be prevented.

Zulueta vs CA
Zulueta is the wife of Martin. Zulueta entered the clinic of her husband wherein
she forcibly opened the drawers and cabinet and took documents which she used in
evidence in a case for legal separation and for disqualification from the practice
of medicine which petitioner had filed against her husband.

ISSUE: W/N the documents sought by Zulueta is admissible.

RULING:
documents and papers in question are inadmissible in evidence. The constitutional
injunction declaring "the privacy of communication and correspondence [to be]
inviolable" is no less applicable simply because it is the wife (who thinks herself
aggrieved by her husband's infidelity) who is the party against whom the
constitutional provision is to be enforced. The only exception to the prohibition
in the Constitution is if there is a "lawful order [from a] court or when public
safety or order requires otherwise, as prescribed by law." Any violation of this
provision renders the evidence obtained inadmissible "for any purpose in any
proceeding.
The intimacies between husband and wife do not justify any one of them in breaking
the drawers and cabinets of the other and in ransacking them for any telltale
evidence of marital infidelity.

GENATO vs SILAPAN
FACTS
Silapan issued a postdated check and mortgage his house and lot to Genato. Genato
tried to encash the check but it was dishonored because the account was already
closed. Gelato filed a criminal case for violation of BP 22 and a civil case for
judicial foreclosure of real estate mortgage against Silapan.

Silapan, in his answer, disclosed that Genato wanted him to offer bribe money to
the members of the review committee of the Department of Justice so that his
criminal case be terminated.

ISSUE
Whether or not the disclosure of Genato's alleged intention to bribe government
officials to Silapan, his lawyer, is privilege communication.

RULING
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. If the unlawful purpose is
avowed, as in this case, the complainant's alleged intention to bribe government
officials in relation to his case, the communication is not covered by the
privilege as the client does not consult the lawyer professionally. 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.

KROHN vs CA

FACTS
Edgar and Paz were married.Paz underwent psychological testing to ease the marital
strain.

Edgar was able to secure a copy of the confidential psychiatric evaluation report
on Paz. Edgar used as evidence the said report to support his petition for the
annulment of his marriage.

ISSUE
W/N the psychiaratric report presented in evidence by the husband against his wife
violates privilege communication.

RULING
No.
Privilege may be successfully invoked if the ff are present: (a) the privilege is
claimed in a civil case; (b) the person against whom the privilege is claimed is
one duly authorized to practice medicine, surgery or obstetrics; (c) such person
acquired the information while he was attending to the patient in his professional
capacity; (d) the information was necessary to enable him to act in that capacity;
and, (e) the information was confidential and, if disclosed, would blacken the
reputation of the patient.

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. Plainly and clearly, this does not fall within the claimed
prohibition. Neither can his testimony be considered a circumvention of the
prohibition because his testimony cannot have the force and effect of the testimony
of the physician who examined the patient and executed the report.
AIR PHILIPPINES CORP VS PENNSWELL
FACTS
PENNSWELL delivered and sold to AIRPHIL sundry goods in trade. For failure pay,
PENNSWELL filed complant for a sum of money.

AIRPHIL, in its answer, alleged that PENNSWELL drauded them for its previous sale
of four items wherein PENNSWELL misrepresented the items belonging to a new line,
but were in truth and in fact, identical with products AIRPHIL had previously
purchased from PENNSWELL.

AIRPHIL filed a motion to compel respondent to give a detailed list of the

ingredients and chemical components of the products for it to conduct a comparison
of PENNSWELL's goods.

ISSUE
Whether or not disclosure of PENNSWELL's list of ingredients and chemical
components would violate its right to privilege communication

RULING
Sec 24 of Rule 130 draws the types of disqualification by reason of privileged
communication, to wit: communication between (a) husband and wife; (b) attorney-
client; (c) physician and patient; (d) priest and penitents; and (e) public
officers and public interest. There are, however, other privileged matters that are
not mentioned in Rule 130. Among them are the following: (a) editors may not be
compelled to disclose the source of published news; (b) voters may not be compelled
to disclose for whom they voted; (c) trade secrets; (d) information contained in
tax census returns: and (d) bank deposits.

The ingredients constitute the very fabric of PENNSWELL's production and business.
No doubt, the information is also valuable to PENNSWELL's competitors. Thus, the
proprietary rights over the detailed chemical composition of the respondent's
product must be protected.

REGALA vs SANDIGANBAYAN
FACTS
PCGG raised a complaint before the sandiganbayan against Cojuangco, etc., including
Roco, for the recovery of alleged ill-gotten wealth.
PCGG filed "Third amended complaint" which excludes Roco from the complaint because
of his undertaking that he will reveal the identity of the principals.
Other lawyers of the firm requested that PCGG may grant the same treatment accorded
to Roco. PCGG, in its comment, set conditions precedent for the exclusion. One of
the condition is the disclosure of the identity of the clients.

ICARD vs MARASIGAN
FACTS
J.Icard filed a claim for the services he rendered against the estate of his
deceased father. The court allowed J.Icard to testify about the service rendered by
him in favor of his father. The administrator appeal because the action being one
against the administrator of a deceased person, plaintiff cannot be allowed to
testify as to any matter of fact which occurred before the death of such deceased
person, under Rule 123 sec 26(c).