EVIDENCE(Part VIII of IX)Evidence (Rule 128-133)A. General
Provisions1. Deni!ionsRule 128" #ec. 1. Evidencedefned.- Evidence
is !$e %eans"sanc!ioned &' !$ese rules" o(ascer!ainin) in a
*udicial +roceedin)!$e !ru!$ res+ec!in) a %a!!er o(
(ac!.(1)Evidence the means, sanctioned bytheserules, of
ascertaininginajudicialproceeding the truth respecting a matterof
fact.Relevan! evidence evidence hich hasa relation to the fact in
issue as to inducebelief inits e!istenceor
non"e!istence#evidencehichtendsinanyreasonabledegree to establish
the probability orimprobability of the fact in issue. ,a!erial
evidenceevidencehichisdirected to prove a fact in issue
asdeterminedby the rules of substantivela and pleadings# evidence
of such$ualityof substantial importancetotheparticular issue, apart
from its relevance %scolin& 'he terms (relevant) and(material)
are practically the same. 'heyare used interchangeably by the
*+.'heydi,erine,ect. -aterial evidencehas substantial
e,ect.Co%+e!en!evidenceevidencehichis not e!cluded by the la or by
the .ulesof +ourt Direc! evidence evidence hich
provesafactindisputeithouttheaidof anyinference or presumption
Circu%s!an!ial evidence proof offactsfromhich, ta/encollectively,
thee!istence of the particular fact in disputemay be inferred as a
necessary orprobable conse$uence E-+er! evidence testimony of a
itnessregardinga$uestionof science, art ortrade, hen he is s/illed
therein Pri%a (acie evidence evidence hichsu,ices for the proof of
a particular factuntil contradicted and overcome by otherevidence
Conclusiveevidenceevidencehichis incontrovertible and hich the
ladoes not allo to be contradicted Cu%ula!ive evidence evidence of
thesame /ind and characteras that alreadygiven and tends to prove
the sameproposition Corro&ora!ive evidence evidence of
adi,erent /indandcharactertendingtoprove the same point .es!
evidence evidence hich a,ordsthe greatest certainty of the fact
in$uestion #econdar' evidence evidence hich isnecessarily inferior
to primary0bestevidence and shos on its fact that betterevidence
e!ists /ac!u%+ro&anstheevidentiaryfactby hich the factum
probandum is to beestablished# materialevidencing theproposition,
e!istent, and o,ered for theconsideration of the tribunal /ac!u%
+ro&andu% the ultimate factsoughttobeestablished#
propositiontobe established, hypothetical, and thathichone party
a,irms andthe otherdenies /ac!u%+ro&andu%/ac!u%
Pro&ansPropositiontobeestablished-aterial evidencingthe
proposition+onceived of ashypothetical#thathich one partya,irms and
theother denies+onceived of forpractical purposesas e!istent, and
iso,eredassuchforthe consideration ofthe courtColla!eral (ac!s
matters other thanfacts in issue and hich are o,ered as abasis
merely for inference as to thee!istence or non"e!istence of the
facts inissue Real evidenceevidencefurnishedbythe things
themselves, or vie orinspection as distinguished from
adescriptionby themof aitness# thathich is addressed directly to
the sensesof the court ithout the intervention of aitness
Re&u!!al evidenceevidencehichisgiven to e!plain, repel,
counteract ordisprovefactsgiveninevidencebytheadverse party
Posi!ive evidence hen a itnessa,irms that a fact did or did not
occur Ne)a!ive evidence hen a itnessstatesthat hedidnot
seeor/notheoccurrence of a fact 2. Dis!in)uis$ Ad%issi&ili!'
o(evidence0ei)$! o(evidencePertains to theability of theevidence to
bealloed andaccepted subjectto its relevancyand competencePertains
to thee,ect of evidenceadmitted *ubstantiveessence
orcharacteristicfeature of evidenceas ould ma/e itorthy
ofconsideration bythe court before itsadmission 'he probativevalue
of evidencehich the courtmaygivetoadmitafter complyingith the rules
ofrelevancy andcompetency Proo( Evidence%,ect and result ofevidence
-edium of proof%nd .esult -eans to the end 3. #co+e a. Rule 128 12
#ec. 2. Scope.- 2$e rules o(evidence s$all &e !$e sa%e in
allcour!s and in all !rials and
$earin)s"e-ce+!aso!$er3ise+rovided&'la3or !$ese rules.
(2a)&. CasesReyes v. CA " 214 #CRA 25 (1662) 'he .ules of
+ourt, and its rules on%vidence, are not even
suppletorilyapplicable to agrarian cases. *pecial laallos a,idavits
to be admitted inevidence in agrarian courts, even ithoutthe itness
testifying nor subject tocross"e!amination. %scolin& 1ote that
inReyes, hat aspresented ere a,idavits. 2rdinarily,a,idavits arenot
admissiblebeforetheregular courts because there is noopportunity
for theother party to cross"e!amine. 3epositions are
admissiblebecause there as an opportunity for theadverse party to
cross"e!amine. P+ v. 2urco 337scra718 (2999)*ubject& 4ailure to
$ualify the doctor hoconducted the medical e!am as an
e!pertitness.In People vs. Bernaldez (supra),the court a quo erred
in giving eight tothe medical certi5cate issued by thee!amining
physician despite the failure ofthe latter to testify. 6hile the
certi5catecould be admitted as an e!ception to thehearsay rule
since entries in o,icialrecords (under *ection 77, .ule 89:,.ulesof
+ourt) constitutee!ceptionstothe hearsay evidence rule, since
itinvolved an opinion of one ho must 5rstbeestablishedas ane!pert
itness, itcould not be given eight or credit unlessthedoctor
hoissued it is presentedincourt to sho his $uali5cations. 6e place
emphasis on the distinctionbeteen admissibility of evidence and
theprobative value thereof.%vidence isadmissible hen it is relevant
to the issueandis not e!cludedbythelaor therules (*ection 9, .ule
8;>EB). It is ell"settled that amedical e!amination is not
indispensablein the prosecution of rape(People
vs.Lacaba,F...1o.89:?>8, 1ovember8E,8>>>#Peoplevs.
Salazar,;?>CB#People vs. Venerable, supra).'heabsence of medical
5ndings by a medico"legal o,icer does not disprove theoccurrence of
rape(People vs. Taneo,supra).It is enough that the evidence onhand
convinces the court that convictionis proper(Peoplevs.Auxero,
supra).Intheinstant case, thevictimGs testimonyalone is credible
and su,icient to convict.4amador& medical certi5cate can be
usedby the defense hen&8. the lacerations have already
healedorthatthelacerationsarealreadyold.;.
theadmissionofmore5ngersintothe vagina ould prove the(seetheart
defense)I%+erial 2e-!ile ,ills" Inc. v. N:RC"217 #CRA 237 (1663)
'heunveri5edpositionpaperisamereprocedural in5rmity hich does not
a,ectthe merits of the case. Proceduraltechnicalities do not
strictly apply toproceedings before the =D. 'he rules of evidence
does not apply to 8. probation board;. +'D9. *%+7. Immigration
cases?. =D01=.+C. +D...Ad%issi&ili!' o( Evidence#ec. 3.
Admissibility of evidence. -Evidence is ad%issi&le 3$en i!
isrelevan! !o !$e issue and is
no!e-cluded&'!$ela3or!$eserules.(3a).e$uisites for
admissibility 8. relevant;. competent 1. Relevanc'a. Rule 128 18
#ec. 8. Relevancy; collateralmatters. ; Evidence %us! $ave suc$
arela!ion !o !$e (ac! in issue as !oinduce &elie( in i!s
e-is!ence or non-e-is!ence. Evidence on colla!eral%a!!erss$all
no!&eallo3ed" e-ce+!3$en i! !ends in an' reasona&lede)ree
!o es!a&lis$ !$e +ro&a&ili!' ori%+ro&a&ili!' o(
!$e (ac! in issue. (8a).elevance relation to the facts in issueas
to induce belief in its e!istence or non"e!istence %vidence on
collateral matters alloedonly hen it tends in any reasonabledegree
to establish the probability orimprobability of the fact in issue.
&. CasesBautista v. Aparece" 51 ed +erson
an'in(or%a!ionrela!ive!o!$e(undsor+ro+er!ies in !$e cus!od' o( !$e
&anB&elon)in) !o +riva!e individuals"cor+ora!ions" or an'
o!$er en!i!'CProvided" 2$a!3i!$res+ec!!o&anBde+osi!s" !$e
+rovisions o( e-is!in)la3s s$all +revailD%lements of the
e!clusion8. director, o,icer, employee, or agent ofany ban/;.
disclosure to unauthoriNed person9. information relative to the
funds orpropertiesinthe custodyof theban/belonging to private
individuals,corporations, or any other entity7. ithout a court
order de =eon& 1ote that this provision coversonly property in
the custody of the ban/other than ban/ deposits. 4or ban/deposits,
.D 87:? governs. 1ote also thatthe provision does not state the
nature oftheinadmissibility. I submit that it isarule of absolute
inadmissibility. 3)RA 1895C :a3 on#ecrec' o( .anBDe+osi!s#ec. 2.
All de+osi!s o( 3$a!everna!ure 3i!$ &anBs or
&anBin)ins!i!u!ions in !$e P$ili++inesincludin) inves!%en!s in
&ondsissued &' !$e Govern%en! o( !$eP$ili++ines"
i!s+oli!ical su&divisionsandi!s ins!ru%en!ali!ies"
are$ere&'considered as o( an a&solu!el'conden!ial
na!ureand%a' no! &ee-a%ined" in?uired or looBed in!o &'an'
+erson" )overn%en! o=icial"&ureau or o=ice" e-ce+! u+on
3ri!!en+er%ission o( !$e de+osi!or" or incases o( i%+eac$%en!" or
u+on ordero( a co%+e!en! cour! in cases o(&ri&er' or
derelic!ion o( du!' o(+u&lic o=icials" or in cases 3$ere
!$e%one' de+osi!edor inves!edis !$esu&*ec! %a!!er o( !$e
li!i)a!ion.F.& Dll deposits of hatever nature ithban/s or
ban/ing institutions in thePhilippines including investments
inbondsissuedbytheFovernment of thePhilippines, its political
subdivisionsandits instrumentalities, are herebyconsidered as of an
absolutelycon5dential nature and may not bee!amined, in$uired or
loo/ed into by anyperson, government o,icial, bureau oro,ice.
%!ceptions8. ritten permission of the depositor;. impeachment, or
9. order of a competent court in cases of a. bribery or b.
dereliction of duty of publico,icials, or 7. here the money
deposited orinvestedisthesubject matterof thelitigation.de=eon&
I submit that thisisaruleofabsolute inadmissibility. 8)RA 8299C
0ire-!a++in)#ec. 1. I! s$all &e unla3(ul (or an'+erson" no!
&ein)au!$ori>ed&' all!$e +ar!ies !o an'
+riva!eco%%unica!ion or s+oBen 3ord" !o!a+ an' 3ire or ca&le"
or &' usin) an'o!$er device or arran)e%en!" !osecre!l'
over$ear" in!erce+!" or recordsuc$ co%%unica!ion or s+oBen
3ord&' usin) a device co%%onl' Bno3n asa dic!a+$one or
dic!a)ra+$ orde!ec!a+$one or 3alBie-!alBie or !a+erecorder" or
$o3ever o!$er3isedescri&edC I! s$all also&eunla3(ul (or
an'+erson" &e $e a +ar!ici+an! or no! in!$e ac! or ac!s
+enali>ed in !$e ne-!+recedin) sen!ence" !o Bno3in)l'+ossess an'
!a+e record" 3ire record"disc record" or an' o!$er suc$ record"or
co+ies !$ereo(" o( an'co%%unica!ion or s+oBen 3ordsecured ei!$er
&e(ore or a(!er !$ee=ec!ive da!e o( !$is Ac! in !$e%anner
+ro$i&i!ed &' !$is la3D or !ore+la' !$e sa%e (or an' o!$er
+ersonor +ersonsD or !o co%%unica!e !$econ!en!s !$ereo(" ei!$er
ver&all' or in3ri!in)" or !o(urnis$!ranscri+!ions!$ereo("
3$e!$er co%+le!e or +ar!ial"!oan'o!$er+ersonC Provided" 2$a!!$e use
o( suc$ record or an' co+ies!$ereo( as evidence in an'
civil"cri%inal inves!i)a!ion or !rial o(o=enses %en!ioned in
sec!ion 3$ereo(" s$all no!&ecovered&'!$is+ro$i&i!ion.
Mnlaful acts&8. any person, not being authoriNed by allthe
parties to any privatecommunication or spo/en ord, to tapany ire or
cable, or by using anyother device or arrangement, tosecretly
overhear, intercept, or recordsuchcommunicationor spo/enordby using
a device commonly /non asa dictaphone or dictagraph ordectaphone or
al/ie"tal/ie or taperecorder, or hoever otherisedescribed& ;.
anypersonto/noinglypossessanytape record, ire record, disc
record,or any other suchrecord, or copiesthereof, of any
communication orspo/enordsecuredinthemannerprohibited by this la#
or 9. any person to replaythe same for anyother person or persons7.
any person tocommunicate thecontentsthereof, either verbally or
inriting, or ?. any person tofurnish transcriptionsthereof,
hethercompleteorpartial,to any other person& 'he use of such
recordor any copiesthereof as evidence in any civil,
criminalinvestigation or trial of o,ensesmentionedinsection9hereof,
shall notbe covered by this prohibition. #ec. 2. An' +erson 3$o
3il(ull' orBno3in)l' does or 3$o s$all aid"+er%i!" or cause !o
&e done an' o( !$eac!s declared!o&eunla3(ul in!$e+recedin)
sec!ion or 3$o viola!es !$e+rovisions o( !$e (ollo3in) sec!ion oro(
an' order issued !$ereunder" oraids" +er%i!s" or causes
suc$viola!ion s$all" u+on convic!ion!$ereo(" &e +unis$ed ---.
#ec. 3. No!$in)con!ainedin!$isAc!" $o3ever" s$all render i!
unla3(ulor +unis$a&le(oran'+eaceo=icer"3$o is au!$ori>ed
&' a 3ri!!en ordero( !$eCour!" !oe-ecu!ean'o( !$eac!s
declared!o&eunla3(ul in!$e!3o +recedin) sec!ions in
casesinvolvin) !$e cri%es o( !reason"es+iona)e" +rovoBin) 3ar
anddislo'al!' in case o( 3ar" +irac'"%u!in' in!$e $i)$seas"
re&ellion"cons+irac' and +ro+osal !o co%%i!re&ellion"
inci!in) !o re&ellion"sedi!ion" cons+irac' !o co%%i!sedi!ion"
inci!in) !o sedi!ion"Bidna++in) as dened &' !$e RevisedPenal
Code" and viola!ions o(Co%%on3eal!$ Ac! No. 414"+unis$in) es+iona)e
and o!$ero=enses a)ains! na!ional securi!'CProvided" 2$a! suc$
3ri!!en orders$all onl' &e issued or )ran!ed u+on3ri!!en
a++lica!ion and !$ee-a%ina!ion under oa!$
ora=ir%a!iono(!$ea++lican!and!$e3i!nesses $e %a' +roduce and
as$o3in)C (1) !$a! !$ere arereasona&le )rounds !o &elieve
!$a!an' o( !$e cri%es enu%era!ed$ereina&ove $as &een
co%%i!!ed or is&ein)co%%i!!edor is a&ou! !o&eco%%i!!edC
Provided" $o3ever" 2$a!in cases involvin) !$e o=enses
o(re&ellion" cons+irac' and +ro+osal !oco%%i! re&ellion"
inci!in) !ore&ellion" sedi!ion" cons+irac' !oco%%i! sedi!ion"
and inci!in) !osedi!ion" suc$ au!$ori!' s$all &e)ran!ed onl'
u+on +rior +roo( !$a! are&ellionorac!so( sedi!ion"
as!$ecase%a'&e" $aveac!uall'&eenorare&ein)co%%i!!edD
(2) !$a!!$ereare reasona&le )rounds !o &elieve!$a! evidence
3ill &e o&!ainedessen!ial !o !$e convic!ion o( an'+erson
(or" or !o !$e solu!ion o(" or !o!$e +reven!ion o(" an' o( suc$
cri%esDand (3) !$a! !$ere are no o!$er %eansreadil'
availa&le(or o&!ainin)suc$evidence. ---+onditions for valid
iretapping 8. any peace o,icer;. authoriNedbyarittenorderof
the+ourt9. in cases involving the crimes oftreason, espionage,
provo/ing ar anddisloyalty in case of ar, piracy,mutiny in the high
seas, rebellion,conspiracy and proposal to commitrebellion,
inciting to rebellion,sedition, conspiracy to commitsedition,
inciting to sedition,/idnapping, espionage and othero,enses against
national security& #ec. 8. An' co%%unica!ion ors+oBen 3ord" or
!$e e-is!ence"con!en!s" su&s!ance" +ur+or!"
e=ec!"or%eanin)o(!$esa%eoran'+ar!!$ereo(" or an'
in(or%a!ion!$ereincon!ained o&!ained or secured &'
an'+ersoninviola!iono( !$e+recedin)sec!ions o( !$is Ac! s$all no!
&ead%issi&le in evidence in an' *udicial"?uasi-*udicial"
le)isla!ive orad%inis!ra!ive $earin)
orinves!i)a!ion.Informationobtainedinviolationof theanti"iretapping
act is absolutelyinadmissible. Ramirez v. CA " 288 #CRA 569(1665)
%ven a person privy to a communicationho records his private
conversation ithanother ithout the /noledge of thelatter violates
the anti"iretappingact.'he recording is inadmissible inevidence.
(aanan v. )AC " 185 #CRA 112(1684)Salcedo*rta+ezv. CA " 235#CRA111
(1668)C. 0$a! Need NC9, -anuel Fuerrero,assisted by 4elicisimo
Fuerrero, father ofthe defendants Fuerreros, 5led
anapplicationforregistrationof land# thatnotithstanding the
opposition of theheirs of +ristina Fuerrero, the courtruledthat
-anuel Fuerreroonedthelot# that despiteoppositorsG appeal toahigher
court, the .egister of 3eedsissued 2riginal +erti5cate of 'itle to
theapplicant# that on there as 5led ith the.egister of 3eeds of
.iNal a @3eedofDbsolute*ale@ purportedlye!ecutedby-anuel Fuerrero
in favor of thedefendantsFuerreros# that the.egisterof 3eeds gave
due course to theregistration of that deed# that on thesame day
that the deed of sale asregistered, the defendants
Fuerreroscausedto be notariNed an@Drticles ofPartnership@ of *t.
+lareGs .ealty+ompany, =td., constituting themselvesas partners#
that on *eptember ;E8,the defendants Fuerreros sold thedisputed lot
in a @3eed of Dbsolute *ale@tothe*t. +lareGs.ealty+ompany,
=td.#that by virtue thereof, the .egister of3eeds
issued'+'inthenameof saidrealty company.2n 2ctober 8>, 8>E9,
=aura +ervantestesti5ed that her mother, +ristinaFuerrero,
hadbeensic/for alongtimebefore she died at the age of 7E9, thetrial
court granted the motion anddeclared that =aura +ervantes,
Iose+ervantes as ell as other itnessessimilarly situated, are
dis$uali5ed totestify in the case.'he +D a,irmed the trial
courtOsruling.IssueC6hether or not the itnesses=aura +ervantes and
Iose +ervantes erecorrectly dis$uali5ed fromtestifying inthe case
and their testimonies e!cluded.FeldCMpon the facts and under the
la,this +ourt is fully persuaded that thea,irmative rulings of both
the trial courtandthe+ourtof Dppealseremadeinerror.'he present case
is not a claimordemand against the estate of thedeceased -anuel
Fuerrero. 'hedefendants Fuerreros are not thee!ecutors or
administrators orrepresentatives of suchdeceased. 'heyare being
sued as claimants of onershipin their individual capacities of
thedisputed lot. 'he lot is not a part of theestateof -anuel
Fuerrero. Jence, theinapplicability of dead manGs rule. @It has
been held that statutesproviding that a party in interest
isincompetent to testify here the adverseparty is dead or insane,
must be appliedstrictly inaccordanceiththeire!pressording,
irrespectiveoftheirspirit. 'hela uses the ord Gagainst an e!ecutor
oradministrator or other representative of adeceased person.G It
should be noted thatafter the mention of an e!ecutor
oradministrator the ords or otherrepresentative follos, hich means
thatthe ord GrepresentativeG includes onlythose ho, li/e the
e!ecutor oradministrator, are sued in theirrepresentative, not
personal, capacity.Dndthat is emphasiNedby thelabyusing the ords
Gagainst the estate ofsuch deceased persons,G hich conveytheideaof
anestateactuallyonedbythedeceasedat thetimethecaseasbrought and
that, therefore, it is only hisrights that are to be asserted
anddefendant in the litigation by the personrepresenting him, not
the personal rightsof such representative.@ (-oran, ibid.,
pp.8C>"8E8)'he plain truth is that:auraCervan!es and Eose
Cervan!es are no!+ar!ies in !$e +resen! case" andnei!$er are !$e'
assi)nors o( !$e+ar!ies nor G+ersons in 3$ose &e$al(a case is
+rosecu!ed.G 2$e' are %ere3i!nessesby hose testimonies
theplainti,saimedtoestablishthat it asnot +ristina Fuerrero, but
DndresFuerrero, hoonedthedisputedlandat the time of its alleged
sale to -anuelFuerrero# that +ristina Fuerrero did notreally sell
but merely mortgaged theproperty to -anuel FuerreroAbra'amv.
Recto23asten" 8#CRA268 (1642) :14781 31*an Dcross"e!amination of
the dis$uali5editness is aaiver of thedeadmanOsprivilege, even if
there as a continuingobjection. /ac!sCIuan+. Rsmael,
obtainedaloanfrom Dlfonso Dbraham, *r. and
e!ecutedapromissorynoteinfavorof thelatterpromising to pay the loan
ithin >: daysithinterest. 'henotease!ecutedinthe presence of
4lorenciaT. Dbraham,the creditorGs ife, ho a,i!ed hersignature at
the bottomthereof as aitness thereto. Mpon the maturity of thenote,
a demand as made for itspayment, but the debtor failed to pay.2n
4ebruary >, 8>7?, DlfonsoDbraham, *r. died. 2ntheother
hand,Iuan +. Rsmael died intestate on Dpril ;9,8>?; leaving the
note still unpaid.In *pecial Proceedings for thesettlement of the
intestate estate of IuanRsmael, 4lorenciaT. Vda.
deDbraham,togetherithhersons, 5ledapleadingentitled @.eclamation@
demandingpayment of theamount representedbythe note. Ds soon as
Priscilla .ecto"Sasten as appointed administratri!, theclaimants
reproduced their @.eclamation@before the loer court and the same
as5nally set for hearing. 'he counsel for
theadministratri!interposedageneral
andcontinuingobjectiontothetestimonyof4lorencia Vda.deDbraham
invo/ing theprovisionsof *ection;C(c), .ule8;9ofthe.ules of
+ourt.Joever, after theclaimant had testi5ed, he lengthily
cross"e!amined her on the very matters againsthich he interposed a
general objection.'he trial court issued in
2rder"3ecreealloingtheclaimagainst theintestateestate of Iuan +.
Rsmael'he appellate court concluded that@the loer court erred in
5nding that theclaimants have established a just andvalid
claim.IssueC6hether or not theifeof thedeceased as dis$uali5ed from
testifying.FeldC2$ere 3as a 3aiver o( !$e+ro$i&i!ioncon!ained
in #ec!ion24(c)" Rules 123 o( !$e Rules o(Cour!" 3$en !$e counsel
(or !$ead%inis!ra!ri- e-!ensivel' cross-e-a%ined !$e 3i!ness on !$e
ver'%a!!ers su&*ec! o( !$e +ro$i&i!ion.'he reason for the
rule apparently is thata litigant cannot be permitted tospeculate
as to hat his e!amination of aitness may bring forth. Javing made
hisselection of one of to courses hich hemay pursue, he has
noright, after hediscovers that the course selected is notto his
advantage, and after he has put theoppositepartytothee!pense,
andhasconsumed the time of courts in a trial
ofthecaseinaccordanceiththecourseselected, to change his position
and ma/eanother and di,erent selection. *uchcourse ould be unfair
both to theopposite party and to the court andshould not be
countenanced in any courtof justice(IV4rancisco, .ulesof +ourt,77
and special proceeding assubse$uently instituted for the
settlementof his estate.Induecoursethesaidcompany5ledaclaimagainst
the estate of .ichard '.4itNsimmons. In his anser to theamended
claim the administratordeniedthe alleged indebtedness of the
deceasedto the claimant.Itisadmittedthatall theprearboo/sand
records of the company erecompletelydestroyedorlost duringthear so
testimonies of itnesses ereadmitted.'he claimant called as itnesses
-r.Jenry I. Kelden and -r. *amuel FarmeNy,vice"president"treasurer
and president,respectively, of the claimant company, totestify on
the status of the personalaccount of the deceased 4itNsimmonsith
the company# but upon objection oftheadministratorthetrial
courtrefusedto admit their testimony on that point onthe ground
that said itnesses ereincompetentundersection;C(c) of .ule8;9, they
being not only largestoc/holdersandmembersof theboardof directors
but also vice"president"treasurerandpresident, respectively, ofthe
claimant company.Issue& 6hetherornot theo,icersof acorporation
hich is a party to an actionagainst an e!ecutor or administrator of
adeceased person are dis$uali5ed fromtestifying as to any matter of
factoccurring before the death of suchdeceased person.Feld&
2,icers and directors ofcorporations are not considered to
beparties ithinthe meaningof the la.()"y Sav"ngs Ban* vs.
+nos)Inasmuch as section ;C(c) of .ule 8;9 ofthe .ules of
+ourtdis?ualies onl'+ar!ies or assi)nors o( +ar!ies" !$eo=icers
andOor s!ocB$olders o( acor+ora!ion are no! dis?ualied
(ro%!es!i('in) (or or a)ains! !$ecor+ora!ion3$ic$is a +ar!'
!oanac!ion u+on a clai% or de%anda)ains! !$e es!a!e o( a
deceased+erson as !o an' %a!!er o(
(ac!occurrin)&e(ore!$edea!$o( suc$deceased +erson.#on/co v.
0ianzon" 59 P$il 468(1627) 27868 29se+Dction must be brought
against theestate, notbytheestate, tobecoveredunder the dead manOs
statute %scolin& 'hedeadmanOs ruledoes notapply in cadastral
cases.%scolin& If there is no instrumentevidencing the claim,
it ould be di,icultto prove the claim in the
estateproceedingbecause of the deadmanOsstatute. Joever, if there
is such aninstrument, itisnotbarredbythe deadmanOs statute (,e"ber
v.
,e"ber)/ac!sC-arcelino'ongcoandDnastaciaVianNoncontractedmarriageonIuly?,87.
-arcelinodiedleavingDnastaciaas his ido.'he niece of the
deceased,Iosefa 'ongco, as named administratri!of the estate. It
appears that shortlybefore the death of -arcelino 'ongco, hehad
presented claims in a cadastral casein hich he had as/ed for titles
to certainproperties inthenameof theconjugalpartnership consisting
of himself and hisife, and that corresponding decrees forthese lots
ere issued in the name of theconjugal partnershipnot longafter
hisdeath. Inthecadastral case, theidobeganaction hen she presented
a motion for arevision of certain decrees ithin theone"year period
provided by the =and.egistration =a. Issue as joined by
theadministratri!of theestate.
Ddecisionasrenderedbyorderedthatinlieuofthe issued decrees, ne
decrees andcerti5cates of title be issued as thee!clusive
properties of DnastaciaVianNon. *ometimelater, amotionforane trial
as presented ithaccumulated a,idavits by counsel for thelosing
party (administratri!). 'his motionas denied by the trial judge.
'he administratri! of the estate beganaction against Dnastacia
VianNon for therecovery of speci5ed property and fordamages. 'he
court renders judgmentabsolving the defendant from thecomplaint.
'he motion for a ne trial asdenied by Jis Jonor, the trial
judge.4rom both of the judgments hereinbeforementioned, the
administratri! of theestate of -arcelino 'ongco had
appealed.IssueC6hetherornot thetestimonyofthe ido should be
discarded.FeldC+ounsel is eminently correct inemphasiNing that the
object and purposeof this statute is to guardagainst thetemptation
to give false testimony inregardtothetransactionis$uestiononthe
part of the surviving party. Je has,hoever, neglected the e$ually
importantrule that the la as designed to aid inarriving at the
truth and as notdesigned to suppress the truth. 'he latice ma/es
use of the ordGa)ains!.G 2$e ac!ions 3ere
no!&rou)$!Ga)ains!G!$ead%inis!ra!ri-o( !$e es!a!e" nor 3ere
!$e' &rou)$!u+on clai%s Ga)ains!G !$e es!a!e. Inthe 5rst case
at bar, the action is one bythe administratri! to enforce
demandG&'G !$e es!a!e. In the second case atbar, the same
analogy holds true (or !$eclai% 3as +resen!ed in
cadas!ral+roceedin)s 3$ere in one sense !$ereis no +lain!i= and
!$ere is node(endan!.,oreover" a 3aiver 3as acco%+lis$ed3$en !$e
adverse +ar!' under!ooB !ocross-e-a%ine!$ein!eres!ed+erson3i!$
res+ec! !o !$e +ro$i&i!ed%a!!ers. 'hereason (or !$e ruleis that
ifpersons having a claim against the estateof thedeceasedor
hispropertieserealloed to testify as to the supposedstatements made
by him (deceasedperson), many ould be tempted tofalsely impute
statements to deceasedpersons as the latter can no longer
denyorrefutethem, thusunjustlysubjectingtheir properties or rights
to false orunscrupulous claims or demands. 'hepurposeof
thelaisto@guardagainstthe temptation to give false testimony
inregardtothe transactionin$uestiononthe part of the surviving
party.@6eareof theopinionthat theitnessas competent.(o+i v. CA" 188
#CRA 222 (1684) Jeirs of a deceased are (representatives)ithin the
ambit of the dead manOsstatute# aivedbydefendant if
he5lescounterclaim against plainti,# adverseparty may testify to
transactions orcommunications ith deceased hichere made ith an
agent of such personif the agents is still alive and can testifyas
long as it is con5ned to thetransactionsE. Privile)ed
Co%%unica!ionsPrivileged +ommunications8. marital;.
attorney"client9. physician"patient7. priest"penitent?. state
secrets #ec. 28.%is;, respondent*andiganbayan promulgated
the.esolution, herein $uestioned, denyingthe e!clusion of
petitioners in P+FF +ase1o. 99, fortheirrefusal tocomplyiththe
conditions re$uired by respondentP+FFD++.D layers moved for
areconsiderationof the aboveresolutionbut the same as denied by
therespondent *andiganbayan. Jence, theD++.D layers 5led the
petition forcer"orar".Issue& 6hether or not a layer mayrefuse
in giving the identity of his client.Feld& PetitionersG
contentions areimpressed ith merit.It is $uite apparent that
petitioners ereimpleaded by the P+FF as
co"defendantstoforcethemtodisclosetheidentityoftheir clients.
+learly, respondent P+FF isnot after petitioners but the @bigger
5sh@as they say in street parlance.'he general rule inour
jurisdictionasell as inthe Mnited*tates is that alayer may not
invo/e the privilege andrefuse to divulge the name or identity
ofthis client. Reasons&/irs!, the court has a right to /no
thatthe client hose privileged information issought to be protected
is Yesh and blood.#econd, the privilege begins to e!ist
onlyaftertheattorney"clientrelationshiphasbeen established. 'he
attorney"clientprivilege does not attach until there is
aclient.2$ird, the privilege generally pertains tothe sub-ec !aer
of the relationship./inall', due process considerationsre$uire that
the opposing party should, asageneral rule, /nohis adversary.
@Dpartysuingorsuedisentitledto/noho his opponent is.@ Je cannot
beobliged to grope in the dar/ againstun/non forces.
E-ce+!ions&+lient identity is privileged here astrong
probability e!ists that revealingthe clientGs name ouldimplicate
thatclient intheveryactivityfor hichhesought the layerGs
advice.6heredisclosureouldopentheclientto civil liability# his
identity is privileged.6here the governmentGs layers have
nocaseagainstanattorneyGsclientunless,byrevealingtheclientGsname,
thesaidname ould furnish the only lin/ thatould form the chain of
testimonynecessarytoconvict anindividual of acrime, the clientGs
name is privileged.*ummariNing these
e!ceptions,informationrelatingtotheidentityof aclient mayfall
ithintheambit of theprivilege hen the clientGs name itself hasan
independent signi5cance, such thatdisclosure ould then reveal
clientcon5dences. 6hat these cases unanimously see/ toavoidis
thee!ploitationof thegeneralrule in hat may amount to a
5shinge!pedition by the prosecution.'he circumstances involving
theengagement of layers in the case atbench, therefore,
clearlyreveal thattheinstant case falls under at least toe!ceptions
to the general rule. 4irst,disclosure of the allegedclientGs
nameould lead to establish said clientGsconnection ith the very
fact in issue ofthe case, hich is privileged
information,becausetheprivilege, asstatedearlier,protects the
subject matter or thesubstance (ithout hich there ould benot
attorney"client relationship).'here is no $uestion that the
preparationof the aforestateddocuments as partand parcel of
petitionersG legal service totheir clients. -ore important,
itconstituted an integral part of theirdutiesaslayers. Petitioners,
therefore,have a legitimate fear that identifyingtheir clients ould
implicate them in theveryactivityforhichlegal advicehadbeen
sought,".e., the allegedaccumulationof
ill"gottenealthintheaforementioned corporations.4urthermore, under
the third maine!ception, revelation of the clientGs nameould
obviously provide the necessarylin/ for the prosecution to build
its case,here none otherise e!ists. It is thelin/, intheordsof
Kaird, @thatouldinevitably formthe chain of testimonynecessary to
convict the (client) of a . . .crime.@ 'he logical ne!us beteen
name andnature of transaction is so intimate in thiscasethatit
ouldbedi,icult tosimplydissociate one fromthe other. In thissense,
the name is as much@communication@ as information revealeddirectly
about the transaction in $uestionitself,
acommunicationhichisclearlyand distinctly privileged. D layer
cannotreveal such communication ithoute!posing himself to charges
of violating aprinciple hich forms the bular/ of theentire
attorney"client relationship..oss Eoel %ani(es!a!ion& it
ispremature to apply the rules on evidencefor there is no case yet,
hence, there is nocompulsiononthepartofthelayertodisclose the
identity of there client.Barton v. Leyte Asp'alt andineral *il Co."
84 P$il. 638(1628):-21237 22%ar=etter from client to attorney
obtained byadverse party, admitted authentic incourt,
notprivilegedregardlesshetherlegallyorillegallyobtained(hataboutconstitutional
rule of e!clusion onevidence obtained in violation of the rightto
privacy of communication andcorrespondenceQ)# one ho overhears
thecommunicationithor ithout clientOs/noledge is not
privileged./ac!s& 'he plainti,is a citiNenof theMnited *tates,
resident in the +ity of-anila, hile the defendant is
acorporationorganiNedunder
thelaofthePhilippineIslandsithitsprincipalo,ice in the +ity of
+ebu. *aid companyappearstobetheonerbyavaluabledeposit of
bituminous limestone andotherasphaltproducts,
locatedin=eyteand/nonas theLuc"omine. 6illiamDnderson, as president
and generalmanager of the defendant company,addressed a letter to
the plainti, Karton,authoriNing the latter to sell the
productsofthe =ucio mine inthe +ommonealthof Dustralia and
1eWealand upon ascale of prices indicated in said letter. Plainti,
alleges that during the life of theagency indicated in %!hibit K,
herendered services to the defendantcompanyintheayof
advertisinganddemonstrating the products of thedefendant
ande!pendedlargesums ofmoney in visiting various parts of theorld
for the purpose of carrying on saidadvertising and demonstrations,
inshipping to various parts of the orldsamples of the products of
the defendant,and in otherise carrying on advertisingor/.Dnderson
rote the plainti,, to the e,ectthat the company as behind
ithconstructionandas not thenable tohandle big contracts. (%!hibit
44.) 2n-arch8;, Dndersonasin-anilaandthe to had an intervie, in the
course ofhich the plainti, informed Dnderson ofthe *an 4rancisco
order. Dndersonthereupon said that, oing to lac/ ofcapital,
ade$uatefacilitieshadnotbeenprovided by the company for 5lling
largeorders andsuggestedthat the plainti,had better hold up in the
matter of ta/ingorders. 'he plainti, e!pressed surprise
atthisandtoldDndersonthat
hehadnotonlythe*an4ranciscoorder(hichhesays he e!hibited to
Dnderson) but otherorders for large $uantities of
bituminouslimestone to be shipped to Dustralia and*hanghai. In
another intervieon thesame Dnderson de5nitely informed theplainti,
that the contracts hich beclaimedtohaveprocuredouldnot be5lled.
Karton sued for speci5c performance. Inthe course of the trial, the
defendanto,eredinevidenceacarboncopyof aletter ritten by the
plainti, to hisattorney in hich plainti, states, amongother things,
that his pro5t from the *an4ranciscocontract ouldhavebeenatthe
rateof eigthy"5vecents (gold) perton. 'he authenticity of this
citydocument isadmitted, andhenit
aso,eredinevidencebytheattorneyforthe defendant the counsel for the
plainti,announcedthat hehadnoobjectiontotheintroductionof this
carboncopyinevidence if counsel for the defendantould e!plain here
this copy assecured. Mponthistheattorneyforthedefendant informed
the court that hereceived the letter from the formerattorneys of
the defendant ithoute!planationof themannerinhichthedocument had
come into their possession.Mponthis theattorneyfor theplainti,made
this announcement& @6e herebygive notice at this time that
unless suchane!planationismade, e!plainingfullyho this carbon copy
came into thepossession of the defendant company,
oranyonerepresentingit, eproposetoobject to its admission on the
ground thatit is a con5dential communicationbeteenclient andlayer.@
1ofurtherinformation as then given by theattorney for the defendant
as to themannerin hich the letterhad come tohishandsandthetrial
judgethereupone!cludedthe document, onthe groundthat it as
aprivilegedcommunicationbeteen client and attorney.Issue&
6hetherornotthelettershouldbe considered as privilegedcommunication
bet. Dtty L client.Feld& 6e are of the opinionthat thisruling
as erroneous# for even supposingthat theletter
asithintheprivilegehichprotectscommunicationsbeteenattorney and
client, this privilege as losthen the letter came to the hands of
theadverse party. Dnd it ma/es no
di,erencehotheadversaryac$uiredpossession.'he la protects the
client fromthee,ect of disclosuresmade by him to hisattorney
inthecon5denceof thelegalrelation, but hen such a
document,containing admissions of the
client,comestothehandofathirdparty, andreaches the adversary, it is
admissible inevidence. In this connection -r. 6igmoresays& 'he
la provides subjectivefreedomfortheclientbyassuringhim of e!emption
from its processesof disclosure against himself or theattorney or
their agents ofcommunication. 'his much, but notahit more,
isnecessaryfor themaintenance of the privilege. *incethe means of
preserving secrecy ofcommunicationareentirelyintheclientGs hands,
and since theprivilegeisaderogationfromthegeneral testimonial duty
and shouldbestrictlyconstrued, it ouldbeimproper
toe!tenditsprohibitionto third persons ho obtain/noledgeof
thecommunications.2ne ho overhears thecommunication, hether ith
orithout theclientGs /noledge, isnot ithin the protection of
theprivilege. 'hesameruleought toapply to one ho
surreptitiouslyreads or obtains possession of adocument in original
or copy.*rient )nsurance v. Revilla " 58 P$il.616 (1639) 38968
17se+Introductioninevidenceof apart of apaper by one party aives
privilege as toother parts ofthe same riting# henapartyinvo/es K%.,
it isthepartyhoproducestheoriginal
hoisdeemedtohaveintroduceditinevidence# contractfor attorneyOs fees
is not privileged# thereis no partial aiver of privilege./ac!s&
'herespondent 'eal -otor +o.,Inc. is plainti, in a civil action
institutedinthe+4Iof -anilaforthepurposeofrecovering upon to 5re
insurancepolicies issuedbythe2rient Insurance+ompany, upon
merchandise destroyedbya5re. Inoneof theclauses of thepolicies sued
upon is a stipulation to thee,ect that all bene5t under the
policyould be forfeited if, in case of loss,
theclaimshouldberejectedbytheinsurerand action or suit should not
becommenced ithin three months aftersuch rejection. In the anser of
the2rient Insurance +ompany, interposed inthe case mentioned, it is
alleged, by ayof defense, that the company rejected theclaimonDpril
8?, 8>;>, that
noticeofsuchrejectionasgiventotheplainti,byletteronthesameday,andthatsuitas
not instituted on the policy untilDugust 9, 8>;>, hichas more
thanthreemonths after therejectionof theclaim. In the +ourse of the
trial the itness %.-. Kachrach, president of the 'eal -otor+o.,
Inc., hilebeinge!aminedinchiefby the attorneys for the plainti,,
andspea/ing of the circumstancessurrounding the institution of the
action,said that he had reported certainconversations to plainti,Gs
attorneys, andheadded& heaitedfor about aee/longer and not
having heard anythingabout it, in the meantime, on the 89th ofIuly,
he (Kachrach) received a letter
fromtheirattorneysurginghimto5lethesecases. 'he attorney for the
defendant,2rient Insurance +ompany, thereuponinterposed, as/ing
that the itness bere$uired to produce the letter referred tofrom
-r. Fuevara, or else his anser bestric/en out. 'he itness replied
that hehad the letter ith him and that he hadno objection to
shothat part of theletter in hich Fuevara urged himtoproceed ith
the cases. Mpon beingas/ed aboutthe other partof the letter,the
itness said that the other partcontainedprivate matter,
@beteentheattorney and ourselves. 'hereupon theattorney for the
defendant, 2rientInsurance +ompany, said he ould li/e tosee the
letter, in$uiring as to its date. 'heitnessrepliedthatitboredateof
Iuly89, 8>;># anduponthecourt in$uiringhether the itness had
any objection tothe reading of the letter by the attorneyfor the
defendant, the itness repliedthat he ished to consult ith
hisattorney. Mponthistheattorneyfortheadversary party, the 2rient
Insurance+ompany, suggested that he ould li/e tohave the letter
mar/ed ithout hisreading it and it as accordingly mar/edas %!hibit
7>. 'he attorney then said& @Invieof the productionof the
letter, Iithdratheobjectiontothestatementof the itness as to its
contents,@ and headded& @I noas/ the permission of thecourt to
read the letter for myinformation.@ 'he court thereuponin$uired of
the attorney for the 'eal-otor +o., Inc., hether he had
anyobjection, and the attorney observed thathe ould have no
objection to thedisclosing of that part of the letter hichreferred
e!actly to the point of the urgingof the5lingof thecomplaints,
andheadded& @Mnfortunately, theotherpart ofthe letter being a
communicationbeteen a client and attorney, I donGtthin/, if your
Jonor please, it canbedisclosed ithout the consent of
both.@Issue& 6hetherornotacommunicationmay be presented only in
part, e!cludingother parts for being
privilegedcommunication.Feld&'he introduction in evidence
ofpart of a paper riting by one partyaives privilege as to other
parts of thesame riting. 6hen part of a riting is introduced
inevidence by one litigant, his adversary
isentitledtouseotherpartsof thesameriting, so far as relevant to
the issues inthe case# and to this end the attorney ofthe latter
has a right to inspect
theritingandtore$uireitsproductionincourt.Ditnessfortheplainti,madeanoralstatement
as to the substance of part of aletter hichhadbeenreceivedby
theplainti,fromitsattorney, andhenthefact as revealed that the
communicationhad been made by letter, the attorney forthe defendant
re$uested that the itnessbe re$uired to produce the letter in
court,and if not, that his anser should bestric/enout. 'his inlegal
e,ect asademandfortheproductionof
@thebestevidence,@itbeingaell"/nonruleofla that a itness cannot be
permitted togive oral testimony as to the contents of apaper riting
hich canbeproduced incourt. Inresponse tothis re$uest thatportion
of the letter to hich the itnesshadsupposedly referredas
readintothe record. It as stated in the court by the attorneyfor
the plainti,, in opposing theintroduction of other portions of
theletter in proof, that the other parts ereprivileged, because
they relatedtotheterms of employment beteenattorneyand client, or
to the fee to be paid to theattorney.
6ithrespecttothispointitisdi,icult toseehoacontract for feescould
be considered privileged. Irrelevantit might, under certain
circumstances,certainly be, but not privileged. 2f
coursecontractsbeteenattorneysandclientsare inherently personal and
privatematters, but they are a constant subjectof litigation, and
contracts relating tofees are essentially not of privilegednature.
Privilege primarily refers tocommunicationsfromclient toattorney,an
idea hich of course includescommunications
fromattorneytoclientrelative to privileged matters. Kut, even
supposing that the mattercontained in the letter and ithheld
fromthe inspection of the adversary asoriginally of a privileged
nature, theprivilege as aived by the introductionin evidence of
part of the letter. 'heprovisioninsection;79, the tug GI. -.'aylorG
san/ hile engaged in helping
totoacarYoatoftheKaltimoreL2hio.ailroad across the 3elaare .iver
atPhiladelphia. 'he accident asapparentlyunusual innature,
thecauseof it still being un/non. 4ive of the ninecre members ere
droned. 'hree dayslater the tug oners and theunderriters employed a
la 5rm, ofhich respondent 4ortenbaugh is amember, to defend them
against potentialsuitsbyrepresentativesofthedeceasedcre members and
to sue the railroad fordamages to the tug.
Dpublichearingasheldon-arch7,8>79, before the Mnited
*tates*teamboatInspectors,athichthefoursurvivors ere e!amined. 'his
testimonyasrecordedandmadeavailabletoallinterested parties. *hortly
thereafter,4ortenbaugh privately intervieed thesurvivors and too/
statements from themith an eye toard the anticipatedlitigation# the
survivors signed thesestatementson-arch;>./or!en&au)$also
in!ervie3ed o!$er +ersons&elieved !o $ave so%e
in(or%a!ionrela!in) !o !$e acciden! and in so%ecases
$e%ade%e%orandao( 3$a!!$e' !old $i%.Dt the time
hen4ortenbaughsecuredthe statements ofthesurvivors,
representativesof toofthe deceased cre members had been
incommunication ith him. 'he 5fthclaimant, petitionerherein,
brought suitin a federal court under the Iones Dct on1ovember ;C,
8>79, naming asdefendants the to tug oners,individually and as
partners, and therailroad. 2ne year later, petitioner 5led
9>interrogatories directed to the
tugoners.2$e38!$in!erro)a!or'readCI#!a!e 3$e!$er an' s!a!e%en!s o(
!$e%e%&ers o( !$e cre3s o( !$e 2u)s IE.,. 2a'lorI and
IP$iladel+$iaI or o( an'o!$er vessel 3ere !aBen in
connec!ion3i!$!$e!o3in)o(!$ecarPoa!and!$e sinBin) o( !$e 2u) IEo$n
,.2a'lorI.'he tug oners, through 4ortenbaugh,ansered all of the
interrogatories e!cept1o. 9