04-08-22 LEthics Cases

AM no.
188 November 29, 1976
RICARDA GABRIEL DE BUMANGLAG, complainant,

vs.
ESTEBAN T. BUMANGLAG, respondent.
Facts:
The Respondent was found to be guilty of gross immoral conduct by the Court. It was
ordered that he be suspended from the practice of law for two years. He then filed several
motions for reconsiderations but were denied per the Court's Resolutions of November 20,
1973, December 19, 1973, January 9, 1974 and October 30, 1974.
Respondent wrote a petition to the President of the Philippines that he "promulgate(s) a

decree that the order of suspension by the Supreme Court be set aside. Respondent alleged
that he was deprived due process of law.
The Clerk of Court received a copy of the respondent's petition by way of the Executive
assistant and was requested to comment and/or make appropriate action on the subject
matter.
However, the respondent wrote another letter to the President of the Philippines, retracting
and acknowledging his non observance of the protocol of separation of powers.
Petitioner then apologized to the members of the Honorable Court with the full assurance
that nothing of this sort will be repeated by him in the future.
Ruling:
Respondent is administered a reprimand for gross ignorance of the law and of the
Constitution in having asked the President to set aside by decree the Court's decision which
suspended him for two years from the practice of law, with warning that the commission of
any transgression in the future of his oath and duties as a member of the bar will be severely
dealt with.
G.R. Nos. 115439-41 July 16, 1997
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner,

vs.
HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN, MANSUETO V. HONRADA, CEFERINO S. PAREDES,
JR. and GENEROSO S. SANSAET, respondents.
FACTS:
Paredes, a Provincial Attorney, applied for a free patent over a land situated in the poblacion
of San Francisco, Agusan del Sur. It was granted but later on canceled as it was obtained
through fraudulent misrepresentations, as the land had been designated and reserved as a
school site. (1) Sansaet served as counsel of Paredes in that civil case.
Consequent to the foregoing judgment of the trial court, upon the subsequent complaint of
the Sangguniang Bayan and the preliminary investigation conducted thereon, an information
for perjury was filed against respondent Paredes in the Municipal Circuit Trial Court.
However, the proceedings were terminated upon direction of the Deputy Minister of Justice.
(2) Atty. Sansaet, as counsel for his aforenamed co-respondent, moved for
reconsideration and, because of its legal significance in this case.
A criminal case was subsequently filed with the Sandiganbayan charging respondent
Paredes with a violation of Section 3 (a) of Republic Act No. 3019, as amended. However, a
motion to quash filed by the defense was later granted in respondent court's resolution and
the case was dismissed on the ground of prescription.(3)
Teofilo Gelacio, a taxpayer who had initiated the perjury and graft charges against
respondent Paredes, sent a letter to the Ombudsman seeking the investigation of the three
respondents herein for falsification of public documents. He claimed that respondent
Honrada, in conspiracy with his co-respondents, simulated and certified as true copies
certain documents purporting to be a notice of arraignment and transcripts of stenographic
notes supposedly taken during the arraignment of Paredes on the perjury charge. Attached
to his letter was (1) a certification that no notice of arraignment was ever received by the
Office of the Provincial Fiscal of Agusan del Sur in connection with that perjury case; and (2)
a certification of Presiding Judge Ciriaco Ariño that said perjury case in his court did not
reach the arraignment stage since action thereon was suspended pending the review of the
case by the Department of Justice.
Respondents filed their respective counter-affidavits, but Sansaet subsequently discarded

and repudiated the submissions he had made in his counter-affidavit. Sansaet then revealed
in a so-called Affidavit of Explanations and Rectifications that Paredes contrived to have the
graft case under preliminary investigation dismissed on the ground of double jeopardy by
making it appear that the perjury case had been dismissed by the trial court after he had
been arraigned therein.
The proposal for the discharge of respondent Sansaet as a state witness was rejected by the
Ombudsman, and was denied by the Sandiganbayan. Motion for Reconsideration was also
denied.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the projected testimony of respondent Sansaet, as proposed state witness, is
barred by the attorney-client privilege.
RULING:
No.The attorney-client privilege cannot apply in these cases as the facts thereof and the
actuations of both respondents therein constitute an exception to the rule. It is admitted that
the announced intention of a client to commit a crime is not included within the confidences
which his attorney is bound to respect.
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
communications. Contrarily, the unbroken stream of judicial dicta is to the effect that
communications 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 privileges
ordinarily existing in reference to communications between attorney and client.
Furthermore, Sansaet was himself a conspirator in the commission of that crime of

falsification which he, Paredes and Honrada concocted and foisted upon the authorities. It is
well settled that in order that a communication between a lawyer and his client may be
privileged, it must be for a lawful purpose or in furtherance of a lawful end. The existence of
an unlawful purpose prevents the privilege from attaching.
The Court is reasonably convinced, and so holds, that the other requisites for the discharge
of respondent Sansaet as a state witness are present and should have been favorably
appreciated by the Sandiganbayan.
WHEREFORE, the writ of certiorari prayed for is hereby granted SETTING ASIDE the
impugned resolutions and ORDERING that the present reliefs sought in these cases by
petitioner be allowed and given due course by respondent Sandiganbayan.

04-08-22 LEthics Cases

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

04-08-22 LEthics Cases

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

04-08-22 LEthics Cases

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

AM no.

188 November 29, 1976

RICARDA GABRIEL DE BUMANGLAG, complainant,

Respondent wrote a petition to the President of the Philippines that he "promulgate(s) a

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner,

Respondents filed their respective counter-affidavits, but Sansaet subsequently discarded

Statements and communications regarding the commission of a crime already committed,

Furthermore, Sansaet was himself a conspirator in the commission of that crime of

You might also like