Professional Documents
Culture Documents
PROCEEDINGS
Problem Areas in Legal Ethics No.14
xxx
or solicitor
a client or
case, shall
without the
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.
In fact, it has also been pointed out to the Court that the prosecution of the
honorable relation of attorney and client will not be permitted under the guise
of privilege, and every communication made to an attorney by a client for a
criminal purpose is a conspiracy or attempt at a conspiracy which is not only
lawful to divulge, but which the attorney under certain circumstances may be
bound to disclose at one in the interest of justice. ( PP vs. Sandiganbayan)
Privileged Speech in Congress
DEFENSOR-SANTIAGO CASE
Pleadings have become part of public record open to the public to scrutinize,
but also due to the undeniable fact that said
Pleadings are presumed to contain allegations and assertions lawful and legal
in nature, appropriate to the disposition of issues ventilated before the courts
for the proper administration of justice, and, therefore, of general public
concern.
Moreover, pleadings are presumed to contain allegations substantially true
because they can be supported by evidence presented in good faith, the
contents of which would be under the scrutiny of courts and, therefore,
subject to be purged of all improprieties and illegal statements contained
therein. (Cuenco vs. Cuenco)
hardships, yet to give legal sanction to such suits as the present would, we
think, give rise to far greater hardships. (Cuenco vs. cuenco)
EFFECT OF PRIVILEGED MATTERS
The doctrine of privileged communication rests upon public policy, which look
to the free and unfettered administration of justice, though, as an incidental
result in some instances afford an immunity to the evil disposed and
malignant slanderer. (PP. vs. Atty. Sesbreno)
subject to litigation it will not make him immune from professional discipline,
when it is appropriate. (Selby vs. Burgess)
makes a lawyer liable for false allegations in a pleading since the rule
states that a lawyers signature on a pleading constitutes a certificate by him
that to the best of his knowledge, there is good ground to support the
pleading. (Pogue vs. Cooper)
ADMONITION TO LAWYERS
LIBELOUS REMARKS?
Against said order, Atty. Sesbreno filed a motion seeking reconsideration with
a counter-motion for contempt against the appellant for reneging on his
commitment to reimburse appellees clients and for resorting to dilatory
tactics. To that, Atty. Ceniza, filed his Opposition to Motion for
Reconsideration,
Etc.
charging
Sesbreno
with
misrepresentation,
prevarication, and telling a barefaced and documented lie. Replyinf to these
remarks, Sesbreno then filed his REPLY Atty. Ramon Ceniza is an
irresponsible person, cannot be trusted, like Judas, a liar and irresponsible
childish prankster. Subject matter in Cenizas libel suit.
BALANCING ACT
While the doctrine is liable to be abuse and its abuse may lead to great
hardships, yet to give legal action to such libel suits would give rise to greater
hardships.
Lawyers, most especially, should be allowed a great latitude of pertinent
comment in the furtherance of the causes they uphold, and for the felicity of
their clients, they may be pardoned some infelicities of language. (PP vs. Atty.
Sesbreno)
TEST TO BE APPLIED