cimaf's digest

Lichauco v. Atlantic Gulf & Pacific Co

Doctrine:

Inasmuch as the Dead Man’s Statute disqualifies only parties or assignors of parties, officers and/or stockholders of a corporation are not disqualified from testifying, for or against the corporation which is a party to an action upon a claim or demand against the estate of a deceased person, as to any matter of fact occurring before the death of such deceased person.

Facts:

Richard Fitzsimmons, the president of Atlantic Gulf, a foreign corporation registered and licensed to do business in the Philippines, held 1,000 shares of stock of which 545had not been fully paid for but were covered by promissory notes in favor of Atlantic Gulf. In 1941, P64,500.00 was credited in his favor on account of the purchase price of the said stocks out of bonuses and dividends to which he was entitled from the company. Under an agreement with Atlantic, should he die leaving the shares unpaid, Atlantic, at his option, may either acquire said shares by returning to his estate the amount applied thereon, or issue in favor of his estate the corresponding shares equivalent to the amount paid thereon. Fitzsimmons died and a proceeding for the settlement of his estate was instituted. Atlantic then filed a claim against the estate and offered to reacquire the shares sold to Fitzsimmons upon return to the estate of the P64,500 paid thereon. The administrator, MarcialLichauco, however, denied the alleged indebtedness. During trial, Atlantic presented the testimonies of the chief accountant and assistant accountant, and of the president and vice-president-treasurer of the corporation. The trial court however refused to admit said testimonies on the ground of incompetency under the Dead Man’s State, as the witnesses were not only stockholders and members of the Board of Directors, but officers as well.

Issue:

Are the officers of a corporation which is a party to an action against an administrator disqualified from testifying under the Dead Man’s Statute?

Held:

No. To hold that the statute disqualifies all persons from testifying who are officers or stockholders of a corporation would be equivalent to materially amending the statute by judicial legislation. The Dead Man’s Statute disqualifies only parties or assignors of parties; officers and/or stockholders of a corporations, therefore, are not disqualified from testifying,

People vs. Sandiganbayan

275 SCRA 505

FACTS:

Paredes, was the Provincial Attorney of Agusan del Sur, then Governor of the same province and is at present a Congressman. Atty. Sansaet is a practicing attorney who served as counsel for Paredes in several instances. In 1976, Paredes applied for a free patent over a piece of land and it was granted to him. But later, the Director of Lands found out that Paredes obtained the same through fraudulent misrepresentations in his application. A civil case was filed and Sansaet served as counsel of Paredes. A criminal case for perjury was subsequently filed against Paredes and Sansaet also served as counsel.

Later, TeofiloGelacio, a taxpayer, initiated perjury and graft charges against Paredes and Sansaet, claiming that they acted in conspiracy, by not filing an arraignment in the criminal case. To evade responsibility for his own participation, he claimed that he did so upon the instigation and inducement of Paredes, and to discharge himself as a government witness. The Sandiganbayan claimed that there was an attorney-client privilege and resolved to deny the discharge.

ISSUES:

Whether or not the testimony of Atty. Sanset is barred by the attorney-client privilege

HELD :

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. However, the communication between an 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 privilege ordinarily existing in reference to communications between an attorney and a client. The falsification not having been committed yet, these communications are outside the pale of the attorney client privilege.

Moreover, Sansaet himself was a conspirator in the commission of the falsification. For the communication to 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.

Gonzales v. CA

G.R. No. L-37453 May 25, 1979

Facts:

1. Petitioner Rizalina Gonzales and Lutgarda Santiago (Private respondent) are the nieces of the deceased Isabel Gabriel who died a widow. A will was thereafter submitted to probate. The said will was typewritten, in Tagalog and appeared to have been executed in April 1961 or two months prior to the death of Isabel. It consisted of 5 pages including the attestation and acknowledgment, with the signature of testatrix on page 4 and the left margin of all the pages.

2. Lutgarda was named as the universal heir and executor. The petitioner opposed the probate.

3. The lower court denied the probate on the ground that the will was not executed and attested in accordance with law on the issue of the competency and credibility of the witnesses.

Issue:

Whether or not the credibility of the subscribing witnesses is material to the validity of a will

RULING:

No. The law requires only that witnesses posses the qualifications under Art. 820 (NCC) and none of the disqualifications of Art. 802. There is no requirement that they are of good standing or reputation in the community, for trustworthiness, honesty and uprightness in order that his testimony is believed and accepted in court. For the testimony to be credible, it is not mandatory that evidence be established on record that the witnesses have good standing in the the community. Competency is distinguished from credibility, the former being determined by Art. 820 while the latter does not require evidence of such good standing. Credibility depends on the convincing weight of his testimony in court.