NOTABLE CHANGES guy keeps talking about price, fair market value
of the property, but sir, with talent of spotting
Attorney or person reasonably believed by the
client to be licensed to engage in the practice
of law
This means that even non-lawyers who are
ostensibly practicing law and who the client
engages as such under the belief that he is
licensed to practice law are covered by the
privilege. Examples could be legal researchers
or even those who are not authorized to
practice law who hold themselves out to the
public as lawyers. The privilege therefore
applies even if there is only a reasonable belief
on the part of the client that the person he is
consulting is a lawyer.
Discussion Con’t:
Even in law school nagatabang-tabang sa free
legal aid, attorney napud jud ang tawag sa akoa
kanang mga indigent clients So, ang pagtuo nila
abogado ko pero dili ko abogado. Am I covered
by attorney-client privilege communication
rule? Of course.
Kanang mga tao nga dili abodago who hold
themselves out to the public as lawyers. Kanang
ginatawag nato na MA [Murag Abogado].
In Metro Manila, muadto ka’g Recto, or even
near the SC, nay mga gagmay na mga stalls,
pagtuo nimo mga lawyer naa diha pero dili diay.
Nag imbento lang na sila ug notarial seal nila
pero dili diay licensed na notary public.
Sir talks about helping his community—his
neighbors(settlers) regarding a property owned
by a private individual. Nagpatabang sila kay
naa daw meeting na pagabuhaton between
them and the lawyer of the owner of the land.
Ningabot and abogado kuno sa owner, sige na
sya’g sturya. We were thinking why is this guy
talking about the purchase price of the property
when the owner wanted to help the settlers,
anyway dili niya kinanglan ang property. The
bullsh*t a mile away, asked him “what’s your
roll number pañero?” “What gives you the
authority to transact on behalf of the owner of
the property?” Ana siya na, “I have a General
Power of Attorney coming from the owner of
the land allowing me to transact with the
purchase and sale of this land.” Recall that it has
to be a SPA. So, sir told everybody that “this guy
is not a lawyer.”
So, this are the people who hold themselves out
to the public as lawyers. If you make a
confession or give information to the person
holding himself as a lawyer despite the fact that
he is not, that is covered under the privilege
under the amended rules.
Hence, privilege applies when there’s
reasonable belief on the part of the client that
the person he is consulting is a lawyer.
Attorney's secretary, stenographer, or clerk, or
other persons assisting the attorney
 Persons "assisting an attorney" can
include both under employment (legal
researchers) and without employment
(law school apprenticeship programs or
legal aid clinics).
 Under the Federal Rules, it also covers
"facilitators" or those who facilitate or
make possible the rendition of legal
services by the attorney.
What form does facilitator take in the PH
context?
Naay kay amiga, “uy mare, naa koy problema
gusto ko magpa-annul ug kasal sakong bana.
Naa kay kaila na abogado?” “Ay oo, naa koy
kaila na abogado na hawud, kanang si Atty.
LYCE.” “Ay sige adtuon nato pero ubani ko kay
wala ko kaila niya.” So giubanan atong nakaila
kay Atty. LYCE katong prospective client.
Nagsturya na karon katong client kag Atty. LYCE
na gwapa, during the 1st interview usually
nagpaminaw tung ni-refer sa abogado sa
cliyente; naminaw pud sya. So mao na sya ang
“facilitator,” tung mga naga uban ba. They make
possible the rendition of legal services by the
lawyer to the client.
So, in that situation, can the attorney-client
privilege communication be claimable? Yes,
derivative attorney-client privilege
communication.
EMPLOYESS OF THE LAWYER ARE COVERED
[this is a derivative form of the attorney-client
privilege communication rule]
The statements of the client need not have
been made to the attorney in person. Those
made to the attorney's secretary, clerk or
stenographer for transmission to the attorney
for the purpose of the professional relationship
or with a view to such relationship or the
knowledge acquired by such employees in such
capacity are covered by the privilege. Like the
attorney, their employer, these persons cannot
be examined as to the communication made by
the client or the advice given by the attorney
without the client's consent. The privilege is
also claimable against the attorney's partners
and associates.
THE RULE NOW INCORPORATES CODAL
EXCEPTIONS
(i) Furtherance of crime or fraud. If the
services or advice of the lawyer were
sought or obtained to enable or aid
anyone to commit or plan to commit
what the client knew or reasonably
should have known to be a crime or
fraud;
Hypothetical Problem:
KA consulted Sakee, a lawyer. He asked about
Sakee's "professional" opinion as to how to
import goods and bring them out from customs
without paying any taxes or dues.
(Sir: There’s this guy, pariente sakong pariente,
who called me up. He went on and on, rambling
for about an hour and a half, and asked about
my professional opinion, in the end [daghan na
siya giingon, daghan na sya pangutana], ang
pangutana niya diay is “naa ba kay kaila sa
customs para makakuha ko’g shipment na di na
ko mubayad ug customs dues?” Meaning, “Naa
ba kay kaila na fixer sa customs? What is that?
You’re smuggling, you’re not paying any taxes
or custom dues.)
Q1: Assume that KA was caught smuggling
goods, Can Sakee be called to testify as to what
KA asked him?
A: YES. Sakee can be called to testify. The
privilege does not extend to communications
where the client's purpose is the furtherance of
a future intended crime or fraud, or for the
purpose of committing a crime or a tort.
Q2: Suppose that KA, after being arrested,
sought Sakee's services as lawyer to defend him
in the criminal case. KA then discussed facts
that can be used in his defense. Can Sakee be
called to testify?
A: NO. The discussion of the communications in
confidence with the lawyer after the crime has
been committed will be privileged even though
the earlier communications were not.
SUMMARY
 The privilege does not extend to
communications where the client's
purpose is the furtherance of a future
intended crime or fraud or for the
purpose of committing a crime or tort.
 Although communications made when
used to further crimes are not
privileged, the discussion of the
 communications in confidence with the Note that we do not have ample jurisprudence
lawyer after the crime has been to this matter. It’s a case of us copying all
committed may still be privileged even verbatim from the rules of evidence adopted by
though the earlier ones were not. certain states.

(Sir talks about rules of evidence in federal

However, where the lawyer himself is a co-
courts and in state courts; the provisions of
conspirator…
Federal rules of evidence are simplified so that
The privilege does not apply where the lawyer states can adopt them to their own rules and
was himself a conspirator in the commission of procedure.)
that crime of falsification which he and his client
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. (People v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos.
115439-41, July 16, 1997)

(ii) Claimants through same deceased

client. As to a communication
relevant to an issue between parties
who claim through the same
deceased client, regardless of
whether the claims are by testate or
intestate or by inter vivos
transaction;

This is taken directly and almost verbatim from

rules of evidence adopted by certain states (i.e.
2010 Nevada Code or Nevada Revised Statute)

[From JZE Notes: This exception to the rule

basically applies to family members, heirs, and
beneficiaries. It does not apply to creditors but
is usually applicable only to family members and
those involved in the decedent's estate.]

Discussion:

So naay cliyente ang abogado, karun niduol ang

duwa ka claimant, for example, sa abogado. Naa
sila’y giingon about sa cliyente, the
communication and advice not covered by the
privilege. [?]