The Attorney-Client Privilege Does Not Protect Communications Made in Furtherance of a Crime

G.R. Nos. 115439-41, July 16, 1997

Imagine a scenario where a lawyer knowingly participates in a client’s fraudulent scheme. Can the lawyer later be compelled to testify against the client about that scheme? The Supreme Court of the Philippines tackled this very question, clarifying the limits of attorney-client privilege. This case highlights that the privilege, meant to protect open communication between lawyer and client, does not extend to communications made in furtherance of a crime.

In People v. Sandiganbayan, the central issue revolved around whether a lawyer could be compelled to testify against his former client regarding the falsification of documents they allegedly committed together. The Sandiganbayan initially ruled that the attorney-client privilege applied, preventing the lawyer from testifying. However, the Supreme Court reversed this decision, emphasizing that communications related to the commission of a future crime are not protected by the privilege.

Legal Context: The Boundaries of Attorney-Client Privilege

The attorney-client privilege is a cornerstone of legal practice, designed to foster honest and open communication between a client and their lawyer. This privilege allows clients to freely share information with their attorneys without fear that these communications will be disclosed to others. However, this privilege is not absolute and has certain well-defined exceptions. One critical exception is when the communications are made in furtherance of a crime or fraud.

In the Philippines, the attorney-client privilege is enshrined in the Rules of Court, specifically Rule 130, Section 24(b), which states that an attorney cannot, without the consent of his client, be examined as to any communication made by the client to him, or his advice given thereon, in the course of professional employment. However, this protection does not extend to communications made for an unlawful purpose.

As the Supreme Court emphasized, “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.”

Case Breakdown: The Falsified Documents

The case originated from charges against Ceferino Paredes, Jr., who was accused of using his former position to influence the Bureau of Lands to grant him a free patent over land reserved as a school site. To defend himself against these charges, Paredes, with the help of his lawyer Generoso Sansaet and a Clerk of Court Mansueto Honrada, allegedly falsified documents to make it appear that a previous perjury case against him had been dismissed on double jeopardy grounds.

Here’s a breakdown of the key events:

• 1976: Paredes applies for and is granted a free patent over a parcel of land.
• 1985: The Director of Lands files an action to cancel Paredes’ patent, arguing it was fraudulently obtained.
• 1985: A perjury case is filed against Paredes, but it is later dismissed. Sansaet represents Paredes in this case.
• Later: Paredes faces charges of violating Republic Act No. 3019 (graft). Sansaet continues to represent him.
• To avoid the graft charges: Paredes, Honrada, and Sansaet allegedly conspire to falsify documents to claim double jeopardy.
• Sansaet’s Affidavit: Sansaet later reveals the scheme in an affidavit, seeking to be discharged as a state witness.

The prosecution sought to discharge Sansaet as a state witness, arguing that his testimony was crucial to proving the falsification charges against Paredes and Honrada. The Sandiganbayan initially denied this motion, citing attorney-client privilege. The Supreme Court, however, reversed this decision.

The Supreme Court reasoned that the communications between Paredes and Sansaet regarding the falsification of documents were not protected by attorney-client privilege because they were made in furtherance of a future crime. The Court stated, “In the present cases, the testimony sought to be elicited from Sansaet as state witness are the communications made to him by physical acts and/or accompanying words of Paredes at the time he and Honrada, either with the active or passive participation of Sansaet, were about to falsify, or in the process of falsifying, the documents which were later filed in the Tanodbayan by Sansaet and culminated in the criminal charges now pending in respondent Sandiganbayan. Clearly, therefore, the confidential communications thus made by Paredes to Sansaet were for purposes of and in reference to the crime of falsification which had not yet been committed in the past by Paredes but which he, in confederacy with his present co-respondents, later committed. Having been made for purposes of a future offense, those communications are outside the pale of the attorney-client privilege.”
Further, the Court noted, “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.”

Practical Implications: Navigating the Ethical Minefield

This case serves as a stark reminder to lawyers about the ethical boundaries of their profession. While the attorney-client privilege is essential for maintaining trust and candor, it cannot be used as a shield for criminal activity. Lawyers must be vigilant in ensuring that their services are not used to further illegal schemes.

For clients, this ruling underscores the importance of seeking legal advice for legitimate purposes. Attempting to involve a lawyer in a criminal enterprise not only nullifies the attorney-client privilege but also exposes the client to potential criminal liability.

Key Lessons

• No Protection for Future Crimes: Attorney-client privilege does not protect communications made in furtherance of a future crime.
• Lawful Purpose Required: Communications must be for a lawful purpose to be privileged.
• Ethical Obligations: Lawyers have an ethical duty to avoid assisting clients in criminal activity.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: What is attorney-client privilege?

A: Attorney-client privilege is a legal principle that protects confidential communications between a lawyer and their client from being disclosed to third parties.

Q: Does the attorney-client privilege apply in all situations?

A: No, there are exceptions, such as when the communications are made in furtherance of a crime or fraud.

Q: What happens if a lawyer participates in a client’s crime?

A: The attorney-client privilege is nullified, and the lawyer may be compelled to testify against the client. The lawyer may also face criminal charges and disciplinary action.

Q: Can a lawyer disclose a client’s intention to commit a crime?

A: While the rules vary, many jurisdictions allow or even require a lawyer to disclose a client’s intention to commit a crime, especially if it involves potential harm to others.

Q: What should I do if my lawyer asks me to participate in something illegal?

A: You should immediately refuse and seek advice from another lawyer. Participating in illegal activities can have severe consequences.

Q: How does this case affect businesses operating in the Philippines?

A: Businesses must ensure that their legal counsel is sought for legitimate purposes and that they do not involve their lawyers in any fraudulent or criminal schemes. This case emphasizes the importance of ethical conduct and compliance with the law.

ASG Law specializes in criminal defense and corporate legal compliance. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.