68. People vs.

Sandiganbayan Facts: Petitioner wished to discharge Generoso Sansaet as state witness, an attorney whoserved as counsel for one Paredes, provincial attorney of gusan del Sur and thengovernor !ase against Paredes was for fraudulent "isrepresentation in his application of freepatent over land at #osario Public $and Subdivision Survey o %iolation of section &'a( of # &)*+ Pending such case for per,ury and graft, ta-payer .eofilo Gelacio prayed & respondentsbe investigated 'inc. /onrado0cler1 of court and acting stenographer of 2unicipal!ircuit .rial !ourt( o Falsified docu"ents "a1ing it appear that since per,ury case had already beendis"issed, filing a graft case would constitute double ,eopardy o Sansaet testified that he was induced by Paredes3ssue: 456 Sansaet7s pro,ected testi"ony is barred by the attorney0client privilege/eld: 65, facts surrounding case constitute e-ception to the rule#atio: privileged confidentiality does not apply to cri"es which the client intends to co""it inthe future the co""unications "ade to hi" by physical acts and8or acco"panying words of Parades at the ti"e he and /onrada, either with the active or passive participation of Sansaet, were about to falsify, or in the process of falsifying, the docu"ents which werelater filed in the .anodbayan by Sansaet and cul"inated in the cri"inal charges nowpending in respondent Sandiganbayan Sansaet was hi"self a co0conspirator in the falsification o Privilege will only attach if it is for a lawful purpose or lawful end/owever, Sansaet was discharged as state witness because he has a co0conspirator to thecri"e co""itted. G.#. 6o. $0+6* Septe"ber 9*, *+:+ ;$ 6<36 G 2;5 /3$ <5, petitioner, vs. =5S> G?.3>##>@ < %3<, %3!>6.> =. F# 6!3S!5, = !5; SS < and S>$32 = !5; SS <, respondents. Petitioner alleged that she and the counsel for the defendant had an attorney0client relationship with her when, before the trial of the case, she went to defendant7s counsel, gave hi" the papers of the case and other infor"ation relevant thereto, although she was not able to pay hi" legal fees. A.hat respondent7s law fir" "ailed to the plaintiff a written opinion over his signature on the "erits of her caseB that this opinion was reached on the basis of papers she had sub"itted at his officeB that 2rs. /iladoCs purpose in sub"itting those papers was to secure ttorney FranciscoCs professional services.D tty. Francisco appeared as counsel for defendant and plaintiff did not ob,ect to it until ':( "onths after. .hen, plaintiff "oved to dis"iss the case between her and defendant. 3ssue: 4as there an attorney0client relationship between plaintiff and tty. FranciscoE /eld: F>S. 3n order to constitute the relation a professional one and not "erely one of principal and agent, the attorneys "ust be e"ployed either to give advice upon a legal point, to prosecute or defend an action in court of ,ustice, or to prepare and draft, in legal for" such papers as deeds,

bills, contracts and the li1e. .o constitute professional e"ploy"ent it is not essential that the client should have e"ployed the attorney professionally on any previous occasion. 3t is not necessary that any retainer should have been paid, pro"ised, or charged forB neither is it "aterial that the attorney consulted did not afterward underta1e the case about which the consultation was had. 3f a person, in respect to his business affairs or troubles of any 1ind, consults with his attorney in his professional capacity with the view to obtaining professional advice or assistance, and the attorney voluntarily per"its or acGuiesces in such consultation, then the professional e"ploy"ent "ust be regarded as established. A n attorney is e"ployed0that is, he is engaged in his professional capacity as a lawyer or counselor0when he is listening to his clientCs preli"inary state"ent of his case, or when he is giving advice thereon, ,ust as truly as when he is drawing his clientCs pleadings, or advocating his clientCs cause in open court. n acceptance of the relation is i"plied on the part of the attorney fro" his acting in behalf of his client in pursuance of a reGuest by the latter.D .hat only copies of pleadings already filed in court were furnished to ttorney grava and that, this being so, no secret co""unication was trans"itted to hi" by the plaintiff, would not vary the situation even if we should discard 2rs. /iladoCs state"ent that other papers, personal and private in character, were turned in by her. Precedents are at hand to support the doctrine that the "ere relation of attorney and client ought to preclude the attorney fro" accepting the opposite partyCs retainer in the sa"e litigation regardless of what infor"ation was received by hi" fro" his first client. n attorney, on ter"inating his e"ploy"ent, cannot thereafter act as counsel against his client in the sa"e general "atter, even though, while acting for his for"er client, he acGuired no 1nowledge which could operate to his clientCs disadvantage in the subseGuent adverse e"ploy"ent H retaining fee is a preli"inary fee given to an attorney or counsel to insure and secure his future services, and induce hi" to act for the client. 3t is intended to re"unerate counsel for being deprived, by being retained by one party, of the opportunity of rendering services to the other and of receiving pay fro" hi", and the pay"ent of such fee, in the absence of an e-press understanding to the contrary, is neither "ade nor received in pay"ent of the services conte"platedB its pay"ent has no relation to the obligation of the client to pay his attorney for the services which he has retained hi" to perfor".H