Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
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, Teofilo Gelacio, 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.
Uy Chico Vs. Union Life Assurance Society (29 Phil 163 - 1915)
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-9231
January 6, 1915
UY CHICO, plaintiff-appellant,
vs.
THE UNION LIFE ASSURANCE SOCIETY, LIMITED, ET AL., defendants-appellees.
Beaumont and Tenney for appellant.
Bruce, Lawrence, Ross and Block for appellees.
TRENT, J.:
An appeal from a judgment dismissing the complaint upon the merits, with costs.
The plaintiff seeks to recover the face value of two insurance policies upon a stock
of dry goods destroyed by fire. It appears that the father of the plaintiff died in
1897, at which time he was conducting a business under his own name, Uy Layco.
The plaintiff and his brother took over the business and continued it under the same
name, "Uy Layco." Sometime before the date of the fire, the plaintiff purchased his
brother's interest in the business and continued to carry on the business under the
father's name. At the time of the fire "Uy Layco" was heavily indebted and
subsequent thereto the creditors of the estate of the plaintiff's father. During the
course of these proceedings, the plaintiff's attorney surrendered the policies of
insurance to the administrator of the estate, who compromised with the insurance
company for one-half their face value, or P6,000. This money was paid into court
and is now being held by the sheriff. The plaintiff now brings this action, maintaining
that the policies and goods insured belonged to him and not to the estate of his
deceased father and alleges that he is not bound by the compromise effected by
the administrator of his father's estate.
The defendant insurance company sought to show that the plaintiff had agreed to
compromise settlement of the policies, and for that purpose introduced evidence
showing that the plaintiff's attorney had surrendered the policies to the
administrator with the understanding that such a compromise was to be effected.
The plaintiff was asked, while on the witness stand, if he had any objection to his
attorney's testifying concerning the surrender of the policies, to which he replied in
the negative. The attorney was then called for that purpose. Whereupon, counsel for
the plaintiff formally withdrew the waiver previously given by the plaintiff and
objected to the testimony of the attorney on the ground that it was privileged.
Counsel, on this appeal, base their argument of the proposition that a waiver of the
client's privilege may be withdrawn at any time before acted upon, and cite in
support thereof Ross vs. Great Northern Ry. Co., (101 Minn., 122; 111 N. W., 951).
The case of Natlee Draft Horse Co. vs. Cripe and Co. (142 Ky., 810), also appears to
sustain their contention. But a preliminary question suggest itself, Was the
testimony in question privileged?
Our practice Act provides: "A lawyer must strictly maintain inviolate the confidence
and preserve the secrets of his client. He shall not be permitted in any court,
without the consent of his client, given in open court, to testify to any facts
imparted to him by his client in professional consultation, or for the purpose of
obtaining advice upon legal matters." (Sec. 31, Act No. 190.)
A similar provision is inserted in section 383, No. 4, of the same Act. It will be noted
that the evidence in question concerned the dealings of the plaintiff's attorney with
a third person. Of the very essence of the veil of secrecy which surrounds
communications made between attorney and client, is that such communications
are not intended for the information of third persons or to be acted upon by them,
put of the purpose of advising the client as to his rights. It is evident that a
communication made by a client to his attorney for the express purpose of its being
communicated to a third person is essentially inconsistent with the confidential
relation. When the attorney has faithfully carried out his instructions be delivering
the communication to the third person for whom it was intended and the latter acts
upon it, it cannot, by any reasoning whatever, be classified in a legal sense as a
privileged communication between the attorney and his client. It is plain that such a
communication, after reaching the party for whom it was intended at least, is a
communication between the client and a third person, and that the attorney simply
occupies the role of intermediary or agent. We quote from but one case among the
many which may be found upon the point:
The proposition advanced by the respondent and adopted by the trial court,
that one, after fully authorizing his attorney, as his agent, to enter into
contract with a third party, and after such authority has been executed and
relied on, may effectively nullify his own and his duly authorized agent's act
by closing the attorney's mouth as to the giving of such authority, is most
startling. A perilous facility of fraud and wrong, both upon the attorney and
the third party, would result. The attorney who, on his client's authority,
contracts in his behalf, pledges his reputation and integrity that he binds his
client. The third party may well rely on the assurance of a reputable lawyer
that he has authority in fact, though such assurance be given only by
implication from the doing of the act itself. It is with gratification, therefore,
that we find overwhelming weight of authority, against the position assumed
by the court below, both in states where the privilege protecting
communications with attorneys is still regulated by the common law and in
those where it is controlled by statute, as in Wisconsin. (Koeber vs. Sommers,
108 Wis., 497; 52 L. R. A., 512.)
Other cases wherein the objection to such evidence on the ground of privilege has
been overruled are: Henderson vs. Terry (62 Tex., 281); Shove vs. Martin (85 Minn.,
29); In re Elliott (73 Kan., 151); Collins vs. Hoffman (62 Wash., 278); Gerhardt vs.
Tucker (187 Mo., 46). These cases cover a variety of communications made by an
authority in behalf of his client to third persons. And cases wherein evidence of the
attorney as to compromises entered into by him on behalf of his client were allowed
to be proved by the attorney's testimony are not wanting. (Williams vs. Blumenthal,
27 Wash., 24; Koeber vs. Sommers, supra.)
It is manifest that the objection to the testimony of the plaintiff's attorney as to his
authority to compromise was properly overruled. The testimony was to the effect
that when the attorney delivered the policies to the administrator, he understood
that there was a compromise to be effected, and that when he informed the plaintiff
of the surrender of the policies for that purpose the plaintiff made no objection
whatever. The evidence is sufficient to show that the plaintiff acquiesced in the
compromise settlement of the policies. Having agreed to the compromise, he
cannot now disavow it and maintain an action for the recovery of their face value.
For the foregoing reasons the judgment appealed from is affirmed, with costs. So
ordered.
Arellano, C.J., Torres, Carson and Araullo, JJ., concur.
Moreland, J., concurs in the result.
SECOND DIVISION
[A.C. No. 4426. February 17, 2000]
Since respondent repeatedly ignored the notices sent to her by this Court, we
cannot be expected to wait indefinitely for her answer. While respondent may have
changed her address and did not, thus, receive the previous notices, still, on March
2, 1998, she came to know of the Supreme Court Resolution dated June 19, 1995.
[5]
The prudent thing for her to do was to file an answer immediately and not to
delay the matter any further. Sadly, the respondent ignored the Resolution [6] of the
Supreme Court ordering her to file an answer.
Second. The request for the information regarding the sale of the property and to
account for the proceeds is not a violation of the attorney-client privilege. Rule 130,
Section 24 (b) of the Rules of Court provides: Scmis
"Sec. 24. Disqualification by reason of privileged communication.
The following persons cannot testify as to matters learned in
confidence in the following cases:
xxx
xxx
xxx
(2.) NO. The request for the information regarding the sale of the property and to
account for the proceeds is not a violation of the attorney-client privilege. Rule
130, Section 24 (b) of the Rules of Court provides:
"SECTION 24.
Disqualification by reason of privileged communication. The
following persons cannot testify as to matters learned in confidence in the following
cases:
xxx
xxx
xxx
(b)
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, or with a view to, professional employment, nor can an attorney's
secretary, stenographer, or clerk be examined, without the consent of the client and
his employer, concerning any fact the knowledge of which has been acquired in
such capacity."
The information requested by petitioners is not privileged. The petitioners are only
asking for the disclosure of the amount of the sale or account for the proceeds.
Petitioners certainly have the right to ask for such information since they own the
property as co-heirs of the late Ramon E. Saura and as co-administrators of the
property. Hence, respondent cannot refuse to divulge such information to them and
hide behind the cloak of the attorney-client relationship
Kalubiran Vs. CA (GR 83106)
works on any failure that may occur in any section of the project within one (1) year
from the date of acceptance.[2]
On March 9, 1983, PLDT wrote the Cebu City Engineer requesting a permit for a
right-of-way in Cebu City.[3] The City Engineer informed PLDT that a permit would be
granted only upon restoration of the previously restored section affected by PLDTs
expansion programs along Gorordo Avenue, General Maxilom Avenue, D. Jakosalem
Street and M.J. Cuenco Avenue. He called attention to some failures and sagging
of the restored areas which need immediate repair to avoid further deterioration. [4]
PLDT referred the complaint to private respondent JRCM as its project engineer. It
called attention to the substandard quality of the materials used and the poor
workmanship which it alleged was not in accordance with standard engineering
practice.[5]
On May 4, 1983, the PLDT wrote to the City Engineer requesting reconsideration of
the denial of its application for a permit, [6] but the Cebu City Engineer stood pat on
his demand for immediate restoration of the areas affected as condition for the
issuance of a permit.[7]
There is a dispute as to who did the repair work, but the fact remains that it was
done and the PLDT was finally granted on July 19, 1983 a permit for its expansion
project.[8]
On November 4, 1983, petitioner Adelaida Kalubiran and Kalmar Construction,
through their counsel, wrote PLDT a letter claiming credit for the restoration
work and demanding payment of P28,000.00 on the ground that private
respondent JRCM refused to pay the amount. The letter reads: [9]
November 4, 1983
Philippine Long Distance
Telephone Company
Makati General Office Building
Makati, Metro Manila
Attention: Mr. Ceasar Campos
Senior Vice-President
S i r:
2)
3)
On December 19, 1983, private respondent JRCM filed a complaint for damages and
attorneys fees against Adelaida M. Kalubiran and/or Kalmar Construction, alleging
that it never authorized Kalmar Construction to undertake the repair work on PLDTs
project. JRCM further claimed that as a result of the letter of Kalmar Constructions
counsel to PLDT, the latter ceased giving them major contracts. JRCM also claimed
that by writing to PLDT Kalmar Construction engaged in unfair competition because
PLDT had a policy prohibiting its contractors to sub-contract work to third
The question of who actually did the repairs is relevant to the appeal of
petitioner because she claimed she had done the work but had been refused
payment for her services. In determining, therefore, whether her claim from PLDT
for payment for such work placed private respondent JRCM in a bad light since, as
far as PLDT was concerned, the repairs were to be made by JRCM, it was necessary
for the appellate court to pass on the question whether petitioner actually did the
repairs. Moreover, it is settled that the appellate court can consider issues,
although not specifically raised in the pleadings filed before it, as long as they were
raised in the trial court or are matters of record having some bearing on the issues
submitted which the parties failed to raise or the lower court ignored. [14]
Indeed, the questions who actually repaired the restoration work previously
done by private respondent JRCM and whether a conference actually took place in
June 1983 during which petitioner was allegedly asked by private respondent JRCM
to make the repairs are questions which were raised in the lower court. These
questions have a bearing not only on petitioners claim for P20,004.00, for costs of
repair that it had allegedly performed, but also on petitioners claim that in
demanding payment of this amount from PLDT her purpose was not to place JRCM
in a bad light in view of PLDTs prohibition against subcontracting of jobs being
undertaken for it. Nor is there any dispute that, in reviewing the findings of the trial
court on these issues, the Court of Appeals relied on the records of this case.
Second. Indeed, the records show that the restoration work was performed by
private respondent and not by petitioner and it is doubtful whether a conference
was really held in June 1983 during which petitioner was tasked with the repairs of
the restoration work.
What happened was that private respondent JRCM purchased asphalt from
petitioner and rented the latters road roller which was operated by petitioners
employee in order to undertake the repairs. Engineer Rodolfo Marcia, project
engineer of private respondent JRCM, testified: [15]
ATTY. PORMENTO:
Q
:
City?
Yes, sir.
:
repair.
Where did you come from when you went to Cebu City?
From Manila
By boat.
Yes, sir.
Yes, sir.
:
Showing to you a freight ticket of Sulpicio Lines, Inc., already
marked as Exhibit H, dated May 16, 1983, received from R. Marcia in the
amount of P896.75, Receipt No. 529926 and also in the name of R. Marcia, do
you recognize this receipt?
Yes, sir.
I am the one.
Yes, sir.
When you arrived there, what did you do after you arrived there?
:
I went to the Office of Local Manager of PLDT to coordinate with
him and to deliver the letter coming from my employer, J. Ruby Construction.
Yes, sir.
:
Now, after you have delivered that letter and having presented
yourself with the Local officer of the PLDT what did you do?
:
I went to the jobsite, because I was then carrying the plan in
order to examine and investigate the failure of the restoration.
:
Were you able to go to the jobsite and see for yourself the failure
and investigate the failure of the project?
A
Q
Yes, sir.
:
Are you referring to the Project Estimate found at Gen. Maxillom
Cebu City?
COURT:
Is that marked already?
ATTY. PORMENTO:
Exhibits A, A-1 to A-5.
Q
A
Q
A
Q
A
Q
:
And what did you do after you have investigated and inspected
the jobsite?
:
:
And by the way, when you proceeded to Cebu City from Manila,
what equipment did you bring with you?
:
:
Are you referring to these items in Exhibit J, this jeep and water
pump, these items here below the ticket No. 529926?
:
Yes, sir.
:
Were you able to purchase asphalt material for the use of the
repair, were you able to buy?
Yes, sir.
From whom?
Kalmar Construction.
:
Are you referring to
defendants in this case?
the
Kalmar
Construction,
one
Yes, sir.
the
:
Now, after having purchased this asphalt mix from Kalmar and with
the bituminous you brought with you from Manila, what did you do?
Yes, sir.
of
:
Now, how many failure or false on that restoration work on that
project did you find, more or less?
Yes, sir.
Now, how many purchases of asphalt did you make with Kalmar?
:
Now, in connection with rent of
Construction, do you have any receipt to show?
road
roller
from
Kalmar
A
Q
Yes, sir.
:
Showing to you this receipt dated June 4, 1983 Exhibit N, which
says below, rental of one (1) compactor with the road roller?
:
A certain Engr. Marcia testified that he works with plaintiff Jose Ruby, and he
said that they bought asphalt from Kalmar Construction which they used in
the said restoration of the failure, what can you say about that, is it true or
not?
COURT:
Which one?
ATTY. SAMSON:
The fact that they bought asphalt, Your Honor.
WITNESS:
Yes, they bought asphalt from us but they used it in the first restoration, in
the original restoration.
ATTY. SAMSON:
Q
Now, about the asphalt material used in the restoration of the failure, the
subject matter of this case, who provide[d] this asphalt?
In Cebu City.
On the other hand, petitioner Adelaida Kalubiran told the court: [21]
ATTY. SAMSON
Q
A
Q
Since when have you been engaged in the construction and contractor
business?
Our construction started since 1968 in Cebu City.
In the course of your business as contractor of construction work,
do you have any transaction with certain corporation . . . with the plaintiff J.
Ruby?
Yes, sir.
Petitioner Adelaida Kalubiran never claimed her company made the repairs on
the restoration work for private respondent. Much less did she mention any
agreement between her company and private respondent for the repair of PLDTs
restoration work. It thus appears that petitioner merely sold asphalt to private
respondent and rented out their road roller and compactor to it but she did not
actually make the repairs. The Court of Appeals correctly found that it was not
petitioner but private respondent which performed PLDTs restoration work.
Nor is there evidence to show that a conference was held in June 1983 during
which petitioner was contracted to make the repairs in question. One of those
allegedly present at the conference, PLDT Project Inspector Venancio Atienza,
denied there was such a conference held and said he had been asked by Engineer
Kalubiran to sign an affidavit falsely stating that he was present at the alleged
meeting. Atienza testified:[22]
Q
I want to say to this Court that all the statement of Engineer Kalubiran was
wrong.
Why wrong?
Because, on that time June or July of 1983 I was already here in Manila.
A
Q
By the way, as Project Inspector of PLDT does the PLDT authorize project
inspector to represent in meetings?
No, sir.
Will the PLDT agree to such arrangement wherein another contractor which
has no contract with PLDT will take over the other contractor, of which the
PLDT ha[s] contract?
ATTY. SAMSON:
Hypothetical.
COURT:
May answer.
A
No, the PLDT will not permit that to give the contract to be taken over by
another contractor.
ATTY. PORMENTO:
Q
Yes, sir.
Do you remember having met them in Manila after you stayed in Cebu City?
They called me thru telephone and they said they are coming to Manila to
meet me.
I was in my office.
They did not arrive because of some problem then they called me another
long distance call and they said they are coming on the 4th day.
And did they actually come on the 4th day on the second telephone call?
Yes, sir.
PLDT office.
They gave me an affidavit and let me sign or confirm that affidavit that I am
present on the meeting and I am the one representing the PLDT.
No, sir.
compensation in connection with his client's business except from him or with his
knowledge and approval.
This duty is explicitly mandated in Canon 17 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility which provides that:
Canon 17. A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he shall be mindful of
the trust and confidence reposed in him.
Canon 15 of the Canons of Professional Ethics also demands a lawyer's fidelity to
client:
The lawyers owes "entire devotion to the interest of the client, warm zeal in the
maintenance and defense of his rights and the exertion of his utmost learning and
ability," to the end that nothing be taken or be withheld from him, save by the rules
of law, legally applied. No fear of judicial disfavor or public popularity should
restrain him from the full discharge of his duty. In the judicial forum the client is
entitled to the benefit of any and every remedy and defense that is authorized by
the law of the land, and he may expect his lawyer to assert every such remedy or
defense. But it is steadfastly to be borne in mind that the great trust of the lawyer is
to be performed within and not without the bounds of the law. The office of attorney
does not permit, much less does it demand of him for any client, violation of law or
any manner of fraud or chicanery. He must obey his own conscience and not that of
his client.
----------------------------------------------------------
CASTRO, J.:
The respondent Atty. Potenciano A. Palanca was for sometime the legal counsel of
the complainant William C. Pfleider. According to the complainant, he retained the
legal services of Palanca from January 1966, whereas the latter insists that the
attorney-client relationship between them began as early as in 1960.
At all events, the relations between the two must have attained such a high level of
mutual trust that on October 10, 1969, Pfleider and his wife leased to Palanca a
1,328 hectare agricultural land in Hinobaan, Negros Occidental, known as the
Hacienda Asia, for a period of ten years. In their contract, the parties agreed, among
others, that a specified portion of the lease rentals would be paid to Pfleider, and
the remainder would be delivered by Palanca to Pfleider's listed creditors.
The arrangement worked smoothly until October 14, 1969 when the rupture came
with the filing by Pfleider of a civil suit (civil case 9187 of the CFI of Negros
Occidental) against Palanca for rescission of the contract of lease on the ground of
alleged default in the payment of rentals. In his answer to the complaint, Palanca
averred full satisfaction of his rental liabilities, and therefore contended that the
lease should continue. He also charged that he had already been dispossessed of
the hacienda by Pfleider and the latter's goons at gunpoint and consequently had
suffered tremendous financial losses.
With this history in, perspective, we shall now consider the administrative charges
of gross misconduct in office brought by Pfleider against Palanca. The indictment
consists of four counts.
First count. In regard to a criminal case for estafa filed in December 1965 by one
Gregorio Uy Matiao against Pfleider, the latter instructed Palanca to offer in
settlement the sum of P10,000, payable in installments, to Uy Matiao for the
dismissal of the case. After sometime, Palanca reported to Pfleider that the offer has
been rejected. Finally in October 1969, Palanca supposedly informed Pfleider that he
had succeeded in negotiating the dismissal of the estafa case by leaving the sum of
P5,000 with the Dumaguete City Court where the action was then pending.
Sometime in December 1969, however, Pfleider was the object of a warrant of
arrest in connection with the same estafa case. It turned out, charged the
complainant Pfleider, that Palanca had not deposited the sum of P5,000 with the
Dumaguete City Court, let alone communicated to Uy Matiao his earlier offer of
settlement.
We have closely examined all the pleadings filed by the parties in this case and the
annexes thereto, and it is our view that the first charge is devoid of merit. In support
of his claim of alleged assurance made by Palanca that theestafa case had already
been terminated, Pfleinder relies on certain letters written to him by Palanca. Our
own reading of these letters, however, belies his claim. They contain nothing which
might reasonably induce the complainant to believe that the criminal action against
him had been finally settled by his attorney. On the contrary, the letters merely
report a continuing attempt on the part of Palanca to secure a fair bargain for
Pfleider. The letter-report of October 10, 1969, invoke by the complainant, states in
no uncertain terms that "I am bargaining this (referring to the estafa case) even for
P8,000.00 and I think they will agree. I'll finalize this and pay Tingyan on Tuesday. I
have already left in Dumaguete P5,000.00 to show them the color of our money and
I will bring the balance when I go there Tuesday."
Nothing in the above letter indicates that Palanca had deposited the sum of P5,000
with the Dumaguete City Court. What he did state is that he had left that sum in
that City to enable their adversaries to see "the color of our money." In this
connection, the veracity of the certification by Felicisimo T. Hilay, Dumaguete
branch manager of RCPI, that he (Hilay) had been holding the sum of P5,000 during
the early part of October in trust for Pfleider and his lawyer, has not been assailed
by Pfleider.
If Pfleider was the object of a warrant of arrest in December 1969, no substantial
blame can be laid at the door of the respondent Palanca inasmuch as the latter's
services were implicitly terminated by Pfleider when the latter sued his lawyer in
October of the same year. While the object of the suit is the rescission of the
contract of lease between the parties, the conflict of interest which pits one against
the other became incompatible with that mutual confidence and trust essential to
every lawyer-client relation. Moreover, Pfleider fails to dispute Palanca's claim that
on October 26, 1968, Pfleider refused to acknowledge receipt of a certain letter and
several motions for withdrawal, including Palanca's withdrawal as counsel in
the estafa case.
Second count. Palanca had fraudulently charged the sum of P5,000 (which he
supposedly had left with the City Court in Dumaguete) to his rental account with
Pfleider as part payment of the lease rentals of the Hacienda Asia.Third count. In
the same statement of account, Palanca falsely represented having paid, for the
account of Pfleider, one Samuel Guintos the sum of P866.50 when the latter would
swear that he had received only the sum of P86.50.
These two charges are anchored upon the same "Statement of Disbursements"
submitted by Palanca to Pfleider. It is our view that this statement is but a
memorandum or report of the expenses which Palanca considered as chargeable to
the account of Pfleider. By its very tentative nature, it is subject to the examination
and subsequent approval or disapproval of Pfleider, and any and every error which
it contains may be brought to the attention of Palanca for rectification or
adjustment. Viewed in relation to the contract of lease between Pfleinder and
Palanca, this "statement" is but one aspect of the prestation required of Palanca by
the contract. Whatever breach he might have committed in regard to this prestation
would be but a civil or contractual wrong which does not affect his office as a
member of the Bar.
Final count. It is charged that the list of creditors which Pfleider had "confidentially"
supplied Palanca for the purpose of carrying out the terms of payment contained in
the lease contract was disclosed by Palanca, in violation of their lawyer-client
relation, to parties whose interests are adverse to those of Pfleider.
As Pfleider himself, however, in the execution of the terms of the aforesaid lease
contract between the parties, complainant furnished respondent with a confidential
list of his creditors." This should indicate that Pfleider delivered the list of his
creditors to Palanca not because of the professional relation then existing between
them, but on account of the lease agreement. A violation therefore of the
confidence that accompanied the delivery of that list would partake more of a
private and civil wrong than of a breach of the fidelity owing from a lawyer to his
client. Moreover, Pfleider fails to controvert Palanca's claim that there is no such
thing as a "confidential" list of creditors and that the list of creditors referred to by
Pfleider is the same list which forms part of the pleadings in civil case 9187 (the
action for rescission of the lease contract) now, pending between the complainant
and the respondent lawyer, and therefore is embraced within the category of public
records open to the perusal of persons properly interested therein.
In sum, we are satisfied, and we so hold, that nothing in written complaint for
disbarment against Palanca and in his reply to Palanca's answer supports a prima
facie finding of such misconduct in office by Palanca as would warrant further
proceedings in this case.
ACCORDINGLY, the complaint is hereby dismissed.
Reyes, J.B.L., Actg. C.J., Dizon, Makalintal, Fernando, Teehankee, Barredo, Villamor
and Makasiar, JJ., concur.
Zaldivar, J., took no part.
Concepcion, C.J., is on leave.
Barton Vs. Leyte Asphalt & Mineral Oil Co. (GR L-21237)
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-21237
Exhibit A, dated October 1, 1920. This document bears the approval of the board of
directors of the defendant company and was formally accepted by the plaintiff. As it
supplies the principal basis of the action, it will be quoted in its entirety.
(Exhibit A)
CEBU, CEBU, P. I.
October 1, 1920.
JAMES D. BARTON, Esq.,
Cebu Hotel City.
DEAR SIR: You are hereby given the sole and exclusive sales agency for our
bituminous limestone and other asphalt products of the Leyte Asphalt and Mineral
Oil Company, Ltd., May first, 1922, in the following territory:
Australia
Saigon
Java
New Zealand
India
China
Tasmania
Sumatra
Hongkong
Siam and the Straits Settlements, also in the United States of America until May 1,
1921.
As regard bituminous limestone mined from the Lucio property. No orders for less
than one thousand (1,000) tons will be accepted except under special agreement
with us. All orders for said products are to be billed to you as follows:
Per ton
In 1,000 ton lots ...........................................
In 2,000 ton lots ...........................................
In 5,000 ton lots ...........................................
In 10,000 ton lots ..........................................
P15
14
12
10
with the understanding, however that, should the sales in the above territory equal
or exceed ten thousand (10,000) tons in the year ending October 1, 1921, then in
that event the price of all shipments made during the above period shall be ten
pesos (P10) per ton, and any sum charged to any of your customers or buyers in the
aforesaid territory in excess of ten pesos (P10) per ton, shall be rebated to you. Said
rebate to be due and payable when the gross sales have equalled or exceeded ten
thousand (10,000) tons in the twelve months period as hereinbefore described.
Rebates on lesser sales to apply as per above price list.
You are to have full authority to sell said product of the Lucio mine for any sum see
fit in excess of the prices quoted above and such excess in price shall be your extra
and additional profit and commission. Should we make any collection in excess of
the prices quoted, we agree to remit same to your within ten (10) days of the date
of such collections or payments.
All contracts taken with municipal governments will be subject to inspector before
shipping, by any authorized representative of such governments at whatever price
may be contracted for by you and we agree to accept such contracts subject to
draft attached to bill of lading in full payment of such shipment.
It is understood that the purchasers of the products of the Lucio mine are to pay
freight from the mine carriers to destination and are to be responsible for all freight,
insurance and other charges, providing said shipment has been accepted by their
inspectors.
All contracts taken with responsible firms are to be under the same conditions as
with municipal governments.
All contracts will be subject to delays caused by the acts of God, over which the
parties hereto have no control.
It is understood and agreed that we agree to load all ships, steamers, boats or other
carriers prompty and without delay and load not less than 1,000 tons each twentyfour hours after March 1, 1921, unless we so notify you specifically prior to that date
we are prepared to load at that rate, and it is also stipulated that we shall not be
required to ship orders of 5,000 tons except on 30 days notice and 10,000 tons
except on 60 days notice.
If your sales in the United States reach five thousand tons on or before May 1, 1921,
you are to have sole rights for this territory also for one year additional and should
your sales in the second year reach or exceed ten thousand tons you are to have
the option to renew the agreement for this territory on the same terms for an
additional two years.
Should your sales equal exceed ten thousand (10,000) tons in the year ending
October 1, 1921, or twenty thousand (20,000) tons by May 1, 1922, then this
contract is to be continued automatically for an additional three years ending April
30, 1925, under the same terms and conditions as above stipulated.
The products of the other mines can be sold by you in the aforesaid territories under
the same terms and conditions as the products of the Lucio mine; scale of prices to
be mutually agreed upon between us.
LEYTE ASPHALT & MINERAL OIL CO., LTD.
By (Sgd.) WM. ANDERSON
President
(Sgd.) W. C. A. PALMER
Secretary
Approved by Board of Directors,
October 1, 1920.
(Sgd.) WM. ANDERSON
President
Accepted.
(Sgd.) JAMES D. BARTON
Witness D. G. MCVEAN
Upon careful perusal of the fourth paragraph from the end of this letter it is
apparent that some negative word has been inadvertently omitted before
"prepared," so that the full expression should be "unless we should notify you
specifically prior to that date that we are unprepared to load at that rate," or "not
prepared to load at that rate."
Very soon after the aforesaid contract became effective, the plaintiff requested the
defendant company to give him a similar selling agency for Japan. To this request
the defendant company, through its president, Wm. Anderson, replied, under date
of November 27, 1920, as follows:
In re your request for Japanese agency, will say, that we are willing to give
you, the same commission on all sales made by you in Japan, on the same
basis as your Australian sales, but we do not feel like giving you a regular
agency for Japan until you can make some large sized sales there, because
some other people have given us assurances that they can handle our
Japanese sales, therefore we have decided to leave this agency open for a
time.
Meanwhile the plaintiff had embarked for San Francisco and upon arriving at that
port he entered into an agreement with Ludvigsen & McCurdy, of that city, whereby
said firm was constituted a subagent and given the sole selling rights for the
bituminous limestone products of the defendant company for the period of one year
from November 11, 1920, on terms stated in the letter Exhibit K. The territory
assigned to Ludvigsen & McCurdy included San Francisco and all territory in
California north of said city. Upon an earlier voyage during the same year to
Australia, the plaintiff had already made an agreement with Frank B. Smith, of
Sydney, whereby the latter was to act as the plaintiff's sales agent for bituminous
limestone mined at the defendant's quarry in Leyte, until February 12, 1921. Later
the same agreement was extended for the period of one year from January 1, 1921.
(Exhibit Q.)
On February 5, 1921, Ludvigsen & McCurdy, of San Francisco, addressed a letter to
the plaintiff, then in San Francisco, advising hi that he might enter an order for six
thousand tons of bituminous limestone to be loaded at Leyte not later than May 5,
1921, upon terms stated in the letter Exhibit G. Upon this letter the plaintiff
immediately indorsed his acceptance.
The plaintiff then returned to Manila; and on March 2, 1921, Anderson wrote to him
from Cebu, to the effect that the company was behind with construction and was
not then able to handle big contracts. (Exhibit FF.) On March 12, Anderson was in
Manila and the two had an interview in the Manila Hotel, in the course of which the
plaintiff informed Anderson of the San Francisco order. Anderson thereupon said
that, owing to lack of capital, adequate facilities had not been provided by the
company for filling large orders and suggested that the plaintiff had better hold up
in the matter of taking orders. The plaintiff expressed surprise at this and told
Anderson that he had not only the San Francisco order (which he says he exhibited
to Anderson) but other orders for large quantities of bituminous limestone to be
shipped to Australia and Shanghai. In another interview on the same Anderson
definitely informed the plaintiff that the contracts which be claimed to have
procured would not be filled.
Three days later the plaintiff addressed a letter (Exhibit Y) to the defendant
company in Cebu, in which he notified the company to be prepared to ship five
thousand tons of bituminous limestone to John Chapman Co., San Francisco, loading
to commence on May 1, and to proceed at the rate of one thousand tons per day of
each twenty-four hours, weather permitting.
On March 5, 1921, Frank B. Smith, of Sydney, had cabled the plaintiff an order for
five thousand tons of bituminous limestone; and in his letter of March 15 to the
defendant, the plaintiff advised the defendant company to be prepared to ship
another five thousand tons of bituminous limestone, on or about May 6, 1921, in
addition to the intended consignment for San Francisco. The name Henry E. White
was indicated as the name of the person through whom this contract had been
made, and it was stated that the consignee would be named later, no destination
for the shipment being given. The plaintiff explains that the name White, as used in
this letter, was based on an inference which he had erroneously drawn from the
cable sent by Frank B. Smith, and his intention was to have the second shipment
consigned to Australia in response to Smith's order.
It will be noted in connection with this letter of the plaintiff, of March 15, 1921, that
no mention was made of the names of the person, or firm, for whom the shipments
were really intended. The obvious explanation that occurs in connection with this is
that the plaintiff did not then care to reveal the fact that the two orders had
originated from his own subagents in San Francisco and Sydney.
To the plaintiff's letter of March 15, the assistant manager of the defendant
company replied on March, 25, 1921, acknowledging the receipt of an order for five
thousand tons of bituminous limestone to be consigned to John Chapman Co., of
San Francisco, and the further amount of five thousand tons of the same material to
be consigned to Henry E. White, and it was stated that "no orders can be
entertained unless cash has been actually deposited with either the International
Banking Corporation or the Chartered Bank of India, Australia and China, Cebu."
(Exhibit Z.)
To this letter the plaintiff in turn replied from Manila, under date of March, 1921,
questioning the right of the defendant to insist upon a cash deposit in Cebu prior to
the filling of the orders. In conclusion the plaintiff gave orders for shipment to
Australia of five thousand tons, or more, about May 22, 1921, and ten thousand
tons, or more, about June 1, 1921. In conclusion the plaintiff said "I have arranged
for deposits to be made on these additional shipments if you will signify your ability
to fulfill these orders on the dates mentioned." No name was mentioned as the
purchaser, or purchases, of these intended Australian consignments.
Soon after writing the letter last above-mentioned, the plaintiff embarked for China
and Japan. With his activities in China we are not here concerned, but we note that
in Tokio, Japan, he came in contact with one H. Hiwatari, who appears to have been
a suitable person for handling bituminous limestone for construction work in Japan.
In the letter Exhibit X, Hiwatari speaks of himself as if he had been appointed
exclusive sales agent for the plaintiff in Japan, but no document expressly
appointing him such is in evidence.
While the plaintiff was in Tokio he procured the letter Exhibit W, addressed to
himself, to be signed by Hiwatari. This letter, endited by the plaintiff himself,
contains an order for one thousand tons of bituminous limestone from the quarries
of the defendant company, to be delivered as soon after July 1, 1921, as possible. In
this letter Hiwatari states, "on receipt of the cable from you, notifying me of date
you will be ready to ship, and also tonnage rate, I will agree to transfer through the
Bank of Taiwan, of Tokio, to the Asia Banking Corporation, of Manila, P. I., the entire
payment of $16,000 gold, to be subject to our order on delivery of documents
covering bill of lading of shipments, the customs report of weight, and prepaid
export tax receipt. I will arrange in advance a confirmed or irrevocable letter of
credit for the above amounts so that payment can be ordered by cable, in reply to
your cable advising shipping date."
In a letter, Exhibit X, of May 16, 1921, Hiwatari informs the plaintiff that he had
shown the contract, signed by himself, to the submanager of the Taiwan Bank who
had given it as his opinion that he would be able to issue, upon request of Hiwatari,
a credit note for the contracted amount, but he added that the submanager was not
personally able to place his approval on the contract as that was a matter beyond
his authority. Accordingly Hiwatari advised that he was intending to make further
arrangements when the manager of the bank should return from Formosa.
In the letter of May 5, 1921, containing Hiwatari's order for one thousand tons of
bituminous limestone, it was stated that if the material should prove satisfactory
after being thoroughly tested by the Paving Department of the City of Tokio, he
would contract with the plaintiff for a minimum quantity of ten thousand additional
tons, to be used within a year from September 1, 1921, and that in this event the
contract was to be automatically extended for an additional four years. The
contents of the letter of May 5 seems to have been conveyed, though imperfectly,
by the plaintiff to his attorney, Mr. Frank B. Ingersoll, of Manila; and on May 17,
1921, Ingersoll addressed a note to the defendant company in Cebu in which he
stated that he had been requested by the plaintiff to notify the defendant that the
plaintiff had accepted an order from Hiwatari, of Tokio, approved by the Bank of
Taiwan, for a minimum order of ten thousand tons of the stone annually for a period
of five years, the first shipment of one thousand tons to be made as early after July
1 as possible. It will be noted that this communication did not truly reflect the
contents of Hiwatari's letter, which called unconditionally for only one thousand
tons, the taking of the remainder being contingent upon future eventualities.
It will be noted that the only written communications between the plaintiff and the
defendant company in which the former gave notice of having any orders for the
sale of bituminous limestone are the four letters Exhibit Y, AA, BB, and II. In the first
of these letters, dated March 15, 1921, the plaintiff advises the defendant company
to be prepared to ship five thousand tons of bituminous limestone, to be consigned
to John Chapman, Co., of San Francisco, to be loaded by March 5, and a further
without the consent of the principal is ineffectual whether the broker has been
guilty of fraudulent conduct or not. (4 R. C. L., 276-277.) We think, therefore, that
the position of the defendant company is indubitably sound in so far as it rest upon
the contention that the plaintiff has not in fact found any bona fide purchasers
ready and able to take the commodity contracted for upon terms compatible with
the contract which is the basis of the action.
It will be observed that the contract set out at the beginning of this opinion contains
provisions under which the period of the contract might be extended. That privilege
was probably considered a highly important incident of the contract and it will be
seen that the sale of five thousand tons which the plaintiff reported for shipment to
San Francisco was precisely adjusted to the purpose of the extension of the contract
for the United States for the period of an additional year; and the sales reported for
shipment to Australia were likewise adjusted to the requirements for the extention
of the contract in that territory. Given the circumstances surrounding these
contracts as they were reported to the defendant company and the concealment by
the plaintiff of the names of the authors of the orders, -- who after all were merely
the plaintiff's subagents, the officers of the defendant company might justly have
entertained the suspicion that the real and only person behind those contracts was
the plaintiff himself. Such at least turns out to have been the case.
Much energy has been expended in the briefs upon his appeal over the contention
whether the defendant was justified in laying down the condition mentioned in the
letter of March 26, 1921, to the effect that no order would be entertained unless
cash should be deposited with either the International Banking Corporation of the
Chartered Bank of India, Australia and China, in Cebu. In this connection the plaintiff
points to the stipulation of the contract which provides that contracts with
responsible parties are to be accepted "subject to draft attached to bill of lading in
full payment of such shipment." What passed between the parties upon this point
appears to have the character of mere diplomatic parrying, as the plaintiff had no
contract from any responsible purchaser other than his own subagents and the
defendant company could no probably have filled the contracts even if they had
been backed by the Bank of England.
Upon inspection of the plaintiff's letters (Exhibit Y and AA), there will be found
ample assurance that deposits for the amount of each shipment would be made
with a bank in Manila provided the defendant would indicated its ability to fill the
orders; but these assurance rested upon no other basis than the financial
responsibility of the plaintiff himself, and this circumstance doubtless did not escape
the discernment of the defendant's officers.
With respect to the order from H. Hiwatari, we observe that while he intimates that
he had been promised the exclusive agency under the plaintiff for Japan,
nevertheless it does not affirmatively appear that he had been in fact appointed to
be such at the time he signed to order Exhibit W at the request of the plaintiff. It
may be assumed, therefore, that he was at that time a stranger to the contract of
agency. It clearly appears, however, that he did not expect to purchase the
thousand tons of bituminous limestone referred to in his order without banking
assistance; and although the submanager of the Bank of Taiwan had said something
encouraging in respect to the matter, nevertheless that official had refrained from
giving his approval to the order Exhibit W. It is therefore not shown affirmatively
that this order proceeds from a responsible source.
The first assignment of error in the appellant's brief is directed to the action of the
trial judge in refusing to admit Exhibit 2, 7, 8, 9 and 10, offered by the defendant,
and in admitting Exhibit E, offered by the plaintiff. The Exhibit 2 is a letter dated
June 25, 1921, or more than three weeks after the action was instituted, in which
the defendant's assistant general manager undertakes to reply to the plaintiff's
letter of March 29 proceeding. It was evidently intended as an argumentative
presentation of the plaintiff's point of view in the litigation then pending, and its
probative value is so slight, even if admissible at all, that there was no error on the
part of the trial court in excluding it.
Exhibit 7, 8, 9 and 10 comprise correspondence which passed between the parties
by mail or telegraph during the first part of the year 1921. The subject-matter of
this correspondence relates to efforts that were being made by Anderson to dispose
of the controlling in the defendant corporation, and Exhibit 9 in particular contains
an offer from the plaintiff, representing certain associates, to but out Anderson's
interest for a fixed sum. While these exhibits perhaps shed some light upon the
relations of the parties during the time this controversy was brewing, the bearing of
the matter upon the litigation before us is too remote to exert any definitive
influence on the case. The trial court was not in error in our opinion in excluding
these documents.
Exhibit E is a letter from Anderson to the plaintiff, dated April 21, 1920, in which
information is given concerning the property of the defendant company. It is stated
in this letter that the output of the Lucio (quarry) during the coming year would
probably be at the rate of about five tons for twenty-four hours, with the equipment
then on hand, but that with the installation of a model cableway which was under
contemplation, the company would be able to handle two thousand tons in twentyfour hours. We see no legitimate reason for rejecting this document, although of
slight probative value; and her error imputed to the court in admitting the same was
not committed.
Exhibit 14, which was offered in evidence by the defendant, consists of a carbon
copy of a letter dated June 13, 1921, written by the plaintiff to his attorney, Frank B.
Ingersoll, Esq., of Manila, and in which plaintiff states, among other things, that his
profit from the San Francisco contract would have been at the rate of eigthy-five
cents (gold) per ton. The authenticity of this city document is admitted, and when it
was offered in evidence by the attorney for the defendant the counsel for the
plaintiff announced that he had no objection to the introduction of this carbon copy
in evidence if counsel for the defendant would explain where this copy was secured.
Upon this the attorney for the defendant informed the court that he received the
letter from the former attorneys of the defendant without explanation of the manner
in which the document had come into their possession. Upon this the attorney for
the plaintiff made this announcement: "We hereby give notice at this time that
unless such an explanation is made, explaining fully how this carbon copy came into
the possession of the defendant company, or any one representing it, we propose to
object to its admission on the ground that it is a confidential communication
between client and lawyer." No further information was then given by the attorney
for the defendant as to the manner in which the letter had come to his hands and
the trial judge thereupon excluded the document, on the ground that it was a
privileged communication between client and attorney.
We are of the opinion that this ruling was erroneous; for even supposing that the
letter was within the privilege which protects communications between attorney
and client, this privilege was lost when the letter came to the hands of the adverse
party. And it makes no difference how the adversary acquired possession. The law
protects the client from the effect of disclosures made by him to his attorney in the
confidence of the legal relation, but when such a document, containing admissions
of the client, comes to the hand of a third party, and reaches the adversary, it is
admissible in evidence. In this connection Mr. Wigmore says:
The law provides subjective freedom for the client by assuring him of
exemption from its processes of disclosure against himself or the attorney or
their agents of communication. This much, but not a whit more, is necessary
for the maintenance of the privilege. Since the means of preserving secrecy
of communication are entirely in the client's hands, and since the privilege is
a derogation from the general testimonial duty and should be strictly
construed, it would be improper to extend its prohibition to third persons who
obtain knowledge of the communications. One who overhears the
communication, whether with or without the client's knowledge, is not within
the protection of the privilege. The same rule ought to apply to one who
surreptitiously reads or obtains possession of a document in original or copy.
(5 Wigmore on Evidence, 2d ed., sec. 2326.)
Although the precedents are somewhat confusing, the better doctrine is to the
effect that when papers are offered in evidence a court will take no notice of how
they were obtained, whether legally or illegally, properly or improperly; nor will it
form a collateral issue to try that question. (10 R. C. L., 931; 1 Greenl. Evid., sec.
254a; Statevs. Mathers, 15 L. R. A., 268; Gross vs. State, 33 L. R. A., [N. S.], 477,
note.)
Our conclusion upon the entire record is that the judgment appealed from must be
reversed; and the defendant will be absolved from the complaint. It is so ordered,
without special pronouncement as to costs of either instance.
Araullo, C.J., Johnson, Avancea, Ostrand, Johns and Romualdez, JJ., concur.
Separate Opinions
MALCOLM, J., dissenting:
An intensive scrutiny of every phase of this case leads me to the conclusion that the
trial judge was correct in his findings of fact and in his decision. Without
encumbering the case with a long and tedious dissent, I shall endeavor to explain
my point of view as briefly and clearly as possible.
A decision must be reached on the record as it is and not on a record as we would
like to have it. The plaintiff and the defendant deliberately entered into a contract,
the basis of this action. The plaintiff, proceeding pursuant to this contract, spent
considerable effort and used considerable money to advance the interests of the
defendant and to secure orders for its products. These orders were submitted to the
president of the defendant company personally and later formally by writing. Prior
to the institution of the suit, the only objection of the defendant was that the money
should be deposited with either the International Banking Corporation or the
Chartered Bank of India, Australia and China at Cebu, a stipulation not found in the
contract.
A reasonable deduction, therefore, is that the plaintiff presented orders under
circumstances which were a substantial compliance with the terms of the contract
with the defendant, and which insured to the defendant payment for its deliveries
according to the price agreed upon, and that as the defendant has breached its
contract, it must respond in damages.
The current running through the majority opinion is that the order emanated from
subagents of the plaintiff, and that no bona fide purchasers were ready and able to
take the commodity contracted for upon terms compatible with the contract. The
answer is, in the first place, that the contract nowhere prohibits the plaintiff to
secure subagents. The answer is, in the second place, that the orders were so
phrased as to make the persons making them personally responsible. The
Ludvigsen & McCurdy order from San Francisco begins: "You can enter our order for
6,000 tons of bituminous limestone as per sample submitted, at $10 gold per ton, f.
o. b., island of Leyte, subject to the following terms and conditions:
* * * "(Exhibit G). The Smith order from Australia contains the following: "It is
therefore with great pleasure I confirm the booking of the following orders, to be
shipped at least within a week of respective dates: . . ." (Exhibit L). The Japan order
starts with the following sentence: "You can enter my order for 1,000 tons of 1,000
kilos each of bituminous limestone from the quarries of the Leyte Asphalt and
Mineral Oil Co. . . ." (Exhibit W.)
But the main point of the plaintiff which the majority decision misses entirely
centers on the proposition that the orders were communicated by the plaintiff to the
defendant, and that the only objection the defendant had related to the manner of
payment. To emphasize this thought again, let me quote the reply of the defendant
to the plaintiff when the defendant acknowledge receipts of the orders placed by
the plaintiff. The letter reads: "In reply to same we have to advice you that no
orders can be entertained unless cash has been actually deposited with either the
International Banking Corporation or the Chartered Bank of India, Australia and
China, Cebu." (Exhibit Y.) Prior to the filing of suit, the defendant company never at
any time raised any questioned as to whether the customers secured by plaintiff
were "responsible firms" within the meaning of the contract, and never secured any
information whatsoever as to their financial standing. Consequently, defendant is
now estopped by its conduct from raising new objections for rejection of the orders.
(Mechem on Agency, section 2441.)
The majority decision incidentally takes up for consideration assignments of error 1
and 2 having to do with either the admission or the rejection by the trial court of
certain exhibits. Having in mind that the Court reverses the courta quo on the facts,
what is said relative to these two assignments is absolutely unnecessary for a
judgment, and even as obiter dicta, contains unfortunate expressions. Exhibit 14,
for example, is a letter addressed by the plaintiff to his lawyer and probably merely
shown to the counsel of the defendant during negotiations to seek a compromise.
Whether that exhibit be considered improperly rejected or not would not change the
result one iota.
The rule now announced by the Court that it makes no difference how the adversary
acquired possession of the document, and that a court will take no notice of how it
was obtained, is destructive of the attorney's privilege and constitutes and obstacle
to attempts at friendly compromise. In the case of Uy Chico vs. Union Life
Assurance Society ([1915], 29 Phil., 163), it was held that communications made by
a client to his attorney for the purpose of being communicated to others are not
privileged if they have been so communicated. But here, there is no intimation that
Exhibit 14 was sent by the client to the lawyer for the purpose of being
communicated to others. The Supreme Court of Georgia in the case of Southern
Railway Co. vs. White ([1899], 108 Ga., 201), held that statements in a letter to a
party's attorney handed by the latter to the opponent's attorney, are confidential
communications and must be excluded.
Briefly, the decision of the majority appears to me to be defective in the following
particulars: (1) It sets aside without good reason the fair findings of fact as made by
the trial court and substitutes therefor other findings not warranted by the proof; (2)
it fails to stress plaintiff's main argument, and (3) it lay downs uncalled for rules
which undermine the inviolability of a client's communications to his attorney.
Accordingly, I dissent and vote for an affirmance of the judgment.