in pleadings and privilege speech in

congress
 ARTICLE VI Section 11:
 A Senator or Member of the House of
Representatives shall, in all offenses
punishable by not more than six years
imprisonment, be privileged from arrest
while the Congress is in session. No Member
shall be questioned nor be held liable in any
other place for any speech or debate in the
Congress or in any committee thereof.
 Purpose: It is intended to protect members
of congress against government pressure and
intimidation aimed at influencing the
decision‐making prerogatives of Congress and
its members.
 The following requirements must be
observed:
1. That the remarks must be made while the
legislature or the legislative committee is
functioning, that is in session
2. That they must be made in connection with
the discharge of official duties.
 To invoke the privilege of speech, the matter
must be oral and must be proven to be
indeed privileged.
 Moreover, a senator‐lawyer cannot be
disbarred or disciplined by the Supreme
Court for statements made during a privilege
speech. The senator‐lawyer’s privilege
speech is not actionable criminally or in a
disciplinary proceeding under the Rules of
Court.
 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.
 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.
REQUIREMENTS
1. There must be a lawyer-client relationship

2. There must be a communication by the client to

the lawyer or advice given thereon by the lawyer.

3. The communication was confidential.

4. The consent of the client to the disclosure was not

obtained.
 (a). a member of the Philippine Bar in
good standing acting in such a capacity,
whether in active practice or not
 (b). non-lawyers allowed by law to appear
as counsel such as those provided for
under Rule 138-A and Rule 138, Section 34.
 (c). Non-lawyers who misrepresent
themselves as members of the bar in order
to obtain the confidence of a person and
believed as such by the latter.
The relationship maybe created
by mutual consent at the
initiative of the client, or is
created by Order of the Court as
in the case of a counsel de
officio.
 The communication must be for the
purpose of creating a lawyer-client
relationship or was given in the course of
such relationship.
 The term communication includes the
following:
a). Any data or information supplied by the client
personally or through confidential agents, either to the
lawyer or to the lawyer’s employees. This may have been
supplied through any form of oral or written
communication.
b). All documents, objects or thing delivered to the
lawyer except those the existence and/or contents of
which are or maybe known.
 A.The duration is perpetual even
after the lawyer-client relationship
has already ceased.

 B.The rule maybe waived by the

client alone, or by his
representatives in case of his death,
expressly or by implication.
 If the lawyer, as witness to a case
which does not involve the client,
divulges confidential communication
without the prior consent of the
client, he may be liable criminally,
civilly and administratively.
 Signature and address:
Every pleading must be signed by the party or counsel
representing him, stating in either case his address which
should not be a post office box.
The signature of counsel constitutes a certificate by him that
he has read the pleading; that to the best of his knowledge,
information, and belief there is good ground to support it;
and that it is not interposed for delay.
An unsigned pleading produces no legal effect. However, the
court may, in its discretion, allow such deficiency to be
remedied if it shall appear that the same was due to mere
inadvertence and not intended for delay. Counsel who
deliberately files an unsigned pleading, or signs a pleading in
violation of this Rule, or alleges scandalous or indecent
matter therein, or fails promptly report to the court a
change of his address, shall be subject to appropriate
disciplinary action.
1. He has read the pleading;

2. That to the best of his knowledge,

information or belief , there is
good ground to support it, and

3. It is not interposed for delay.

1. Deliberately files an unsigned
pleading;
2. Signs a pleading in violation of the
Rules;
3. Alleges in the pleading scandalous
or indecent matter or
4. Fails to promptly report to the
court a change of his address
 (f)The judge is related by
consanguinity or affinity to a party
litigant within the sixth civil
degree or to counsel within the
fourth civil degree;

 Note: The judge must so inhibit when such

instance of mandatory inhibition arises: When
the judge is related to the party-litigant or the
counsel.
 CANON 21- A LAWYER SHALL PRESERVE THE
CONFIDENCE AND SECRETS OF HIS CLIENT
EVEN AFTER THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATION
IS TERMINATED.

 CANON 15, RULE 15.02- A LAWYER SHALL BE

BOUND BY THE RULE ON PRIVILEGE
COMMUNICATION IN RESPECT OF MATTERS
DISCLOSED TO HIM BY A PROSPECTIVE CLIENT
 REVISED PENAL CODE, ARTICLE 209- Betrayal
of Public Trust by an Attorney or Solicitor –
Revelation of Secrets – In addition to the proper
administrative action, the penalty of prision
correccional in its medium period or a fine
ranging from 200 to 1000 pesos, or both, shall be
imposed upon any attorney- at- law or solicitor
who, by ay malicious breach of professional duty
or of inexcusable negligence or ignorance, shall
prejudice his client, or reveal any of the secrets
of the latter learned by him in his professional
capacity.
 The same penalty shall be imposed upon any
attorney- at- law or solicitor who, having
undertaken the defense of a client or having
received confidential information from said
client in a case, shall undertake the defense of
the opposing party in the same case, without the
consent of the first client.
 MELQUIADES GUTIERREZ v. ENRIQUE H.R. ABILA
[ GR No. 59161, Jan 30, 1982 ]

 MIGUEL CUENCO v. MANUEL CUENCO [ GR No.

L-29560, Mar 31, 1976 ]

 Pobre vs. Defensor-Santiago [AC No. 7399,

August 25, 2009]
Whether or not statements in a
pleading even if defamatory is
covered by the privileged nature of
pleadings?
 Facts:
Plaintiff-appellant filed an action for damages against
defendants Restituto Clemente, Manuel Fransisco, Atty.
Enrique H.R. Abila Assistant and Provincial Fiscal Eliseo
de Guzman in the Court of First Instance of
Rizal(Caloocan City). Basis of the complaint was the
answer filed by defendants. Petitioner alleges that in
the aforesaid answer wilfully, maliciously and
malevolently recited false, sham, redundant,
scandalous, impertinent and irrelevant statements
which served no purpose than to put his character,
personality and reputation in an utterly bad light and
said act being contrary to law.
Upon motion of the defendants on the ground that
aforesaid statements, even if defamatory, are
absolutely privileged, the trial court dismissed the
complaint and from this order plaintiff filed an appeal.
 Held:
 The court found that the aforementioned personal opinions
of the defendants in their answer, expressed in
vituperative and intemperate language, are palpably
devoid of any relation whatever to the subject of inquiry
and have no place in a pleading.In Anonymous vs.
Trenkman et al, the Court defined the restriction to the
privilege enjoyed by pleadings thus:
 The pleadings should contain but the plain and concise
statements of the material facts and not the evidence by
which they are to be proved. ... If the pleader goes beyond
the requirements of the statute and alleges an irrelevant
matter which is libellous, he loses his privilege.
 The requirement of materiality and relevancy is imposed
so that the protection given to individuals in the interest
of an efficient administration of justice may not be abused
as a cloak from beneath which private malice may be
gratified.
Whether or not a published
complaint in a civil case enjoys
the protective mantle of
privileged communication?
 Facts:
Plaintiff, Miguel Cuenco is a well-known member of the bar
for many years and a prominent member of the House of
Representatives, filed a complaint against defendants Manuel
Cuenco, Jose P. Velez, and Federico A. Reyes, president,
secretary-treasurer, general manager, respectively, and
simultaneously members of the board of directors of the
Bisaya Land Transportation Co., Inc.; and Dioscoro B. Lazaro,
as publisher and business manager of "The Republic Daily", a
newspaper published in Cebu City, with general circulation in
the province of Cebu and other parts of the Philippines. The
complaint alleges that by conspiring and confederating
among themselves defendants caused the publication of a
newspaper article containing false, untrue, and malicious and
known to defendants to be so, and their publication and
circulation by defendants was made for no other purpose
than to putthe reputation of plaintiff in a bad light and to
impeach plaintiff's honesty and integrity. Defendants
contended that the questioned article consisted of
the gist of the complaint in Civil Case No. 5665 and
thatthat the subject matter of the complaint in
Civil Case No. 5665 is identical to that of the
counterclaim of the Bisaya corporation contained
in its opposition to the Motion of Atty. Miguel
Cuenco (defendant in Civil Case No. 5665) for
attorney's fees in the Bisaya-Ivaran Case (Civil Case
No. 3040) and in the latter case, the C.F.I. Cebu
had already taken action, so that the privileged
character of the counterclaim in Civil Case No.
3040 can be extended to the complaint in Civil
Case No. 5665. The lower court did not consider
defendants' contention meritorious on the ground
that the complaint in Civil Case No. 5665 is a
distinct pleading.
 Held:
 The reason for the rule that pleadings in judicial proceedings are
considered privileged is not only because said pleadings have
become part of public record open to the public to scrutinize,
but also due to the undeniable fact that said pleadings are
presumed to contain allegations and assertions lawful and legal in
nature, appropriate to the disposition of issues ventilated before
the courts for the proper administration of justice and,
therefore, of general public concern. Moreover, pleadings are
presumed to contain allegations substantially true because they
can be supported by evidence presented in good faith, the
contents of which would be under the scrutiny of courts and,
therefore, subject to be purged of all improprieties and illegal
statements contained therein.
 The court concluded that the published complaint in Civil Case
No. 5665, although considered libelous "per se", would fall under
the protective mantle of privileged communication. It follows
that its author (defendant Lazaro) cannot be held liable for its
publication.