Admission By Co-Partner Or Agent



Rule on admission by co-partner or agent:
1. The act or declaration of a partner or
2. Agent within the scope of his authority and during the existence
   of the partnership or agency,
3. May be given in evidence against such party
4. After the partnership or agency
   a. Is shown by evidence
   b. Other than such act or declaration.
5. The same rule applies to the act or declaration of a joint owner,
   joint debtor, or other person jointly interested with the party.

The admission of one partner is received against another on the
ground that they are identified in interest , and that each is agent
for the other and that the acts or declarations of one during the
existence of the partnership, while transacting its business and
within the scope of the business, are evidence against the others.

Requisites:
1. That the partnership, agency, or joint interest is established
   by evidence other than the act or declaration – partnership
   relation must be shown
2. The act or declaration is within the scope of the partnership,
   agency or joint interest – the fact that each has individually
   made a substantially similar admission does not render the
   aggregate admission competent against the firm, this is with
   regard to a non- partnership affair.
3. Such act or declaration must have been made during the existence
   of the partnership, agency or joint interest.

The declaration of one partner, not made in the presence of his
co-partner, are not competent to prove the existence of a
partnership between them as against such other partner. The
existence of a partnership is cannot be established by general
reputation, humor or hearsay.

Even where one partner is shown to be hostile to another, the
admissions of such first partner may be received, although, of
course, such hostility may affect the question of weight of the
evidence. The declarations of a deceased partner, relating to the
partnership business, are admissible against his survivors.

Declarations or admissions made by a partner after the dissolution
of the partnership are not competent against the other partners in
the absence of prior authority or subsequent ratification, even
though such declarations relate to matters pending at the time of
dissolution.

With respect to the relevant substantive provisions on these matters,
refer to the Civil Code provisions on partners, agents, co-owners
and solidary debtors.

NOTE: As a rule, statements made after a partnership has been
dissolved do not fall within this exception, but where the admissions
are made in connection with the winding up of the partnership
affairs, said admissions are still admissible as the partner is
acting as an agent of his co-partners in said winding up.

What is done by an agent is done by the principal through him, as
through a mere instrument.

The admission or declaration of an agent subsequent to a transaction
in controversy, or after this agency has terminated are not binding
upon, or evidence against his principal. But when the admission or
declaration is made at the time of the transaction, or during his
employment, when it pertains to the matter in hand, as agent, which
is within the cope of his employment, his admissions and declarations
are competent, though not conclusive against his principal.

When a party to any proceeding expressly refers to any other person
for an answer on a particular subject in dispute, such answer, if
restricted to the subject matter in relation to which the reference
is made, is in general, evidence against said party, for the reason
that he makes such third person his accredited agent for the purpose
of giving such answer.

The admissions of a third person are receivable in evidence against
the party who has expressly referred another to him for information
in regard to an uncertain or disputed matter.

But such a reference does not make the person referred to an agent
for the purpose of making general admissions, the declarations are
not evidence unless strictly within the subject matter in
relation to which reference is made.

When the reference was not made to any particular person but in
general, the rule above-stated is not applicable.

Admissions by counsel are admissible against the client as the
former acts in representation and as an agent of the client, subject
to the limitation that the same should not amount to a compromise or
confession of judgment.

The phrase “joint debtor” does not refer to mere community of
interest but should be understood according to its meaning in the
common law system from which the provision was taken, that is, in
solidum, and not mancomunada.

The quantum of interest of the declarant does not affect the
application of the rule. It is the fact of joint interest, not
the size of the fractional part, which governs. If he is liable to
the plaintiff in the same manner that his co-defendants are liable,
the extent to which they are bound by his admission cannot be
measured or graduated by the quantity of his interest in the
contract.

















Polaris Review Center

polaris review center


Polaris Review Center is a review center based in the province
of Palawan, Philippines.

Polaris Review Center Offers Comprehensive Review For Those
Who Will Take The Following Professional Examination:
1. Criminology
2. Nursing
3. Licensure Examination For Teachers
4. Civil Engineering.

         Related: Criminology Review Centers

Polaris Review Center also offers review classes for those
who will take the civil service examination administered by
the Professional Regulation Commission.

For those interested to enrol or to make an inquiries, you
may make a personal visit to their office located at 35 Fernandez
street, Puerto Princesa, City.

For those residing far from Polaris Review Center's main office,
you may address your inquiries by calling any of the
following numbers:

        (48) 434-6824
        0948-122-2204

You may also send an Email inquiry at [email protected]

What Do You Get When You Enrol In Polaris Review Center?
You will get the following:
1. Track record of passing percentage above national rate.
2. Fully air conditioned lecture rooms
3. Lectures supplemented by complete audio visual facilities
4. Updated review materials
5. Top caliber reviewers from well known schools

Polaris Review Center offers the following incentives:
1. Free Review Fee for those who graduated Cum Laude, Magna
   Cum Laude and Summa Cum Laude.
2. 50% discount for repeaters who previously enrolled.
3. Cash Prizes for those who will land in the Top Ten.

Polaris Review Center Review Fee
1. LET
   P5,000 for repeaters
   P8,000 for first time examinees
2. Criminology
   P10,000

Note: The Review Fee may no longer be updated.
Kindly call Polaris Review Center personally for
the updated review fees.

Top Real Estate Broker School May 2015

On
real estate broker logo

Update: June 2019 Top Real Estate Broker School

No.1  UP Diliman
          Passing Percentage - 93.95%
          Number of Examinees - 281
          Number of Those Who Passed - 264
          Number of Those Who Failed - 17

No.2  UP Visayas - Iloilo City
          Passing Percentage - 93.02%
          Number of Examinees - 43
          Number of Those Who Passed - 40
          Number of Those Who Failed - 3

No.3  Ateneo De Manila University - Quezon City
          Passing Percentage - 90.36%
          Number of Examinees - 249
          Number of Those Who Passed - 225
          Number of Those Who Failed - 24

No.4  UP Baguio City
          Passing Percentage - 90%
          Number of Examinees - 20
          Number of Those Who Passed - 18
          Number of Those Who Failed - 2

No.5  University of Asia and The Pacific - Pasig
          Passing Percentage - 84.48%
          Number of Examinees - 58
          Number of Those Who Passed - 49
          Number of Those Who Failed - 9

No.6  De La Salle University - Manila
          Passing Percentage - 83.78%
          Number of Examinees - 370
          Number of Those Who Passed - 310
          Number of Those Who Failed - 60

No.7  UP Manila
          Passing Percentage - 81.82%
          Number of Examinees - 33
          Number of Those Who Passed - 27
          Number of Those Who Failed - 6

No.8  UP Mindanao
          Passing Percentage - 81.25%
          Number of Examinees - 16
          Number of Those Who Passed - 13
          Number of Those Who Failed - 3

No.9  UP Los Banos
          Passing Percentage - 80.28%
          Number of Examinees - 71
          Number of Those Who Passed - 57
          Number of Those Who Failed - 14

No.10 Ateneo De Manila University - Manila
          Passing Percentage - 90%
          Number of Examinees - 10
          Number of Those Who Passed - 9
          Number of Those Who Failed - 1

Note: PRC Publishes only those top performing schools garnering 80% passing percentage and those with at least 50 examinees.

Schools with less than 10 examinees are excluded from the list.

Related:

Real Estate Broker Board Exam Topnotchers May 2015

On
real estate broker board exam topnotchers

Update: June 2019 Top 10 Examinees

1st Placer  - Kenneth Gelonga Gersabalino 86.50%
                   UP-Visayas - Iloilo City

2nd Placer  - Manuel Gepitulan Lisondra 86.25%
                   Ateneo De Davao University

                   Voltaire Borja Salud 86.25%
                   UST

3rd Placer  - Rudy Vargas Ortea 86%
                   University of Batangas

                   Louie Brian Rosello Sze 86%
                   UP-Diliman

4th Placer  - Jeff De Lira Calvadores 85.75%
                   San Beda College

                   Mark Anthony Mionez Jamis 85.75%
                   Xavier University

                   Siegfriedo Gajo Tingson 85.75%
                   Saint Michael's College - Davao Del Sur

5th Placer  - Arithmetico Gonzales Lim 85.5%
                   UP-Diliman

                   Antonio Dandan Sanchez Jr. 85.5%
                   University of San Jose - Recoletos

6th Placer  - Jihan Zillah Osorio Tan 85.25%
                   UP-Diliman

7th Placer  - Christoper Peralta Carmona 85%
                   Mindanao State Universtiy - Gen.Santos City

                   Cathrina Yanson Dumancas 85%
                   Ateneo De Manila University - Quezon City

                   Sy Pierre Watson Sinfuego Lato 85%
                   Foreign University

                   Carl Vincent Dosado Sasuman 85%
                   University of San Carlos

                   Rhee Christopher Cantillep Vano 85%
                   University of San Jose - Recoletos

8th Placer  - Jacqueline Cabales De Jesus 84.75%
                   De La Salle University - Manila

                   Maria Elenita Concepcion Benedicto Evidente 84.75%
                   Asian Institute of Management

                   Maria Teresa Kristina Nepomuceno Francisco 84.75%
                   Ateneo De Manila University - Quezon City

                   Esther Cheng Lee-Trimanez 84.75%
                   University of San Agustin

                   Allan Cu Ong 84.75%
                   De La Salle University - Manila

                   John Joseph Silva Tamares 84.75%
                   San Beda College

9th Placer  - Jose Edison Oledan Argayoso III 84.50%
                   Ateneo De Manila University - Quezon City

                   Jesus Rommelson Litan Cantos 84.50%
                   Ateneo De Manila University - Quezon City

                   Ronald Delos Santos Galura 84.50%
                   UP-Diliman

                   Mikhaela Gabrielle Dy Go 84.50%
                   UP-Diliman

                   Oliver Ryan Tecson Go 84.50%
                   Velez College

                   Dave Hadrian Co Ong 84.50%
                   De La Salle University - Manila

                   Jonathan John Villanueva Tay 84.50%
                   Ateneo De Davao University

10th Placer - Michael Copia Canino 84.25%
                   UP-Diliman

                   Lucky Francis Pascua Felipe 84.25%
                   Devine World College of Laoag

                   Steve Andrew Lim Ladan 84.25%
                   Ateneo De Manila University - Quezon City

                   Sitty Aisha Bedar Macarambon 84.25%
                   UP-Diliman

                   Remedios Ulalan Mupas 84.25%
                   University of the Cordilleras

                   Aiko Frances Namuag Sagusay 84.25%
                   UP-Diliman.

Note: Based on the result of the May 2015 Real Estate Broker Licensure Examination given by the Board of Real Estate Service.

Real Estate Broker Board Exam Result May 2015

On
real estate broker board exam result


The result of the May 2015 Real Estate Broker board exam has been released.

Update: June 2019 Result

Click here to view the complete names of those who passed.


10,370 examinees took the exam but only 5,220 passed.

The Board of Real Estate Service gave the exam in the ff: Cities
1. Manila
2. Baguio
3. Cagayan de Oro
4. Cebu
5. Davao
6. Iloilo
7. Legazpi
8. Lucena
9. Tuguegarao

The Real Estate Broker Board Examination 1st Placer is Kenneth Gelonga Gersabalino. He is a graduate of UP-Visayas in Iloilo City. He has a rating of 86.50%.

        Related: Top Ten Examinees

901 Schools participated in the examination.

        Related: Top Performing Schools

University of Santo Tomas UST has the most number of examinees with 464. It has a passing percentage of 76.29%

The Members of the Board of Real Estate Service who gave the examination are the following:
1. Dr. Eduardo G. Ong, Chairman
2. Florencio C. DiƱo II, Member
3. Rafael M. Fajardo, Member

Registration for the issuance of Professional Identification Card (ID) and Certificate of Registration will be on June 15 to 19, 2015.

Those who will register are required to bring the following:
1. Duly accomplished Oath Form or Panunumpa ng Propesyonal
2. Current Community Tax Certificate (cedula)
3. 1 piece passport size picture (colored with white background and complete name tag)
4. 2 sets of metered documentary stamps
5. 1 short brown envelope with name and profession
6. Submission of Original Surety Bond, the minimum amount of which is P20,000.00, with the Professional Regulation Commission (PRC)/ Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) as Obligee and to pay the Initial Registration Fee of P600 and Annual Registration Fee of P450 for 2015-2018.

Successful examinees should personally register and sign in the Roster of Registered Professionals.

Admission By Third Party



Unless he assents thereto, a party to an action cannot be affected
by the admission of a person who does not occupy toward him any
relation of privity, agency or joint interest.

The act, declaration or omission of another is generally irrelevant,
and that in justice a person should not be bound by the acts of mere
unauthorized strangers.

The rule is well-settled that a party is not bound by any agreement
of which he has no knowledge and to which he has not given his
consent and that his rights cannot be prejudiced by the declaration,
act or omission of another, except by virtue of a particular relation
between them.

This section refers to the first branch of the rule of “Res Inter
Alios Acta Alteri Nocere Non Debet”. It is corollary known as the
second branch of the rule, is found in Section 34 of Rule 130.

Exceptions To This Rule:
1. Those instances where the third person is a partner, agent, joint
   owner, joint debtor or has a joint interest with the party
   (Section 29)
2. Is a co-conspirator
3. Is a privy of a party

Basis of the Exceptions
A third party may be so united in interest with the party-opponent
that the other person’s admissions may be receivable against the
party himself. The term “privy” is the orthodox catchword for the
relation.

Res Inter Alios Acta

Definition:
The rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an
act/declaration/omission of another.
(1st branch of the res inter alios acta rule)

Only the admissions of a party-litigant are admissible as
substantive evidence. Those of non-party witnesses may be admitted
for impeachment purposes only.

An admission by a 3rd-party cannot bind a party-litigant because
such 3rd-party admission would be res inter alios acta and
therefore hearsay.

Extra-judicial statements of an accused implicating a co-accused
may not be utilized against the latter.
Exception: People vs. Raquel 1996
1. The co-accused impliedly acquiesced in or adopted the confession
   by not questioning its truthfulness
2. The accused persons voluntarily and independently executed
   identical confessions without collusion and without contradiction
   by the others present
3. The accused admitted the facts after being apprised of the
   confession
4. If they are charged as co-conspirators of the crime which was
   confessed by 1 of the accused and the confession is used only
   as a corroborating evidence
5. The confession is used as circumstantial evidence to show the
   probability of participation by the co-conspirator
6. The confessant testified for his co-defendant
7. The co-conspirator’s extra-judicial confession is corroborated
   by other evidence on record.

Exceptions To Res Inter Alios Acta
1. Partner’s/agent’s admission
   (Rule 130, Sec.29)

   Requisites:
   a. The act/declaration must be within the scope of the authority
      of the partner/agent.
   b. The act/declaration must have been made during the existence
      of the partnership/agency.
   c. The partnership or agency must be shown by evidence other
      than the act or declaration.

      This rule applies to the act/declaration of a joint owner,
      joint debtor or other person jointly interested with the
      party. Statements made after a partnership has been dissolved
      do not fall within this exception.
2. Co-conspirator’s admission
   (Rule 130, Sec.30)
   Requisites:
   a. The act/declaration must relate to the conspiracy;
   b. It must have been made during the existence of the conspiracy
      and not long after the conspiracy had been brought to end.
      (People vs. Chaw Yaw Shun 1968)
   c. The conspiracy must be shown by evidence other than such
      act/declaration.

      The existence of the conspiracy may be inferred from the
      acts of the accused. (People vs. Belen 1963)

      Where there is no independent evidence of the alleged
      conspiracy, the extra-judicial confession of an
      accused cannot be used against his co-accused as the res
      inter aliosrule applies both to extra-judicial confessions
      and admissions.(People vs. Alegre 1976)

      This rule in Rule 130, Sec. 30 applies only to extra-judicial
      statements, not to testimony given on the stand.
      (People vs. Serrano 1959)

3. Admission by privies. (Rule 130 Sec.31)
   Where one derives title to property from another,
   the act/declaration/omission of the latter, while holding the
   title, in relation to the property, is evidence against the
   former.
   Requisites: (People vs. Du)
   a. There exists a relation of privity between the party and
      the declarant

      Privity in estate may have arisen by succession, acts mortis
      causa or acts inter vivos. (Alpuerto vs. Perez Pastor)

   b. Admission was made by declarant as predecessor-in-interest
      while holding title to property;
   c. Admission is in relation to the property.



















LET Board Exam Topnotchers March 2015

On
let board exam topnotchers march 2015


Based on the the result of the March 2015 LET Examination.

Elementary Level

1st Placer  - Vincent Atienza Isidro 90.40%
                   UP-Diliman

2nd Placer  - Cricelle Marie Baclagon Del Mundo 88.20%
                     UP-Diliman

3rd Placer  - Ann Clarice Briones Fajardo 87.80%
                    University of Asia & The Pacific-Pasig

                    Reina Angeli Catamin Tamayo 87.80%
                    University of Baguio

4th Placer  - Ian Kim Enriquez Bancaerin 87.60%
                    Notre Dame of Dadiangas University Inc.

                    Femie Joy Alejo Tacdoy 87.60%
                    Saint Louis University - Baguio City

5th Placer  - Flora Mae Macabenta Batausa 87.40%
                    Holy Name University

                    Jasmine Ison Dizon 87.40%
                    UP-Diliman

6th Placer  - Doreen Dabasan Calo 87.20%
                    University of Mindanao-Tagum

                    Mary Ann Jamago Madrona 87.20%
                    Bohol Island State University

                    Jockie Lyne Mae Zamora Martinez 87.20%
                    La Salle University

                    Shiaianne Neri Tabula Tactay 87.20%
                    Saint Louis University

7th Placer  - Krizia Camille Corpus Salvador 87%
                    UP-Diliman

                    Amy Alethia Austin Tupe 87%
                    Grace Christian College - QC

8th Placer  - Juliette Castro Gayoso 86.80%
                    Central Philippine University

                    Rachelle Ann Dacquel Gonzales 86.80%
                    Foreign University

                    Michelle Torres Pereyra 86.80%
                    Notre Dame of Marbel University

                    Christel Marie Paler Uy 86.80%
                    UP-Diliman

9th Placer  - Kim Roxan Onda Arong 86.60%
                    University of Cebu in LapuLapu & Mandaue

                    Romilyn Moldez Balbieran 86.60%
                    Asian Seminary of Christian Ministries

                    Jofel Maleza Butron 86.60%
                    Holy Name University

                    Rowena Porceso Guardiano 86.60%
                    University of Negros Occidental-Recoletos

10th Placer - Geraldine Valenzuela Colico 86.40%
                    Eastern Samar State University - Borongan

                    Ann Stefhany Villaluz De Alvan 86.40%
                    Carlos A. Hilado Memorial State College - Talisay

                    Maria Rizza Fernandine Delos Reyes De Asis 86.40%
                    UP-DIliman

                    Chris Ian Cortes Gargar 86.40%
                    Cebu Institute of Technology

                    Kent Winchill Gabaisen Serafin 86.40%
                    Jose Rizal Memorial State University - Dapitan


Secondary Level

1st Placer  - Herminigilda Cabrera Notario 91.40%
                    North Valley College Foundation Inc.

2nd Placer  - Mel Brian Dano Berida91.20%
                    UP-Visayas - Tacloban City

3rd Placer  - Jefferson Egana Flores 90%
                    Leyte Normal University

                    Christian Bernardo Manaloto 90%
                    Miriam College

                    Jayrald Dalisay Socorro 90%
                    University of Mindanao - Davao City

4th Placer  - Melody Ramos Ebuetada 89.80%
                    Southwestern University

5th Placer  - James Peter Zambale Arellano 89.60%
                    UP-Diliman

                    Jason Maestre Madronero 89.60%
                    Xavier University

6th Placer  - Gerald Marquez Antonio 89.40%
                    J.P. Sioson Colleges Inc.

                    David Concepcion Desamito 89.40%
                    UP-Diliman

                    Janine Damayo Espadero 89.40%
                    Olivarez College - Paranaque

                    Keziah Hanna Pascua Evasco 89.40%
                    Mindanao State University - Iligan Institute of Technology

                    Rommel Obena Gregorio 89.40%
                    UP-Baguio City

                    Alejandro Jose Carreon Reboa 89.40%
                    PUP-Sta.Mesa

7th Placer  - Arturo Sagut Ballesteros III 89.20%
                    UP-Mindanao

                    Nazareno Eugenio Manlincon 89.20%
                    Capitol Medical Center Colleges

                    Josephine Anne Jablo Necor 89.20%
                    FEU-Manila

8th Placer  - Millie Flor Langa Adam 89%
                    UP-Visayas Iloilo City

                    Jinky Marie Bayawon Bahiwag 89%
                    UST

                    Stephen Paul Gayon Cajigas 89%
                    UP-Visayas Cebu City

                    Mac Anthony Semana Casamorin 89%
                    De La Salle University - Dasmarinas

                    Dexby Penaso De Guzman 89%
                    Xavier University

                    Anne Bernadette Buenaventura Santos 89%
                    UP-Diliman

                    James Bie Tumlos 89%
                    UP-Diliman

9th Placer  - Rex Jason Hiquiana Agustin 88.80%
                    TIP-Manila

                    Inez Ciara Calapit Cortes 88.80%
                    Ateneo De Manila University - QC

                    Mar Joseph Quiton Fernandez 88.80%
                    University of Pangasinan

                    Jocebon Languido Lastimosa 88.80%
                    Cebu Doctors University

                    Honey Grace Ramientos Tabulong 88.80%
                    Mindanao State University - Iligan Institute of Technology

                    Yvette May Nido Zulueta 88.80%
                    De La Salle University - Manila

10th Placer - Coleen Mutuc Amado 88.60%
                    Philippine Normal University - Manila

                    Jeffrey Jimenez Bustos 88.60%
                    Perpetual Help College of Manila

                    Sung Shin Woong-ill Abad Cipriano 88.60%
                    Leyte Normal University

                    Jinggoy Carganilla De Jesus 88.60%
                    Wesleyan University Philippines - Cabanatuan City

                    Mark Anthony Agregorio Durana 88.60%
                    Filamer Christian College

                    Elmar Ugdoracion Lim 88.60%
                    University of Cebu

                    May Domingo Mabasa 88.60%
                    Mindanao State University - Gen.Santos City

              

LET Result March 2015

On
let result march 2015


The result of the March 2015 LET Exam has been released.

Click here to view the complete names of those who passed the
Secondary Teachers Exam.


Click here to view the complete names of those who passed the
Elementary Teachers Exam.


44,144 took the  Elementary Teachers Exam but only 21,103 passed.

56,596 took the Secondary Teachers Exam but only 17,904 passed.

The No.1 School for Elementary Teachers is De La Salle University
in Manila. All its 32 examinees passed.

        Related: Top Ten Examinees Elementary Teachers

The No.1 School for Secondary Teachers is UP-Diliman in Quezon City,
Out of its 63 examinees, only 3 failed.

        Related: Top Ten Examinees Secondary Teachers

Vincent Atienza Isidro of UP-Diliman is the 1st Placer in the
Elementary Level. He has a passing percentage of 90.40%

Herminigilda Cabrera Notario of North Valley College Foundation
inc. is the 1st Placer in the Secondary Level.

Registration for the issuance of Professional Identification Card
(ID) and Certificate of Registration will start on June 1, 2015.

The requirements for the issuance of Certificate of Registration
and Professional Identification Card (ID) are the following
1. Duly accomplished Oath Form or Panunumpa ng Propesyonal;
2. Latest Community Tax Certificate (Cedula)
3. 1 piece passport size picture (colored with white background and
   complete name tag)
4. Metered documentary stamp for the Oath Form
5. The Initial Registration Fee of P600 and Annual Registration
   Fee of P450 for 2015-2018.

Successful examinees should personally register and sign in the
Roster of Registered Professionals.

The Members of the Board of Professional Teachers who gave the
examination are the following:
1. Dr. Rosita L. Navarro, Chairman
2. Dr. Paz I. Lucido, Vice Chairman
3. Dr. Paraluman R. Giron, Member
4. Dr. Nora M. Uy, Member




Offer Of Compromise Not Admissible



Compromise
Is an agreement made between two or more parties as a settlement
matters in dispute.

A compromise agreement is valid when the true essence of which
resides in reciprocal concessions.

Civil Cases
An offer of compromise is not an admission of any liability, and is
not admissible in evidence against the offeror.

Criminal Cases
Except those involving quasi-offenses (criminal negligence) or those
allowed by law to be compromised, an offer of compromise by the
accused may be received in evidence as an implied admission of guilt.

A compromise agreement is valid when the true essence of which resides
in reciprocal concessions.

General Rule
An offer of compromise is not an admission of any liability and is
not admissible in evidence  against an offeror.

Exceptions
1. An express admission of liability made during negotiations for a
   compromise
2. Express and unqualified admission of indebtedness accompanying
   an offer of compromise
3. An admission of the correctness of an account or of specific
   items
4. Admission involving interest in property
5. Admission affecting liability for a tort.

A plea of guilty later withdrawn, or an unaccepted offer of a plea
of guilty to lesser offense, is not admissible in evidence against
the accused who made the plea/offer.

An offer to pay or the payment of medical, hospital or other
expenses occasioned by an injury is not admissible in evidence
as proof of civil/criminal liability for the injury.

General Rule
No compromise may be entered into as regards the penal action.

Exception
Compromise may be entered into with respect to the civil liability.

When is an offer of compromise not admissible in Evidence?
In civil cases, an offer of compromise is not an admission of any
liability, and is not admissible in evidence against the offeror.
(1st par., Sec. 27, Rule 130,ROC)

Note:
1. An offer to pay for the payment of medical, hospital, or other
   expenses, occasioned by an injury is not admissible in evidence as
   proof of civil or criminal liability for the injury.
b. Rationale for non-admissibility of offer to compromise in civil
   cases: To encourage the parties to settle their suits amicably
   resulting to decongestion of the courts clogged dockets.
c. Compromise is a contract whereby the parties, by making
   reciprocal concessions, avoid a litigation or put an end to one
   already commenced.

People vs. Alex Manalo, GRN 143704, March 28, 2003
What is the effect of a plea for forgiveness made by the accused to
the victim and/or her family?
A plea for forgiveness may be considered as analogous to an attempt
to compromise. In criminal cases, except those involving quasi-offense
(criminal negligence) or those allowed by law to be compromised, an
offer of compromise by the accused may be received in evidence as an
implied admission of guilt. No one would ask for forgiveness
unless he had committed some wrong, for to forgive means to absolve,
to pardon, to cease to feel resentment against on account of wrong
committed; give up claim to requital from or retribution upon
(an offender).

People vs. Yparriguirre 1997
An offer to compromise does not require that a criminal complaint be
first filed before the offer can be received as evidence against the
offeror.

People vs. De Guzman 1996
A plea of forgiveness may be considered as analogous to an attempt
to compromise.

People vs. Godoy 1995
In cases of public crimes, the accused is permitted to show that
the offer was not made under a consciousness of guilt but merely
to avoid the inconvenience of imprisonment of for some other reason
which would justify a claim by the accused that the offer was not in
truth an admission of his guilt or an attempt to avoid the legal
consequences which would ordinarily ensue therefrom.

Bar Examination 1997
Give the reasons underlying the adoption of the following rules
of evidence:
e) The rule against the admission of an offer of compromise in
   civil cases.

Suggested Answer:
The reason for the rule against the admission of an offer of
compromise in civil case as an admission of any liability is that
parties are encouraged to enter into compromises. Courts should
endeavor to persuade the litigants in a civil case to agree upon
some fair compromise. (Art. 2029, Civil Code).
During pre-trial, courts should direct the parties to consider
the possibility of an amicable settlement. (Sec.1(a) of former
Rule 20 Sec.2 (a) of new Rule 16


CPA Board Exam Topnotchers May 2015

On
cpa board exam topnotchers


Update: May 2019 CPA Licensure Examination Topnotchers

Based On The Result Of The May 2015 CPA Examination

1st Placer  - Eunice Millicent Ong Li 92.29%
                   Chiang Kai Shek College

2nd Placer  - Shaun Anthony Tiu Go 91.29%
                    University of San Carlos

3rd Placer  - Jaecelle Margrett Go Dy 90.86%
                    University of San Carlos

                    Sharmaine Fernandez Sy 90.86%
                    De La Salle University - Manila

4th Placer  - Jamaica Juanir Marjadas 90%
                    University of San Carlos

5th Placer  - Kristofferson Dela Cruz 89.43%
                    University of Makati

6th Placer  - Harold Palma Cortero 89.29%
                    University of the East - Manila

7th Placer  - Ronnel Cortez Talavera 89.14%
                    University of the East - Caloocan

8th Placer  - Melan Anthony Aberonio Yap 89%
                    De La Salle University - Manila

9th Placer  - John Lester Juarez Lastimosa 88.71%
                    University of San Jose - Recoletos

                    Veejay Posada Radovan 88.71%
                    San Sebastian College - Recoletos, Manila

10th Placer - Odessa Marie Onding Allera 88.43%
                    University of San Carlos

                    Rieland Joromo Cuevas 88.43%
                    University of San Carlos

                    Bridjet Aninon Diaz 88.43%
                    University of San Jose - Recoletos

            

Top CPA Schools In The Philippines May 2015

On
top cpa schools in the philippines


Based on the Result of the may 2015 CPA Board Examination

No.1  University of San Carlos
          Passing Percentage - 88.06%
          Number of Examinees - 67
          Number of Passers - 59

No.2  De La Salle University - Manila
          Passing Percentage - 81.18%
          Number of Examinees - 85
          Number of Passers - 69

No.3  Eastern Visayas State University
          Passing Percentage - 81.82%
          Number of Examinees - 11
          Number of Passers -  9

No.4  Mariano Marcos State University - Batac
          Passing Percentage - 81.82%
          Number of Examinees - 11
          Number of Passers - 9

No.5  Holy Name University
          Passing Percentage - 75.86%
          Number of Examinees - 29
          Number of Passers - 22

No.6  Mindanao State University - Iligan Institute of Technology
          Passing Percentage - 75%
          Number of Examinees - 12
          Number of Passers - 9

No.7  Batangas State University - Batangas
          Passing Percentage - 71.43%
          Number of Examinees - 14
          Number of Passers - 10

Note: Accountancy Schools with 10 or less examinees are excluded.
         PRC does publish top performing schools not having 50 or
         more examinees and no less than 80% in passing percentage.

CPA Board Exam Result May 2015

On
cpa board exam result


Update: May 2019 CPA Exam Result

The result of the May 2105 CPA Board Exam has been released.


      Read: October 2015 CPA Board Exam Result

Click here to view the complete names of those who passed.

5,959 Examinees took the CPA examination but only 2,132 passed.

University of San Carlos is the No.1 Accountancy school.
It has a passing percentage of 88.06%. Out of its 67 examinees,
only 8 failed.

        Related: Top Performing Accountancy Schools

The CPA exam's 1st placer is Eunice Millicent Ong Li of Chiang
Kai Shek College. She has a passing percentage of 92.29%

        Related: CPA Board Exam Top Ten Examinees

Majority of the Top Ten examinees are products of Metro Manila
schools.

381 Accountancy schools participated in the examination.

The Board of Accountancy which regulate the Accountancy
profession gave the exam in the following Cities;
1. Manila
2. Baguio
3. Cagayan De Oro
4. Cebu
5. Davao
6. Iloilo
7. Legazpi

The Board of Accountancy is composed of the following:
1. Joel L. Tan-Torres, Chairman
2. Eliseo A. Aurellado, Member
3. Gerard B. Sanvictores, Member
4. Gloria T. Baysa, Member
5. Concordio S. Quisaot, Members

Registration for the issuance of Professional Identification Card
(ID) and Certificate of Registration will be on May 27,28 & 29,
2015.

Those who will register are required to bring the following:
1. Duly accomplished Oath Form or Panunumpa ng Propesyonal
2. Current Community Tax Certificate (cedula)
3. 1 piece passport size picture (colored with white background and
   complete name tag)
4. 2 sets of metered documentary stamps
5. 1 short brown envelope with name and profession and to pay the
   Initial Registration Fee of P600 and Annual Registration Fee of
   P450 for 2015-2018.

Successful examinees should personally register and sign in
the Roster of Registered Professionals.

Admission Of A Party

Admission
any statement of fact made by a party against his interest or
unfavorable to the conclusion for which he contends or is
inconsistent with the facts alleged by him.

Types
1. Verbal or written
2. Express or tacit
3. Judicial

Judicial
One made in connection with a judicial proceeding in which it is
offered.

Extra-Judicial
Any admission other than judicial.

General Rule 
Any act/declaration/omission of a party as to a relevant fact may
be given in evidence against him.(Rule 130 Sec.26)

It is a voluntary acknowledgment in express terms or by implication,
by a party interest or by another by whose statement he is legally
bound, against his interest, of the existence or truth of a fact in
dispute material to the issue (Francisco).

Express Admissions
are those made in definite, certain and unequivocal language.

Example:
Action for personal injuries caused by a collision between P’s
carriage and D’s automobile. D was not in the automobile when the
accident occurred. D’s son was driving the automobile, having
taken it without express permission from D. Before trial D told P’s
husband that he had bought the automobile for the pleasure of his
family and for business; that members of the family might take it
without asking; and that so far as the liability extended (D) was
responsible. On the bases of this express admission, verdict was
rendered for P. Likewise, defendant duly executes and signs a
document before a notary public stating therein that his wife is the
true and absolute owner of the lands which are the subject matter of
the litigation. Said document is an express admission that defendant
is not the owner of the land, and admissible against him.

Implied Admissions
are those which may be inferred from the acts, declarations or
omission of a party. Therefore, an admission may be implied from
conduct, statement of silence of a party.

Examples:
The payment of interest of a debt is an implied admission of the
existence of the debt.

The repair made by the landlord is the implied admission that it is
not the duty of the tenant to repair.

The immediate flight of the accused and prolong stay in other country
is the implied consciousness of guilt.

NOTE: Failure to answer a letter does not give rise to an implied
admission as to the truth of the statements contained therein, since
there is no duty upon the addressee to reply. However, where the good
faith requires that the addressee state his position frankly so that
the addressee be not misled, acquiescence may be inferred from
non-denial.

Failure to return or object to a bill or statement sent by the debtor,
within a reasonable time, is competent evidence (but rebuttable) that
the account is correct. Undue delay in the enforcement of a right is
strongly persuasive of a lack of merit in the claim, since it is
human nature for a person to assert his rights most strongly when they
are threatened or invaded.

Delay in instituting a criminal prosecution unless satisfactorily
explained, creates suspicion about the motive of the supposed offended
party and gives rise to reasonable doubt of the guilt of the defendant.

Implied admission is cannot be inferred from an act of repairing a
defect which caused on injury. This is founded on sound reason and
good policy. A person may have exercised all the care which the law
required and yet, in the light of his new experience, after an
unexpected accident has occurred, and as a measure of extreme caution,
he may adopt additional safeguards.

admission of a party


The rule that the act, declaration or omission of a party may be
given in evidence against him is based upon the presumption that no
man could declare anything against himself, unless such declarations
were true.

It is a rule that a “statement is not competent as an admission where
it does not, under a reasonable construction, appear to admit or
acknowledge the fact which is sought to be proved by it.”

Requisites For Admissibility Of Admissions
1. They must involve matters of fact and not of law
2. They must be categorical and definite
3. They must be knowingly and voluntarily made
4. They must be adverse to the admitter’s interests, otherwise it
   would be self-serving and inadmissible.

An Admission May Be Introduced In Evidence In Two Ways
1. Independent evidence
2. Impeaching evidence

Independent Evidence
admissions are original evidence and no foundation is necessary for
their introduction in evidence.

If the admission was made orally, it may be proved by any competent
witness who heard them or by the declarant himself. The law does not
require impossibilities. If the witness states the substance of
the conversation or declaration, the admission of his testimony is
not erroneous.

Impeaching Evidence
a proper foundation must be laid for the impeaching questions, by
calling attention of such party to his former statement so as to
give him an opportunity to explain before such admissions are offered
in evidence.

Judicial Admission
It is one made in connection with a judicial proceeding in which it
is offered, while an extrajudicial admission is any other admission.

admission vs declaration against interest
Add caption


Self Serving Declaration
is one which has been made extra-judicially by the party to favor his
interests. It is not admissible in evidence.

The vital objection to the admission of this kind of evidence is
its hearsay character. To permit introduction would open the door
to frauds and perjuries.

Reasons For The Inadmissibility Of Self-Serving Declarations
1. The inherent untrustworthiness of the declarations
2. The fact that to permit their introduction would open the door
   to fraud and fabrication of testimony.
3. The fact that if testified to by one other than the declarant,
   they would be hearsay.

Self serving testimony refers to extrajudicial statement of a
party which is being urged for admission in court. It does not
include his testimony as a witness in court. It has no application
to a court declaration. Where the statement was not made in
anticipation of a future litigation, the same cannot be considered
 self-serving.

The mere fact of death alone does not render competent self-serving
conduct, admissions or declarations of the deceased person during
his life-time.

Unsworn declarations by others for the declarant would be
inadmissible.

Persons Whose Unsworn Declarations In Behalf Of A Party 
Are Not Admissible In Favor Of The Latter
1. Agents, as regards their principals
2. A co-defendant or co-partner, as regards the other
3. A guardian as regards his word.
4. A principal as regards his surety
5. A husband or wife as regards his or her spouse
6. An employee, as regards his employer
7. Officers of the corporation
8. Public officers as regards public corporation
9. Predecessors in title, as regards am owner of property

Self Serving Declarations Made By A Party Are Admissible In
His Own Behalf In The FF:
1. When they form part of res gestae, including spontaneous
   statements and verbal acts.
2. When they are in the form of complaint and exclamations of pain
   and suffering.
3. When they are part of a confession offered by the prosecution,
   that his testimony is a recent fabrication, in which case his
   prior declaration, even of a self serving character, may be
   admitted, provided they were made at a time when a motive to
   misrepresent did not exist.
4. Where they are offered by the argument. The objections which
   have been pointed out do not apply against the reception of the
   statements of one party as evidence when such statements are
   offered by his adversary. Every written statements of a party in
   his own favor can be successfully turned when such statements are
   offered against him.
5. When they are offered without objection, the evidence cannot
   afterward be objected to as incompetent.

Diaries, as a general rule, are inadmissible because they are
self-serving in nature, UNLESS they have the nature of books of
account; but it has been held that an entry in diary, being in the
nature of a declaration, if it was against interest when made, is
admissible.

An invoice prepared by a merchant in the city covering merchandise
consigned to his agent in the province, and a letter of said
merchant requesting confirmation of the receipt of said merchandise
by the agent, are not self-serving if they had been prepared not in
anticipation of litigation in which they were presented as evidence.
Carbon copies of letters of demands sent to defendant, receipt of
which was acknowledged.

Flight from justice is an admission by conduct and circumstantial
evidence of consciousness guilt.

Evidence of attempts to suppress evidence, as by destruction of
documentary evidence are admissible under the same rationale.

The act of reporting a machine, bridge, or other facility after an
injury has been sustained therein is not an implied admission of
negligence by conduct. It is merely a measure of extreme caution
by adopting additional safeguards since, despite due care and
diligence, an unexpected accident can still occur.

Chemical Engineer Board Exam Topnotchers May 2015

On


1st Placer  - Remington Bacalocos Salaya 83.30%
                   Central Philippine University

2nd Placer  - Aljon Mayol Alivio 83%
                    University of San Carlos

3rd Placer  - Kim Marabod Suba 82.10%
                   UP-Los Banos

      Related: Best Chemical Engineering Schools

4th Placer  - Gino Martin Tiro Arellano 81.90%
                   De La Salle University - Manila

5th Placer  - Franz Bryan Garcia Yumul 81.20%
                   De La Salle University - Manila

6th Placer  - John Ace Flores Carpena 80.60%
                   Mapua Institute of Technology

                   Jastle Jeb Go Rodrigo 80.60%
                   University of San Carlos

7th Placer  - Lowen Borja Ciar 80.10%
                   UP-Los Banos

Top Chemical Engineering School May 2015

On


Based on the result of the May 2015 Chemical Engineer Licensure
Examination given by the Board of Chemical Engineers, the following
are the Top chemical engineering schools in the Philippines.


No.1  De La Salle University- Manila
      Passing percentage - 84.85%
      Number of Examinees - 33
      Number of those who passed - 28
      Number of those who failed - 5

No.2  University of San Carlos
      Passing percentage - 91.67%
      Number of Examinees - 12
      Number of those who passed - 11
      Number of those who failed - 1

No.3  Adamson University
      Passing percentage - 76.92%
      Number of Examinees - 13
      Number of those who passed - 10
      Number of those who failed - 3

No.4  Batangas State University - Batangas City
      Passing percentage - 76.67%
      Number of Examinees - 30
      Number of those who passed - 23
      Number of those who failed - 7

No.5  UP-Los Banos
      Passing percentage - 75.76%
      Number of Examinees - 33
      Number of those who passed - 25
      Number of those who failed - 8

No.6  Malayan Colleges - Laguna
      Passing percentage - 75%
      Number of Examinees - 12
      Number of those who passed - 9
      Number of those who failed - 3

No.7  Technological Institute of the Philippines - Manila
      Passing percentage - 72.73%
      Number of Examinees - 11
      Number of those who passed - 8
      Number of those who failed - 3

No.8  Mapua Institute of Technology
      Passing percentage - 70.59%
      Number of Examinees - 34
      Number of those who passed - 24
      Number of those who failed - 10


No.9  UP-Diliman
      Passing percentage - 70%
      Number of Examinees - 10
      Number of those who passed - 7
      Number of those who failed - 3

No.10 Saint Louis University - Baguio City
      Passing percentage - 68.57%
      Number of Examinees - 35
      Number of those who passed - 24
      Number of those who failed - 11


Note: PRC publishes the lists of top performing schools with
at least 50 examinees and passing percentage of 80%.

Note: Schools with less than 10 examinees are excluded from the lists.
  

Chemical Engineer Board Exam Result May 2015

On


The result of the May 2015 Chemical Engineer Board Exam has been
released.


        Read: Chemical Engineer Board Exam Result November 2015


Click here to view the complete names of those who passed.

405 Examinees took the Chemical Engineer Board Examination but only
239 passed.

The Chemical Engineer Board Examination was given in the City of Manila.

The No.1 Chemical Engineering school is De La Salle University in
Manila. It has a passing percentage of 84.85%. Out of its 33 examinees,
only 5 failed.

        Read: Top Chemical Engineering School

But the Chemical Engineer Board Exam 1st placer did not come from
De La Salle University but It came from Central Philippine University.

The Exam's 1st Placer is Remington Bacalocos Salaya of Central
Philippine University. It is a University established in 1905.
It is located in the City of Iloilo.

        Read: Top Ten Examinees

Saint Louis University in Baguio City has the most number of examinees
with 35 followed by Mapua Institute of Technology. They have a passing
percentage of 68.57% and 70.59% respectively.

34 Chemical Engineering schools participated in the examination.

The members of the Board of Chemical Engineering who gave the
examination are the following:
1. Engr. Ofelia V. Bulaong, Chairman
2. Engr. Francisco A. Arellano, Member
3. Engr. Jeffrey G. Mijares, Member

Registration for the issuance of Professional Identification Card (ID)
and Certificate of Registration will be on May 25 & 26, 2015.

Those who will register are required to bring the following:
1. Duly accomplished Oath Form or Panunumpa ng Propesyonal
2. Current Community Tax Certificate (cedula)
3. 1 piece passport size picture (colored with white background and
   complete name tag)
4. 2 sets of metered documentary stamps and 1 short brown envelope with
   name and profession and to pay the Initial Registration Fee of P600
   and Annual Registration Fee of P450 for 2015-2018.

Successful examinees should personally register and sign in the Roster
of Registered Professionals.

According to the PRC website, the next Chemical Engineer Board
Examination is scheduled on November 13, 14 and 15 2015.

Deadline in filing of application to take the exam is on October 26,
2015.

The Exam is tentatively scheduled to be given in the City of Manila
and Cebu.

Parental and Filial Privilege



Parental and Filial Privilege Meaning:
A person cannot be compelled to testify against his parents, other direct ascendants, children or other direct descendants.

This section is an expanded amendment of the former provision found in Section 20 (e), a disqualification by reason of relationship which, in turn, was reproduced from Art. 315 of the Civil Code.

It was not correctly a rule of disqualification, as the descendant was not incompetent or disqualified to testify against his ascendants, but was actually a privilege to testify, hence it was referred to as “filial privilege”.

However, under the Family Code, the descendant may be compelled to testify against his parents and grandparents, if such testimony is indispensable in prosecuting a crime against the descendant by one parent against the other (Art. 215).

Under the present formulation, both parental and filial privileges are granted to any person, which privileges against compulsory testimony he can invoke in any case against any of his parents, direct ascendants, children or direct descendants.

Reason for the Rule
The reason for the rule is to preserve “family cohesion” deploring the lack of this provision under former laws as doing violence to the most sacred  sentiments between members of the same family.”

NOTE: The privilege may now be invoked in both civil  and criminal cases.

Bar Examination 1998
C is the child of the spouses H and W. H sued his wife W for judicial declaration of nullity of marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code. In the trial, the following testified over the objection of W: C, H and D, a doctor of medicine who used to treat W. Rule on W's objections which are the following:

1. H cannot testify against her because of the rule on marital privilege; (1%)
2. C cannot testify against her because of the doctrine on parental privilege; and (2%)
3. D cannot testify against her because of the doctrine of privileged communication between patient and physician. (2%)

Suggested Answer:
1. The rule of marital privilege cannot be invoked in the annulment case under Rule 36 of the Family Code because it is a civil case filed by one against the other. (Sec. 22 Rule 130 Rules of Court)
2. The doctrine of parental privilege cannot likewise be invoked by W as against the testimony of C, their child. C may not be compelled to testify but is free to testify against her. (Sec. 25 Rule 130 Rules of Court / Art. 215 Family Code)
3. D, as a doctor who used to treat W, is disqualified to testify against W over her objection as to any advice or treatment given by him or any information which he may have acquired in his professional capacity. (Sec. 24 (c) Rule 130 Rules of Court)

Alternative Answer:
If the doctor's testimony is pursuant to the requirement of establishing the psychological incapacity of W, and he is the expert called upon to testify for the purpose, then it should be allowed. (Republic vs. Court of Appeals and Molina, 26S SCRA 198.)

People v. Zheng Bai Hi
The failure of a witness to take an oath prior to his testimony is a defect that may be waived by the parties.

Cavili v. Fernando
The specific enumeration of disqualified witnesses in the ROC is understood to exclude the operation of causes of disability other than those mentioned therein.

NBI Recruitment

nbi recruitment


NBI is a government agency under the Department of Justice whose main job is to investigate crimes and other offenses against the laws of the Philippines. NBI can do this on its own initiative or when
the public interest requires its participation.

        Related: How To Become A PDEA Agent

Are you more than 30 years old and perhaps no longer qualified to join the PNP, BJMP or BFP?

You may perhaps also no longer be qualified to join any branches of the armed forces of the Philippines by reason of your age.

Do not lose hope if all you wanted for your life is to become a law enforcer.

Government agencies like the NBI and PDEA accept applicants whose age does not exceed 35.

Generally, There is 2 Entry Level kind of operating personnel in the NBI. NBI agent and NBI Special Investigator.

For those intending to join the NBI, Be aware of the ff: qualifications

Those who like to join as Officers or Special Agent
1. Filipino Citizen
2. Good Moral Character - Not convicted of a crime involving moral character.
3. Physically and Mentally Healthy - Not suffering from any ailments or physically disabled.
4. No pending criminal, civil or administrative charges.
5. No conviction of any crime.
6. At least 5'5 inches in height for male, 5'3" for female.
7. Vision within normal range.
8. No tattoo mark or pierced ear.
9. Between 25 and 35 years old.

Those who like to join as non-officers or Special Investigators

The qualifications are the same as Special agent except for the ff:
1. General weight average of 84% in the transcript of records without any failing grade in any subject.
2. First Grade civil service eligible or a Board Exam passer in any profession.


Those successful of being accepted to the NBI go to the NBI academy in Baguio City to train.

NBI does not advertise as private companies do in newspapers or other media when recruiting agents.

How will you know if NBI is in the process of recruitment?

You may contact NBI in the ff: ways to inquire if Recruitment is open
1. By Making a Phone Inquiry
   +63 2 524-2596
2. By Sending an Email Inquiry
   [email protected]

Priest-Penitent Privilege

supreme court of the philippines












Minister-Penitent Privilege

A minister or priest cannot, without the consent of the person making
the confession, be examined as to any confession made to or any advice
given by him in his professional character in the course of discipline
enjoined by the church to which the minister or priest belongs.


The disqualification due to privilege communications between ministers
or priests and penitents require that the same were made pursuant to
a religious duty enjoined in the course of discipline of the sect or
denomination to which they belong and must be confidential and
penitential in character. Example: under seal of the confessional.

Privilege Communications To Public Officers

supreme court logo



Public officer privilege
A public officer cannot be examined during his term of office or
afterwards, as to communications made to him in official
confidence, when the court finds that the public interest would suffer
by the disclosure.(Rule 130 Sec. 24(e)

Requisites:
1. That it was made to the public officer in official confidence
2. That public interest would suffer by the disclosure of such
   communication, as in the case of State secrets.

Where no public interest will be prejudiced, this rule will not apply.

Public Interest
something in which the community at large has some pecuniary interest
by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected.

Physician-Patient Privilege

sc logo



What is the physician and patient privileged communication rule ?

Suggested Answer:

1. A person authorized to practice medicine, surgery or obstetrics
2. cannot in a civil case
3. without the consent of the patient,
4. be examined as to
   a. any advice or treatment given by him or
   b. any information
      1. Which he may have acquired in attending such patient in a
         professional capacity,
      2. Which information was necessary to enable him to act in that
         capacity
      3. Which would blacken the reputation of the patient.
         (Sec.24 (c) Rule 130 ROC)

The physician may be compelled to testify in a criminal case.

Rationale Behind The Privilege:
The reason is to facilitate and make safe, full and confidential
disclosure by a patient to the physician of all symptoms, untrammeled
by apprehension of their subsequent and enforced disclosure and
publication on the witness stand.
(Will of Bruendl, 102 Wis. 47)

Waiver Of The Privilege:
This privilege belongs to the patient, so that it is only he that can
claim or waive it. It is waivable expressly or impliedly. It is
impliedly waived like any other privilege rule.
(Penn. Mutual Life Ins. Co. vs. Wiler 100 Ind. 92)

Purpose
This privilege is intended to facilitate and make safe, full and
confidential disclosure by patient to physician of all facts,
circumstances, and symptoms, untrammeled by apprehension of their
subsequent and enforced disclosure and publication on the witness
stand, to the end that the physician may form a correct opinion, and
be enabled safely and efficaciously to treat his patient.

Requisites:
1. The physician is authorized to practice medicine, surgery, or
   obstetrics
2. The information was acquired or the advice or treatment was given
   by him in his professional capacity for the purpose of treating and
   curing the patient
3. The information, advice or treatment, if revealed, would blacken
   the reputation of the patient
4. The privilege is invoked in a civil case, whether patient is a
   party or not

It is not necessary that the physician-patient relationship was
created through the voluntary act of the patient. For example the
treatment may have been given at the behest of another, the patient
being in extremis.

The privilege extends to all forms of communications as well as to
the professional observations and examinations of the patient.

The Privilege Does Not Apply Where
1. The communication was not given in confidence
2. The communication is irrelevant to the professional employment
3. The communication was made for an unlawful purpose, as when it
   is intended for the commission or concealment of a crime
4. The information was intended to be made public
5. There was a waiver of the privilege either by provisions of
   contract or law

The rule does not apply to mere causal information stated by the
witness because such information is not necessary for the treatment
of the patient.

If the physician confined himself merely to the ascertainment of
the nature and character of the injury for the purpose of reporting
them to the defendant, physician may testify.

The burden of proving that such relation does not exist is upon the
person objecting it.

Death of the patient does not extinguish the relation.

Under Rule 28 of the Rules of Court, the results of the physical
and mental examination of a person, when ordered by the court, are
intended to be made public, hence they can be divulged in that
proceeding and cannot be objected to on the ground of privilege.

Result of autopsies or post mortem examinations are generally
intended to be divulged in court, aside from the fact the doctor’s
services were not for purposes of medical treatment.

An example of a waiver of the privilege by provision of law is found
in Section 4 of said Rule 28 under which if the party examined
obtains a report on said examination or takes the deposition of the
examiner, he thereby waives any privilege regarding any other
examination of said physical or mental condition conducted or to
be conducted on him by any other physician.

Waiver of the privilege by contract may be found in stipulations
in life insurance policies.

The disqualification due to privilege communications between
ministers or priests and penitents require that the same were made
pursuant to a religious duty enjoined in the course of discipline
of the sect or denomination to which they belong and must be
confidential and penitential in character. Example: under seal of
the confessional.

Bar Examination 1998
C is the child of the spouses H and W. H sued his wife W for judicial
declaration of nullity of marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code.
In the trial, the following testified over the objection of W: C, H
and D, a doctor of medicine who used to treat W. Rule on W's objections
which are the following:

      1. H cannot testify against her because of the rule on marital
         privilege; [1%]
      2. C cannot testify against her because of the doctrine on
         parental privilege; and [2%]
      3. D cannot testify against her because of the doctrine of
         privileged communication between patient and physician.(2%)

Suggested Answer:
1. The rule of marital privilege cannot be invoked in the annulment
   case under Rule 36 of the Family Code because it is a civil case
   filed by one against the other,
   (Sec.22 Rule 130 Rules of Court)
2. The doctrine of parental privilege cannot likewise be invoked by W
   as against the testimony of C, their child. C may not be compelled
   to testify but is free to testify against her.
   (Sec.25 Rule 130 Rules of Court Art.215 Family Code)
3. D, as a doctor who used to treat W, is disqualified to testify
   against W over her objection as to any advice or treatment given
   by him or any information which he may have acquired in his
   professional capacity. (Sec. 24(c) Rule 130 Rules of Court)