G.R. No. 18699 ; March 8, 1922
Tan Chico, petitioner, vs. Honorable Pedro Concepcion, Judge of First Instance of Manila, and Asia Banking Corporation, respondents.

FACTS

In a civil case for money recovery where Asia Banking Corporation is the plaintiff and Tan Chico is the defendant, the plaintiff sought to take Tan Chico’s deposition under the Code of Civil Procedure. A subpoena duces tecum required Tan Chico to produce certain documents and correspondence. Tan Chico appeared with his attorney, Hartford Beaumont, but failed to produce the documents, claiming they were in Beaumont’s possession. Beaumont refused to surrender them, asserting an attorney’s lien for unpaid fees. The plaintiff then filed a notice to take the depositions of both Tan Chico and Attorney Beaumont. The trial court issued a subpoena duces tecum directed to Beaumont. Tan Chico filed a petition for certiorari, arguing the trial court acted without jurisdiction in ordering his attorney to testify and produce documents, claiming it violated attorney-client privilege and that the deposition was a “fishing expedition.”

ISSUE

Whether the trial court acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction in issuing a subpoena duces tecum to the defendant’s attorney to testify and produce documents held under a claim of attorney’s lien, in connection with taking the defendant’s deposition.

RULING

No. The petition for certiorari is denied. The trial court did not exceed its jurisdiction. The taking of a party’s deposition under subsection 1 of section 355 of the Code of Civil Procedure is authorized and is analogous to a bill of discovery. Its purpose includes enabling a party to ascertain material facts. While susceptible to abuse, its use is within the trial court’s discretion, which was not abused here. An attorney cannot defeat this proceeding by refusing to produce documents delivered by his client that are necessary for the effective examination of the deponent. The ordinary rules of evidence apply during the deposition, and questions regarding privileged communications under the attorney-client privilege are for the trial court to determine during the proceeding, not in advance via certiorari. The claim of an attorney’s lien does not justify withholding documents needed for a duly authorized deposition.