Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
The Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG), raised a complaint before the Sandiganbayan (SB) against
Eduardo M. Cojuangco, Jr. and TeodoroRegala and his partners in the ACCRA law firm, for the recovery of alleged ill-
gotten wealth, which includes shares of stocks in the named corporations in PCGG Case No. 33 (Civil Case No. 0033),
entitled "Republic of the Philippines versus Eduardo Cojuangco, et al."
During the course of the proceedings, PCGG filed a "Motion to Admit Third Amended Complaint" which excluded private
respondent Raul S. Roco from the complaint on his undertaking that he will reveal the identity of the principal/s for whom
he acted as nominee/stockholder.
In their answer to the Expanded Amended Complaint, ACCRA lawyers requested that PCGG similarly grant the same
treatment to them as accorded Roco. The PCGG has offered to the ACCRA lawyers the same conditions availed of by Roco
but the ACCRA lawyers have refused to disclose the identities of their clients. ACCRA lawyers filed the petition for
certiorari, invoking that the Honorable Sandiganbayan gravely abused its discretion:
In subjecting petitioners ACCRA lawyers who acted to the strict application of the law of agency
In not considering petitioners ACCRA lawyers and Mr. Roco as similarly situated and, therefore, deserving of
equal treatment.
In not holding that, under the facts of this case, the attorney-client privilege prohibits petitioners ACCRA lawyers
from revealing the identity of their client(s) and other information requested by PCGG.
In not requiring that the dropping of party-defendants by the PCGG must be based on reasonable and just
grounds and with due consideration to equal protection of the law
ISSUE
Whether or not client’s identity in a case involving and acquiring companies allegedly sourced from ill-gotten wealth is
privileged and disclosure of such is unethical.
RULING
The court held that the client identity in this case is privileged. As a matter of public policy, a client's identity should not
be shrouded in mystery. This general rule is however qualified by some important exceptions:
1) Client identity is privileged where a strong probability exists that revealing the client's name would implicate that
client in the very activity for which he sought the lawyer's advice.
2) Where disclosure would open the client to civil liability
3) Where the government's lawyers have no case against an attorney's client unless, by revealing the client's name, the
said name would furnish the only link that would form the chain of testimony necessary to convict an individual of a
crime.
The circumstances involving the engagement of lawyers in the case at bench, therefore, clearly reveal that the instant
case falls under the first and third exception.
The attorney-client privilege, as currently worded in the Rules of Court provides thedisqualification by reason of privileged
communication. Rule 138 of the Rules of Court further emphasizes the importance of maintaining client confidence.
Furthermore, this duty is explicitly mandated in Canon 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.Canon 15 of the
Canons of Professional Ethics also demands a lawyer's fidelity to client.
The Resolutions of respondent Sandiganbayan are hereby annulled and set aside.
REGALA ET AL. VS. SANDIGANBAYAN
GR NO. 105938, SEPTEMBER 20, 1996
FACTS :
the very activity for which legal advice had been sought, i.e., the
corporations.
Cojuangco, et al."
Abello, Concepcion, Regala and Cruz Law Offices (ACCRA Law Firm).
his undertaking that he will reveal the identity of the principal/s for
Created by: Ma. Angela Leonor C. Aguinaldo Ateneo Law 1E 2010
Page 24 of 147
set up, through the use of the coconut levy funds, UCPB, UNICOM,
Corporation shares
corporations listed but do not claim any proprietary interest in the said
wealth
as accorded Roco.
(PCGG’s Comment): (a) the disclosure of the identity of its clients; (b)
shares
the Roco, Bunag, and Kapunan Law Offices originally requesting the
Created by: Ma. Angela Leonor C. Aguinaldo Ateneo Law 1E 2010
Page 25 of 147
Roco
13. Roco did not refute petitioners' contention that he did actually not
reveal identity of the client, nor undertook to reveal the identity of the
15. Hence, petition for certiorari, grounds: strict application of the law
holding that, under the facts of this case, the attorney-client privilege
unreasonable or unjust
ISSUE: Privileged Information
The High Court upheld that petitioners' right not to reveal the identity
of their clients under pain of the breach of fiduciary duty owing to their
clients, because the facts of the instant case clearly fall within
1. A lawyer may not invoke the privilege and refuse to divulge the
is flesh and blood. 2. Privilege begins to exist only after the attorneyclient
require that the opposing party should, as a general rule, know his
adversary.
implicate that client in the very activity for which he sought the
unless, by revealing the client's name, the said name would furnish
the only link that would form the chain of testimony necessary to
to disclose the identity of their clients, after the "bigger fish" as they
exclusion from the complaint. (Primavera Farms, Inc., et al. vs. PCGG
to nail clients)
services) where one person lets his services and another hires them
reliance could be placed makes a contract in his name, but gives up all
his client to reveal any communication made by the client to him or his
c. Rule 138 of the Rules of Court states, Sec. 20: “duty of an attorney:
connection with his client's business except from him or with his
fidelity to the cause of his client and he shall be mindful of the trust
maintenance and defense of his rights and the exertion of his utmost
8. Violates the equal protection guarantee and the right against selfincrimination
1. Court must confine itself to the key issue, issue burried: whether or
4. They have no right to make such a demand for until they shall have
complied with the conditions imposed for their exclusion, they cannot
were merely advocating the cause of their clients but were not indicted
for the charges against their said clients. Here, the counsel themselves
petitioners need to prove that prove they fall within the exceptions to
invocation will ipso facto and ipso jure drape he who invokes it with its
4. Atypical of the usual case where the hinge issue involves the
6. The issue poses a trilemma: need for courts to discover the truth,
criminal litigations.
crime or a fraud.
attorney-client privilege.