REGALA et al. v SANDIGANBYAN The petitioners refused to comply.

September 20, 1996|G.R. No. 108113|KAPUNAN, J.|

Attorney-Client Privilege (Divulging the Identity of a Client)
PETITIONER: Regala et al. (all attorneys from ACCRA Law)
RESPONDENT: Sandiganbayan (1st divison), People (via PCGG), Roco
SUMMARY: The petitioners and respondent Roco were named in one of the
complaints against Danding Cojuangco for their involvement in the acquisition of ill-
gotten wealth (cocolevy scandal). Roco was later excluded on the ground that he
would reveal his clients identity. The petitioners sought to be excluded, but they
were given conditions for exclusion, to which they relented as it would involve
revealing their client, violating the lawyer-client privilege. Their exclusion was
denied, hence this petition.
DOCTRINE: The general rule is that the identity of a client is of public record.
However, where the clients name itself has an independent significance such that
disclosure would reveal client confidences, the privilege applies.
6. Because of the petitioners' refusal, the Sandiganbayan denied their exclusion. MR
was denied, hence this petition.
ISSUE(S):
1. WoN the petitioners may be compelled to divulge the identity of their clients
notwithstanding the attorney-client privilege.
RULING: PETITION GRANTED. Resolutions of SDB annulled and set aside. SDB
ordered to exclude the petitioners as parties-defendants. This was an 8-4 decision,
with two judges inhibiting and one on leave.
RATIO:
1. NO. Though the identity of clients is of public record, where the clients name
itself has an independent significance such that disclosure would reveal client
confidences, the privilege applies, as in this case.

1. The general rule in our jurisdiction as well as in the US (take note of this, they will
FACTS:
1. This case is an offshoot of PCGG Case No. 33 against Eduardo "Danding" be citing US jurisprudence for practically the entire decision!) is that a lawyer may
Cojuangco et al., one of the many cases of ill-gotten wealth that arose after the not invoke the privilege and refuse to divulge the name or identity of the client.
Marcos era. Several reasons are given for this:

2. All of the named parties in this case, including private respondent Roco, were - The court has a right to know the client actually exists in flesh and blood.
partners of ACCRA Law who were included in one of the Complaints against
- The privilege begins to exist only after the relationship has been
Danding for their role in the use of the coco levy funds in several corporations, such
established, hence the need for a client.
as UCPB, UNICOM and COCOLIFE, to corner the coconut market. They also acted
as nominees-stockholders in the said corporations. - The privilege pertains to the subject matter of the relationship.

3. However, on August 20, 1991, the PCGG filed to Admit a Third Amended - Due process considerations require that the opposing party should, as a
Complaint that excluded Roco from the complaint, basing its exclusion on an general rule, know his adversary.
undertaking that he will reveal the identity of his principals, for whom he acted as
nominee/stockholder.

4. Petitioner-attorneys resisted, and seek to be granted the same treatment as Roco. 2. However, there are exceptions to the rule as per US jurisprudence-- the exceptions
boil down to: Where the client's name itself has an independent significance, such
5. To this, the PCGG set several conditions for the exclusion of the petitioners from that disclosure would reveal client confidences:
the complaint: disclosure of identity of the clients, submission of documents
substantiating the lawyer-client relationship, and submission of deeds of assignments
with respect to shareholdings. They also showed proof to substantiate Roco's
compliance-- several correspondence seeking reinvestigation of his role in the case.
 a. Where a strong probability exists that revealing the client's name would
implicate that client in the very activity for which he sought the lawyers advice.
Examples cited are Ex-Parte Enzor (violation of election laws and bribery) and US v
Hodge and Zweig (illegal importation of drugs).
b. Where disclosure would open the client to civil liability. Examples cited
are Neugass v Terminal Cab (involvement in a vehicular accident where tort liability
would attach) and Matter of Shawmut Mining (involvment in a transaction where
damages would result).
c. 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.
Example cited was Baird v Korner (tax delinquency; delinquent taxes for a certain
year was paid, but the clients for whom it was paid for were not identified; disclosure
could have led to further investigation and increased tax liabilities that the
government would not have established had it not been for that disclosure).
d. Other situations, such as when the client communication is relevant to the
subject matter of the legal problem on which the client seeks legal assistance, and
where the nature of the relationship has been disclosed and it is the identity which is
intended to be confidential such that reveleation of the identity would reveal the
entire transaction.
3. The present case falls under two of the exceptions: Exception A and C. The PCGG
seems to have established there is a conspiracy between the client and the attorneys
in the acquisition of ill-gotten wealth. What they lacked was the identity of the
client-- the sole link required for conviction (Exception C). Forcing the testimonies
could have implicated the client for the offense charged (Exception A).
4. If there was indeed testimony, the PCGG should have done so with their own
means, not with forced testimonies. Allowing PCGG to do so would be to sanction
fishing expeditions by lazy prosecutors and litigants which cannot be countenanced.
ADDENDA (OTHER ISSUES):
Nature of Lawyer-Client Relationship
- In modern times, the lawyer-client relationship in seen as a fidicary duty of a very
delicate, exacting and confidential character, requiring a very high degree of fidelity
and good faith, that is required by reason of necessity and public interest based on
the hypothesis that abstinence from seeking legal advice in a good cause is an evil
fatal to the administration of justice.
- This privilege manifests as far back as the old Code of Civil Procedure all the way
to the present Rules of Court and Code of Professional Responsibility. Rule 130.28
and Rule 138.20 of the present rules talk about the preservation of the professional
communication and secrets of the client, all founded in Canon 17 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility and Canon 15 of the Canons of Professional Ethics on
fidelity to the cause of the client.
On the Exclusion of Roco and the other Peittioners
- The Court looked at the treatment Roco, and required that that there be
circumstances that would warrant his special treatment, lest be a violation of the
equal protection clause.
- The PCGG's dropping of Roco was due to his promise to disclosue the identities of
the clients. No such revelation was shown except for a 'bare assertion'. This being
material to the arrangement, the SDB should have required more than such an
assertion. They should conclusively show that Roco is a species apart from the other
lawyers.
- But there is similarity between Roco and the petitioners: they are all implicated
because of the attorney-client relationship-- one that is considered privileged, and as
to the case, validly invoked. They should be excluded because as it is, there is no
valid case against them.
DISSENTING OPINION, DAVIDE JR., J.:
- The rule of confidentiality under Rule 130.24 was improperly used. It cannot be
used to exclude a party-- it is a ground for disqualification of witness, and may only
be invoked at the appropriate time (e.g. when a lawyer is being compelled to answer
as a wtiness). None of the lawyers are being required to testify yet. They are in fact
being given discretion to exclude themselves from the complaint. The attorney-client
privilege is not applicable here. (Davide would bolster this through an AmJur
citation)
- Moreover, the majority sought to expand the Philippine rule on the priilege by
citing American jurisprudence. The Court did not consider that the decisions they
quoted were from different states, with potentially different evidentiary rules, and
more importantly, in preliminary proceedings prior to the filing of the case and in
cases where the lawyers were not co-defendants. The case is different here-- a case
has been filed and the counsels are being charged as co-principals. The facts are not
on all fours.
- Also, citing AmJur, the attorney-client relationship cannot shield represntation for
any criminal or fraudulent conduct either past, present or future, or where the client
perpetrates a crime even when the attorney is unaware of his client's purpose. It is
not within the professional character of a lawyer to give advise on the commission of
a crime.
- They did not even need to look outside the country. The Code of Professional
Responsibility and Canons of Professional Ethics proscribe activities aimed at
defiance of the law or at lessening confidence in the legal system and unfair and
dishonest means in attaining the lawful objectives of the client, given the special
place accorded to the legal profession. The canons strip a lawyer of the privilege
when he conspires with the client in the commission of a crime or fraud.
DISSENTING OPINION, PUNO, J:
- Though the invocation of the privilege's general rule and its exceptions was proper,
the invocation of the privilege is not a magic mantra. It must be proven by the party
invoking it through evidence. No evidence was submitted at all. In the American
cases relied on by the majority, there was factual basis for the exception.