Regala v. Sandiganbayan (1996). Digested by Karen S. Pascual. 3C. ALS 2015.

1
1 |P a g e
Regala v. Sandiganbayan 262 SCRA 124 (1996)G.R. No. 105938 September 20, 1996
TEODORO R. REGALA, EDGARDO J. ANGARA, AVELINO V. CRUZ, JOSE C. CONCEPCION,ROGELIO A.
VINLUAN, VICTOR P. LAZATIN and EDUARDO U. ESCUETA, petitioners, vs.THE HONORABLE
SANDIGANBAYAN, First Division, REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES,ACTING THROUGH THE
PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENT, andRAUL S. ROCO, respondents.
G.R. No. 108113 September 20, 1996
PARAJA G. HAYUDINI, petitioner, vs. THE SANDIGANBAYAN and THE REPUBLIC OF THEPHILIPPINES,
respondents.
Keyword: ACCRA, Coco levy fundTopic:
Privileged communication, Attorney-Client Privilege
Other SC Justices:
Bellosillo, Melo and Francisco, JJ., concur. Padilla, Panganiban andTorres, Jr.,
JJ., concur in the result. Romero and Hermosisima, Jr., JJ., took no part.
Mendoza, J., is on leave.
Ponente
KAPUNAN,
J.
KP: THIS IS A VERY LONG CASE.
Took me 3 1/2 hours to digest!
For the Dissent, I justincluded the syllabus shiz towards the end kasi pagod na ako :p
EMERGENCY:
The matters raised in the present case are an offshoot of the institution of the PCGGagainst Eduardo M.
Cojuangco, Jr., as one of the principal defendants, for the recovery ofalleged ill-gotten wealth, which includes
shares of stocks in the several corporations in
PCGG Case No. 33, entitled Republic of the Philippines vs Eduardo Cojuangco, et al.
Petitioners in this case are all partners in ACCRA

Regala, Angara, Cruz, Concepcion,Vinluan, Lazatin, Escueta and Hayudini (hereinafter ACCRA LAWYERS).
Likewise,private respondent ROCO is also a partner in ACCRA.ACCRA Law Firm performed legal services for its
clients, which included,among others, the organization and acquisition of business associations
and/ororganizations, with the correlative and incidental services where its members acted asincorporators, or
simply, as stockholders.The complaint in PCGG Case No. 0033 alleged that the ACCRA LAWYERS andEduardo
Cojuangco, Jr. conspired with each other in setting up through the use ofcoconut levy funds the financial and
corporate framework and structures that led to theestablishment of UCPB, UNICOM and others and that
through insidious means andmachinations, ACCRA, using its wholly-owned investment arm, ACCRA
InvestmentsCorporation, became the holder of approximately fifteen million shares representingroughly 3.3% of
the total capital stock of UCPB as of 31 March 1987.The PCGG wanted to establish through the ACCRA lawyers
that Mr. Cojuangcois their client and it was Cojuangco who furnished all the monies to the subscriptionpayment;
hence, ACCRA LAWYERS acted as dummies, nominees and/or agents byallowing themselves, among others, to
be used as instrument in accumulating ill-gottenwealth through government concessions, etc., which acts
constitute gross abuse ofofficial position and authority, flagrant breach of public trust, unjust enrichment,violation
of the Constitution and laws of the Republic of the Philippines.On August 20, 1991,
PCGG filed a Motion to Admit Third AmendedComplaint

which
EXCLUDED private respondent ROCO
from the complaint in PCGGCase No. 33 as party-defendant, whereas ACCRA LAWYERS still were included still
asdefendants.ACCRA LAWYERS subsequently filed their Comment/Opposition
withCounter-Motion that respondent PCGG similarly grant the same treatment to
them(exclusion as parties-defendants) as accorded private respondent ROCO.PCGG
in its comment
agreed to exclude the ACCRA LAWYERS on the ffconditions
: (a) the disclosure of the identity of its clients; (b) submission of documentssubstantiating the lawyer-client
relationship; and (c) the submission of the deeds ofassignments ACCRA LAWYERS executed in favor of its
clients covering their respectiveshareholdings.SANDIGANBAYAN RULING:
DENIED
the exclusion of ACCRA LAWYERS inPCGG Case No. 33 for their refusal to comply with the conditions required
by respondentPCGG.ACCRA LAWYERS argue they are prohibited from revealing the identity of theirprincipal
under their sworn mandate and fiduciary duty as lawyers to uphold at alltimes the confidentiality of information
obtained during such lawyer-client relationship.
ISSUE: WON the
lawyers fiduciary duty (uberrimei fidei) may be asserted in
refusing to disclose the identity of clients (name of ACCRA LAWYERS' clients)under the facts and
circumstances obtaining in the instant case? YES, may refuseon the basis of fiduciary duty!
The
GENERAL RULE
in our jurisdiction (as well as in the US) is that a lawyermay NOT invoke the privilege and refuse to divulge the
name or identity of his client.
EXCEPTIONS TO THE RULE
:
(1)
Client identity is privileged where a strong
probability exists that revealing the clients name would implicate that client in the veryactivity
for which he sought the lawyers advice.
(2)
Where disclosure would open theclient to civil liability, his identity is privileged.
(3)
Where the governments lawyershave no case against an attorneys client unless, by revealing
the clients name, the said
name would furnish the only link that would form the chain of testimony necessary toconvict an individual
of a crime, the clients name is privileged.
Other situations which could qualify as exceptions to the general rule: (a)
Content of any client communication to a lawyer relevant to the subject matter of thelegal problem on which the
client seeks legal assistance.
(b)
Where the nature of theattorney-client relationship has been previously disclosed and it is the identity which
isintended to be confidential, since such revelation would otherwise result in disclosure ofthe entire transaction.
Summarizing these exceptions, information relating to the identity of a
client may fall within the ambit of the privilege when the clients name itself has
an independent significance, such that disclosure would then reveal clientconfidences. In the
case at bar, the instant case falls under at least two exceptionsto the general rule. (KP: Exception
1 & 3 above)