Regala v.

Sandiganbayan

Facts

This case is an offshoot of a case file by PCGG a case against Eduardo Cojuangco Jr. for the recovery of
ill-gotten wealth. Among the defendants were the ACCRA Law Firm and Raul Roco, also a part of ACCRA.
Case alleged that Cojuangco and defendants conspired in setting up through the use of coco levy funds
numerous banks and corporations; that ACCRA acted as dummies.

ACCRA performed legal services for clients, with the incidental services where its members acted as
stockholders. In the process, members of ACCRA acquired information relative to assets of clients and
their personal and business circumstances.

PCGG excluded Raul Roco from the complaint as party-defendant because of his undertaking that he will
reveal the identity of the principals for whom he acted as nominee-stockholder in the companies
involved.

ACCRA lawyers petitioned that they be excluded as party defendant as well.

Sandiganbayan promulgated a Resolution denying the exclusion of ACCRA members in the complaint as
party-defendants. MR denied.

Petitioners contend: that the exclusion of Roco as party-defendant grants him a favourable treatment,
on the pretext of his alleged undertaking to divulge the identity of his client, giving him an advantage
over ACCRA members; that lawyers are prohibited from revealing the identity of their principal.

Issue

Whether or not privileged communication between atty and client may be asserted in refusing to
disclose the name of ACCRAs clients?

Held

PETs inclusion as co-defendants is merely being used as leverage to compel them to name their clients
and consequently to enable PCGG to nail these clients thus PCGG has no valid cause of action against
PETs and should exclude them from the complaint.

As a general rule the lawyer may not invoke the privilege of communicating the identity of the client but
the case at bar falls under the exeption

The instant case falls under exceptions: disclosure of clients name would lead to establish said clients
connection with the very fact in issue of the case.

Link between the alleged criminal offense and the legal advice/service sought duly established: clients
consulted the Petitioners regarding structure, framework and set-up of corporations. In turn, Petitioners
gave professional advice in the form of, among others, deeds of assignment covering clients
shareholdings.
Preparation of documents part of petitioners legal service to clients. Thus petitioners have legitimate
fear that identifying their clients would implicate them in the very activity for which legal advice had
been sought. Revelation of clients name would provide necessary link for the prosecution to build its
case.

The Petitioners may invoke the privilege not to disclose the name of their client