Regala v.

Sandiganbayan

Ponente: Kapunan

Facts

PCGG field a caseagainst 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; 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.

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

PETs 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

W/N privileged communication between atty and client may be asserted in refusing to disclose the
name of ACCRA’s clients? Yes.

Held

PET’s 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.

An atty is more than a mere agent or servant because he possesses special powers of trust and
confidence reposed on him by his client.If the price of disclosure is too high, or if it amounts to self-
incrimination, then the flow of information would be curtailed, thereby rendering the right to counsel
practically nugatory.

An effective lawyer-client relationship is largely dependent upon the degree of confidence which exists
between lawyer and client which in turn requires a situation which encourages a dynamic and fruitful
exchange and flow of information.
General rule: a lawyer may not invoke the privilege and refuse to divulge the name or identity of his
client.

Exception:

1. client identity is privileged where a strong probability exists that revealing the client’s name would
implicate that client in the very activity which he sought the lawyer’s advice.
2. the content of any client communication to a lawyer lies within the privilege if it is relevant to the
subject matter of the legal problem on which the client seeks legal assistance.
3. where the nature of the atty-client relationship has been previously disclosed and it is the identity
which is intended to be confidential, the identity of the client has been held to be privileged

The instant case falls under exceptions: disclosure of client’s name would lead to establish said client’s
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 PETs regarding structure, framework and set-up of corporations. In turn, PETs gave
professional advice in the form of, among others, deeds of assignment covering client’s shareholdings.

Preparation of documents part of PET’s legal service to clients. Thus PETs have legitimate fear that
identifying their clients would implicate them in the very activity for which legal advice had been
sought.Revelation of client’s name would provide necessary link for the prosecution to build its case.

Where a client thinks he might have previously committed something illegal and consults atty about it ->
falls within the exception. But where client seeks services of an atty for illicit purposes, seeking advice
about how to go around the law to commit illegal activities -> not covered by privilege.

Purpose of privilege: to avoid fishing expedition by the prosecution. There are alternative sources of
information available to prosecutor w/c do not depend on utilizing defendant’s counsel as source.

Duration of privilege: exists not only during relationship but extends even after termination.

PCGG failed to show that Roco actually revealed identity of clients.

PCGG failed to show that Roco was treated as a species apart from the rest of ACCRA lawyers -> no
substantial distinctions between him and ACCRA; violates equal protection clause.