REGALA VS.

SANDIGANBAYAN (262 SCRA 122)

G.R. No. 105938 September 20, 1996
 
FACTS:
The Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG), raised a
complaint before the Sandiganbayan (SB) against Eduardo M. Cojuangco, Jr.
and Teodoro Regala 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:

1.   In subjecting petitioners ACCRA lawyers who acted to the

strict application of the law of agency
2.   In not considering petitioners ACCRA lawyers and Mr. Roco
as similarly situated and, therefore, deserving of equal treatment.
3.   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.
4.   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: WON the attorney-client privilege prohibits petitioners ACCRA
lawyers from revealing the identity of their clients and the other information
requested by the PCGG.
HELD:
ACCRA lawyers & Roco are similarly situated and, therefore, deserving of
equal treatment

Being “similarly situated” in that ACCRA LAWYERS’ and ROCO’s acts were
made in furtherance of “legitimate lawyering, PCGG must show that there
exist other conditions and circumstances which would warrant their treating
ROCO differently from ACCRA LAWYERS in the case at bench in order to
evade a violation of the equal protection clause of the Constitution.

To justify the dropping of ROCO from the case or the filing of the suit in the
Sandiganbayan without him, the PCGG should conclusively show that Mr.
Roco was treated as a species apart from the rest of the ACCRA lawyers on
the basis of a classification which made substantial distinctions based on real
differences. No such substantial distinctions exist from the records of the case
at bench, in violation of the equal protection clause.

We find that the condition precedent required by the respondent PCGG of the
petitioners for their exclusion as parties-defendants in PCGG Case No. 33
violates the lawyer-client confidentiality privilege. The condition also
constitutes a transgression by respondents Sandiganbayan and PCGG of the
equal protection clause of the Constitution

It is grossly unfair to exempt one similarly situated litigant from prosecution

without allowing the same exemption to the others. Moreover, the PCGG's
demand not only touches upon the question of the identity of their clients but
also on documents related to the suspected transactions, not only in violation
of the attorney-client privilege but also of the constitutional right against self-
incrimination. Whichever way one looks at it, this is a fishing expedition, a free
ride at the expense of such rights.