27. UY CHICO v. UNION LIFE
SANDIGANBAYAN
G.R. No. L-9231 January 6, 1915
FACTS:
the father of the plaintiff died in 1897, at which time he was
conducting a business under his own name, Uy Layco. The
plaintiff and his brother took over the business and continued it
under the same name, "Uy Layco." Sometime before the date of
the fire, the plaintiff purchased his brother's interest in the
business and continued to carry on the business under the
father's name.
At the time of the fire "Uy Layco" was heavily indebted and
subsequent thereto the creditors of the estate of the plaintiff's
father. During the course of these proceedings, the plaintiff's
attorney surrendered the policies of insurance to the
administrator of the estate, who compromised with the
insurance company for one-half their face value, or P6,000. This
money was paid into court and is now being held by the sheriff.
The plaintiff now brings this action, maintaining that the policies
and goods insured belonged to him and not to the estate of his
deceased father and alleges that he is not bound by the
compromise effected by the administrator of his father's estate.
The defendant insurance company sought to show that the
plaintiff had agreed to compromise settlement of the policies,
and for that purpose introduced evidence showing that the
plaintiff's attorney had surrendered the policies to the
administrator with the understanding that such a compromise
was to be effected. The plaintiff was asked, while on the witness
stand, if he had any objection to his attorney's testifying
concerning the surrender of the policies, to which he replied in
the negative. The attorney was then called for that purpose.
Whereupon, counsel for the plaintiff formally withdrew the
waiver previously given by the plaintiff and objected to the
testimony of the attorney on the ground that it was privileged
ISSUE:
Was the testimony in question privileged
RULING:
No. Our practice Act provides: "A lawyer must strictly maintain
inviolate the confidence and preserve the secrets of his client.
He shall not be permitted in any court, without the consent of his
client, given in open court, to testify to any facts imparted to him
by his client in professional consultation, or for the purpose of
obtaining advice upon legal matters." (Sec. 31, Act No. 190.)
It is manifest that the objection to the testimony of the plaintiff's
attorney as to his authority to compromise was properly
overruled. The testimony was to the effect that when the
attorney delivered the policies to the administrator, he
understood that there was a compromise to be effected, and
that when he informed the plaintiff of the surrender of the
policies for that purpose the plaintiff made no objection
whatever. The evidence is sufficient to show that the plaintiff
acquiesced in the compromise settlement of the policies. Having
agreed to the compromise, he cannot now disavow it and
maintain an action for the recovery of their face value.
28. REGALA v.
G.R. No. 105938. September 20, 1996
FACTS:
The Presidential Commission on Good Government
(PCGG), raised a complaint before the Sandiganbayan(SB)
against Eduardo 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. 003), 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 'led the petition for certiorari, invoking
that the Honorable Sandiganbayan gravely abused its discretion:
 In subjecting petitioners ACCRA lawyers who
acted to the strict application of the law
of agency
 In not considering petitioners ACCRA la
wyers and Mr. Roco as similarly situate
d a n d , therefore, deserving of equal treatment.
 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.
 In not requiring that the dropping of
party-defendants by the PCGG must be
b a s e d o n reasonable and just grounds and with due
consideration to equal protection of the law
ISSUE:
Whether or not client’s identity in a case involving and acquiring
companies allegedly sourced ill-gotten wealth is privileged and
disclosure of such is unethical
RULING:
The court held that the client identity in this case is privileged. A
s a matter of public policy, a client’s identity should not be
shrouded in mystery. This general rule is however
qualified by some important exceptions:
1. C l i e n t i d e n t i t y i s p r i v i l e g e d w h e r e a
strong probability exists that revealing
t h e c l i e n t ’ s n a m e w o u l d implicate that client in
the very activity for which he sought the lawyer’s
advice.
2. W h e r e d i s c l o s u r e w o u l d o p e n t h e
client to civil liability
3. W h e r e t h e g o v e r n m e n t ’ s l a w y e r s h a v e
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
t e s t i m o n y necessary to convict an individual of a
crime