RULE 14.

04

BLANZA vs. ARCANGEL

A.C. No. 492; September 5, 1967

FACTS: Atty. Agustin Arcangel, respondent, volunteered to help Olegaria Blanza and Maria Passion,
complainants, in their respective pension claims in connection with the deaths of their husbands,
both P.C. soldiers, and for this purpose, they handed over to him the pertinent documents and also
affixed their signatures on blank papers. But subsequently, they noticed that since then, respondent
had lost interest in the progress of their claims and refused to surrender the papers when asked by
the complainants six years later.

ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Arcangel is guilty for professional non-feasance.

HELD: No. The Court found the evidence adduced insufficient to warrant the taking of disciplinary
action against respondent. But the Court cannot but counsel against his actuations as a member of
the Bar. A lawyer has a more dynamic and positive role in the community than merely complying
with the minimal technicalities of the statute. As a man of the law, he is necessarily a leader of the
community, looked up to as a model citizen. His conduct must, perforce, be par excellence,
especially so when, as in this case, he volunteers his professional services.

DOCTRINE: (see photo)

RULE 15.03

REGALA VS. SANDIGANBAYAN

GR. 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 Segala 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. Petitioner refuses to provide information on fear that it may implicate
them in the very activity from which legal advice was sought from them and it may breach the
fiduciary relationship of the petitioner with their client.

ISSUE: Whether or not client's identity in a case involving and acquiring companies allegedly sourced
from ill-gotten wealth is privileged and disclosure of such is unethical.

HELD: The court held that the client identity in this case is privileged. As a matter of public policy, a
client's identity should not be shrouded in mystery.

DOCTRINE: (see photo)