REGALA VS.

SANDIGANBAYAN (262 SCRA 122)

G.R. No. 105938 September 20, 1996
 
FACTS:
In PCGG Case No. 33 (Civil Case No. 0033), entitled "Republic of the Philippines
versus Eduardo Cojuangco, et al.," the Presidential Commission on Good Government
(PCGG) filed 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
 
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:
 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.

The High Court upheld that petitioners' right not to reveal the identity of their clients
under pain of the breach of fiduciary duty owing to their clients, because the facts of
the instant case clearly fall within recognized exceptions to the rule that the client's
name is not privileged information. Sandiganbayan resolution annulled and set aside.
Petitioners excluded from complaint. 1. A lawyer may not invoke the privilege and
refuse to divulge the name or identity of this client. Reasons: 1. Court has a right to
know that the client whose privileged information is sought to be protected is flesh
and blood. 2. Privilege begins to exist only after the attorneyclient relationship has
been established. The attorney-client privilege does not attach until there is a client. 3.
Privilege generally pertains to the subject matter of the relationship. 4. Due process
considerations