ISSUE: Whether or not Sandiganbayan exercised grave abuse of

discretion in not holding the attorney-client privilege prohibits ACCRA

Teodoro Regala, Eduardo Angara, Avelino Cruz v Eduardo lawyers from revealing identity of their clients and other information?
Escueta
HELD: Yes.
FACTS
The case at bar is an offshoot of the institution of the complaint The nature of lawyer-client relationship is premised on the Roman
before the Sandiganbayan by the Republic through the PCGG Law concepts of locatio conductio operarum (contract of lease of
against Edaurdo Coajuangco for the recovery of the ill-gotten wealth services) where one person lets his services and another hires them
which includes shares of stocks. Among the defendants are without reference to the object of which the services are to be
petitioners Regala et al referred to as ACCRA Law Firm. ACCRA Law performed, wherein lawyers' services may be compensated by
Firm performed legal services for its clients which included the honorarium or for hire, and mandato (contract of agency). But the
organization and acquisition of business associations or lawyer-client relationship is more than that of the principal- agent and
organizations where its members acted as stockholders. In the lessor-lessee. In modern day perception of the lawyer-client
performance of these services the members of the law firm delivered relationship, an attorney is more than a mere agent or servant,
documents (stock certificates endorsed in blank and blank deed of because he possesses special powers of trust and confidence
trust or assignment. The members of he law firm acquire information reposed on him by his client. A lawyer is also as independent as the
to the assets of clients and their personal and business judge of the court, thus his powers are entirely different from and
circumstances. Petitioners admitted that they assisted in the superior to those of an ordinary agent. An attorney also occupies
organization and acquisition of companies. PCGG filed a motion to what may be considered as a "quasi-judicial office" since he is in fact
admit “Third Amended Complaint” which excluded respondent, Roco an officer of the Court and exercises his judgment in the choice of
as party defendant that he will reveal the identity of the principal who courses of action to be taken favorable to his client.
acted as stockholder in the companies in PCGG. ACCRA lawyers
filed their Comment with Counter-Motion that PCGG grant the same There are rules, ethical conduct and duties that breathe life into it,
treatment to them (exclusion as party defendant). The Counter- among those, the fiduciary duty to his client which is of a very
Motion was set for hearing, PCGG set conditions precedent for the delicate, exacting and confidential character, requiring a very high
exclusion of petitioners, namely: (a) the disclosure of the identity of degree of fidelity and good faith, that is required by reason of
its clients; (b) submission of documents substantiating the lawyer- necessity and public interest.
client relationship; and (c) the submission of the deeds of
assignments petitioners executed in favor of its clients covering their The Rules of Court provides
respective shareholdings. During the proceedings Roco did not Sec 24 : Disqualification by reason of privileged
refute petitioners contention that he did not reveal the identity of the communication. — The following persons cannot testify as to
client involved nor did he reveal the identity of the client whom he matters learned in confidence in the following cases:
acted as nominee-stockholder. Sandiganbayan promulgated the
Resolution denying the exclusion of the petitioners for their refusal to xxx xxx xxx
comply with the conditions. ACCRA lawyers moved for
reconsideration but was denied, filed petition for certiorari. An attorney cannot, without the consent of his client, be
 examined as to any communication made by the client to of the law. The of ce of attorney does not permit, much less
him, or his advice given thereon in the course of, or with a does it demand of him for any client, violation of law or any
view to, professional employment, can an attorney's manner of fraud or chicanery. He must obey his own
secretary, stenographer, or clerk be examined, without the conscience and not that of his client.
consent of the client and his employer, concerning any fact
the knowledge of which has been acquired in such capacity. If a client were made to choose between legal representation without
effective communication and disclosure and legal representation with
Rule 138 of the Rules of Court states: all his secrets revealed then he might be compelled, in some
instances, to either opt to stay away from the judicial system or to
Sec. 20. It is the duty of an attorney: lose the right to counsel. If the price of disclosure is too high, or if it
amounts to self-incrimination, then the flow of information would be
e) to maintain inviolate the confidence, and at every peril to curtailed thereby rendering the right practically nugatory. The threat
himself, to preserve the secrets of his client, and to accept this represents against another sacrosanct individual right, the right
no compensation in connection with his client's business to be presumed innocent is at once self-evident.
except from him or with his knowledge and approval.
An effective lawyer-client relationship is largely dependent upon the
Canon 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides: degree of confidence which exists between lawyer and client which
in turn requires a situation which encourages a dynamic and fruitful
Canon 17. A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client exchange and flow of information. It necessarily follows that in order
and he shall be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed to attain effective representation, the lawyer must invoke the
in him. privilege not as a matter of option but as a matter of duty and
professional responsibility.
Canon 15 of the Canons of Professional Ethics also demands a
lawyer's fidelity to client: General Rule: Lawyer may not invoke the privilege and refuse to
divulge the name or identity of his client.
The lawyer owes "entire devotion to the interest of the client,
warm zeal in the maintenance and defense of his rights and First, the court has a right to know that the client whose privileged
the exertion of his utmost learning and ability," to the end information is sought to be protected is flesh and blood. Second, the
that nothing be taken or be withheld from him, save by the privilege begins to exist only after the attorney-client relationship has
rules of law, legally applied. No fear of judicial disfavor or been established. The attorney-client privilege does not attach until
public popularity should restrain him from the full discharge there is a client Third, the privilege generally pertains to the subject
of his duty. In the judicial forum the client is entitled to the matter of the relationship. Finally, due process considerations require
bene t of any and every remedy and defense that is that the opposing party should, as a general rule, know his
authorized by the law of the land, and he may expect his adversary. "A party suing or sued is entitled to know who his
lawyer to assert every such remedy or defense. But it is opponent is."
steadfastly to be borne in mind that the great trust of the
lawyer is to be performed within and not without the bounds
 complaint in spite demand. Only to disclose that he never answered
because he was a very busy man.
Exceptions:
(Principal exceptions) In his comment, Atty Fojas admits his mistake in failing to file the
1. Client identity is privileged where a strong probability exists complainants answer but he alleges that it was cured by filing of a
that revealing the client's name would implicate that client in motion for reconsideration which was denied by the court. He asserts
the very activity for which he sought the lawyer's advice. that it was a losing cause for the complainants because it was based
2. Where disclosure would open the client to civil liability, his on the expulsion of the plaintiff from FEU Faculty Association which
identity is privileged. was declared unlawful in the final decision therefore unfavorable in
3. Where the government's lawyers have no case against an the RTC. He further claims that the complainants filed the case to
attorney's client unless, by revealing the client's name, the harass him because he refused to share his legal fees. He prays for
said name would furnish the only link that would form the the dismissal of the case for lack of merit and such failure /
chain of testimony necessary to convict an individual of a negligence cannot warrant his disbarment or suspension from
crime, the client's name is privileged. practice. Complainants allege that his failure to answer was not an
honest mistake but was deliberate, malicious and calculated to place
(Other exceptions) them on the legal disadvantage and he admitted that the failure to do
1. Nature of the attorney-client relationship has been previously so was due to the volume and pressure of legal work while his
disclosed and it is the identity which is intended to be Comment attributes it to honest mistake and excusable neglect due
confidential, to his overzealousness to question the denial order of the trial court.
2. the identity of the client has been held to be privileged, since
such revelation would otherwise result in disclosure and the Issue: Whether or not Fojas committed culpable negligence?
entire transaction.
3. Information relating to the identity of a client HELD:

It is axiomatic that no lawyer is obliged to act either as adviser or

Veronica Santiago v Atty Amado Fojas advocate for every person who may wish to become his client. He
has the right to decline employment, subject, however, to Canon 14
FACTS: of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Once he agrees to take
Former clients of the respondent pray that the latter be disbarred for up the cause of a client, the lawyer owes fidelity to such cause and
“malpractice, neglect and other offenses which may be discovered must always be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him.
during the actual investigation”. They attached an affidavit of Merit He must serve the client with competence and diligence, and
stating that Atty Fojas committed malpractice and negligence in his champion the latter's cause with wholehearted fidelity, care, and
performance of his duty when he had an obligation to defend but devotion. Elsewise stated, he owes entire devotion to the interest of
failed to answer a civil complaint in the sala of Judge Capulong the client, warm zeal in the maintenance and defense of his client's
declaring them in default, without stating the reason why he failed to rights, and the exertion of his utmost learning and ability to the end
do so. That under false pretenses Fojas assured them that that nothing be taken or withheld from his client, save by the rules of
everything was in order and that he had already answered the law, legally applied. This simply means that his client is entitled to the
benefit of any and every remedy and defense that is authorized by The respondent's negligence is not excused by his claim that the
the law of the land and he may expect his lawyer to assert every case was in fact a "losing cause" since the claims for damages were
such remedy or defense. If much is demanded from an attorney, it is based on the final decision of the Med-Arbiter declaring the
because the entrusted privilege to practice law carries with it the complainants' act of expelling Salvador from the union to be illegal.
correlative duties not only to the client but also to the court, to the
bar, and to the public. A lawyer who performs his duty with diligence Rule 15.05, Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
and candor not only protects the interest of his client; he also serves expressly provides:
the ends of justice, does honor to the bar, and helps maintain the A lawyer, when advising his client, shall give a candid and
respect of the community to the legal profession. honest opinion on the merits and probable results of the
client's case, neither overstating nor understating the
"Overzealousness" and "volume and pressure of legal work" on the prospects of the case.
other are two distinct and separate causes or grounds. The first
presupposes the respondent's full and continuing awareness of his
duty to file an answer which, nevertheless, he subordinated to his
conviction that the trial court had committed a reversible error or
grave abuse of discretion in issuing an order reconsidering its
previous order of dismissal and in denying the motion to reconsider
the said order. The second ground is purely based on forgetfulness
because of his other commitments. Whether it be the first or the
second ground, the fact remains that the respondent did not comply
with his duty to file an answer. His lack of diligence was compounded
by his erroneous belief that the trial court committed such error or
grave abuse of discretion and by his continued refusal to file an
answer even after he received the Court of Appeals' decision in the
certiorari case.

Pressure and large volume of legal work provide no excuse for the
respondent's inability to exercise due diligence in the performance of
his duty to file an answer. Every case a lawyer accepts deserves his
full attention, diligence, skill, and competence, regardless of its
importance and whether he accepts it for a fee or for free.

Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which requires

him to serve his clients, the complainants herein, with diligence and,
more specifically, Rule 18.03 thereof which provides: "A lawyer shall
not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in
connection therewith shall render him liable."