TEODORO REGALA, EDGARDO ANGARA et. al v.

SANDIGANBAYAN
262 SCRA 122| September 20, 1996
Kapunan, J.

Doctrines:
1. All things similarly situated should enjoy equal protection of the law unless such distinction
is justified by the following: based on substantial distinction, germane to the purpose of
the law and applicable not just the present but also future conditions.
2. In order to attain effective representation, the lawyer must invoke the privilege not as a
matter of option but as a matter of duty and professional responsibility.

FACTS
The petitioners in this case are partners of the ACCRA law firm who provides legal services
for its clients including the organization and acquisition of business associations and/or
organizations and in the performance of these services, they deliver documents to their clients
which would substantiate the latter’s equity holdings.
The case has its roots on the case filed against Eduardo Cojuangco Jr for the recovery of
alleged ill-gotten wealth which includes stocks in the named corporations provided by the PCGG.
The petitioners have admitted that they assisted in the organization of said companies and were in
fact acted as nominees-stockholders of the said corporation. This prompted the PCGG to file a
complaint against the petitioner which was heavily contested by the latter. Petitioners also prayed
that they be excluded as parties-defendants just like what they accorded private respondent Roco.
However, the PCGG want them to disclose the identity of their clients, submit both documents
that would substantiate lawyer-client relationship and deeds of assignments the petitioners
executed in favor of its clients before granting their request for exclusion. The petitioners refused
to comply with the said conditions, invoking attorney-client relationship, but the Sandiganbayan
still denied their exclusion on the ground that ACCRA needs to establish the said privilege by
revealing the existence and identity of the client.

ISSUES AND HOLDING

1. W/N Sandiganbayan erred in not considering that the ACCRA lawyers and Mr. Roco as
similarly situated deserving of equal treatment- NO.

Petitioners contend that they are similarly situated with Mr. Roco hence they should also be
excluded as parties-defendant on the grounds that there is no evidence showing that the latter has
disclosed the identities of his clients and assuming arguendo that the same was disclosed, it does
not constitute a substantial distinction to merit the difference in treatment between the former and
the latter.
In this case, both the petitioners and Mr. Roco have claimed that their acts were made in
furtherance of legitimate lawyering hence they are similarly situated. The contention of the public
respondents that the reason for the difference lies with the promise of Mr. Roco to disclose the
identities of his client holds no water for there was nothing to prove such promise. In line with

SERAPIO C2021 | 1
this, when Mr. Roco was accorded differently where no substantial distinction exists, public
respondents violated the equal protection clause.

2. W/N the Sandiganbayan erred in not holding that the attorney-client privilege prohibits
petitioners from revealing the identity of their clients- YES.

It is evident in the present case that the petitioners were impleaded as co-defendants to force
them to disclose the identity of their clients. They were being prosecuted for performing their
duties as a lawyer. The PCGG has no valid cause of action against the petitioners.
Moreover, the attorney-client privilege prohibits the petitioners from disclosing the identity of
their clients. In the course of his duty, a lawyer is bound to perform his fiduciary duty to client
which is of very delicate and confidential in character and requires high degree of fidelity and good
faith. As a matter of fact, there are rules found in the Code of Civil Procedure and Rules of Court
as well as the Code of Professional Responsibility and Code of Professional Ethics prohibiting a
lawyer to disclose anything that was disclosed to him or the advice that he has given, absent the
consent of his client. The reason for which is to protect the right of an accused for a counsel.
As a general rule, identity of the clients should be shrouded in mystery. However, the same is
privileged when 1) a strong probability exists that revealing the client’s name would implicate the
client in the very activity for which he sought the lawyer’s advice; 2) if such disclosure would
open the client to civil liability; 3) where the government lawyers have no case against the client
unless by revealing the clients name would furnish the only link that would form the chain of
testimony necessary to convict an individual of a crime.
Applying the foregoing to the case, it can be gleaned that the conditions by the PCGG falls
within the first and the third exception. It is undisputed that the clients indeed consulted the
petitioners and that the petitioners gave them advice. Also, the disclosure of aforestated documents
is an integral part of their duties as lawyers. Moreover, the prosecution should prove its claims
from their own sources, not from the compelled testimony of the petitioners requiring them to
disclose the identity of their clients and would result to revealing the nature of the transaction
which may or may not be illegal.

WHEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the Resolutions of respondent

Sandiganbayan (First Division) promulgated on March 18, 1992 and May 21, 1992 are hereby
ANNULLED and SET ASIDE. Respondent Sandiganbayan is further ordered to exclude
petitioners Teodoro D. Regala, Edgardo J. Angara, Avelino V. Cruz, Jose C. Concepcion, *Rogelio
A. Vinluan, Victor P. Lazatin, Eduardo U. Escueta and Paraja G. Hayuduni as parties-defendants
in SB Civil Case No. 0033 entitled "Republic of the Philippines v. Eduardo Cojuangco, Jr., et al.".

SERAPIO C2021 | 2