1

Attorneys; Lawyer-Client Relationship; Petitioners are being prosecuted solely on the basis of activities
and services performed in the course of their duties as lawyers. —It would seem that petitioners are
merely standing in for their clients as defendants in the complaint. Petitioners are being prosecuted
solely on the basis of activities and services performed in the course of their duties as lawyers. Quite
obviously, petitioners’ inclusion as co-defendants in the complaint is merely being used as leverage to
compel them to name their clients and consequently to enable the PCGG to nail these clients. Such
being the case, respondent PCGG has no valid cause of action as against petitioners and should exclude
them from the Third Amended Complaint. Regala vs. Sandiganbayan, First Division, 262 SCRA 122, G.R.
No. 105938, G.R. No. 108113 September 20, 1996

Same; Same; An attorney is more than a mere agent or servant because he possesses special powers of
trust and confidence reposed on him by his client. —In modern day perception of the lawyer-client
relationship, an attorney is more than a mere agent or servant, because he possesses special powers of
trust and confidence reposed on him by his client. A lawyer is also as independent as the judge of the
court, thus his powers are entirely different from and superior to those of an ordinary agent. Moreover,
an attorney also occupies what may be considered as a “quasi-judicial office” since he is in fact an officer
of the Court and exercises his judgment in the choice of courses of action to be taken favorable to his
client.

Same; Same; In the creation of lawyer-client relationship there are rules, ethical conduct and duties that
breathe life into it.—Thus, in the creation of lawyer-client relationship, there are rules, ethical conduct
and duties that breathe life into it, among those, the fiduciary duty to his client which is of a very
delicate, exacting and confidential character, requiring a very high degree of fidelity and good faith, that
is required by reason of necessity and public interest based on the hypothesis that abstinence from
seeking legal advice in a good cause is an evil which is fatal to the administration of justice. Regala vs.
Sandiganbayan, First Division, 262 SCRA 122, G.R. No. 105938, G.R. No. 108113 September 20, 1996

Same; Same; Generally, a lawyer may not invoke the privilege and refuse to divulge the name or identity
of his client.—As a matter of public policy, a client’s identity should not be shrouded in mystery. Under
this premise, the general rule in our jurisdiction as well as in the United States is that a lawyer may not
invoke the privilege and refuse to divulge the name or identity of his client.

Same; Same; Client identity is privileged where a strong probability exists that revealing the client’s
name would implicate that client in the very activity for which he sought the lawyer’s advice.—Client
identity is privileged where a strong probability exists that revealing the client’s name would implicate
that client in the very activity for which he sought the lawyer’s advice.

Same; Same; Where disclosure would open the client to civil liability his identity is privileged.—Where
disclosure would open the client to civil liability, his identity is privileged. For instance, the peculiar facts
and circumstances of Neugass v. Terminal Cab Corporation, prompted the New York Supreme Court to
 2

allow a lawyer’s claim to the effect that he could not reveal the name of his client because this would
expose the latter to civil litigation.

Attorneys; Lawyer-Client Relationship; It is unreasonable for the Sandiganbayan to compel petitioners to

breach the trust reposed on them and succumb to a thinly disguised threat of incrimination.—I see in
the case before us, given the attendant circumstances already detailed in the ponencia, a situation of
the Republic attempting to establish a case not on what it perceives to be the strength of its own
evidence but on what it could elicit from a counsel against his client. I find it unreasonable for the
Sandiganbayan to compel petitioners to breach the trust reposed on them and succumb to a thinly
disguised threat of incrimination. Regala vs. Sandiganbayan, First Division, 262 SCRA 122, G.R. No.
105938, G.R. No. 108113 September 20, 1996

Attorneys; Lawyer-Client Relationship; The prerogative to determine who shall be made defendant in a
civil case is initially vested in the plaintiff.—The prerogative to determine who shall be made defendants
in a civil case is initially vested in the plaintiff, or the PCGG in this case. The control of the Court comes in
only when the issue of “interest” (§2, Rule 3, Rules of Court) as, e.g., whether an indispensable party has
not been joined, or whether there is a misjoinder of parties (§7, 8, and 9, Id.), is raised.

Same; Same; The rule of confidentiality under the lawyer-client relationship is not a cause to exclude a
party.—In view of their adamantine position, the petitioners did not, therefore, allow themselves to be
like Roco. They cannot claim the same treatment, much less compel the PCGG to drop them as
defendants, for nothing whatsoever. They have no right to make such a demand for until they shall have
complied with the conditions imposed for their exclusion, they cannot be excluded except by way of a
motion to dismiss based on the grounds allowed by law (e.g., those enumerated in §1, Rule 16, Rules of
Court). The rule of confidentiality under the lawyer-client relationship is not a cause to exclude a party.
It is merely a ground for disqualification of a witness (§24, Rule 130, Rules of Court) and may only be
invoked at the appropriate time, i.e., when a lawyer is under compulsion to answer as witness, as when,
having taken the witness stand, he is questioned as to such confidential communication or advice, or is
being otherwise judicially coerced to produce, through subpoenae duces tecum or otherwise, letters or
other documents containing the same privileged matter.

Regala vs. Sandiganbayan, First Division, 262 SCRA 122, G.R. No. 105938, G.R. No. 108113 September
20, 1996

But none of the lawyers in this case is being required to testify about or otherwise reveal “any
[confidential] communication made by the client to him, or his advice given thereon in the course of, or
with a view to, professional employment.”

PUNO, J., Dissenting Opinion:

 3

Attorneys; Lawyer-Client Relationship; The relation of attorney and client cannot exist for the purpose of
counsel in concocting crimes.—Communications to an attorney having for their object the commission
of a crime “x x x partake the nature of a conspiracy, and it is not only lawful to divulge such
communications, but under certain circumstances it might become the duty of the attorney to do so.
The interests of public justice require that no such shield from merited exposure shall be interposed to
protect a person who takes counsel how he can safely commit a crime. The relation of attorney and
client cannot exist for the purpose of counsel in concocting crimes.” In the well chosen words of retired
Justice Quiason, a lawyer is not a gun for hire.

Same; Same; As a general rule, the attorney-client privilege does not include the right of non-disclosure
of client identity.—Assuming then that petitioners can invoke the attorney-client privilege since the
PCGG is no longer proceeding against them as co-conspirators in crimes, we should focus on the more
specific issue of whether the attorney-client privilege includes the right not to divulge the identity of a
client as contended by the petitioners. As a general rule, the attorney-client privilege does not include
the right of non-disclosure of client identity. The general rule, however, admits of well-etched
exceptions which the Sandiganbayan failed to recognize.

Same; Same; The person claiming the privilege or its exceptions has the obligation to present the
underlying facts demonstrating the existence of the privilege.—Be that as it may, I part ways with the
majority when it ruled that petitioners need not prove they fall within the exceptions to the general
rule. I respectfully submit that the attorney-client privilege is not a magic mantra whose invocation will
ipso facto and ipso jure drape he who invokes it with its protection. Plainly put, it is not enough to assert
the privilege. The person claiming the privilege or its exceptions has the obligation to present the
underlying facts demonstrating the existence of the privilege.

Regala vs. Sandiganbayan, First Division, 262 SCRA 122, G.R. No. 105938, G.R. No. 108113 September
20, 1996

When these facts can be presented only by revealing the very information sought to be protected by the
privilege, the procedure is for the lawyer to move for an inspection of the evidence in an in camera
hearing. The hearing can even be in camera and ex-parte. Regala vs. Sandiganbayan, First Division, 262
SCRA 122, G.R. No. 105938, G.R. No. 108113 September 20, 1996

Same; Same; The content of any client communication to a lawyer lies within the privilege if it is relevant
to the subject matter of the legal problem on which the client seeks legal assistance.—Apart from these
principal exceptions, there exist other situations which could qualify as exceptions to the general rule.
For example, the content of any client communication to a lawyer lies within the privilege if it is relevant
to the subject matter of the legal problem on which the client seeks legal assistance. Moreover, where
the nature of the attorney-client relationship has been previously disclosed and it is the identity which is
 4

intended to be confidential, the identity of the client has been held to be privileged, since such
revelation would otherwise result in disclosure of the entire transaction.

Same; Same; The lawyer-client confidentiality privilege and lawyer’s loyalty to his client extends even
after the termination of the relationship.—The utmost zeal given by Courts to the protection of the
lawyer-client confidentiality privilege and lawyer’s loyalty to his client is evident in the duration of the
protection, which exists not only during the relationship, but extends even after the termination of the
relationship. Regala vs. Sandiganbayan, First Division, 262 SCRA 122, G.R. No. 105938, G.R. No. 108113
September 20, 1996