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
Escueta
FACTS
The case at bar is an offshoot of the institution of the complaint
before the Sandiganbayan by the Republic through the PCGG
against Edaurdo Coajuangco for the recovery of the ill-gotten wealth
which includes shares of stocks. Among the defendants are
petitioners Regala et al referred to as ACCRA Law Firm. ACCRA Law
Firm performed legal services for its clients which included the
organization and acquisition of business associations or
organizations where its members acted as stockholders. In the
performance of these services the members of the law firm delivered
documents (stock certificates endorsed in blank and blank deed of
trust or assignment. The members of he law firm acquire information
to the assets of clients and their personal and business
circumstances. Petitioners admitted that they assisted in the
organization and acquisition of companies. PCGG filed a motion to
admit “Third Amended Complaint” which excluded respondent, Roco
as party defendant that he will reveal the identity of the principal who
acted as stockholder in the companies in PCGG. ACCRA lawyers
filed their Comment with Counter-Motion that PCGG grant the same
treatment to them (exclusion as party defendant). The Counter-
Motion was set for hearing, PCGG set conditions precedent for the
exclusion of petitioners, namely: (a) the disclosure of the identity of
its clients; (b) submission of documents substantiating the lawyer-
client relationship; and (c) the submission of the deeds of
assignments petitioners executed in favor of its clients covering their
respective shareholdings. During the proceedings Roco did not
refute petitioners contention that he did not reveal the identity of the
client involved nor did he reveal the identity of the client whom he
acted as nominee-stockholder. Sandiganbayan promulgated the
Resolution denying the exclusion of the petitioners for their refusal to
comply with the conditions. ACCRA lawyers moved for
reconsideration but was denied, filed petition for certiorari.
lawyers from revealing identity of their clients and other information?
HELD: Yes.
The nature of lawyer-client relationship is premised on the Roman
Law concepts of locatio conductio operarum (contract of lease of
services) where one person lets his services and another hires them
without reference to the object of which the services are to be
performed, wherein lawyers' services may be compensated by
honorarium or for hire, and mandato (contract of agency). But the
lawyer-client relationship is more than that of the principal- agent and
lessor-lessee. 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. 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.
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.
The Rules of Court provides
Sec 24 : Disqualification by reason of privileged
communication. — The following persons cannot testify as to
matters learned in confidence in the following cases:
xxx xxx xxx
An attorney cannot, without the consent of his client, be
 examined as to any communication made by the client to
him, or his advice given thereon in the course of, or with a
view to, professional employment, can an attorney's
secretary, stenographer, or clerk be examined, without the
consent of the client and his employer, concerning any fact
the knowledge of which has been acquired in such capacity.
Rule 138 of the Rules of Court states:
Sec. 20. It is the duty of an attorney:
e) to maintain inviolate the confidence, and at every peril to
himself, to preserve the secrets of his client, and to accept
no compensation in connection with his client's business
except from him or with his knowledge and approval.
Canon 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides:
Canon 17. A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client
and he shall be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed
in him.
Canon 15 of the Canons of Professional Ethics also demands a
lawyer's fidelity to client:
The lawyer owes "entire devotion to the interest of the client,
warm zeal in the maintenance and defense of his rights and
the exertion of his utmost learning and ability," to the end
that nothing be taken or be withheld from him, save by the
rules of law, legally applied. No fear of judicial disfavor or
public popularity should restrain him from the full discharge
of his duty. In the judicial forum the client is entitled to the
bene t of any and every remedy and defense that is
authorized by the law of the land, and he may expect his
lawyer to assert every such remedy or defense. But it is
steadfastly to be borne in mind that the great trust of the
lawyer is to be performed within and not without the bounds
of the law. The of ce of attorney does not permit, much less
does it demand of him for any client, violation of law or any
manner of fraud or chicanery. He must obey his own
conscience and not that of his client.
If a client were made to choose between legal representation without
effective communication and disclosure and legal representation with
all his secrets revealed then he might be compelled, in some
instances, to either opt to stay away from the judicial system or to
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
curtailed thereby rendering the right practically nugatory. The threat
this represents against another sacrosanct individual right, the right
to be presumed innocent is at once self-evident.
An effective lawyer-client relationship is largely dependent upon the
degree of confidence which exists between lawyer and client which
in turn requires a situation which encourages a dynamic and fruitful
exchange and flow of information. It necessarily follows that 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.
General Rule: Lawyer may not invoke the privilege and refuse to
divulge the name or identity of his client.
First, the court has a right to know that the client whose privileged
information is sought to be protected is flesh and blood. Second, the
privilege begins to exist only after the attorney-client relationship has
been established. The attorney-client privilege does not attach until
there is a client Third, the privilege generally pertains to the subject
matter of the relationship. Finally, due process considerations require
that the opposing party should, as a general rule, know his
adversary. "A party suing or sued is entitled to know who his
opponent is."

Exceptions:
(Principal exceptions)
1. 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.
2. Where disclosure would open the client to civil liability, his
identity is privileged.
3. Where the government's lawyers have no case against an
attorney's client unless, by revealing the client's name, the
said name would furnish the only link that would form the
chain of testimony necessary to convict an individual of a
crime, the client's name is privileged.
(Other exceptions)
1. Nature of the attorney-client relationship has been previously
disclosed and it is the identity which is intended to be
confidential,
2. the identity of the client has been held to be privileged, since
such revelation would otherwise result in disclosure and the
entire transaction.
3. Information relating to the identity of a client
Veronica Santiago v Atty Amado Fojas
FACTS:
Former clients of the respondent pray that the latter be disbarred for
“malpractice, neglect and other offenses which may be discovered
during the actual investigation”. They attached an affidavit of Merit
stating that Atty Fojas committed malpractice and negligence in his
performance of his duty when he had an obligation to defend but
failed to answer a civil complaint in the sala of Judge Capulong
declaring them in default, without stating the reason why he failed to
do so. That under false pretenses Fojas assured them that
everything was in order and that he had already answered the
complaint in spite demand. Only to disclose that he never answered
because he was a very busy man.
In his comment, Atty Fojas admits his mistake in failing to file the
complainants answer but he alleges that it was cured by filing of a
motion for reconsideration which was denied by the court. He asserts
that it was a losing cause for the complainants because it was based
on the expulsion of the plaintiff from FEU Faculty Association which
was declared unlawful in the final decision therefore unfavorable in
the RTC. He further claims that the complainants filed the case to
harass him because he refused to share his legal fees. He prays for
the dismissal of the case for lack of merit and such failure /
negligence cannot warrant his disbarment or suspension from
practice. Complainants allege that his failure to answer was not an
honest mistake but was deliberate, malicious and calculated to place
them on the legal disadvantage and he admitted that the failure to do
so was due to the volume and pressure of legal work while his
Comment attributes it to honest mistake and excusable neglect due
to his overzealousness to question the denial order of the trial court.
Issue: Whether or not Fojas committed culpable negligence?
HELD:
It is axiomatic that no lawyer is obliged to act either as adviser or
advocate for every person who may wish to become his client. He
has the right to decline employment, subject, however, to Canon 14
of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Once he agrees to take
up the cause of a client, the lawyer owes fidelity to such cause and
must always be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him.
He must serve the client with competence and diligence, and
champion the latter's cause with wholehearted fidelity, care, and
devotion. Elsewise stated, he owes entire devotion to the interest of
the client, warm zeal in the maintenance and defense of his client's
rights, and the exertion of his utmost learning and ability to the end
that nothing be taken or withheld from his client, save by the rules of
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."