Title
Supreme Court
Regala vs. Sandiganbayan
Case
G.R. No. 105938
Decision Date
Sep 20, 1996
The Supreme Court upheld attorney-client privilege, ruling petitioners cannot be compelled to reveal client identities, and found Sandiganbayan violated equal protection by treating petitioners differently without justification.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 179452)

Key Dates

Complaint filed by PCGG: July 31, 1987
Third Amended Complaint (excluding Roco): August 20, 1991
Sandiganbayan resolution denying petitioners’ exclusion: March 18, 1992
Final SC decision: September 20, 1996

Applicable Law

• 1987 Constitution: right against self-incrimination (Art. III, § 17), equal protection (Art. III, § 1), State’s recovery power (Art. XI, § 15)
• Rules of Court, Rule 130 § 24(b): attorney-client privilege; Rule 138 § 20(e): duty to preserve client secrets
• Code of Professional Responsibility, Canon 17 & Canon 15: fidelity, confidentiality, strict moral discipline

Factual Background

• ACCRA Law Firm organized and held stock for clients as incorporators/nominees, delivering blank‐endorsed certificates and deeds of assignment.
• PCGG alleged petitioners conspired with Eduardo Cojuangco, Jr. to channel coconut levy funds into UCPB, UNICOM, COCOLIFE, COCOMARK, CIC and to acquire San Miguel shares, using petitioners as nominees.

Procedural History

  1. PCGG filed its Third Amended Complaint, dropping Roco as defendant in exchange for his promise to reveal his principals.
  2. Petitioners moved for similar exclusion. PCGG conditioned exclusion on:
    a. Disclosing client identities
    b. Submitting documents proving the lawyer-client relationship
    c. Producing deeds of assignment covering their shareholdings
  3. Petitioners refused, invoking attorney-client privilege.
  4. Sandiganbayan denied their motion, ruling that until they identify their clients, privilege cannot be assessed.

Issues Presented

  1. Whether Sandiganbayan gravely abused discretion by conditioning exclusion on client disclosure.
  2. Whether petitioners and Roco were similarly situated for equal-protection purposes.
  3. Whether attorney-client privilege, under these facts, bars disclosure of client identity and related documents.
  4. Whether PCGG’s differential treatment violated due process and equal protection.

Attorney-Client Privilege and Its Exceptions

– General rule: communications “made by the client” or “advice given thereon” are privileged, but client identity is ordinarily not protected.
– Exceptions recognized (U.S. authority adopted):
• “Legal-advice exception” (Baird v. Koerner): identity privileged if disclosure would directly implicate client in the very wrongdoing for which advice was sought.
• “Last-link exception”: identity privileged when it constitutes the sole remaining link in a chain of evidence to prosecute the client.
• “Substantive-disclosure exception”: identity privileged where extensive privileged communications already revealed, and naming the client would expose their substance.

Supreme Court’s Analysis and Rationale

– Petitioners were targeted solely to force client identification—a “fishing expedition.”
– Attorney-client confidentiality is essential to the adversarial system and to the right of effective counsel; dis


...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.

About Privacy Terms