REGALA ET AL. VS.

SANDIGANBAYAN
GR NO. 105938, SEPTEMBER 20, 1996
FACTS :
Clients consulted the petitioners, in their capacity as lawyers, regarding the financial and
corporate structure, framework and set-up of the corporations in question. In turn, petitioners
gave their professional advice in the form of, among others, the deeds of assignment covering
their client's shareholdings. Petitioners fear that identifying their clients would implicate them in
the very activity for which legal advice had been sought, i.e., the alleged accumulation of illgotten wealth in the aforementioned corporations.
1. July 31, 1987 complaint before the Sandiganbayan of PCGG vs.
Eduardo M. Cojuangco, Jr., (principal defendant) et al. for recovery of
alleged ill-gotten wealth, i. e., shares of stocks in named corporations
in PCGG Case No. 33 (Civil Case No. 0033), entitled "R. P. v.
Cojuangco, et al."
2. Defendants named in the case are herein petitioners (plus private
respondent Raul S. Roco) - then partners of the law firm Angara,
Abello, Concepcion, Regala and Cruz Law Offices (ACCRA Law Firm).
3. ACCRA Law Firm acquired info on assets of clients, personal and
business circumstances; assisted in organization and acquisition of
business associations and/or organizations (companies listed in Civil
Case 0033), where its members acted as incorporators, or simply, as
stockholders etc; delivered documents which substantiate the client's
equity holdings, i.e., (1) stock certificates endorsed in blank
representing the shares registered in the client's name, and (2) a
blank deed of trust or assignment covering said shares; acted as
nominees-stockholders of the said corporations involved in
sequestration proceedings (as office practice)
4. August 20, 1991 - respondent PCGGs "Motion to Admit Third
Amended Complaint" and "Third Amended Complaint" excluded private
respondent Raul Roco from complaint in PCGG Case No. 33 because of
his undertaking that he will reveal the identity of the principal/s for
Created by: Ma. Angela Leonor C. Aguinaldo Ateneo Law 1E 2010
Page 24 of 147
whom he acted as nominee/stockholder in the companies involved in
PCGG Case No. 33.
5. Third Amended Complaint said defendants conspired in helping
set up, through the use of the coconut levy funds, UCPB, UNICOM,
COCOLIFE, COCOMARK, CIC, and more than 20 other coconut levy
funded corporations, including the acquisition of San Miguel
Corporation shares
6. ACCRA Investments Corporation - became the holder of
approximately 15 million shares (roughly 3.3%) of total outstanding
capital stock of UCPB as of 31 March 1987; 44 among the top 100
biggest stockholders of UCPB (about 1,400,000 shareholders); a
wholly-owned investment arm
7. Edgardo J. Angara - holding approximately 3,744 shares as of
February, 1984 of UCPB
8. Expanded Amended Complaint of ACCRA said that is only in

legitimate lawyering; became holders of shares of stock in the

corporations listed but do not claim any proprietary interest in the said
shares of stock; said Avelino V. Cruz an incorporator in 1976 of
Mermaid Marketing Corporation but for legitimate business purposes
and already transferred shares
9. Petitioner Paraja Hayudini - denied being onvolved in the alleged illgotten
wealth
10. "COMMENT AND/OR OPPOSITION" dated October 8, 1991 with
Counter-Motion of ACCRA moving that respondent PCGG similarly
grant the same treatment to them (exclusion as parties-defendants)
as accorded Roco.
11. Conditions precedent for the exclusion of petitioners, namely
(PCGGs Comment): (a) the disclosure of the identity of its clients; (b)
documents substantiating the lawyer-client relationship; and (c) deeds
of assignments petitioners executed for clients covering
shares
12. PCGGs supposed proof to substantiate compliance by Roco: (a)
Letter to respondent PCGG of his the counsel reiterating previous
request for reinvestigation; (b) Affidavit as Attachment; (c) Letter of
the Roco, Bunag, and Kapunan Law Offices originally requesting the
Created by: Ma. Angela Leonor C. Aguinaldo Ateneo Law 1E 2010
Page 25 of 147
reinvestigation and/or re-examination of evidence of PCGG against
Roco
13. Roco did not refute petitioners' contention that he did actually not
reveal identity of the client, nor undertook to reveal the identity of the
client for whom he acted as nominee-stockholder.
14. March 18, 1992 - respondent Sandiganbayan promulgated
Resolution herein questioned, denying the exclusion of petitioners for
their refusal to comply with the conditions by PCGG
15. Hence, petition for certiorari, grounds: strict application of the law
of agency; absolutely no evidence that Mr. Roco had revealed, or had
undertaken to reveal, disclosure not constitute a substantial distinction
for equal protection clause, favoritism and undue preference; not
holding that, under the facts of this case, the attorney-client privilege
prohibits petitioners ACCRA lawyers from revealing the identity of their
client(s) and the other information requested by the PCGG;
unreasonable or unjust
ISSUE: Privileged Information
Whether or not the lawyers fiduciary duty (uberrimei fidei) may be
asserted in refusing to disclose the identity of clients [name of
petitioners' client(s)] under the facts and circumstances obtaining in
the instant case
HELD:
The High Court upheld that petitioners' right not to reveal the identity
of their clients under pain of the breach of fiduciary duty owing to their
clients, because the facts of the instant case clearly fall within
recognized exceptions to the rule that the client's name is not

privileged information. Sandiganbayan resolution annulled and set

aside. Petitioners excluded from complaint.
1. A lawyer may not invoke the privilege and refuse to divulge the
name or identity of this client.
Reasons:
1. Court has a right to know
that the client whose privileged information is sought to be protected
is flesh and blood.
2. Privilege begins to exist only after the attorneyclient
relationship has been established. The attorney-client privilege
does not attach until there is a client.
3. Privilege generally pertains to
the subject matter of the relationship.
4. Due process considerations
Created by: Ma. Angela Leonor C. Aguinaldo Ateneo Law 1E 2010
Page 26 of 147
require that the opposing party should, as a general rule, know his
adversary.
2. BUT (Exceptions/Racio Decidendi): When the client's name itself
has an independent significance, such that disclosure would then
reveal client confidences
1. 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. (Baird exception for freedom of consultation)
2. Disclosure would open the client to civil liability. (case at bar)
3. 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. (case at bar BAIRD EXCEPTION)
4. Relevant to the subject matter of the legal problem on which the
client seeks legal assistance (case at bar)
5. Nature of the attorney-client relationship has been previously
disclosed and it is the identity which is intended to be confidential
3. Petitioners were impleaded by PCGG as co-defendants to force them
to disclose the identity of their clients, after the "bigger fish" as they
say in street parlance the names of their clients in exchange for
exclusion from the complaint. (Primavera Farms, Inc., et al. vs. PCGG
Mario Ongkiko) - "so called client is Mr. Eduardo Cojuangco" (leverage
to nail clients)
4. No valid cause of action. 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.
5. 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. Their services may be compensated by honorarium or for
hire, and mandato (contract of agency) wherein a friend on whom
reliance could be placed makes a contract in his name, but gives up all
that he gained by the contract to the person who requested him.
Created by: Ma. Angela Leonor C. Aguinaldo Ateneo Law 1E 2010
Page 27 of 147
6. OTHERS: Privileged Communication Laws Applicable
a. Old Code of Civil Procedure enacted by the Philippine Commission
on August 7, 1901. Section 383 "forbids counsel, without authority of
his client to reveal any communication made by the client to him or his
advice given thereon in the course of professional employment."
b. Rules of Court Sec. 24: Disqualification by reason of privileged
communication. The following persons cannot testify as to matters
learned in confidence in the following cases: 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
c. Rule 138 of the Rules of Court states, Sec. 20: 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.
d. Canon 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility: A lawyer owes
fidelity to the cause of his client and he shall be mindful of the trust
and confidence reposed in him.
e. Canon 15 of the Canons of Professional Ethics: The lawyers 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,"
7. Equal protection clause - a guarantee which provides a wall of
protection against uneven application of status and regulations. In the
broader sense, the guarantee operates against uneven application of
legal norms so that all persons under similar circumstances would be
accorded the same treatment.
8. Violates the equal protection guarantee and the right against selfincrimination
and subverts the lawyer-client confidentiality privilege.

Ulep vs Legal Clinic

June 17, 1993
Facts: Petitioner prays that respondent cease and desist from issuing ads similar to annexes A and
B and to prohibit them from making ads pertaining to the exercise of the law professions other
than those allowed by law
- Annex A
SECRET MARRIAGE?
P560 for a valid marriage
Info on DIVORCE. ABSENCE. ANNULMENT. VISA.
THE LEGAL CLINIC, INC.
Pls call: 5210767, 5217232, 5222041
8:30am-6pm
7F Victoria Bldg, UN Ave, Mla
- Annex B
GUAM DIVORCE
DON PARKINSON
An Atty in Guam, is giving FREE BOOKS on Guam Divorce thru the

Leg Clinic beg Mon-Fri during office hours Guam divorce. Annulment of Marriage. Immigration
Probs, Visa
ext. Quota/Non-quota Res and Special Retirees Visa.
Declaration of Absence. Remarriage to Filipina Fiancees.
Adoption. Investment in the Phil. US/Foreign Visa for Filipina
Sp/Shil. Call Marivic THE LEGAL CLINIC, etc
Petitioners Claim:
-Ads are unethical and demeaning of the law profession and destructive of the confidence of the
community in the integrity of the members of the bar.
-As a member of the legal profession, he is ashamed and offended by the ads
Respondents Comment:
-They are not engaged in the practice of law but in the rendering of leg support services thru
paralegals with the use of modern computers and electronic machines
- Even if they are leg services, the act of advertising them should be allowed under Bates v. State
bar of Arizona
Issues:
1. WON the services offered by The Legal Clinic constitutes practice of law?
2. WON their services can be advertised?
Held:
1. Yes. The Practice of law involves any activity, in or out of the court, which requires the
application of law, legal procedures, knowledge, training and expertise
- To engage in the practice is to perform those acts which are characteristic of the profession; to
give advice or render any kind of service that involves legal knowledge/skill
- Not limited to the conduct of cases in court; includes legal advice and counsel and preparation
of legal instruments and contracts by which legal rights are secured regardless of WON theyre
pending in court
3 types of legal profession activity:
1. legal advice and instructions to clients to inform them of their rights and obligations
2. preparation for clients of documents requiring knowledge of legal principles not possessed by
ordinary layman
3. appearance for clients before public tribunals which possess power and authority to determine
rights of life, liberty and property according to law, in order to assist in proper inter and
enforcement of law
Respondents description of its services shows it falls within the practice of law:
Giving info by paralegals to laymen and lawyers thru the use of comps and modern info tech
- computerized legal research, document search, evidence gathering, locating parties/witnesses to
a case, fact finding investigations, assistance to laymen in need of services from agencies like
birth, marriage, prop, bus registrations, etc.
*even if some of the services offered merely involve mechanical and technical know how like
installing computer system for law offices, this doesnt make it an exception to the general rule
- gives out leg info to laymen and lawyersnot non-advisory and non-diagnostic
ex. foreign laws on marriage, divorce and adoption have to explain to client the intricacies of
the law and advise him on the proper course of action
- what its ads represent and what it will be paid for
- It doesnt matter that they dont represent clients in court since practice of law isnt limited to ct
appearances but also leg research, leg advice and drafting contracts Phil Star Art Rx for Leg
Probs, int by proprietor Atty Nogales:
- Takes care of probs as complicated as the Cuneta-Concepcion domestic sit
- lawyers, who like drs, are specialists in various fields and can take care of it (taxation, crim law,
medico-leg probs, labor, litigation, fam law)
- backed up by paralegals, counselors and attys
- caters to clients who cant afford big firms

- can prepare a simple deed of sale or affidavit of loss and also those w/ more extensive treatment
-The fact that they employ paralegals to carry out its services doesnt matter; whats important is
that its engaged in the
practice of law cause of the nature of the services it renders, which brings it within the statutory
prohibitions against ads only a person duly admitted as a member of the bar and whos in good
and regular standing is entitled to the practice of law
- public policy requires that the practice of law be limited to those individuals found duly
qualified in education and character to protect the public, court, client and bar from
incompetence/dishonesty of those unlicensed to the practice and not subject to the discipline of
court
2.No. The Code of Professional Responsibility provides that a lawyer, in making known his legal
services, shall use only true, honest, fair, dignified and objective info/statement of facts
- not supposed to use any false, fraudulent, misleading, deceptive, undignified, self-laudatory or
unfair statement re his qualifications/legal services
- not supposed to pay representatives of the mass media in return for publicity to attract legal
business
Canons of professional Ethics (before CPR) provides that lawyers shouldnt resort to indirect ads
for professional employment like furnishing newspaper comments, publishing his pictures with
causes the lawyers been engaged in, importance of his position and other self-laudation
Stands of legal profession condemn lawyers advertisement of his talents like a merchant does of
his goods because of the fact that law is a profession.
The canons of profession tell us that the best advertising possible for a lawyer is a well-merited
reputation for professional capacity and fidelity to trust which must be earned as the outcome of
character and conduct
Good and efficient service to a client and the community has a way of publicizing itself and
catching public attention; this shouldnt be done thru propaganda
EXCEPTIONS:
1. expressly allowed publication in reputable law lists of informative data thats not misleading
and may include only: name, professional assoc, adds, nos, branches of law practiced, date and
place of birth and admission to the bar, schools attended w/ dates of grad, degrees , public
offices, posts of honor, legal authorships, legal teaching positions, membership and offices in bar
association, legal and scientific societies and legal fraternities, listings in other reputable law
lists, names and adds of references with written consent and clients regularly represented
- cant be mere supplemental feature of paper, magazine, trade journal or periodical thats
published for other purposes
- never in a law list that are calculated or likely to deceive/injure the public/the bar or lower the
dignity/standing of the profession
- ordinary simple professional card allowed name, law firm, add, no and special branch of law
practiced
- publication of simple announcement of the opening of a law firm or change in partnership,
assoc, firm name or office add, for the convenience of the profession
- have name listed in phone directory but not under designation of special branch of law
2. necessarily implied from the restrictions
Bates v. State Bar of Arizona: allowed lawyer to publish a statement of leg fees for an initial
consultation or give, upon
request, a written schedule of fees or estimate for spec services as an exception to the prohibition
against advertisements by lawyers

Cayetano v. Monsod
G.R. No. 100113, September 3, 1991
Facts:
Respondent Christian Monsod was nominated by President Corazon C. Aquino to the position of
Chairman of the COMELEC in a letter received by the Secretariat of the Commission on Appointments on
April 25, 1991. Petitioner opposed the nomination because allegedly Monsod does not possess the
required qualification of having been engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years.
On June 5, 1991, the Commission on Appointments confirmed the nomination of Monsod as Chairman of
the COMELEC. On June 18, 1991, he took his oath of office. On the same day, he assumed office as
Chairman of the COMELEC.
Challenging the validity of the confirmation by the Commission on Appointments of Monsod's nomination,
petitioner as a citizen and taxpayer, filed the instant petition for certiorari and Prohibition praying that said
confirmation and the consequent appointment of Monsod as Chairman of the Commission on Elections
be declared null and void.
Issue:
Whether the appointment of Chairman Monsod of Comelec violates Section 1 (1), Article IX-C of the 1987
Constitution?
Held:
The 1987 Constitution provides in Section 1 (1), Article IX-C, that there shall be a Commission on
Elections composed of a Chairman and six Commissioners who shall be natural-born citizens of the
Philippines and, at the time of their appointment, at least thirty-five years of age, holders of a college
degree, and must not have been candidates for any elective position in the immediately preceding
elections. However, a majority thereof, including the Chairman, shall be members of the Philippine Bar
who have been engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years.
Atty. Christian Monsod is a member of the Philippine Bar, having passed the bar examinations of 1960
with a grade of 86-55%. He has been dues paying member of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines since
its inception in 1972-73. He has also been paying his professional license fees as lawyer for more than
ten years.
At this point, it might be helpful to define private practice. The term, as commonly understood, means "an
individual or organization engaged in the business of delivering legal services." (Ibid.). Lawyers who
practice alone are often called "sole practitioners." Groups of lawyers are called "firms." The firm is
usually a partnership and members of the firm are the partners. Some firms may be organized as
professional corporations and the members called shareholders. In either case, the members of the firm
are the experienced attorneys. In most firms, there are younger or more inexperienced salaried attorneys
called "associates."
Hence, the Commission on the basis of evidence submitted doling the public hearings on Monsod's
confirmation, implicitly determined that he possessed the necessary qualifications as required by law. The
judgment rendered by the Commission in the exercise of such an acknowledged power is beyond judicial
interference except only upon a clear showing of a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess
of jurisdiction. (Art. VIII, Sec. 1 Constitution). Thus, only where such grave abuse of discretion is clearly
shown shall the Court interfere with the Commission's judgment. In the instant case, there is no occasion
for the exercise of the Court's corrective power, since no abuse, much less a grave abuse of discretion,
that would amount to lack or excess of jurisdiction and would warrant the issuance of the writs prayed, for
has been clearly shown.
Besides in the leading case of Luego v. Civil Service Commission, he Court said that, Appointment is an
essentially discretionary power and must be performed by the officer in which it is vested according to his
best lights, the only condition being that the appointee should possess the qualifications required by law.
If he does, then the appointment cannot be faulted on the ground that there are others better qualified
who should have been preferred. This is a political question involving considerations of wisdom which
only the appointing authority can decide.