77.

Go vs Abrogar
FACTS:
Petitioner failed to pay his debt in the bank, prompting the bank to file a case against him. RTC rendered
decision in favor to the bank. Atty. Javier, withdrawn his services as counsel and was formally released by the
petitioner through the Notice of Permission only on Oct. 29, 1999.
On November 5,1999. petitioner, now presented by his new counsel Atty. Caneda Jr,. filed a Motion for
Reconsideration of the Oct. 7,1999 decision. When the RTC denied the motion, petitioner by his counsel filed
a Notice on Appeal. RTC denied the notice on appeal, on the ground that the reglementary period had already
expired. The decision became final and executory. RTC ordered the issuance of Writ of Execution against
petitioner.
On March 6, 2000, petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus under Rule 65 of the
Rules of Court. Petitoner argues that the parties had actually intended their liabilities to be joint, that he has
evidence to prove that his liability was less than what the RTC declared him liable for. The Court of Appeals
denied the petition for lack of merit.

ISSUE:
WON counsel acted according to his sworn responsibility to the court.
HELD:
The Court dismayed the baseless attacks were assisted by counsel, who is an officer of the court. Under
Canon 11 of the Code of Professions Responsibility. A lawyer shall observe and maintain respect due to the
courts and to the judicial officer.
Atty. Caneda, Jr. should have known better that to permit irresponsible and unsupported claim against Judge
Abrogar to be included in the pleadings. Allowing such statements to be made is against the lawyers oath.
Petitioner Go and Atty. Caneda, Jr. are strictly warned not to make disrespectful statements against a judge
without basis or evidence.

78. Maceda vs. Varquez

FACTS:
Petioner Judge Maceda seeks the review of the following orders of the Office of the Ombudsman
(1) the Order dated September 18, 1991 denying the ex-parte motion to refer to the Supreme Court filed by
petitioner; and
(2) the Order dated November 22, 1951 denying petitioners motion for reconsideration and directing petitioner
to file his counter-affidavit and other controverting evidences.
In his complaint, respondent Atty. Abierra alleged that the petitioner falsified his Certificate of Service when in
truth, petitioner knew that no decision had been rendered. Petitioner contends that Ombudsman has no
jurisdiction.
ISSUE:
WON the Office of the Ombudsman could entertain a criminal complaint for the alleged falsification of Judge
Certification
HELD:
Article VIII, section 6 of the 1987 Constitution exclusively vests in the Supreme Court administrative
supervision over all courts and court personnel, from the Presiding Justice of the Court of Appeals down to the
lowest municipal trial court clerk. By virtue of this power, it is only the Supreme Court that can oversee the
judges and court personnels compliance with all laws, and takes the proper administrative action against them
if they commit any violation thereof. No other branch of government may intrude into this power.
Where a criminal complaint against a Judge or other court employee arises from their administrative duties, the
Ombudsman must defer action on said complaint and refer the same to the Supreme Court for determination
whether said Judge or court employee had acted within the scope of their administrative duties.

79. Ang vs. Castro

FACTS:
Petitoner filed administrative complaint against Judge Castro for ignorance of the law and grave abuse of
discretion rendering unjust decision. Respondent upon knowing of the administrative complaint filed against
him, he ordered petitioner to appear before him, and to show cause why petitioner should not be guilty for
contempt, for contemptuous attitude towards him. Despite notice, petitioner failed to appear the scheduled
hearing for contempt. Respondent found him guilty for contempt and sentenced him to suffer five days
imprisonment.
Ang remained hiding; respondent Judge instituted criminal complaint for libel against petitioner for using
malicious, insolent and contemptuous language against him.
Petitioner upon knowing the criminal charges against him, he filed a Supplemental Prohibition against judge.
The court issued Temporary Restraining Order enjoining respondent Judge from conducting criminal complaint
for libel
ISSUE:
WON may be held liable for contempt on the basis of language he used in his letter complaint.
HELD:
No, Respondent Judge Castro, in his comment, argues that failure of petitioner to appear, despite notice, on
the scheduled hearing of the contempt charge for the use of derogatory language in his two letters addressed
to the Office of the Presidential Assistant on Legal Affairs and to this Court in an administrative complaint
against him, constitutes direct contempt as the acts actually impeded, embarrassed and obstructed him in the
administration of justice
Section 3 of the Rules 71 of the Rules of Court defines indirect contempt. The language found in the letters of
Petitipner, held as indirect contempt, but definitely not direct contempt.

80. Villasis vs Court of Appeals

FACTS:
The case in the CFI rendered the decision in favor of Villasis upholding their action title. Petitioner-defendants
appealed the judgment to the Court of Appeals. On June 25, 1970 Villasis received the notice through his
counsel Atty. Valente to submit their brief within the reglementary period of 45 days. Aug 10, 1970 last day of
filing Atty. Valente filed a motion to withdraw as counsel of the petitioner Villasis because he his having
employed in the Supreme Court and with a prayer that Atty. Tayco as a new counsel be given sufficient time to
file their brief. Atty. Tayco filed on his appearance August 18,1970.
Petitioner-defendants filed a motion to dismiss, because Villasis failed to file their comment at all. Atty. Valente,
contends that he has not received a copy of dismissal motion. Appellate court granted Atty. Valentes
withdrawing as counsel.
On June 25, 1971 after 11 months without having filed brief at all. The appellate court dismissed the appeal. It
was only then Atty. Tayco from almost a year inaction filed a motion for Dismissal of the Appeal on the ground
that he, a new counsel had not received the notice to file comment. The appellate court denied his motion
pointing out that Atty. Taycos appearance was entered Aug. 18, 1970.
ISSUE:
WON appellate court committed error in dismissing the appeal.
HELD:
No, Atty. Tayco has shown no valid reason for their failure to file their comment for a year. They could not even
claim ignorance of the appellates notice to file brief since it had required withdrawing counsel Atty. Valente had
to secure his written conformity before granting his withdrawal as counsel. They had a year thereafter to make
sure that new counsel did attend to their appeal and did file their comment.

81. Achacoso vs Court of Appeals

FACTS:
Petitioners counsel Rodrigo Nera file a motion for leave to file his reply within 15 days from notice, alleging
that there was need for such reply, In order that Honorable Court may completely informed the nature of
controversy which gave rise to the instant petition. The court granted such leave.
On the last day of filling of the reply, counsel asked for additional 15 days due to the pressure of work and
daily trial. The court granted the extension.
On the last day of filing of extended period of filing, counsel asked again another 15 days extension, the same
in his prior reason. The court granted the request.
The counsel requested for the third time and the court still granted the request, but the extended period of filing
lapsed without counsel having filed any reply.
Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review for lack of merit and required counsel to show cause
disciplinary action. Counsel filed an explanation, stating that he was not in a financial position to advance
necessary expenses for preparing and submitting the reply on account of his client failure to advance the sum
of money they agreed upon.
ISSUE:
WON the reason of counsel for his failure to file his comment is admissible.
HELD:
The Court thus finds unsatisfactory the Attys explanation for his having allowed his extended period without
submitting the required comment. His in action unduly prevented and delayed for considerable period the
Courts prompt disposition.
The Court hereby administers a reprimand on Atty. Rodrigo M. Nera, with the warning that a repetition of the
same or similar acts shall be dealt with more severely

82.Manila Pest Control Inc, vs Workmens Commission

FACTS:
Mariano Abatrias clinical history showed that he was diagnosed a severe pulmonary tubercolosis. He acquired his
illness during his work because he was made to inhale dangerous fumes, since the atmosphere in the workplace
was polluted with poisonous chemical dust. He notified his employer through his general manager about his
condition but the employer refused to pay him. He filed a complaint against his employer. The Workmens
Compensation Commission considered the complaint and rendered decision against Manila Pest Control Inc.
The decision was sent to the petitioners counsel Atty. Corpuz , however he refused to receive the copy of the
decision alleging that he was no longer handling the case. Atty Corpuz, instructed the messenger to deliver the
copy of the decision to Atty. Camacho, since Atty. Camacho was not around to receive the decision the messenger
handed the copy of the decision to the receiving clerk therein.
ISSUE:
WON the counsel acted negligence of the said case.
HELD:
Abatria proven that the illness he acquired was service connected. The petitioner alleges that if given the
opportunity for hearing it could interpose their valid defense. But the petitioner was not able to present their
evidence and was attributed to the conduct of his counsel. His counsel not does so.
The petition for prohibition with preliminary injunction is denied

83. US. Vs Ballena

FACTS:
Ana Ramirez was charge of the crime of Perjury. The basis of the prosecution was her testimony, that the
cause of death of her husband was the blow given by Ciriaco Palleja. On the trial, Estafania Baruga, mother of
Ana testified that Fiscal Leoncio Ballena, at the time of the investigation into the cause of death of Anas
husband, attempted to rape her daughter Ana, and asked of the hand of the girl in marriage, but Baruga
refused the proposition of the fiscal because he was a married man.
The CFI charging with the crime of subordination of perjury against Leoncio Ballena. Upon this complaint the
defendant was duly tried, found guilty. From this sentence and judgment the defendant appealed, and now
insists that the testimony given by Estefania Barruga in that perjury case was immaterial to the issues involved
therein. If this contention be true, the defendant is not guilty.
ISSUE:
WON the testimony of Efipania Baruga material to the issue involved in the criminal case against her daughter.
HELD:
The term 'material matter' means the main fact which was the subject of the inquiry, or any circumstance which
tends to prove that fact, or any fact, or circumstance, which tends to corroborate or strengthen the testimony
relative to such inquiry, or which legitimately affects the credit of any witness who testifies.
The fiscal was the moving party in the perjury case and it was upon his sworn complaint that Ana was
prosecuted. If he should have attempted to prosecute Ana after having committed these acts the court would
not only have disbelieved the fiscal, testifying as a witness, but it would have looked upon the whole
prosecution as a fabrication.
The judgment appealed is hereby affirmed.

84. The Philippine National Bank vs Uy Teng Piao

FACTS:
On September 9, 1924, the CFI rendered a judgment in favor of the Philippine National Bank and against Uy
Teng Piao. The court ordered the defendant to deposit said amount with the clerk of the court within three
months from the date of the judgment, and in case of his failure to do so that the mortgaged properties should
be sold at public auction in accordance with the law and the proceeds applied to the payment of the judgment.
Uy Teng Piao failed to comply with the order of the court, and the sheriff of the City of Manila sold the two
parcels of land at public auction to the Philippine National Bank
The two parcel of land were sold, but the amount was not satisfying the credit of Uy Teng Piao, The bank
brought the present action to revive the judgment for the balance. One of the attorneys for the plaintiff testified
that the defendant renounced his right to redeem the parcel of land because a friend of the defendant was
interested in buying it.
ISSUE:
Whether or not lawyers shall avoid being a witness for a client
HELD:
Yes. With respect to the testimony of the bank's attorney, we should like to observe that although the law does
not forbid an attorney to be a witness and at the same time an attorney in a cause, the courts prefer that
counsel should not testify as a witness unless it is necessary, and that they should withdraw from the active
management of the case.

85. Autria vs Masaquel

FACTS:
Petitioner was one of the plaintiffs in the above-mentioned Civil Case against Pedro Bravo for the recovery of
three parcels of land. After trial, respondent Judge rendered a decision declaring the plaintiffs the owners of the
three parcels of land in question and ordering the defendant to vacate the lands and pay the plaintiffs
damages
On May 23, 1963, Atty. Mariano C. Sicat, a former assistant of respondent Judge entered his appearance as
the new counsel for defendant Pedro Bravo. Atty. Sicat, filed a supersedes bond to stay the execution of the
judgment, and respondent Judge granted the stay of execution, over the objection of plaintiffs, and ordered the
sheriff to restore the possession of the lands
On August 24, 1963, pending the approval of the defendant's amended record on appeal, Atty. Sicat filed a
motion for new trial and to set aside the judgment and, over the objection of plaintiffs, the respondent Judge
granted the said motion.
Before the opening of the court's session, Atty. Daniel Macaraeg, counsel for petitioner, talk privately the
respondent judge and verbally transmitted to him the request of petitioner that he inhibit himself from further
hearing the case upon the ground that the new counsel for the defendant, Atty. Mariano C. Sikat, was his
former associate. The respondent Judge, however, rejected the request because, according to him, the reason
for the request of his inhibition is not one of the grounds for disqualification of a judge provided for in the Rules
of Court.
Domingo Austria, in the premises, as offensive, insulting and a reflection on the integrity and honesty of the
Presiding Judge of this Court and shows his lack of respect to the Court, respondent Judge found petitioner
guilty of direct contempt
ISSUE:
WON Atty. Daniel Macaraeg, counsel for petitioner acted in good faith
HELD:
Atty. Macaraeg, approach respondent Judge and suggest to him to refrain from hearing the case on the new
trial, precisely in order that respondent Judge might not be embarrassed or exposed to public odium.
When petitioner requested respondent Judge to inhibit himself from further trying the case upon the ground
that the counsel for the opposite party was the former associate of the respondent Judge, petitioner did so
because he was impelled by a justifiable apprehension which can occur in the mind of a litigant who sees what
seems to be an advantage on the part of his adversary; and that the petitioner made his request in a manner
that was not disrespectful, much less insulting or offensive to the respondent Judge or to the court.
Decision is set aside

86. Nestle Phil vs Sanchez

FACTS:
The Union of Filipro Employees, set up their quarters in front of Supreme Court. They constructed temporary
shelter along sidewalk. They waived their slogan, placards and criticized the court with the use of loud
speakers. Unions counsel, Atty. Espinas had been informed by the court that the Union must cease
immediately for the same constitutes direct contempt and the Court will not entertain their petition as long as
they did not cease their protest.
The Court issued a resolution requiring Atty. Espinas, et al to appear before the Court. Atty. Espinas, in behalf
of the Union Leaders apologized to the Court for their act, together with the issuance that they will not be
repeated. That he already explained to the leaders of the Union that any delay in the resolution of their cases is
usually for causes beyond the control of the Court and he already explained to the members of the Union that
what they did was wrong.
ISSUE:
WON the protest of the Union represented by Counsel Atty. Espinas is direct contempt to the Court.
HELD:
The duty and responsibility of advising them, therefore, rest primarily and heavily upon the shoulders of their
counsel of record. Atty. Jose C. Espinas, Union leaders are not aware that even as the rights of free speech
and of assembly are protected by the Constitution, any attempt to pressure or influence courts of justice
through the exercise of either right amounts to an abuse thereof, is no longer within the Constitutional
protection, nor did they realize that any such efforts to influence the course of justice constitutes contempt of
court.
However the Court accept apologies offered by the respondents at the time of the imposition of the sanction
warranted by the contemptuous acts
The contempt charges against respondents are DISMISSED

87. In re de Vera (2003)

FACTS:
A Petiton to disqualify Atty. Leonard de Vera, on legal and moral grounds, from being elected IBP Governor for
Eastern Mindanao. Petitioners alleged that respondent De Vera had transferred his IBP membership from the
Pasay, Paranaque, Las Pinas and Muntinlupa (PPLM) Chapter to Agusan del Sur Chapter, stressing that he
indeed covets the IBP presidency.The transfer of IBP membership to Agusan del Sur, the petitioners went on,
is a brazen abuse and misuse of the rotation rule, a mockery of the domicile rule and a great insult to lawyers
from Eastern Mindanao for it implies that there is no lawyer from the region qualified and willing to serve the
IBP
Respondent de Vera argues that the Court has no jurisdiction over the present controversy, contending that the
election of the Officers of the IBP, including the determination of the qualification of those who want to serve
the organization, is purely an internal matter, governed as it is by the IBP By-Laws and exclusively regulated
and administered by the IBP.
Issue:
1. Whether this Court has jurisdiction over the present controversy
Held:
Section 5, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution
(5) Promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights, pleading, practice, and
procedure in all courts, the admission to the practice of law, the Integrated Bar, and the legal assistance to the
underprivileged. Such rules shall provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of
cases, shall be uniform for all courts of the same grade, and shall not diminish, increase, or modify substantive
rights. Rules of procedure of special courts and quasi-judicial bodies shall remain effective unless disapproved
by the Supreme Court
The IBP By-Laws, the document invoked by respondent De Vera in asserting IBP independence from the
Supreme Court, ironically recognizes the full range of the power of supervision of the Supreme Court over the
IBP.

88. CRUZ vs SALVA

FACTS:
Following the killing of Manuel Monroy . The CFI found that all the accused were guilty of the crime of murder
and sentenced them to death. The late Pres. Magsaysay ordered for reinvestigation of the case. Fiscal, Atty.
Salva was assigned for the reinvestigation.
However, according to the petitioner and not denied by the respondent, the investigation was conducted not in
respondent's office but in the session hall, to accommodate the big crowd that wanted to witness the
proceeding, including members of the press. A number of microphones were installed. Reporters were
everywhere and photographers were busy taking pictures.
The newspapers certainly played up and gave wide publicity to what took place during the investigation, and
this involved headlines and extensive recitals, narrations of and comments on the testimonies given by the
witnesses as well as vivid descriptions of the incidents that took place during the investigation.
ISSUE:
WON respondent committed grievous error of his action that he had given to allowed his investigation for wide
publicity.
HELD:
Yes, Fiscal committed a grievous error judgment when he allowed, even encouraged, the reinvestigation to be
conducted with much fanfare, publicity and sensationalism. Such actuations of the Fiscal constitute contempt
of court punishable by public censure.

89. A.M. No. 01-4-03-SC September 13, 2001

FACTS:
Kapisanan ng mga Brodkaster ng Pilipian et al., request for permission to televise and broadcast live the trial of
former President Estrada before the Sandiganbayan. who argues that there is really no conflict between the
right of the people to public information and the freedom of the press, as the repository of sovereignty, are
entitled to information; and that live media coverage is a safeguard against attempts by any party to use the
courts as instruments for the pursuit of selfish interests.
Mr. Estrada contends that the right of the people to information may be served through other means less
distracting, degrading, and prejudicial than live TV and radio coverage
ISSUE:
WON the court should be allow audio- visual recording of trial for public information.
HELD:
Audio-visual recording of the trial of former President Estrada before is ordered to be made, for the account of
the Sandiganbayan with the following conditions:
(a) The trial shall be recorded in its entirety, excepting such portions thereof as the Sandiganbayan may
determine should not be held public under Rules of Criminal Procedure.
(b) Cameras shall be installed inconspicuously inside the courtroom and the movement of TV crews shall be
regulated consistent with the dignity and solemnity of the proceedings
(c) The audio-visual recordings shall be made for documentary purposes only and shall be made without
comment except such annotations of scenes depicted therein as may be necessary to explain them
(d) The live broadcast of the recordings before the Sandiganbayan shall have rendered its decision in all the
cases against the former President shall be prohibited under pain of contempt of court and other sanctions in
case of violations of the prohibition
(e) To ensure that the conditions are observed, the audio-visual recording of the proceedings shall be made
under the supervision and control of the Sandiganbayan or its Division concerned and shall be made pursuant
to rules promulgated by it
(f) Simultaneously with the release of the audio-visual recordings for public broadcast, the original thereof shall
be deposited in the National Museum and the Records Management and Archives Office for preservation and
exhibition in accordance with law.

90. MAGSALANG vs PEOPLE

Facts:
Petitioner Maglasang was convicted. His counsel, Atty. Castellano, filed for a petition for certiorari
through registered mail. Due to non-compliance with the requirements, the court dismissed the petition and a
motion for reconsideration.
Atty. Castellano then sent a complaint to the Office of the President where he accused the five justices of the
2nd division, with biases and ignorance of the law or knowingly rendering unjust judgments. He accused
the court of sabotaging the Aquino administration for being Marcos appointees, and robbing the Filipino people
genuine justice and democracy. He also said that the SC is doing this to protect the judge who was impleaded
in the petition and for money reasons. He alleges further that the court is too expensive to be reached by
ordinary men. The court is also inconsiderate and overly strict and meticulous. When asked to show cause why
he should not be cited in contempt, Castellano said that the complaint was constructive criticism intended to
correct in good faith the erroneous and very strict practices of the justices concerned. He also said that the
justices have no jurisdiction over his act and that they should just answer the complaint. The SC found him
guilty of contempt and improper conduct.
Issue:
Whether or not the Atty. Castellanos acts constitute a violation of the provisions of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
Held:
Yes. The court found his comments scurrilous and contumacious. He went beyond the bounds of constructive
criticism. What he said are not relevant to the cause of his client. The explanation of Castellano in his
negligence in the filing of the petition for certiorari did not render his negligence excusable. It is clear that the
case was lost not by the alleged injustices Castellano irresponsibly ascribed to the members of the Court, but
his inexcusable negligence and incompetence.
As an officer of the court, he should have known better than to smear the honor and integrity of the Court just
to keep the confidence of his client.
Also, with the complaint he filed, the most basic tenet of the system of government separation of power - has
been lost. He should know that not even the President of the Philippines can pass judgment on any of the
Courts acts.

91. LEDESMA V CLIMACO

FACTS:
Ledesma is counsel of one accused. Thereafter, he was appointed as Election Registrar by
COMELEC Ledesma withdrew as counsel on the basis that his appointment as Election Registrar
would require full time service as well as on the volume or pressure of work will prevent him from handling
adequately the defense. Judge Climaco denied his motion, and even appointed him as counsel
of the accused
ISSUE:
WON the withdrawal of Ledesma should be allowed
No. There is obvious reluctance of Ledesma to comply with his responsibilities as counsel . There
is no excuse for him to neglect from his obligation as member of the bar, who expects to remain in good
standing, should fulfill. Ledesma was not mindful of his obligation as counsel. He ought to know that
membership in the bar is a privilege burdened with conditions. Being appointed as counsel requires a high
degree of fidelity.

92. BLANZA vs ARCANGHEL

FACTS:
Atty. Arcanghel then in their respective pension claims of the death of their husbands. They handed all the
documents with their signatures on blank papers. However, they noticed that respondent lost interest and no
progress was made. After 6 yrs they finally asked Atty. Arcanghel to return the said documents but the latter
refused.
Atty Arcanghel explained, that his failure to return them was due to complainant refusal to hand him money to
pay for the photostating costs which prevented him from withdrawing the documents.
ISSUE:
WON Atty. Arcanghel is guilty of professional non feasance.
HELD:
No, they admitted that Atty. Arcanghel asked them to shoulder the photostating expenses but they did not give
him any money. The documents were already returned by Atty.Arcanghel during the fiscal investigation.
Case dismissed.

93. PEOPLE vs SANDIGANBAYAN (1996)

FACTS:
Paredes, was the Provincial Attorney, then Governor of the same province and is at present a Congressman.
Atty. Sansaet is a practicing attorney who served as counsel for Paredes in several instances. In 1976,
Paredes applied for a free patent over a piece of land and it was granted to him. But later, the Director of Lands
found out that Paredes obtained the same through fraudulent misrepresentations in his application. A civil case
was filed and Sansaet served as counsel of Paredes. A criminal case for perjury was subsequently filed against
Paredes and Sansaet also served as counsel.
Later, Teofilo Gelacio, a taxpayer, initiated perjury and graft charges against Paredes and Sansaet, claiming
that they acted in conspiracy, by not filing an arraignment in the criminal case. To evade responsibility for his
own participation, he claimed that he did so upon the instigation and inducement of Paredes, and to discharge
himself as a government witness. The Sandiganbayan claimed that there was an attorney-client privilege and
resolved to deny the discharge.

ISSUES:
Whether or not the testimony of Atty. Sanset is barred by the attorney-client privilege

HELD :
The communication between an attorney and client having to do with the client's contemplated criminal acts, or
in aid are not covered of privilege ordinarily existing in reference to communications between an attorney and a
client. The falsification not having been committed yet, these communications are outside the pale of the
attorney client privilege.
Moreover, Sansaet himself was a conspirator in the commission of the falsification. For the communication to
be privileged, it must be for a lawful purpose or in furtherance of a lawful end. The existence of an unlawful
purpose prevents the privilege from attaching.

94. REGALA vs SANDIGANBAYAN

FACTS:
Several ACCRA lawyers were included as defendants in a case of ill gotten wealth filed by PCGG against
Eduardo Cojuangco, et al. Their inclusion was intended to reveal the identity of their clients. They filed a
motion for exclusion from the case as defendants; however the Court denied the motion.
ISSUE:
WON the revelations of the name of the clients of the lawyers is privileged.
HELD:
As a matter of public policy, a clients identity should not be shrouded in mystery. The general is that a lawyer
may not invoke the privilege and refuse to divulge the name or identity of his client. The court has a right to
know that the client whose privileged information is sought to be protected. 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. The privilege generally pertains to the subject matter of the relationship.
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.
Except:
1) Client identity is privileged where a strong probability exists that revealing the clients name would implicate
that client in the very activity for which he sought the lawyers advice.
2) Where disclosure would open the client to civil liability, his identity is privileged.
3) Where the governments lawyers have no case against an attorneys client unless, by revealing the clients
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 clients name is privileged.
That client identity is privileged in those instances where a strong probability exists that the disclosure of the
client's identity would implicate the client in the very criminal activity for which the lawyers legal advice was
obtained.

95. DEE vs CA
FACTS:
Petitioner and his father went to the respondent Atty. Mutuc, to seek his advice regarding the problem of the
alleged indebtedness of petitioner's brother, Dewey Dee, to Caesar's Palace, a well-known gambling casino at
Las Vegas, Nevada, U.S.A.
Private respondent assured petitioner and his father that he would inquire into the matter, after which his
services were reportedly contracted for P100,000. 00, Atty. Mutuc called up Caesar's Palace and, thereafter,
several long distance telephone calls and two trips to Las Vegas by him elicited the information.
Atty. Mutuc, personally talked with the president of Caesar's Palace at Las Vegas, Nevada. Thereafter, the
account of Dewey Dee was cleared and the casino never bothered him.
Having thus settled the account of petitioner's brother, private respondent sent several demand letters to
petitioner demanding the balance of P50,000.00 as attorney's fees. Petitioner, however, ignored said letters.
Private respondent filed a complaint against petitioner, for the collection of attorney's fees and refund of
transport fare and other expenses.
Private respondent claimed that petitioner formally engaged his services for a fee of P100,000.00 and that the
services he rendered were professional services which a lawyer renders to a client. Petitioner, however, denied
the existence of any professional relationship of attorney and client between him and private respondent.
ISSUE:
WON there was a lawyer-client relationship
HELD:
YES. To established the relationship that the advice and assistance of the attorneys sought and received in
any matter pertinent to his profession. An acceptance of the relation is implied from the part of the lawyer from
acting on his behalf of his client.
A lawyer is entitled to have and receive the just and reasonable compensation for services rendered at the
special instance and request of his client and as long as he is honestly and in good faith trying to serve and
represent the interests of his client, the latter is bound to pay his just fees