Background of Regala vs Sandiganbayan Case

Accra law firm performed legal services for its clients which includes
organization and acquisition of business associations with correlative and
incidental services where its members acted as stockholders.
The complaint in PCGG case alleged that ACCRA lawyers and Eduardo
Cojuanco Jr. conspired with each other on setting up through the use of
coconut levy funds the financial and corporate framework and structure that
led to establishment of UCPB and others.
They alleged that through insidious means and machinations, ACCRA
Investments Corp. held 3.3% of the total capital stock of UCPB.
PCGG wanted to establish through ACCRA Lawyers that Mr. Cojuanco is their
client and it was Cojuanco who furnished the monies to the subscription
payment; hence ACCRA lawyers acted as dummies which is a violation of the
laws and the Constitution.
Eduardo CojuangcoJr and TeodoroRegala and his partners from the ACCRA
Law Office were charged for the recovery of ill- gotten wealth.
PCGG based its charge from the refusal of the said firm from divulging the
information as to who were involved in the PCGG Case No. 0033
Raul Roco was later excluded from the complaint for his manifestation to
identify the persons and stockholders involved.
The ACCRA Law Firm petitioned for the PCGG to grant them the same
treatment given to Roco.
PCGG provided a set of requirements and conditions for the said exclusion.
o Disclosure of the identity of the clients
o Submission of documents
o Presentation of the deeds of assignment which thr lawyers executed in
favour of the clients
The First Division of the Sandiganbayan denied the said petition.

ISSUES:

Whether or not Eduardo Cojuangco Jr. and Teodoro Regala and his partners
from the ACCRA Law Office should be charged for the recovery of ill-gotten
wealth due to their refusal from divulging the information as to who were
involved in the PCGG Case.

HELD:
No. A clients identity in a case involving the companys allegedly sourced
from ill-gotten wealth is privileged and disclosure of such is unethical
As a matter of public policy, a client's identity should not be shrouded in
mystery.
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. He cannot be obliged to grope in the dark against
unknown forces.

Exceptions:
1. Clients identity is privileged where a strong probability exists that
revealing the clients name would implicate the client in the very activity
for which he sought the lawyers advice
2. When disclosure would open the client to civil liability
3. When government lawyers have no case against an attorneys client and
revealing the clients name would furnish the only link that would form the
chain of testimony necessary to convict him.

Background of Genato vs. Atty. SIlapan case

- Genato is the client of Atty. Silapan

- Atty. Silapan borrowed money from Genato in order for him to purchase a car,
secured by a postdated check.
- Respondent also mortgaged his house in QC to complainant but did not issue
the TCT.
- The document of the sale of the car was issued in complainants name and
financed through the trust company.
- Genato was able to purchase the car, however, he failed to pay the monthly
amortization. Thus, demand letters were sent to complainant.
- Postdated check bounced.
- Complainant filed BP 22 and a civil case for judicial foreclosure
- In the foreclosure case, Respondent Atty. Silapan made this allegation in his
answer.
- The complainant is a businessman who is engaged in the real estate
business, trading and buy and sell of deficiency taxed imported cars, shark
loans and other shady deals and has many cases pending in court
ISSUE
- Whether or not respondent committed a breach of trust and confidence by
disclosing before the Court as his defense against the Complainant (who is
his client in a different case ) the fact that the Complainant (his client) is a
businessman who is engaged on the real estate business, trading and buy
and sell of deficiency taxed imported cars, shark loans and other shady deals
and has many pending cases in court.

HELD:
Yes, respondents allegations and disclosures in the foreclosure case amount
to breach of fidelity sufficient to warrant the imposition of disciplinary
sanction against him.

Ratio:
A lawyer must conduct himself especially in dealings with his clients, with
integrity in a manner that is beyond reproach.

Reason:
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.