JUDGESLAWYERS
“fiduciary relationship between lawyers and clients”
Regala v Sandiganbayan GR. No. 105938 9.20.96
F: Corporation clients of petitioner consulted them regarding corporate structure and financial matters upon which legal advice were given by petitioners. Said corporation is subject to investigation by the PCGG involving ill gotten wealth. Petitioner refuses to provide information on fear that it may implicate them in the very activity from which legal advice was sought from them and it may breach the fiduciary relationship of the petitioner with their client.
I: WON fiduciary duty may be asserted by petitioner on refusal to disclose names of their clients (privilege information)
R: SC upheld the right of petitioners to refuse disclosure of names of their clients under the pain of breach of fiduciary relationship with their client.
As a general rule, a lawyer MAY NOT INVOKE THE PRIVILEGE BECAUSE:
“fiduciary relationship between lawyers and clients”
Regala v Sandiganbayan GR. No. 105938 9.20.96
F: Corporation clients of petitioner consulted them regarding corporate structure and financial matters upon which legal advice were given by petitioners. Said corporation is subject to investigation by the PCGG involving ill gotten wealth. Petitioner refuses to provide information on fear that it may implicate them in the very activity from which legal advice was sought from them and it may breach the fiduciary relationship of the petitioner with their client.
I: WON fiduciary duty may be asserted by petitioner on refusal to disclose names of their clients (privilege information)
R: SC upheld the right of petitioners to refuse disclosure of names of their clients under the pain of breach of fiduciary relationship with their client.
As a general rule, a lawyer MAY NOT INVOKE THE PRIVILEGE BECAUSE:
- The court has the right to know that the client whose privilege is sought to be protected is flesh and blood.
- Privilege begins to exist only after the atty-client relationship has been established.
- Privilege generally pertains to be the subject matter of the relationship.
- With due process consideration, the opposing party should know his adversary.
- Strong probability exists that revealing the client’s name would implicate the client in the very activity for which he sought the lawyer’s advice.
- Disclosure would open to civil liability of client. (present in this case)
- Government lawyers have no case against the lawyer’s client unless by revealing the client’s name it would provide them the only link that would form the chain of testimony necessary to convict an individual of a crime. (present in this case)
- Relevant to the subject matter of the legal problem on which client seeks legal assistance. (present in this case)
- Nature of atty-client relationship has been previously disclosed and it is the identity which is intended to be confidential.