Regala vs Sandiganbayan GR No 105938, September 20, 1996
Subject: Basic Legal Ethics
FACTS
A subpoena duces tecum issued
by the PCGG to the ACCRA Law Offices, a law firm that had represented several
individuals who were accused of corruption during the Marcos regime. The
subpoena sought the production of all documents and records relating to the representation
of these individuals.
The ACCRA Law Offices refused
to comply with the subpoena, arguing that the attorney-client privilege
prohibited them from disclosing any information about their clients. The PCGG
argued that the attorney-client privilege did not apply in this case because
the individuals who were represented by the ACCRA Law Offices were public
officials who were suspected of committing crimes.
The Supreme Court ruled in
favor of the ACCRA Law Offices, holding that the attorney-client privilege is a
fundamental right that protects the confidentiality of communications between
lawyers and their clients. The Court found that the PCGG had not shown that it
had a compelling need for the information that was sought by the subpoena. The
Court also found that the production of the information would have a chilling
effect on the free flow of information between lawyers and their clients.
ISSUE
Whether the Sandiganbayan
committed grave abuse of discretion in 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.
RULING
YES. An effective
lawyer-client relationship is largely dependent upon the degree of confidence
which exists between lawyer and client which in turn requires a situation which
encourages a dynamic and fruitful exchange and flow of information. It
necessarily follows that in order to attain effective representation, the
lawyer must invoke the privilege not as a matter of option but as a matter of
duty and professional responsibility. As a matter of public policy, a client's
identity should not be shrouded in mystery. The general rule in our
jurisdiction as well as in the United States is that a lawyer may not invoke
the privilege and refuse to divulge the name or identity of this client.
No comments:
Post a Comment