This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2015-10-20 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Probation may be granted whether the sentence imposes a term of imprisonment or a fine only. An application for probation shall be filed with the trial court, with notice to the appellate court if an appeal has been taken from the sentence of conviction. The filing of the application shall be deemed a waiver of the right to appeal, or the automatic withdrawal of a pending appeal. An order granting or denying probation shall not be appealable.[24] | |||||
|
2011-04-12 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| Before filing their answer, the ACCRA lawyers sought their exclusion as defendants in Civil Case No. 0033, averring that even as they admitted having assisted in the organization and acquisition of the companies included in Civil Case No. 0033, they had acted as mere nominees-stockholders of corporations involved in the sequestration proceedings pursuant to office practice. After the Sandiganbayan denied their motion, they elevated their cause to this Court, which ultimately ruled in their favor in the related cases of Regala, et al. v. Sandiganbayan, et al.[12] and Hayudini v. Sandiganbayan, et al.,[13] as follows: | |||||
|
2005-08-31 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| According to petitioner, respondents Regala and Concepcion should not be excluded as respondents because they are being charged for illegal acts committed in their official capacity as members of the Board of Directors of UNICOM and UCPB, in conspiracy with the other private respondents.[15] Such argument, however, has already been overruled by the Court in both the Regala[16] and Castillo[17] cases, wherein the Court ordered the exclusion of petitioners therein from the acts complained of in connection with the legal services they rendered to the other respondents. Thus, the Court held in the Castillo case that:It is true that unlike in Regala, petitioner in the present case is not being required to name his clients. However, the case of Regala is still applicable to the present case because the two cases are the same in more important aspects. | |||||
|
2005-05-26 |
PUNO, J. |
||||
| In engaging the services of an attorney, the client reposes on him special powers of trust and confidence. Their relationship is strictly personal and highly confidential and fiduciary. The relation is of such delicate, exacting and confidential nature that is required by necessity and public interest.[15] Only by such confidentiality and protection will a person be encouraged to repose his confidence in an attorney. The hypothesis is that abstinence from seeking legal advice in a good cause is an evil which is fatal to the administration of justice.[16] Thus, the preservation and protection of that relation will encourage a client to entrust his legal problems to an attorney, which is of paramount importance to the administration of justice.[17] One rule adopted to serve this purpose is the attorney-client privilege: an attorney is to keep inviolate his client's secrets or confidence and not to abuse them.[18] Thus, the duty of a lawyer to preserve his client's secrets and confidence outlasts the termination of the attorney-client relationship,[19] and continues even after the client's death.[20] It is the glory of the legal profession that its fidelity to its client can be depended on, and that a man may safely go to a lawyer and converse with him upon his rights or supposed rights in any litigation with absolute assurance that the lawyer's tongue is tied from ever disclosing it.[21] With full disclosure of the facts of the case by the client to his attorney, adequate legal representation will result in the ascertainment and enforcement of rights or the prosecution or defense of the client's cause. | |||||
|
2005-05-26 |
PUNO, J. |
||||
| Indeed, complainant failed to attend the hearings at the IBP. Without any testimony from the complainant as to the specific confidential information allegedly divulged by respondent without her consent, it is difficult, if not impossible to determine if there was any violation of the rule on privileged communication. Such confidential information is a crucial link in establishing a breach of the rule on privileged communication between attorney and client. It is not enough to merely assert the attorney-client privilege.[37] The burden of proving that the privilege applies is placed upon the party asserting the privilege.[38] | |||||
|
2004-08-16 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| According to petitioner, respondents Regala and Concepcion should not be excluded as respondents because they are being charged for illegal acts committed in their official capacity as members of the Board of Directors of UNICOM and UCPB, in conspiracy with the other private respondents.[16] Such argument, however, has already been resolved by the Court in both the Regala[17] and Castillo[18] cases, wherein the Court found that the acts complained of were done by the respondents in connection with the legal services they rendered to the other respondents. Thus, the Court held in the Castillo case that:This was the same argument raised by the Republic in the case of Regala. In overruling the Republic's position, this Court ruled: | |||||