You are on page 1of 13

KHAN V SIMBILLO Rule 2.

03 provides a lawyer shall not do or permit to be done


any act designed primarily to solicit legal business while Rule
FACTS: 3.01 states that a lawyer shall not use or permit the use of any
false, fraudulent, misleading, deceptive, undignified, self-
An advertisement in Philippine Daily Inquirer came out which laudatory or unfair statement or claim regarding his qualifications
reads: ANNULMENT OF MARRIAGE SPECIALIST 532- or legal services.
4333/521-2667.
It has been repeatedly stressed that the practice of law is not a
SC ordered its staff to call the number and ask some business. It is a profession in which the duty to public service, not
information. money, is the primary consideration. The gaining of livelihood
should be a secondary consideration.
Espeleta called the number and the wife of Atty. Rizalino
Simbillo answered who said that his husband was an expert in Aside from advertising himself as an Annulment of Marriage
handling annulment cases and guarantees a court decree within Specialist, his assurance of his clients that an annulment may be
4-6 month. The services of Atty. Simbillo is for P48,000. half of obtained in 4-6 months from the filing of the case encourages
which is payable at the filing of the case and the balance after the people, who might other have 2nd thought, to dissolve their
decision has been rendered. marriage.
Solicitation of legal business is not proscribed. However, solicitation
Similar advertisement also appeared in The Philippine Star and must be compatible with the dignity of the legal profession. The
Manila Bulletin. use of simple signs stating the name/s of the lawyers, the office
and residence address and the fields of expertise, as well as
Khan, Assist. Court Administrator, filed a case against Simbillo advertisement in legal periodicals bearing the same brief data,
for violating the Code of Professional Responsibility, Rule 2.03 are permissible.
and 3.01. The use of calling cards is now acceptable.

Simbillo admitted that he caused the advertisement but he


argued that solicitation and advertisement is not prohibited per se DACANAY V BAKER & MCKENZIE
and that it is about time to change our views about the prohibition
on advertising and solicitation. He also said that the interest of the AQUINO; May 10, 1985 (ice baguilat)
public is not served by the prohibition and suggested that the ban
be lifted. NATURE

IBP recommended that Simbillo be suspended for 1 year and Administrative Case
that repetition of similar act will be dealt with more severely.
FACTS
While the case was being investigated upon by the court,
Simbillo again advertised his legal services, for 2 times, in the Dacanay seeks to enjoin Torres and 9 other lawyers from practicing law
Buy & Sell Free Ads Magazine. ISSUE: under Baker & McKenzie (a law firm organized in Illinois, USA). Torres
used the letterhead of Baker & McKenzie on a letter to Rosie Clurman
W/N Simbillo violated the Code of Professional Responsibility that asks her to release 87 shares of Cathay Products Intl. Inc. to HE
HELD: Gabriel (a client). Dacanay denied any liability of Clurman and asked
whether she is being represented by Baker & McKenzie as counsel as
YES! well as the purpose of the letterhead. No reply coming from Clurman thus
this Administrative Case.
ISSUE which cause her to file administrative complaint against Gatdula.

WON the lawyers should be enjoined from practicing law under Baker & ISSUE
McKenzie
WON Gatdula is guilty of infraction
HELD
HELD
Yes, they should be enjoined. Baker & McKenzie is an alien law firm and
cannot practice law in the country. Using the name constitutes Yes. The inclusion/retention of his name in the professional card
representation of being associated with the firm which is deemed to be constitutes an act of solicitation which violates Section 7, sub-par. (b)(2)
unethical. Respondents are enjoined from practicing law under the firm of RA 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials
name Baker & McKenzie. and Employees) which declares it unlawful for a public official or
employees to, among others:

(2) Engage in the private practice of their profession unless authorized


SAMONTE V GATDULA by the Constituion or law, provided that such practice will not conflict with
official functions. Disposition Respondent is reprimanded for engaging in
GONZAGA-REYES; February 26, 1999 (athe odi) the private practice of law. He is further ordered to cause the exclusion of
his name in the firm name of any office engaged in the private practice of
NATURE law.

Administrative matter. Grave Misconduct.

FACTS CRUZ V SALVA

- The complainant, Julieta Borromeo Samonte charged Rolando R. MONTEMAYOR; July 25, 1959 (chris capul)
Gatdula with grave misconduct consisting in the alleged engaging in the
private practice of law which is in conflict with his official functions as NATURE
Branch Clerk of Court.
Original action in the Supreme Court. Certiorari and Prohibition with
- The complainant represents her sister as plaintiff in a civil case for Preliminary Injunction.
ejectment. Contrary to their expectation that execution will proceed, they
instead received a temporary restraining order. Santos contends that the FACTS
order was hasty and irregular as she was never notified of the application
for preliminary injunction. - A certain Manuel Monroy was murdered. CFI Pasay found Castelo, de
Jesus, Bonifacio, Mendoza, Berdugo et al. guilty of murder. They all
- Gatdula, when asked by the complainant of the reason of the decision, appealed and Castelo sought new trial. Castelo was again found guilty. -
blamed Santos lawyer for writing the address in the complaint for Pres Magsaysay ordered reinvestigation. Philippine Constabulary
ejectment and told her that if she wanted the execution to proceed, she questioned people and got confessions pointing to persons other than
should change her lawyer and retain the law office of respondent, at the those convicted.
same time giving his calling card with the name Baligod, Gatdula,
Tacardon, Dimailig and Celera. - Castelo et al wrote to Fiscal Salva to conduct reinvestigation on basis of
new confessions. Fiscal conferred w/ SolGen and the Justice Sec
- The decision of the Court continued not to be favorable to Samonte, decided to have the results of investigation made available to counsel for
appellants. COLLANTES V RENOMERON

- Chief of Phil Constabulary furnished Fiscal Salva copies of the affidavits PER CURIAM; August 16, 1991 (aida villanueva)
and confessions. Salva organized a committee for reinvestigation and
subpoenaed Timoteo Cruz, who was implicated as instigator and FACTS
mastermind in the new affidavits and confessions. Cruz counsel
questioned jurisdiction of the committee and of Salva to conduct - A complaint of disbarment is filed with a related administrative case
preliminary investigation bec the case was pending appeal in the SC. against Renomeron of the Registrar of Deeds in Tacloban. - Collantes
Counsel filed this present petition. was the house counsel for V & G Better Homes Subdivision and filed the
case with regard to the application of V & G for registration of 163 pro
- Salva said he subpoenaed Cruz bec of Cruz oral and personal request forma Deeds of Absolute Sale with Assignment of lots in its subdivision in
to allow him to appear at the investigation. - SC issued writ of preliminary Jan 1987.
injunction stopping the prelim investigation.
- Feb 16, 1987 no action was made by Renomeron despite follow-ups
ISSUES made by Collantes. Renomeron requested Collantes to submit additional
requirements which Collantes complied with. - Renomeron suspended
1. WON Salva and his committee can push through with the the registration of the documents pending compliance of V&G with
investigation 2. WON Cruz can be compelled to appear and testify before certain special agreement between then that V&G would provide
Salva 3. WON Salva conducted the investigation property Renomeron with a weekly Tacloban-Manil round trip ticket with P2,000
pocket money. He said he would act favorably on their application if that
HELD agreement would be fulfilled.

1. Yes. - SC believed Salva that it was Cruz who personally reqested to - Collantes sent plane fare (P800) to Renomeron through his niece. But
allow him to appear at the investigation. - Normally, when a criminal case pocket money was not given. - Renomeron then imposed additional
handled by fiscal is tried and decided and appealed to a higher court, requirements which angered Collantes, leading the latter to challenge
functions of fiscal have terminated. However, Salva has justified his Renomeron to act on the 163 pending applications by V&G within 24
reinvestigation bec in the orig case, one of the defendants (Salvador hours.
Realista y de Guzman) was not included in
- May 22, 1987 Renomeron denied the application for ambiguity of the
the trial. - The duty of a prosecuting attorney is not only to prosecute and subject matter. - Collantes appealed for a reconsideration and elevated
secure conviction of the guilty but also to protect the innocent. - Writ of the matter to the Administrator of the National Land Titles and Deeds
preliminary injunction dissolved. Investigation may continue. - Petition for Registration Administration.
certiorari and prohibition granted in part, denied in part. 2. No - Under the
law, Cruz had right to be present at the investigation but he need not be - The NLTDRA ruled that the documents were registrable. - The NLTDRA
present. His presence is more of a right than a legal obligation. 3. No - recommended Renomerons case to the DOJ and the Secretary of
Salva shld have done investigation privately in his office and not publicly Justice found him guilty. The president then dismissed Renomeron from
in the session hall of Municipal Court of Pasay where microphones were public service. - A disbarment case was then filed by Collantes against
installed and media people were present. He should also not have made Renomeron.
the media people ask questions. SC was disturbed and annoyed by such
publicity. - Salva is publicly reprehended and censured. ISSUE

WON the disbarment case against Renomeron would prosper given the
administrative case
HELD one.

- Yes, the administrative complaint has to do with his position in public Hence, this appeal to the Court on certiorari with a prayer for a writ of
service. The disbarment case has to do with his status as member of the preliminary injunction, and for other reliefs.
Integrated Bar. - Renomeron violated the lawyers oath.
ISSUE
- The Code of Professional Responsibility 1.01 forbids a lawyer from
engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. WON the City Fiscal shall file only one information

HELD

PEOPLE V PINEDA - YES, ruling Article 48 provides for two classes of crimes where a single
penalty is to be imposed: first, where a single act constitutes two or more
SANCHEZ; July 21, 1967 (jojo mendoza) grave or less grave felonies (delito compuesto); and, second, when an
offense is a necessary means for committing the other (delito complejo).
FACTS It is to be borne in mind, at this point, that apply the first half of Article 48,
there must be singularity of criminal act; singularity of criminal impulse is
- On the night of July 29, 1965, the occupants of the home of the spouses not written into the law.
Teofilo Mendoza and Valeriana Bontilao de Mendoza in Pugaan City of
Iligan, were asleep. It was then that guns (rifle, caliber 22) and paliuntod The respondent Judge reasons out that consolidation of the five cases
(homemade gun) were fired in rapid succession from outside the house. into one would have the salutary effect of obviating the necessity of
Teofilo Mendoza fell dead. Thereafter, defendants below destroyed the
door of the house, entered therein, and let loose several shots killing trying five cases instead of one. To save time, indeed, is laudable.
Neceforo Mendoza, all minor children of the couple and wounding Nonetheless, the statute confers upon the trial judge the power to try
Valeriana Bontilao de Mendoza. these cases jointly, such that the fear entertained by respondent Judge
could easily be remedied.
- Tomas Narbasa, Tambac Alindo and Rufino Borres were indicted
before the CFI of Lanao del Norte, as principals, in five (5) separate Upon the facts and the law, we hold that the City Fiscal of Iligan City
cases for murder. The five informations were based on facts gathered by correctly presented the five separate informations four for murder and
the prosecuting attorney from his investigation. one for frustrated murder. A rule of presumption long familiar is that
official duty has been regularly performed. A prosecuting attorney, by the
- Two of the three defendants in the five criminal cases (Tomas Narbasa nature of his office, is under no compulsion to file a particular criminal
and Tambak Alindo) moved for a consolidation thereof into one (1) information where he is not convinced that he has evidence to prop up
criminal case. Their plea is that said cases arose out of the same incident the averments thereof, or that the evidence at hand points to a different
and motivated by one impulse. The respondent Judge approved the conclusion. This is not to discount the possibility of the commission of
motion and directed the City Fiscal to unify all the five criminal cases, and abuses on the part of the prosecutor. But we must have to recognize that
to file one single information and drop the other four cases. The City a prosecuting attorney should not be unduly compelled to work against
Fiscal sought reconsideration thereof. The respondent Judge denied the his conviction. In case of doubt, we should give him the benefit thereof. A
motion to reconsider. He took the position that the acts complained of contrary rule may result in our courts being unnecessarily swamped with
stemmed out of a series of continuing acts on the part of the accused, not unmeritorious cases. Worse still, a criminal suspect's right to due process
by different and separate sets of shots, moved by one impulse and the sporting idea of fair play may be transgressed. So it is, that in
should therefore be treated as one crime though the series of shots killed People vs. Sope, the Court made the pronouncement that "it is very
more than one victim; and that only one information for multiple murder logical that the prosecuting attorney, being the one charged with the
should be filed, to obviate the necessity of trying five cases instead of prosecution of offenses, should determine the information to be filed and
cannot be controlled by the off ended party." appearance of the lawyer employed by him at the scheduled hearings.
The efforts of the Solicitor General to get at the bottom of things were
- The impact of respondent Judge's orders is that his judgment is to be thus set at naught.
substituted for that of the prosecutor's on the matter of what crime is to
be filed in court. The question of instituting a criminal charge is one - Under the circumstances, the outcome of such referral was to be
addressed to the sound discretion of the investigating Fiscal. The expected. For the law is rather exacting in its requirement that there be
information he lodges in court must have to be supported by facts competent and adequate proof to make out a case for malpractice.
brought about by an inquiry made by him. It stands to reason then to say Necessarily, the recommendation was one of the complaints being
that in a clash of views between the judge who did not investigate and dismissed. This is one of those instances then where this Court is left
the fiscal who did, or between the fiscal and the offended party or the with hardly any choice. Respondent cannot be found guilty of
defendant, those of the Fiscal's should normally prevail. In this regard, he malpractice. Respondent, as noted in the Report of the Solicitor- General,
cannot ordinarily be subject to dictation. We are not to be understood as "admits having appeared as counsel for the New Cesar's Bakery in the
saying that criminal prosecution may not be blocked in exceptional cases. proceeding before the NLRC while he held office as captain in the Manila
A relief in equity "may be availed of to stop it purported enforcement of a Metropolitan Police. However, he contends that the law did not prohibit
criminal law where it is necessary (a) for the orderly administration of him from such isolated exercise of his profession. He contends that his
justice; (b) to prevent the use of the strong arm of the law in an appearance as counsel, while holding a government position, is not
oppressive and vindictive manner; (c) to avoid multiplicity of actions; (d) among the grounds provided by the Rules of Court for the suspension or
to afford adequate protection to constitutional rights; and (e) in proper removal of attorneys. The respondent also denies having conspired with
cases, because the statute relied upon is unconstitutional or was held the complainant Misamin's attorney in the NLRC proceeding in order to
invalid." Nothing in the record would as much as intimate that the present trick the complainant into signing an admission that he had been paid his
case fits into any of the situations just recited. separation pay. Likewise, the respondent denies giving illegal protection
to members of the Chinese community in Sta. Cruz, Manila."
Disposition The writ of certiorari is granted.
ISSUE

WON a lawyer-public officer may represent a private client during his


MISAMIN V SAN JUAN tenure

FERNANDO; August 31, 1976 (bry san juan) HELD

FACTS NO, but since evidence is lacking to discipline Atty. Miguel San Juan, the
case is dismissed. The Court noted that the Report of the Solicitor-
- It certainly fails to reflect credit on a captain. in the Metro Manila Police General did not take into account respondent's practice of his profession
force and a member of the bar, respondent Miguel A. San Juan, to be notwithstanding his being a police official, as "this is not embraced in
charged with being the legal representative of certain establishments Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court which provides the
allegedly owned by Filipinos of Chinese descent and, what is worse, with grounds for the suspension or removal of an attorney.
coercing an employee, complainant Jose Misamin to agree to drop the
charges filed by him against his employer Tan Hua, owner of New - The conclusion arrived at by the Solicitor-General that the complaint
Cesar's Bakery, for the violation of the Minimum Wage Law. There was a cannot prosper is in accordance with the settled law. As far back as in re
denial on the part of respondent. The matter was referred to the Office Tionko, decided in 1922, the authoritative doctrine was set forth by
Justice Malcolm in this wise: "The serious consequences of disbarment
of the Solicitor-General for investigation, report and recommendation. or suspension should follow only where there is a clear preponderance of
Thereafter, it would seem there was a change of heart on the part of evidence against the respondent. The presumption is that the attorney is
complainant. That could very well be the explanation for the non- innocent of the charges preferred and has performed his duty as an
officer of the court in accordance with his oath." The Tionko doctrine has violated her oath as attorney-at-law by filing eleven (11) baseless,
been subsequently adhered to. groundless, and unfounded suits before the Office of the City Prosecutor
of Quezon City, which were subsequently dismissed. - Complainants
- This resolution does not in any wise take into consideration whatever charge respondent of transgressing subparagraph b (22), Section 36 of
violations there might have been of the Civil Service Law in view of Presidential Decree No. 807, for her willful failure to pay just debts owing
respondent practicing his profession while holding his position of Captain to Borela Tire Supply and Novas Lining Brake & Clutch as
in the Metro Manila police force. That is a matter to be decided in the evidenced by the dishonored checks she issued, the complaint sheet,
administrative proceeding as noted in the recommendation of the and the subpoena issued to respondent. - Complainants also allege that
Solicitor-General. Nonetheless, while the charges have to be dismissed, respondent instigated the commission of a crime against complainant
still it would not be inappropriate for respondent member of the bar to Celedonia R. Coronacion and Rodrigo Coronacion, Jr., when she
avoid all appearances of impropriety. Certainly, the fact that the suspicion encouraged and ordered her son, Jonathan Dasig, a guard of the Bureau
could be entertained that far from living true to the concept of a public of Jail Management and Penology, to draw his gun and shoot the
office being a public trust, he did make use, not so much of whatever Coronacions on the evening of May 14, 1997. As a result of this incident,
legal knowledge he possessed, but the influence that laymen could a complaint for grave threats against the respondent and her son, was
assume was inherent in the office held not only to frustrate the lodged - Complainants allege that respondent authored and sent to then
President Joseph Estrada a libelous and unfair report, which maligned
beneficent statutory scheme that labor be justly compensated but also to the good names and reputation of no less than eleven (11) CHED
be at the beck and call of what the complainant called alien interest, is a Directors calculated to justify her ill motive of preventing their re-
matter that should not pass unnoticed. Respondent, in his future appointment and with the end view of securing an appointment for
actuations as a member of the bar. should refrain from laying himself herself. - The IBP Commission on Bar Discipline concluded that
open to such doubts and misgivings as to his fitness not only for the respondent unlawfully used her public office in order to secure financial
position occupied by him but also for membership in the bar. He is not spoils to the detriment of the dignity and reputation of the Commission on
worthy of membership in an honorable profession who does not even Higher Education. It was recommended that respondent be suspended
take care that his honor remains unsullied from the practice of law for the maximum period allowable of three (3)
years with a further warning that similar action in the future will be a
ground for disbarment of respondent. - The IBP Board of Governors
passed Resolution No. XV-2002- 393, adopting and approving the Report
VITRIOLO V DASIG and Recommendation of

PER CURIAM; April 1, 2003 (lora alamin) the Investigating Commissioner and Respondent was SUSPENDED from
the practice of law for three (3) years.
NATURE
ISSUE
Administrative case for disbarment filed against Atty. Felina S. Dasig, an
official of the Commission on Higher Education (CHED). WON respondent attorney-at-law, as Officer-in-Charge (OIC) of Legal
Services, CHED, may be disciplined by this Court for her malfeasance,
FACTS - Almost all complainants are high-ranking officers of the CHED. considering that her position, at the time of filing of the complaint, was
They allege that while respondent was OIC of Legal Affairs Service, Chief Education Program Specialist, Standards Development Division,
CHED, committed acts that are grounds for disbarment under Section 27, Office of Programs and Standards, CHED.
Rule 138 of the Rules of Court - During her tenure as OIC, Legal
Services, CHED, attempted to extort from Betty C. Mangohon, Rosalie B. HELD
Dela Torre, Rocella G. Eje, and Jacqueline N. Ng sums of money as
consideration for her favorable action on their pending applications or YES. Ratio Generally speaking, a lawyer who holds a government office
requests before her office - Complainants likewise aver that respondent may not be disciplined as a member of the Bar for misconduct in the
discharge of his duties as a government official. However, if said PCGG V SANDIGANBAYAN
misconduct as a government official also constitutes a violation of his
oath as a lawyer, then he may be disciplined by this Court as a member PUNO; April 12, 2005 (marge alias)
of the Bar. The Attorneys Oath is the source of the obligations and duties
of every lawyer and any violation thereof is a ground for disbarment, NATURE
suspension, or other disciplinary action. The Attorneys Oath imposes
upon every member of the bar the duty to delay no man for money or Special civil action in the SC. Certiorari and prohibition.
malice. Said duty is further stressed in Rule 1.03 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. Reasoning Respondents misconduct as a FACTS
lawyer of the CHED is of such a character as to affect her qualification as
a member of the Bar, for as a lawyer, she ought to have known that it -1976: General Bank and Trust Co. (Genbank) encountered financial
was patently unethical and illegal for her to demand sums of money as difficulties, prompting the Central Bank to extend to it emergency loans
consideration for the approval of applications and requests awaiting reaching a total of P310 million. Despite this, Genbank failed to recover
action by her office. - Respondents demands for sums of money to and the following year Central Bank had to issue a resolution declaring
facilitate the processing of pending applications or requests before her Genbank insolvent and ordering its liquidation. A public bidding of
office violates such duty, and runs afoul of the oath she took when Genbanks assets was held; Lucio Tan Group submitted the winning bid.
admitted to the Bar. Such actions likewise run contrary to Rule 1.03 of -Former Solicitor General Estelito P. Mendoza field a petition with CFI
the Code of Professional Responsibility. - A member of the Bar who praying for the courts assistance and supervision in the liquidation as
assumes public office does not shed his professional obligations. Hence, mandated by RA 265, section 29.
the Code of Professional Responsibility, was not meant to govern the
conduct of private practitioners alone, but of all lawyers including those in -After EDSA I, Pres. Aquino established the PCGG to recover the alleged
government service. This is clear from Canon 6 of said Code. - ill-gotten wealth of Marcos, his family and his cronies. Pursuant to this
Respondents attempts to extort money from persons with applications or mandate, PCGG filed a complaint for reversion, reconveyance,
requests pending before her office are violative of Rule 1.01 of the Code restitution, accounting, and damages against respondents Lucio Tan
of Professional Responsibility, which prohibits members of the Bar from Group and the Marcos family. This was docketed as Civil Case No. 0005
engaging or participating in any unlawful, dishonest, or deceitful acts. of the 2nd division of the Sandiganbayan (SB). In connection with this,
Moreover, said acts constitute a breach of Rule 6.02 of the Code which PCGG issued several writs of sequestration on the properties of the
bars lawyers in government service from promoting their private interests. Lucio Tan Group.
Promotion of private interests includes soliciting gifts or anything of
monetary value in any transaction requiring the approval of his office or -Lucio Tan Group questioned the writs through petitions for certiorari,
which may be affected by the functions of his office. Respondents prohibition, and injunction with the SC. The latter referred the cases to
conduct in office falls short of the integrity and good moral character the SB for proper disposition. In these cases docketed as Civil Case Nos.
required from all lawyers, specially from one occupying a high public 0096-0099 Lucio Tan Group was represented by their counsel, former
office. For a lawyer in public office is expected not only to refrain from SolGen Estelito Mendoza who has then resumed private practice.
any act or omission which might tend to lessen the trust and confidence
of the citizenry in government, she must also uphold the dignity of the -05 Feb 1991: PCGG, invoking Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional
legal profession at all times and observe a high standard of honesty and Responsibility (CPR), filed motions to disqualify Atty. Mendoza as
fair dealing. Disposition Respondent was found liable for gross counsel for respondents in Civil Case Nos. 0005 & 0096-0099. The
misconduct and dishonesty in violation of the Attorneys Oath as well as motions allege that Atty. Mendoza intervened in the acquisition of
the Code of Professional Responsibility, and was ordered DISBARRED. Genbank by the Lucio Tan Group when, in his capacity as then SolGen,
he advised the Central Banks officials on the procedure to bring about
Genbanks liquidation& appeared as counsel for the central Bank in
connection with its petition for assistance in the liquidation.
-22 April 1991: SB denied the motion to disqualify Atty. Mendoza in Civil lawyers; (2) legal educators, such as David Hoffman and George
Case No. 0005 for PCGGs failure to prove the existence of an Sharswood, and many other lawyers were working to flesh out the broad
inconsistency between Mendozas former function as SolGen and his outline of a lawyer's duties. -As in the colonial and early post-
present employment as counsel of the Lucio Tan group; it also ruled that revolutionary periods, these standards were isolated and did not provide
Mendozas appearance as counsel for respondents Tan, et al. was a comprehensive statement of a lawyer's duties. -end of 19th century, a
beyond the one-year prohibited period under Section 7(b) of Republic Act new form of ethical standards began to guide lawyers in their practice
No. 6713 since he ceased to be Solicitor General in the year 1986. the bar association code of legal ethics. The bar codes were detailed
PCGG did not file a MFR. ethical standards formulated by lawyers for lawyers. 2 primary sources of
ethical guidance: academic discourses & the bar association codes -
-When Civil Case Nos. 0096-0099 were transferred from the SBs 2nd 1887: Alabama - the 1st state with a comprehensive bar association code
Division to the 5th Division, the latter also denied the motion to disqualify. of ethics. 1887 Alabama Code of Ethics was the model for several states
PCGGs MFR was denied. Hence this petition. codes, and it was the foundation for the American Bar Association's
(ABA) 1908 Canons of Ethics. -1917: Philippine Bar Association adopted
as its own, Canons 1 to 32 of the ABA Canons of Professional Ethics. -
1924: some ABA members start to question the form and function of the
KEY ISSUE canons. Among their concerns was the revolving door or the
process by which lawyers and others temporarily enter government
WON Rule 6.03 of the CPR applies to Atty. Mendoza. service from private life and then leave it for large fees in private practice,
where they can exploit information, contacts, and influence garnered in
Rule 6.03: A lawyer shall not, after leaving government service, accept government service. (a) Adverse-interest conflicts - exist where the
matter in which the
engagement or employment in connection with any matter in which he
had intervened while in the said service. former government lawyer represents a client in private practice is
substantially related to a matter that the lawyer dealt with while employed
Obiter by the government and the interests of the current and former are
adverse.
The History of Rule 6.03
(b) Congruent-interest representation conflicts are unique to government
-17th and 18th centuries: ethical standards for lawyers were pervasive in lawyers and apply primarily to former government lawyers.
England and other parts of Europe; the principal thrust of the standards
was directed towards the litigation conduct of lawyers. It underscored the -ABA attempted to correct and update the canons through new canons,
central duty of truth and fairness in litigation as superior to any obligation individual amendments and interpretative opinions. To deal with
to the client. problems peculiar to former government lawyers, Canon 36 was minted
to disqualify such lawyers both for adverse-interest conflicts and
-colonial and early post-revolutionary America: The forms of lawyer congruent-interest representation conflicts.
regulation did not differ markedly from those in England. Only three of the
traditional core duties can be fairly characterized as pervasive in the Canon 36. Retirement from judicial position or public employment A
formal, positive law of the colonial and post-revolutionary period: the lawyer should not accept employment as an advocate in any matter upon
duties of litigation fairness, competency and reasonable fees. the merits of which he has previously acted in a judicial

-19th century: the dark ages of legal ethics in the United States. -mid capacity.
19th century: American legal reformers were filling the void in two ways:
(1) David Dudley Field, the drafter of the highly influential New York A lawyer, having once held public office or having been in the public
Field Code, introduced a new set of uniform standards of conduct for employ should not, after his retirement, accept employment in connection
with any matter he has investigated or passed upon while in such office 2a. WON Atty. Mendozas act of advising the Central Bank on the legal
or employ. procedure to liquidate Genbank is included within the concept of
matter under Rule 6.03
-1946: the Philippine Bar Association again adopted as its own Canons
33 to 47 of the ABA Canons of Professional Ethics. -mid 20th century: 2b. WON the intervention of Atty. Mendoza in the liquidation of Genbank
growing consensus that the ABA Canons needed more meaningful is significant and substantial
revision. 1964: ABA President-elect Lewis Powell asked for the creation
of a committee to study the adequacy and effectiveness of the ABA HELD
Canons. The unfairness of Canon 36 compelled ABA to replace it with
Canon 9 in the 1969 ABA Model Code of Professional Responsibility. 2a. NO. Ratio American Bar Association Formal Opinion 342s definition
Canon 9 states: A lawyer should avoid even the appearance of of matter : any discrete, isolatable act as well as identifiable
professional impropriety. transaction or conduct involving a particular situation and specific party,
and not merely an act of drafting, enforcing or interpreting government or
-The drafting committee reformulated the canons into the Model Code of agency procedures, regulations or laws, or briefing abstract principles of
Professional Responsibility which was approved by the ABA House of law. Reasoning Based on PCGGs case for disqualification, the matter
Delegates in August 1969. Canon 9 was supplemented by Disciplinary or the act of Atty. Mendoza as Solicitor General involved here is
Rule 9-101(b): A lawyer shall not accept private employment in a advising the Central Bank, on how to proceed with the said banks
matter in which he had substantial responsibility while he was a public liquidation and even filing the petition for its liquidation with the CFI of
employee. Manila.

-Despite these amendments, legal practitioners remained unsatisfied with -The procedure of liquidation is given in black and white in Republic Act
the results and indefinite standards. -August 1983: ABA adopted new No. 265, sec. 29. Said legal provision provides for the role of the SolGen
Model Rules of Professional Responsibility, doing away with Canon 9, in proceedings upon insolvency. -Also, CPR Rule 6.03 cannot apply to
citing the hopeless dependence of the concept of impropriety on the respondent Mendoza because his alleged intervention while a SolGen in
subjective views of anxious clients as well as the norms indefinite nature. Sp. Proc. No. 107812 (liquidation of Genbank) is an intervention on a
matter different from the matter involved in Civil Case No. 0096
-1980: Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) adopted a proposed Code (sequestration of the stocks in Allied Bank, the successor of Genbank, on
of Professional Responsibility which it submitted to SC for approval. The the ground that they are ill-gotten). 2b. NO. Ratio in light of the history of
Code was drafted to reflect the local customs, traditions, and practices of CPR Rule 6.03, the 2nd meaning is more appropriate to give to the word
the bar and to conform with new realities. intervention. The intervention cannot be insubstantial and insignificant.

-21 June 1988: SC promulgated the Code of Professional Responsibility. Reasoning 2 interpretations of the intervene (basis: Webster): (a)
CPR Rule 6.03 which deals particularly with former government lawyers intervene includes participation in a proceeding even if the
retained the general structure of paragraph 2, Canon 36 of the Canons of intervention is irrelevant or has no effect or little influence. (b)
Professional Ethics but replaced the expansive phrase investigated intervene only includes an act of a person who has the power to
and passed upon with the word intervened. It is, therefore, properly influence the subject proceedings. -The petition in the special
applicable to both adverse- interest conflicts and congruent-interest proceedings is an initiatory pleading, hence, it has to be signed by Atty.
conflicts. Mendoza as the then sitting Solicitor General. The record is arid as to the
actual participation of respondent Mendoza in the subsequent
SUB-ISSUES proceedings. -The principal role of the court in this proceeding for
dissolution is to assist the Central Bank in determining claims of creditors
1. WON this case involves the adverse interest aspect of Rule 6.03 2. against the Genbank. The role of the court is not strictly as a court of
WON there exists a congruent-interest conflict sufficient to disqualify justice but as an agent to assist the Central Bank in determining the
respondent Mendoza from representing the Lucio Tan Group. claims of creditors. In such a proceeding, the participation of the Office of
the Solicitor General is not that of the usual court litigator protecting the is nil, if not inexistent. There are no inconsistent sides to be bothered
interest of government. about in the case at bar. In lawyering for the Lucio Tan Group, Atty.
Mendoza is indirectly defending the validity of the action of Central Bank
Obiter in liquidating Genbank and selling it later to Allied Bank. Their interests
coincide instead of colliding.
Balancing Policy Considerations
Disposition Petition denied. No costs. SEPARATE OPINION
-CPR Rule 6.03 represents a commendable effort on the part of the IBP
to upgrade the ethics of lawyers in the government service. It should not PANGANIBAN [dismiss] -The petition should be dismissed on two
be interpreted to cause a chilling effect on government recruitment of grounds: (1) res judicata, specifically, conclusiveness of judgment; and
able legal talent. (2) prescription. -The material issue in the present controversy is whether
Atty. Mendoza may still be barred from representing these respondents
-At present, it is already difficult for government to match compensation despite (1) a final Order in another case resolving the very same ground
offered by the private sector and it is unlikely that government will be able for disqualification involving the same parties and the same subject
to reverse that situation. It is true that the only card that the government matter as the present case; and (2) the passage of a sufficient period of
may play to recruit lawyers is have them defer present income in return time from the date he ceased to be solicitor general to the date when the
for the experience and contacts that can later be exchanged for higher supposed disqualification (for violation of the CPR) was raised. -There is
income in private practice. To make government service more difficult no need to delve into the question of whether Rule 6.03 has been
to exit can only make it less appealing to enter. transgressed; there is no need to discuss the merits of the questioned
Sandiganbayan Resolutions allowing Atty. Mendoza to represent private
-In interpreting Rule 6.03, the Court also cast a harsh eye on its use as a respondents in Civil Case Nos. 0096-0099. After all, a Resolution issued
litigation tactic to harass opposing counsel as well as deprive his client of by the same court resolving the very same issue on the
competent legal representation. The danger that the rule will be misused disqualification of Atty. Mendoza in a case involving the same parties
to bludgeon an opposing counsel is not a mere guesswork. -Similarly, the and the same subject matter has already become final and immutable. It
Court in interpreting Rule 6.03 was not unconcerned with the prejudice to can no longer be altered or changed. -CPR Rule 6.03 does not expressly
the client which will be caused by its misapplication. It cannot be doubted specify the period of its applicability or enforceability. But it cannot be
that granting a disqualification motion causes the client to lose not only inferred that the prohibition is absolute, perpetual and permanent. All civil
the law firm of choice, but probably an individual lawyer in whom the actions have a prescriptive period. Unless a law makes an action
client has confidence. imprescriptible or lays down no other period, the action is subject to a bar
by prescription five years after the right of action accrued. (Arts. 1140-
-The Court has to consider also the possible adverse effect of a truncated 1149, Civil Code; Tolentino v CA)
reading of the rule on the official independence of lawyers in the
government service. -No less significant a consideration is the SANDOVAL-GUTTIERREZ [dismiss]
deprivation of the former government lawyer of the freedom to exercise
his profession. Given the current state of our law, the disqualification of a -In evaluating motions to disqualify a lawyer, our minds are not bound by
former government lawyer may extend to all members of his law firm. stringent rules. There is room for consideration of the combined effect of
a partys right to counsel of his own choice, an attorneys interest in
-As well observed, the accuracy of gauging public perceptions is a highly representing a client, the financial burden on a client of replacing
speculative exercise at best which can lead to untoward results. Notably, disqualified counsel, and any tactical abuse underlying a disqualification
the appearance of impropriety theory has been rejected in the 1983 ABA proceeding.
Model Rules of Professional Conduct.
-An order denying a motion to disqualify counsel is final and, therefore,
-Also the switching sides concern does not cast a shadow in the case appealable. The issue of whether or not Atty. Mendoza should be
at bar. The danger that confidential official information might be divulged disqualified from representing Tan et al. is separable from, independent
of and collateral to the main issues in Civil Cases Nos. 0096-0099. In think that serving in government is its own reward. One needs only to
short, it is separable from the merits. Clearly, the present petition for look at all of us members of this Court to know that money is not
certiorari is dismissible. everything. All of us have, at one point in our legal careers, been tempted
by the promise of financial success that private practice usually brings.
-The Resolution dated April 22, 1991 in Civil Case No. 0005 constitutes a But in the end, we decided to take the road less traveled and serve in
bar to similar motions to disqualify Atty. Mendoza under the doctrine of government. And I would like to believe that each and everyone of us has
res judicata. The PCGG may not relitigate such issue of disqualification made a difference. There is more to this mortal coil than the pursuit of
as it was actually litigated and finally decided in G.R. Nos. 112707-09. material wealth.

CALLEJO, SR. [partially grant]

-Atty. Mendozas participation in the liquidation of GENBANK does not -The Code of Professional Responsibility is not designed for Holmes
constitute intervention. CPR Rule 6.03 cannot apply to Atty. Mendoza proverbial bad man who wants to know just how many corners he may
because his alleged intervention while a Solicitor General in Special cut, how close to the line he may play, without running into trouble with
Proceedings No. 107812 is an intervention in a matter different from the the law. Rather, it is drawn for the good man as a beacon to assist him
matter involved in Civil Case No. 0096. in navigating an ethical course through the sometimes murky waters of
professional conduct. (General Motors Corp. v City of New York) -CPR
CARPIO-MORALES [grant] establishes the norms of conduct and ethical standards in the legal
profession and the Court must not shirk from its duty to ensure that all
-The doctrine of conclusiveness of judgment does not apply since in the lawyers live up to its provisions. The Court must not tolerate any
case at bar, the question of whether the motion to disqualify Atty. departure from the straight and narrow path demanded by the ethics
Mendoza should be granted is undoubtedly a legal question. Also, this is of the legal profession.
the first time that the issue to disqualify Atty. Mendoza has been elevated
before the SC. -The Resolution denying PCGGs similar motion to disqualify Mendoza
was an interlocutory order as it did not terminate or finally dispose of the
-We cannot characterize the denial of PCGGs motion to disqualify Atty. said case. It merely settled an incidental or collateral matter arising
Mendoza as a final order. It is only interlocutory since it does not finally therein. As such, it cannot operate to bar the filing of another motion to
dispose of the case. -the prohibition in Rule 6.03 is perpetual. It does not disqualify Atty. Mendoza in the other cases.
prescribe in 5 yrs. -Atty. Mendozas lack of participation in the decision of
the Central Bank to liquidate GENBANK is immaterial. What is material is -Atty. Mendozas present engagement as counsel for Lucio Tan Group in
his role in facilitating the liquidation of GENBANK through his legal Civil Case No. 0096 violates the ethical precept embodied in Rule 6.03. -
expertise. In advising the Central Bank, Atty. Mendoza did not just The subject matter in Civil Case No. 0096 is connected with or related to
mechanically point to section 29 of Republic 265. As then Solicitor a matter, i.e. the liquidation of Genbank, in which Atty. Mendoza had
General, and as a lawyer known for his keen legal acumen, Atty. intervened as the Solicitor General
Mendoza synthesized facts, which by reason of his position he was privy
to, and law with a view to successfully liquidate the bank. -Rule 6.03 applies even if Atty. Mendoza did not switch sides or did
not take inconsistent sides. Rule 6.03 applies even if no conflict of
-While it is desirable to recruit competent lawyers into government interest exists between Atty. Mendozas former government client
service, this does not justify the disturbance of our mores. The canons (Central Bank) and his present private practice clients (respondents Tan,
and rules of the Code of Professional Responsibility must be strictly et al.) -Rule 6.03 purposely does not contain an explicit temporal
construed. limitation since cases have to be resolved based on their peculiar
circumstances. The peculiar circumstances of this case justify the strict
-While financial considerations are important, they are not the sole factor application of said rule.
affecting recruitment of lawyers to the government sector. I would like to
TINGA [partially grant] -Section 6.03 cannot be made applicable in the - Lim-Santiago alleges that Sagucio is guilty of representing conflicting
present case to Atty. Mendoza, as to do so would be violative of his right interests, a violation of Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional
to due process. Whether it be at the time then Solicitor General Mendoza
participated in the process of the dissolution of General Bank in 1977, or Responsibility (CPR), and of engaging in the private practice of law while
at sometime in 1987 when he agreed to represent the respondents, the working as a government prosecutor, which is expressly prohibited in
Code of Professional Responsibility had not yet been promulgated. -The RA6713. Sagucio defends himself by saying that he accepted payment
Code of Professional Responsibility was promulgated by the Supreme from Taggat even after his appointment as government prosecutor but
Court on 21 June 1988. Prior to its official adoption, there was no similar said that such payments were not for representation but for consultancy
official body of rules or guidelines enacted by the Supreme Court other services. Also, he contends that 5 years have passed since he was
than the provisions on Legal Ethics in the Rules of Court. -Atty. Mendoza connected with the company, thus there was no conflict of interest.
may have violated Canon 36 of the Canons of Professional Ethics, which
some authorities deemed as a source of legal ethics prior to the Code of ISSUES
Professional Responsibility. But the prohibition under Canon 36 was not
prescribed by this Court or by statute as a norm until the enactment of 1. WON there are conflicting interests in this case 2. WON the private
the Code of Professional Responsibility in 21 June 1988. Accordingly, practice of law includes consultancy services 3. WON disbarment is the
when Atty. Mendoza agreed to represent the respondents, there was no appropriate penalty
definitive binding rule proscribing him from such engagement or
penalizing him for such representation. HELD

- There are no conflicting interests. Sagucio is not guilty of representing


conflicting interests as prohibited in Rule 15.03 of CPR. He left Taggat in
LIM-SANTIAGO V SAGUCIO 1992, and the non-payment of wages occurred in 1996-1997, years after
the relation to Taggat has been terminated. In a charge for representing
CARPIO; March 31, 2006 (maia reiza) conflicting interests, evidence must be presented to prove that
respondent used against the former client any CONFIDENTIAL
NATURE information acquired through his previous employment. Although a
lawyer owes a former client to maintain inviolate of the clients
Disbarment case confidence, this responsibility does not cover transactions that occurred
beyond the lawyers employment with the client. That he was a former
FACTS personnel manager and the case is labor-related is not sufficient basis to
charge Sagucio of representing conflicting interests.
- Ruthie Lim-Santiago is the daughter and administratrix of the property
of Alfonso Lim, the former president of Taggat Industries. After his death, - The payment for consultancy services conducted by Sagucio falls under
Lim-Santiago took over the management of the company. Respondent the private practice of law which is specifically prohibited by RA6713
Carlos Sagucio was the former Personnel Manager and Retained (the court applies the liberal definition of the practice of law as given in
Counsel of Taggat Industries, until he was appointed Assistant Provincial Cayetano v Monson). However, Sagucio cannot be punished for this
Prosecutor of Tuguegarao, Cagayan in 1992. violation under the CPR, for such violations are not subject to disciplinary
action under the CPR. On the other hand, this violation is also a violation
- Some employees of Taggat filed a criminal complaint against Lim- of Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 (a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful ...
Santiago for withholding payment of their salaries and wages without conduct), thus he can be punished for violating canon 1. The penalty is a
valid cause for 1 year and 3 months (1 April 1996 to 15 July 1997). suspension of 6 months and 1 day to 1 year (basis is the Civil Service
Sagucio, as the asst. Prov. Prosecutor, was assigned to conduct the Law and Rules).
preliminary investigation. He recommended the filing of 651 Informations
for violation of Art288 of the labor code of the Philippines.

You might also like