RULE 6.

03- A lawyer shall not , after leaving government

services, accept engagement or employment in connection
with any matter in which he had intervened while in said
service.
Various

ways of leaving government service(lawyer):

Retirement
Resignation
Expiration of the term of office
Dismissal or Abandonment

Note: Whichever way he leaves government service, he is prohibited by

the Rule from accepting engagement or employment in connection with
any matter in which he had inteervened while in said service.

Section 7 of RA 6713, prohibits public officials

from doing any of the following acts:
Own, control, manage or accept employment as officer,
employee, consultant, counsel, broker, agent, trustee or
nominee in any private enterprise regulated, supervised or
licensed by their office unless expressly allowed by law.

HOW LONG WILL THE PROHIBITION WILL APPLY FOR

A RESIGNED, SEPARATED OR RETIRED LAWYER
EMPLOYEE FROM PUBLIC OFFICE?
1 (ONE) Year
The Section 7 prohibitions continue to apply for a period
of one year after the public official or employees
resignation, retirement, or separation from public office,
except for the private practice of profession under
subsection (b)(2), which can already be undertaken
even within the one-year prohibition period. As an
exception to this exception, the one-year prohibited
period applies with respect to any matter before the
office the public officer or employee used to work with.

PCGG vs SANDIGANBAYAN
Facts:

1976: General Bank & Trust Company (Genbank) encountered financial difficulties. Central Bank
extended loans to Genbank in the hope of rehabilitating it (P310M). Nonetheless, Genbank failed to
recover.
1977: Genbank was declared insolvent. A public bidding of Genbanks assets was held with the
Lucio Tan Group winning the bid. Solicitor General Mendoza, representing the government,
intervened with the liquidation of Genbank.
1986: after EDSA I, Cory established the PCGG to recover the ill-gotten wealth of Marcos, his
family and cronies.
1987: PCGG filed a case against Lucio Tan and certain other people (basta marami sila). In relation
to this case, PCGG issued several writs of sequestration on properties allegedly acquired by the
respondents by taking advantage of their close relationship and influence with Marcos.
Sandiganbayan heard the case.
Estelito Mendoza (Solicitor General during the time of Marcos) represented the respondents.
1991: PCGG filed a motion to disqualify Mendoza, because of his participation in the liquidation of
Genbank. Genbank (now Allied Bank) is one of the properties that PCGG is seeking to be
sequestered from the Lucion Tan group. PCGG invoked Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
Sandiganbayan denied PCGGs motion. According to the Sandiganbayan, Mendoza did not take an
adverse position to that taken on behalf of the Central Bank. And Mendozas appearance as
counsel was beyond the 1 year prohibitory period since he retired in 1986.

Issue: W/N Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility apllies to Estelito
Mendoza?
Held:

No, it does not apply to Mendoza. Sandiganbayan decision is affirmed.

The matter (see 3rd note), or the act of Mendoza as Solicitor General is advising the
Central Bank on how to proceed with the liquidation of Genbank. This is not the
matter contemplated by Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

The matter involved in the liquidation of Genbank is entirely different from the matter
involved in the PCGG case against the Lucio Tan group.

The intervention contemplated in Rule 6.03 should be substantial and important. The
role of Mendoza in the liquidation of Genbank is considered insubstantial.

SC is even questioning why PCGG took such a long time to revive the motion to
disqualify Mendoza. Apparently, PCGG already lost a lot of cases against Mendoza.
Kyles interpretation: PCGG getting desperate

Something to think about: SC is somehow of the opinion that Rule 6.03 will make it
harder for the government to get good lawyers in the future to work for them because
of the prohibition of accepting cases in the future that were related to ones work as a
government counsel.

General Rule

The lawyers in government service

cannot engage in private cases for
they are expected to devote their full
time and knowledge in the
performance of their duties and
responsibilities as public servant.

LAWYERS IN GOVERNMENT WHEN ALLOWED

TO PRACTICE:

Memorandum Circular No. 17 of the Executive

Department allows government employees to engage
directly in the private practice of their profession
provided that there is a written permission from the
Department Head.
the private practice is authorized by the Constitution or
by the law; and
the practice will not conflict, or tend to conflict, with his
or her official functions.

UNIFORM RULES ON ADMINISTRATIVE

CASES IN THE CIVIL SERVICE

Engaging in the private practice of profession, when unauthorized,

is classified as light offense puni shable by reprimand. Case of
Felipe E. Abella vs Atty. Asteria E. Cruzabra, AC. No. 5688.

Facts:Atty. Cruzabra was admitted to the Philippine Bar on May 30, 1986
and was appointed asDeputy Register of Deeds of General Santos City
on Aug. 11, 1987. The complainant Felipe Abella asserted that Atty.
Cruzabra filed a petition for commission as a notary public and was
commisioned on Feb. 29, 1988 without obtaining prior authority from
the Secretary of Department of Justice. Complainant claimed that
repondent has notarized some 3,000 documents. Complainant pointed
out that respondent only stopped notarizing documents when she was
reprimanded by the Chief of the Investigation Division of the Land
Registration Authority.

Continuation:

Respondent invoke good faith as her defense. Respondent insists that she
cannot be punish because she was given permission by her senior officer to
notarize.. In fact, one of the agreement in her appointment letter was that
she will not imposed charges on papers from their office that need
notarization. The respondent argued that she is new in the legal profession
and that she does not know the intrecacies thereof.
Issue: Whether or not respondents act merits disciplinary action?
Ruling: The Supreme Court held that Atty. Asteria E. Cruzabra guilty of
engaging in notarial practice without the written autority of the Department
of Justice and was reprimanded and warned that repitition of the same or
similar act in the future shall merit a more severe action.
Section 12, Rule XVIII of the Revised Civil Service Rules provides that no
officer or employee shall engage directly in any private business, vocation
or profession or be connected with any commercial, credit, agricultural ,or
industrial undertaking without written permission from the head of the
Department. It is clear that when respondent filed her petition for
commission as a notary public, she did not obtain permission from the

Secretary of the Department of Justice. Respondent superior, the Register of

Deeds, cannot issue any authorization because he is not the head of the
Department. And even assuming that the Register of deeds authorized her,
respondent failed to present any proof of that written permission.
Respondent cannot feign ignorance or good faith because respondent filed
her petition for commission as a notary public after Memorandum Circular
No. 17 was issued in 1986.

Code of Ethical Standards for Public Officials

and
Employees
RA
6713
Rule X
Section
7. Prohibited
Acts
and Transactions.
- In addition to

acts and omissions of public officials and employees now

prescribed in the Constitution and existing laws, the following
shall constitute prohibited acts and transactions of any public
official and employee and are hereby declared to be unlawful:
(b) Outside employment and other activities related thereto. Public officials and employees during their incumbency shall
not:
(2) Engage in the private practice of their profession unless
authorized by the Constitution or law, provided, that such
practice will not conflict or tend to conflict with their official
functions;

These prohibitions shall continue to apply for a period of one (1)

year after resignation, retirement, or separation from public office,
except in the case of subparagraph (b) (2) above, but the
professional concerned cannot practice his profession in
connection with any matter before the office he used to be
with, in which case the one-year prohibition shall likewise
apply.

IRR of RA 6713
Rule X
Grounds for Administrative Disciplinary Action
Section 1. In addition to the grounds for administrative disciplinary action
prescribed under existing laws, the acts and omissions of any official or
employee, whether or not he holds office or employment in a casual,
temporary, hold-over, permanent or regular capacity, declared unlawful
or prohibited by the Code, shall constitute the grounds for administrative
disciplinary action, and without prejudice to criminal and civil liabilities
provided herein, such as:

(c) Engaging in the private practice of his profession unless authorized by

the, Constitution, law or regulation, provided that such practice will
not conflict or tend to conflict with his official functions;

These acts shall continue to be prohibited for a period of one (1)

year after resignation, retirement, or separation from public office,
except in the case of paragraph (c) above, but the professional
concerned cannot practice his profession in connection with any
matter before the office he used to be with, within one year after
such resignation, retirement, or separation, provided that any
violation hereof shall be a ground for administrative disciplinary
action upon re-entry to the government service.

Theories on the disqualification of former

government lawyers in representing a client

1. Adverse-interest conflict
2. Congruent-interest representation conflicts

15

Adverse-interest conflicts

Adverse-interest conflicts" exist where the matter in

which the former government lawyer represents a client
in private practice is substantially related to a matter
that the lawyer dealt with while employed by the
government and the interests of the current and former
are adverse

16

Congruent-interest conflict

congruent-interest conflict- The use of the word conflict

is a misnomer, it does not involve conflicts at all, as it
prohibits lawyers from representing a private person
even if the interests of the former government client and
the new client are entirely parallel.

17

Section 5, Canon 3 of the Code of Conduct

for Court Personnel
Outside employment may be allowed by the head of office provided it complies with all of
the following requirements:
(a) The outside employment is not with a person or entity that practices law before the
courts or conducts business with the Judiciary;
(b) The outside employment can be performed outside of normal working hours and is
not incompatible with the performance of the court personnels duties and responsibilities;
(c) That outside employment does not require the practice of law; Provided, however,
that court personnel may render services as professor, lecturer, or resource person in
law schools, review or continuing education centers or similar institutions ;
(d) The outside employment does not require or induce the court personnel to disclose
confidential information acquired while performing officials duties;
(e) The outside employment shall not be with the legislative or executive branch of
government, unless specifically authorized by the Supreme Court.

Section 5 Canon 3 of the Code of

Conduct for Court Personnel

SECTION 5. The full-time position in the Judiciary of every

court personnel shall be the personnels primary
employment. For purposes of this code, primary
employment means the position that consumes the entire
normal working hours of the court personnel and requires
the personnels exclusive attention in performing official
duties.

Outside employment may be allowed by the head of office provided it

:
(a) The outside employment is not with a person or entity that practices law before
complies with all of the following requirements

he courts or conducts business with the Judiciary;

(b) The outside employment can be performed outside of normal working hours and
is not incompatible with the performance of the court personnels duties and
responsibilities;
(c) The outside employment does not require the practice of law; Provided,
however, that court personnel may render services as professor, lecturer, or
resource person in law schools, review or continuing education centers or similar
institutions;
(d) The outside employment does not require or induce the court personnel to disclose
confidential information acquired while performing official duties; and
(e) The outside employment shall not be with the legislative or executive branch of
government, unless specifically authorized by the Supreme Court.
Where a conflict of interest exists, may reasonably appear to exist, or where
the outside employment reflects adversely on the integrity of the
Judiciary, the court personnel shall not accept the outside employment.

Rule 3.03- Where a partner accepts public office, he shall

withdraw from the firm and his name shall be dropped from the
firm name unless the law allows him to practice law concurrently.
If a partner in a law firm has accepted a public office, his name shall
be removed from the firm name.
Exception:
If the law allows him to practice law concurrently while holding the
position such as Sanggunian member who is allowed to practice law
subject to certain restrictions (See RA 7160, Section 90)

REASON:
To prevent the law firm or partners from making use of the name of the
public official to attract legal business and to avoid suspicion of
undue influence.