The complainant, Julieta Borromeo Samonte charged Rolando R.
Gatdula with grave misconduct consisting in the alleged engaging
in the private practice of law which is in conflict with his official
functions as Branch Clerk of Court.
The complainant represents her sister as plaintiff in a civil case for
Contrary to their expectation that execution will proceed, they
instead received a temporary restraining order.
Santos contends that the order was hasty and irregular as she was
never notified of the application for preliminary injunction.
Gatdula, when asked by the complainant of the reason of the
decision, blamed Santos’ lawyer for writing the address in the
complaint for ejectment and told her that if she wanted the
execution to proceed, she should change her lawyer and retain the
law office of respondent, at the same time giving his calling card
with the name “Baligod, Gatdula, Tacardon, Dimailig and Celera.”
The decision of the Court continued not to be favorable to
Samonte, which cause her to file administrative complaint against

ISSUE: WON Gatdula is guilty of infraction
HELD: Yes.

The inclusion/retention of his name in the professional card
constitutes an act of solicitation which violates Section 7, subpar.
(b)(2) of RA 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for
Public Officials 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 by the Constituion or law, provided that such practice
will not conflict with official functions.”
Respondent is reprimanded for engaging in 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 law.

Whether or not Atty. Renomeron, as a lawyer, may also be disciplined by
the Court for his malfeasance as a public official. YES
Whether or not the Code of Professional Responsibility applies to
government service in the discharge of official tasks. YES

This is in relation to the administrative case filed by Atty.
Collantes, counsel for V& G Better Homes Subdivision, Inc. (V&G),
against Atty. Renomeron, for the latter’s irregular actuations with
regard to the application of V&G for registration of 163 pro forma
Deed of Absolute Sale with Assignment (in favor of GSIS) of lots in
its subdivision.

A lawyer’s misconduct as a public official also constitutes a
violation of his oath as a lawyer.
The lawyer’s oath imposes upon every lawyer the duty to delay no
man for money or malice.
The lawyer’s oath is a source of obligations and its violation is a
ground for his suspension, disbarment or other disciplinary action.



Although V&G complied with the desired requirements, Renomeron
suspended the registration of the documents with certain “special
conditions” between them, which was that V&G should provide
him with weekly round trip ticket from Tacloban to Manila plus
P2,000.00 as pocket money per trip, or, in lieu thereof, the sale of
respondent’s Quezon City house and lot by V&G or GSIS
Eventually, Renomeron formally denied the registration of the
He himself elevated the question on the registrability of the said
documents to Administrator Bonifacio (of the National Land Titles
and Deeds Registration Administration-NLTDRA). The Administrator
then resolved in favor of the registrability of the documents.
Despite the resolution of the Administrator, Renomeron still
refused the registration thereof but demanded from the parties
interested the submission of additional requirements not adverted
in his previous denial.

The Code of Professional Responsibility applies to government
service in the discharge of their official tasks (Canon 6).
The Code forbids a lawyer to engage in unlawful, dishonest,
immoral or deceitful conduct (Rule 1.01, Code of Professional
Responsibility), or delay any man’s cause “for any corrupt motive
or interest” (Rule 1.03).
WHEREFORE. Attorney Vicente C. Renomeron is disbarred from the
practice of law in the Philippines, and his name is stricken off the
Roll of Attorneys.


Rule 18. Jose R. She insisted on suing the Jovellanoses. Infact.000 by imposing interest at the legal rate. Ungson. A few months later in September 1994. in case of Imbangs failure to return the total amount. modified the CBD's recommendation with regard to therestitution ofP5. however. provided that such practice will not conflict with their official function. In this instance. he may render such service if. Imbang agreed to prepare the complaint.000 from the complainant and issued a receipt on July 15. In 1992. Ungson's acceptance fee. Rule 16. Notwithstanding Atty. More specifically. Board of Governors: adopted and approved the findings of the CBD. Imbang never allowed her to enter the courtroom and always told her to wait outside. Imbang in filing civil and criminal actions against the spouses Roque and Elenita Jovellanos. This happened six times and for each “appearance” in court. he was unable to finalize it as he lost contact with Ramos. However. did not accept the case as she was unable to come up with the acceptance fee agreed upon. public officials and employees during their incumbency shall not: Engage in the private practice of profession unless authorized by the Constitution or law. Inasmuch as he was now a private practitioner. Ramos was shocked to learn that Imbang never filed any case against the Jovellanoses and that he was in fact employed in the Public Attorney's Office (PAO). ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Imbang received P5. A lawyer shall account for all money or property collected or received for or from a client. On April 15. IMBANG’s CONTENTIONS:        Ramos knew that he was in the government service from the very start.000 which was substantiated by the receipt. (*Alibi) Nevertheless.In addition to acts and omissions of public officials and employees now prescribed in the Constitution and existing laws. She gave Imbang P8. the following constitute prohibited acts and transactions of any public official and employee and are hereby declared unlawful: (b) Outside employment and other activities related thereto. Ramos requested him to help her file an action for damages against the Jovellanoses.        Disbarment or Suspension against Atty. Imbang should be disbarred. Prohibited Acts and Transactions. he can obtain as collaborating counsel a lawyer who is competent on the matter. However. a relative who was a private practitioner. -. Code of Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees      Section 7(b)(2) of the Code of Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees provides: Section 7. A lawyer should not undertake a legal service which he knows or should know that he is not qualified to render. Ramos sought the assistance of Atty.000 whileshe raised the balance of Atty.respondent charged her P350. The SC supported this with three explanations: 1. anadditional suspension of six months. he declined. lawyers in government service are expected to be more conscientious of their actuations as they are subject to public scrutiny. IBP findings (CBD):     The CBD concluded that respondent violated the following provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility: Rule 1.Imbang for multiple violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility.000 only. Ramos tried to attend the scheduled hearings of her cases against the Jovellanoses. Ungson's refusal. 1992. he first met the complainant when he was still a district attorney in the Citizen's Legal Assistance Office (predecessor of PAO) of Biñan. he advised Ramos to consult Atty. 1994. dishonest. Afraid that she “mightspend” the cash on hand. reckoned from1995 or. Atty. Ramos asked Imbang to keep the P5. They are not only members of the bar but also public servants who owe utmost fidelity to public service. CBD Recommendations: Suspension from the practice of law for threeyears and ordered him to immediately return to the complainant theamount of P5. immoral or deceitful conduct. A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful. Because he was with the PAO and aware thatRamos was not an indigent.01. Tim Ungson. HELD: YES    Lawyers are expected to conduct themselves with honesty and integrity. He would then come out after severa lhours to inform her that the hearing had been cancelled and rescheduled. Ramos again asked Imbang to assist her in suing the Jovellanoses. Imbang resigned from the PAO. Laguna and was assigned as counsel for Ramos' daughter.however.01. 1992 while he was still connected .01.500 as attorney's fees but the latter issued a receipt for P5. Ramos allegedly remained adamant. with the consent of his client.

Respondent’s conduct manifestly undermined the people’s confidence in the public office he used to occupy and cast doubt on the integrity of the legal profession. the deceased complainant’s daughter. he is hereby DISBARRED from the practice of law and his name is ORDERED STRICKEN from the Roll of Attorneys. Revised Administrative Code    Section 14(3). 2.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Mooamadali Bauduli Datu. on the basis of the facts borne out by the record. They are undertaken and prosecuted solely for the public welfare. It reads :Rule 6. T-2821 in the names of Lawan Bauduli Datu. Canon 1.with the PAO. WHEREFORE. Book V of the Revised Administrative Code provides: The PAO shall be the principal law office of the Government in extending free legal assistance to indigent persons in criminal. administrative and other quasi-judicial cases. Bubong violate Canon 6 of the Code of Professional Responsibility Held: YES       In the case at bar. Imbang should not have accepted attorney's fees from the complainant as this was inconsistent with the office's mission. civil.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility is explicit on this matter. The ill-conceived use of his knowledge of the intricacies of the law calls for nothing less than the withdrawal of his privilege to practice law. This rule is premised on the nature of disciplinary proceedings. within 10 days from receipt of this resolution. Chapter 5. Mona  Abdullah.respondent had clearly demonstrated his unfitness not only to perform the functions of a civil servant but also to retain his membership in the bar. . Imbang is found guilty of violating the lawyer’s oath. nor allow the latter to interfere with his public duties. Issue: WON atty. settlement. He is also ordered to return to complainant the amount of P5. reckoned from 1995. respondent’s grave misconduct. ALI VS BUBONG Facts:   It appears that this disbarment proceeding is an off-shoot of the administrative case earlier filed by complainant against respondent. By taking advantage of his office as the Register of Deeds of Marawi City and employing his knowledge of the rules governing land registration for the benefit of his relatives. Rule 1. Title III. M\compromise. Atty. Code of Professional Responsibility     Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides: A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION. which was initially investigated by the Land Registration Authority (LRA).” As we have previously explained in the case of Irene Rayos-Ombac v. It appears from the records that the Baudali Datus are relatives of respondent. Rule 18. Every lawyer is obligated to uphold the law. and manipulating the criminal complaint filed against Hadji Serad Bauduli Datu and others for violation of the Anti-Squatting Law. This undertaking includes the observance of the above-mentioned prohibitions blatantly violated by Imbang when he accepted the complainant's cases and received attorney's fees inconsideration of his legal services. Ambobae Bauduli Datu. 3. A proceeding for suspension or disbarment is not in any sense a civil action where the complainant is a plaintiff and the respondent lawyer is a defendant. Acceptance of money from a client establishes an attorney-client relationship. Consequently. restitution. OBEY THELAWS OF THE LAND AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR THE LAW AND LEGALPROCESSES. Disciplinary proceedings involve no private interest and afford no redress for private grievance. As for the letter sent by Bainar Ali. labor.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility because the prohibition on the private practice of profession disqualified him from acting as Ramos' counsel. Jose R. What matters is whether. In said case. Rule 6. we cannot possibly favorably act on the same as proceedings of this nature cannot be “interrupted or terminated by reason of desistance. Orlando A. Accordingly. indiscriminate issuance of Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. requesting forthe withdrawal of this case. withdrawal of the charges or failure of the complainant to prosecute the same. and Amenola Bauduli Datu. the charge of deceit and grossly immoral conduct has been duly proven. As a PAO lawyer. Atty. Rayos … A case of suspension or disbarment may proceed regardless of interest or lack of interest of the complainant. deals with his qualification as a lawyer.000 with interest at the legal rate. complainant charged respondent with illegal exaction. as established by the Office of the President and subsequently affirmed by this Court.02 – A lawyer in the government service shall not use his public position to promote or advance his private interests. Matabae BauduliDatu.01 and Canon 18. Imbang's acceptance of the cases was also a breach of Rule18.

Mosib A. but a private lawyer who represented a client before the office he was previously connected with. and on the Office of the Court Administrator for circulation to all courts in the country. ISSUE: whether the respondent’s actions constitute a breach of the standard ethical conduct –first. 6713 for government employees.  Since public office is a public trust. for the latter to contest the complainant’s sales application and claim the subject land for himself. Olazo.  The complainant averred that Joseph Jeffrey Rodriguez is not a bona fide resident of the proclaimed areas and does not qualify for an award. No.  The conveyance o frights to Joseph Jeffrey Rodriguez and his sales application were subsequently given due course by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). The Third Charge: Violation of Rule 1.03  The second charge involves another parcel of land within the proclaimed areas belonging to Manuel Olazo. a lawyer who holds a government office may not be disciplined as a member of the Bar for misconduct in the discharge of his duties as a government official.  In addition. The First Charge: Violation of Rule 6. Miguel P. a lawyer in the government service is obliged to observe the standard of conduct under the Code of Professional Responsibility. the complainant’s sales application was denied. and notice of the same be served on the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.01  The complainant alleged that the respondent engaged in unlawful conduct considering his knowledge that Joseph Jeffrey Rodriguez was not a qualified beneficiary . the complainant alleged that in May 1999. the ethical conduct demanded upon lawyers in the government service is more exacting than the standards for those in private practice. Bubong is hereby DISBARRED and his name is ORDERED STRICKEN from the Roll of Attorneys. Let a copy of this Decision be entered in the respondent’s record as a member of the Bar.  In addition to the standard of conduct laid down under R. The complainant or the person who called the attention of the court to the attorney’s alleged misconduct is in no sense a party and has generally no interest in the outcome except as all good citizens may have in the proper administrative of justice. the respondent met with Manuel for the purpose of nullifying the conveyance of rights over the land to Joseph Jeffrey Rodriguez.  The complainant claimed that the respondent wanted the rights over the land transferred to one Rolando Olazo. when he was no longer a public official. the Barangay Chairman of Hagonoy. the complainant’s brother.  The respondent in this regard executed an "Assurance" where he stated that he was the lawyer of Ramon Lee and Joseph Jeffrey Rodriguez.  As a result of the respondent’s abuse of his official functions.  The complainant alleged that the respondent persuaded Miguel Olazo to direct Manuel toconvey his rights over the land to Joseph Jeffrey Rodriguez. and second.02  The complainant claimed that the respondent abused his position as Congressman and as a member of the Committee on Awards when he exerted undue pressure and influence over the complainant’s father. who is the nephew of the respondent’s deceased wife. while the respondent was still an elective public official and a member of the Committee on Awards.  They also bear the heavy burden of having to put aside their private interest in favor of the interest of the public. HELD: NO  Generally. The Second Charge: Violation of Rule 6. Accountability of a government lawyer in public office  Canon 6 of the Code of Professional Responsibility highlights the continuing standard of ethical conduct to be observed by government lawyers in the discharge of their official tasks. The attorney is called to answer to the court for his conduct as an officer of the court.  The complainant further claimed that the respondent brokered the transfer of rights of the subject land between Miguel Olazo and Joseph Jeffrey Rodriguez.They are undertaken for the purpose of preserving courts of justice from the official ministration of persons unfit to practice in them. their private . Lawyers in the government service are subject to constant public scrutiny under norms of public accountability. Taguig.  WHEREFORE. respondent Atty. OLAZO VS TINGA Facts The complainant filed a sales application covering a parcel of land in Taguig. The land was previously part of Fort Andres Bonifacio that was segregated and declared open for disposition.  He maybe disciplined by this Court as a member of the Bar only when his misconduct also constitutes a violation of his oath as a lawyer.A.

As the records show. the records do not clearly show If the complainant’s sales application was ever brought before the Committee on Awards. a government lawyer can engage in the practice of his or her profession under the following conditions: first .the practice will not conflict or tend to conflict with his or her official functions.  Section 7(b)(2) of R. by virtue of his public office. 2000. In case of lawyers separated from the government service who are covered under subparagraph (b) (2) of Section 7of R. the complainant presented the Sinumpaang Salaysay. No. The last paragraph of Section 7provides an exception to the exception. the private practice is authorized by the Constitution or by the law. in which case the one-year prohibition shall likewise apply. Rule 6.  Nevertheless.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. x x x These prohibitions shall continue to apply for a period of one (1) year after resignation.No.A. In any event. the foregoing definition should be correlated with R. he had previously exercised power to influence the outcome of the proceedings. In addition to acts and omissions of public officials and employees now prescribed in the Constitution and existing laws.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility echoes this restriction and prohibits lawyers.A.  Under the circumstances. except in the case of subparagraph (b) (2) above.  First. of Manuel and the document entitled "Assurance" where the respondent legally represented Ramon Lee and Joseph Jeffrey Rodriguez. government lawyers are not allowed to engage in the private practice of their profession during their incumbency. the following shall constitute prohibited acts and transactions of any public official and employee and are hereby declared to be unlawful:x x x x(b) Outside employment and other activities related thereto         Public officials and employees during their incumbency shall not:x x x x(2) Engage in the private practice of their profession unless authorized by the Constitution or law. the available pieces of evidence are insufficient to show that the legal representation was made before . By way of exception.activities should not interfere with the discharge of their official functions. no sufficient basis exists to conclude that he used his position to obtain personal benefits.  we find the absence of any concrete proof that the respondent abused hisposition as a Congressman and as a member of the Committee on Awards in the manner defined under Rule 6. that such practice will not conflict or tend to conflict withtheir official functions. advance or use his private interests in the discharge of his official duties. As a rule. 6713. a one-year prohibition is imposed to practice law in connection with any matter before the office he used to be with. 6713 and Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which impose certain restrictions on government lawyers to engage in private practice after their separation from the service. Otherwise stated. the respondent must have accepted engagement or employment in a matter which.02 o fthe Code of Professional Responsibility. The keyword in Rule 6. to fall within the ambit of Rule 6. the complainant’s allegation that the respondent "orchestrated" the efforts to get the subject land does not specify how the orchestration was undertaken. after leaving the government service. provided. even granting that respondent’s act fell within the definition of practice of law.dated January 20. 6713 reads: Section 7. since the sales application was not brought before the Committee on Awards when the respondent was still a member.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility is the term" intervene" which we previously interpreted to include an act of a person who has the power to influence the proceedings. or separation from public office.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. no evidence exists showing that the respondent previously interfered with the sales application covering Manuel’s land when the former was still a member of the Committee on Awards.  Second. We note in this regard that the denial of the complainant’s sales application over the subject land was made by the DENR. the foregoing pieces of evidence fail to persuade us to conclude that there was a violation of Rule 6. to accept engagement or employment in connection with any matter in which he had intervened while in the said service. Prohibited Acts and Transactions.  The circumstances do not show that the respondent did in any way promote. Private practice of law after separation from public office  As proof that the respondent was engaged in an unauthorized practice o flaw after his separation from the government service.A.  To repeat. not by the Committee on Awards. No. but the professional concerned cannot practice his profession in connection with any matter before the office he used to be with. retirement. and second .

(Genbank) encountered financial difficulties. Rule 6.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. 0005 & 0096-0099. for lack of merit. PCGG did not file a MFR. SB denied the motion to disqualify Atty. 0005 for PCGG’s failure to prove the existence of an inconsistency between Mendoza’s former function as SolGen and his present employment as counsel of the Lucio Tan group. From the above discussion.01 prohibits a lawyer from engaging in unlawful. These are matters for the complainant to prove and we cannot consider any uncertainty in this regard against the respondent’s favor. 0005 of the 2nd division of the Sandiganbayan (SB). This was docketed as Civil Case No.  We are. and damages against respondents Lucio Tan Group and the Marcos family. PCGG V SANDIGANBAYAN FACTS            General Bank and Trust Co. The latter referred the cases to the SB for proper disposition. until the burden shifts to him/her because of what the complainant has proven. accounting.2004. at this point. 119 when he encouraged the sales application of Joseph Jeffrey Rodriguez despite his knowledge that his nephew was not a qualified applicant. Pres. After EDSA I.  We find that a similar treatment should be given to the complainant’s claim that the respondent violated paragraph4(1) of Memorandum No. Despite this. 0096-0099 Lucio Tan Group was represented by their counsel. T  he matter of Joseph Jeffrey Rodriguez’s qualifications to apply for a sales application over lots covered by the proclaimed areas has been resolved in the affirmative by the Secretary of the DENR in the decision dated April 3. Pursuant to this mandate. Mendoza field a petition with CFI praying for the court’s assistance and supervision in the liquidation as mandated by RA 265. bound by this finding.  WHEREFORE. Mendoza in Civil Case No. Mendoza “intervened” in the acquisition of Genbank by the Lucio Tan Group when. In these cases docketed as Civil Case Nos. PCGG filed a complaint for reversion. Mendoza as counsel for respondents in Civil Case Nos. PCGG. filed motions to disqualify Atty. . Lucio Tan Group questioned the writs through petitions for certiorari. filed against retired Supreme Court Associate Justice Dante O.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR). we already struck down the complainant’s allegation that respondent engaged in an unauthorized practice of law when he appeared as a lawyer for Ramon Lee and Joseph Jeffrey Rodriguez before the Committee on Awards. Former Solicitor General Estelito P. The motions allege that Atty.01  Rule 1. convincing and satisfactory proof for the Court to exercise its disciplinary powers. Aquino established the PCGG to recover the alleged ill-gotten wealth of Marcos. invoking Rule 6. nothing has to be rebutted in defense. immoral or deceitful conduct. PCGG issued several writs of sequestration on the properties of the Lucio Tan Group.  Where no case has in the first place been proven. we resolve to dismiss the administrative case against the respondent for the complainant’s failure to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the former committed unethical infractions warranting the exercise of the Court’s disciplinary power.  The respondent generally is under no obligation to prove his/her defense. or that the Assurance was intended to be presented before it. he advised the Central Bank’s officials on the procedure to bring about Genbank’s liquidation& appeared as counsel for the central Bank in connection with its petition for assistance in the liquidation. when the DENR gave due course to his sales application over the subject land. the burden rests on the complainant to present clear.03 and Rule 1. and injunction with the SC. in his capacity as then SolGen.the Committee on Awards. was beyond the one-year prohibited period under Section 7(b) of Republic Act No. et al. Genbank failed to recover and the following year Central Bank had to issue a resolution declaring Genbank insolvent and ordering its liquidation. reconveyance. his family and his cronies. In connection with this. Violation of Rule 1. prohibition. prompting the Central Bank to extend to it emergency loans reaching a total of P310 million. it also ruled that Mendoza’s appearance as counsel for respondents Tan.  All told. premises considered. A public bidding of Genbank’s assets was held. Lucio Tan Group submitted the winning bid.02. restitution. section 29. we DISMISS the administrative case for violation of Rule 6. Tinga. former SolGen Estelito Mendoza who has then resumed private practice.  With this in mind. considering the serious consequences of the penalty of disbarment or suspension of a member of the Bar. 6713 since he ceased to be Solicitor General in the year 1986.

it has to be signed by Atty.03. WON the intervention of Atty.03 cannot apply to respondent Mendoza because his alleged intervention while a SolGen in Sp.03 2. the participation of the Office of the Solicitor General is not that of the usual court litigator protecting the interest of government. In such a proceeding. WON Atty. regulations or laws. 0096 (sequestration of the stocks in Allied Bank. When Civil Case Nos.03. 107812 (liquidation of Genbank) is an intervention on a matter different from the matter involved in Civil Case No.  Also. Said legal provision provides for the role of the SolGen in proceedings upon insolvency. Proc. Given the current state of our law. 2b. PCGG’s MFR was denied.  Reasoning 2 interpretations of the “intervene” (basis: Webster): 1.  No less significant a consideration is the deprivation of the former government lawyer of the freedom to exercise his profession.”  In interpreting Rule 6.  Similarly.  The petition in the special proceedings is an initiatory pleading. enforcing or interpreting government or agency procedures. WON there exists a “congruent-interest conflict” sufficient to disqualify respondent Mendoza from representing the Lucio Tan Group. the Court in interpreting Rule 6. 2a. the Court also cast a harsh eye on its use as a litigation tactic to harass opposing counsel as well as deprive his client of competent legal representation. 0096-0099 were transferred from the SB’s 2nd Division to the 5th Division. 265. . Mendoza in the liquidation of Genbank is significant and substantial. “intervene” includes participation in a proceeding even if the intervention is irrelevant or has no effect or little influence.03 represents a commendable effort on the part of the IBP to upgrade the ethics of lawyers in the government service. on how to proceed with the said bank’s liquidation and even filing the petition for its liquidation with the CFI of Manila.03 was not unconcerned with the prejudice to the client which will be caused by its misapplication. the disqualification of a former government lawyer may extend to all members of his law firm. the successor of Genbank.  Reasoning Based on PCGG’s case for disqualification.  At present. The danger that the rule will be misused to bludgeon an opposing counsel is not a mere guesswork. It cannot be doubted that granting a disqualification motion causes the client to lose not only the law firm of choice.”  The procedure of liquidation is given in black and white in Republic Act No. hence. Mendoza as the then sitting Solicitor General. NO HELD 2a. the 2 nd meaning is more appropriate to give to the word “intervention.  ISSUE 1.  Ratio in light of the history of CPR Rule 6. CPR Rule 6. WON this case involves the “adverse interest” aspect of Rule 6. Balancing Policy Considerations  CPR Rule 6. on the ground that they are ill-gotten). It is true that the only card that the government may play to recruit lawyers is have them defer present income in return for the experience and contacts that can later be exchanged for higher income in private practice.  The Court has to consider also the possible adverse effect of a truncated reading of the rule on the official independence of lawyers in the government service. No.  The principal role of the court in this proceeding for dissolution is to assist the Central Bank in determining claims of creditors against the Genbank.” The intervention cannot be insubstantial and insignificant. It should not be interpreted to cause a chilling effect on government recruitment of able legal talent. NO 2b. the latter also denied the motion to disqualify. Hence this petition. “To make government service more difficult to exit can only make it less appealing to enter. 2. or briefing abstract principles of law. The record is arid as to the actual participation of respondent Mendoza in the subsequent proceedings.03. Mendoza’s act of advising the Central Bank on the legal procedure to liquidate Genbank is included within the concept of “matter” under Rule 6. sec. “intervene” only includes an act of a person who has the power to influence the subject proceedings. the “matter” or the act of Atty. Mendoza as Solicitor General involved here is “advising the Central Bank. isolatable act as well as identifiable transaction or conduct involving a particular situation and specific party. it is already difficult for government to match compensation offered by the private sector and it is unlikely that government will be able to reverse that situation. and not merely an act of drafting. The role of the court is not strictly as a court of justice but as an agent to assist the Central Bank in determining the claims of creditors. 29. but probably an individual lawyer in whom the client has confidence.  Ratio American Bar Association Formal Opinion 342’s definition of “matter” : any discrete.

the appearance of impropriety theory has been rejected in the 1983 ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct. violated said Canon .000.  Instead of returning the money. the accuracy of gauging public perceptions is a highly speculative exercise at best which can lead to untoward results. Atty. He is ORDERED to PAY the amount of Ninety Thousand Pesos (P90.  Complainant then deposited with respondent on six different occasions from April 1995 to April 1996 the total amount of US $20. GUTIERREZ guilty of GROSS MISCONDUCT.000 who assured her that said amount would be returned. Notably.00) to the complainant immediately from receipt of this decision with interest. Maynigo & Associates. respondent sought to litigate as counsel for the opposite side.  The respondent who was then connected with the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation (BID) informed them that they needed to deposit a certain amount of money in order that their visa applications will be approved. complainant demanded from respondent the return of US $20.  However. acase against his former employer involving a transaction which he formerly handled while stillan employee of complainant. ―A lawyer shall not. Respondent asserted that in the former case.02 of the Code which bars lawyers in government service from promoting their private interests. who was also a public officer. accept engagement or employment in connection with any matter in which he had intervened while in said service. is AFFIRMED. Almeda is theCedo. while the latter.or deceitful acts. Almeda came under his purview. HELD: YES  According to Canon 6. the respondent issued postdated checks which were dishonored. PNB v. Siy. where such loan transaction of Sps. respondent miserably failed to cope with strict demands and high standards of the legal profession. dishonest. As well observed. of the IBP. respondent Atty. Huyssen vs. IBP made its reportand recommendation for suspension for having deliberate intent to devise ways and means to attract as clients former borrowers of complainant bank since he was in the best position to seethe legal weaknesses of his former employer ISSUE: Whether or not respondent Atty. a complaint for disbarment was filed in the Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.  After respondent made several unfulfilled promises to return the said amount.  As a lawyer. Cedo appeared as counsel for Mrs. 2008. ATTY.  Moreover. A similar situation also happened when spouses Almeda were implicated to a case with complainant PNB — counsel for Sps. Cedo be held administratively liable. Ferrer. which found FRED L. After one year. Guttierez should be disbarred for the act complained of in the case Held: YES  The respondent was DISBARRED from the practice of law and ordered to return the amount he received from the complainant with legal interest from his receipt of the money until payment.  Respondent’s acts of asking money from complainant in consideration of the latter’s pending application for visas is violative of Rule 1. the complainant and her three sons.  Promotion of private interests includes soliciting gifts or anything of monetary value in any transaction requiring the approval of his office or which may be affected by the functions of his office. Atty. the latter became implicated ina civil case with the complainant PNB. said acts also constitute a breach of Rule 6. if not inexistent. it was another partner of the firm that handle the case. all American citizens. There are no inconsistent “sides” to be bothered about in the case at bar. Guttierez Facts:  In 1995.000. In lawyering for the Lucio Tan Group. he did not participate in the litigation before the court. The danger that confidential official information might be divulged is nil. which prohibits members of the Bar from engaging or participating in any unlawful. Mendoza is indirectly defending the validity of the action of Central Bank in liquidating Genbank and selling it later to Allied Bank. after leaving government service. After having stop employment with PNB. Cedo was AVP of the Asset Management group of complainant bank.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. the respondent refused to issue copies of official receipts despite the demand of the complainant.  WHEREFORE.  Also the “switching sides” concern does not cast a shadow in the case at bar. Resolution No. CEDO FACTS: After having arranged the sale of steel sheets for Mrs Siy. Issue: Whether or not Atty.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.  Having been an executive of complainant bank. Their interests coincide instead of colliding. applied for Philippine Visas. XVIII-2008-649 dated December 11.

. TELESFORO S. this Court resolves to SUSPEND respondent ATTY. effective immediately. ACCORDINGLY. CEDO from the practice of law for THREE (3) YEARS.