You are on page 1of 4


Not to Accept Employment After Government Service

Rule 6.03
A lawyer shall not, after leaving government service, accept engagement or employment in connection
with any matter in which he had intervened while in said service.

Republic Act No. 6713

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:
(1) 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;
(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; or
(3) Recommend any person to any position in a private enterprise which has a regular or pending official
transaction with their office.
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 oneyear prohibition shall likewise apply.


Section 3. Corrupt practices of public officers. In addition to acts or omissions of public officers already penalized by
existing law, the following shall constitute corrupt practices of any public officer and are hereby declared to be unlawful:
(d) Accepting or having any member of his family accept employment in a private enterprise which has pending official
business with him during the pendency thereof or within one year after its termination.
GISELA HUYSSEN,Complainant,- versus -ATTY. FRED L. GUTIERREZ,Respondent.
This treats of a Complaint for Disbarment filed by Gisela Huyssen against respondent Atty. Fred L. Gutierrez.
Complainant alleged that in 1995, while respondent was still connected with the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation
(BID), she and her three sons, who are all American citizens, applied for Philippine Visas under Section 13[g] of the
Immigration Law. Respondent told complainant that in order that their visa applications will be favorably acted upon by the
BID they needed to deposit a certain sum of money for a period of one year which could be withdrawn after one year.
Believing that the deposit was indeed required by law, complainant deposited with respondent on six different occasions
from April 1995 to April 1996 the total amount of US$20,000. Respondent prepared receipts/vouchers as proofs that he

received the amounts deposited by the complainant but refused to give her copies of official receipts despite her
demands. After one year, complainant demanded from respondent the return of US$20,000 who assured her that said
amount would be returned. When respondent failed to return the sum deposited, the World Mission for Jesus (of which
complainant was a member) sent a demand letter to respondent for the immediate return of the money. In a letter dated 1
March 1999, respondent promised to release the amount not later than 9 March 1999. Failing to comply with his promise,
the World Mission for Jesus sent another demand letter. In response thereto, respondent sent complainant a letter
dated 19 March 1999 explaining the alleged reasons for the delay in the release of deposited amount. He enclosed two
blank checks postdated to 6 April and20 April 1999 and authorized complainant to fill in the amounts. When complainant
deposited the postdated checks on their due dates, the same were dishonored because respondent had stopped payment
on the same. Thereafter, respondent, in his letter to complainant dated 25 April 1999, explained the reasons for stopping
payment on the checks, and gave complainant five postdated checks with the assurance that said checks would be
honored. Complainant deposited the five postdated checks on their due dates but they were all dishonored for having
been drawn against insufficient funds or payment thereon was ordered stopped by respondent. After respondent made
several unfulfilled promises to return the deposited amount, complainant referred the matter to a lawyer who sent two
demand letters to respondent. The demand letters remained unheeded.
Thus, a complaint for disbarment was filed by complainant in the Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of
the Philippines (IBP).
Issue: Whether Atty. Guitierrez act can constitute for his disbarment.
Held: Respondent's act of asking money from complainant in consideration of the latter'spending application for visas is
violative of Rule 1.01, which prohibits members of theBar from engaging or participating in any unlawful, dishonest, or
deceitful acts.b.
Moreover, said acts constitute a breach of Rule 6.02 of the Code which bars lawyers ingovernment service from promoting their
private interest. Promotion of private interestincludes soliciting gifts or anything of monetary value in any transaction requiring
theapproval of his office or which may be affected by the functions of his office.i.
Respondent's conduct in office betrays the integrity and good moral characterrequired from all lawyers, especially from
one occupying a high public office. Alawyer in public office is expected not only to refrain from any act or omissionwhich
might tend to lessen the trust and confidence of the citizenry ingovernment; he must also uphold the dignity of the legal
profession at all timesand observe a high standard of honesty and fair dealing. Otherwise said, alawyer in government
service is a keeper of the public faith and is burdenedwith high degree of social responsibility, perhaps higher than his brethren
inprivate practice.ii.
In a desperate attempt to put up a smoke or to camouflage his misdeed, hewent on committing another by issuing several
worthless checks, therebycompounding his case.iii.
Respondent's acts are more despicable. Not only did he misappropriate themoney of complainant; worse, he had the gall
to prepare receipts with theletterhead of the BID and issued checks to cover up his misdeeds. Clearly, hedoes not deserve
to continue, being a member of the bar.iv.
Time and again, we have declared that the practice of law is a noble profession.It is a special privilege bestowed only upon
those who are competentintellectually, academically and morally. A lawyer must at all times conducthimself, especially in his
dealings with his clients and the public at large, withhonesty and integrity in a manner beyond reproach. He must faithfully
performhis duties to society, to the bar, to the courts and to his clients. A violation ofthe high standards of the legal profession
subjects the lawyer to administrativesanctions which includes suspension and disbarment. More importantly,possession of
good moral character must be continuous as a requirement to theenjoyment of the privilege of law practice; otherwise, the
loss thereof is aground for the revocation of such privilege.
Respondent's acts constitute gross misconduct; and consistent with the need tomaintain the high standards of the Bar and thus
preserve the faith of the publicin the legal profession, respondent deserves the ultimate penalty of expulsionfrom the
esteemed brotherhood of lawyersF.
Atty. Fred L. Gutierrez is hereby DISBARRED from the practice of law and ordered to return theamount he received from the
complainant with legal interest from his receipt of the money untilpayment.
A.C. No. 3701 March 28, 1995

Facts: In a verified letter-complaint dated August 15, 1991, complainant Philippine National Bank charged respondent
Atty. Telesforo S. Cedo, former Asst. Vice-President of the Asset Management Group of complainant bank with violation of
Canon 6, Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, thus:
A lawyer shall not, after leaving government service, accept engagement or employment in connection
with any matter in which he had intervened while in said service.
by appearing as counsel for individuals who had transactions with complainant bank in which respondent during his
employment with aforesaid bank, had intervened.
Complainant averred that while respondent was still in its employ, he participated in arranging the sale of steel sheets
(denominated as Lots 54-M and 55-M) in favor of Milagros Ong Siy for P200,000. He even "noted" the gate passes issued
by his subordinate, Mr. Emmanuel Elefan, in favor of Mrs. Ong Siy authorizing the pull-out of the steel sheets from the
DMC Man Division Compound. When a civil action arose out of this transaction between Mrs. Ong Siy and complainant
bank before the Regional Trial Court of Makati, Branch 146, respondent who had since left the employ of complainant
bank, appeared as one of the counsels of Mrs. Ong Siy.
Similarly, when the same transaction became the subject of an administrative case filed by complainant bank against his
former subordinate Emmanuel Elefan, for grave misconduct and dishonesty, respondent appeared as counsel for Elefan
only to be later disqualified by the Civil Service Commission.
Moreover, while respondent was still the Asst. Vice President of complainants Asset Management Group, he intervened in
the handling of the loan account of the spouses Ponciano and Eufemia Almeda with complainant bank by writing demand
letters to the couple. When a civil action ensued between complainant bank and the Almeda spouses as a result of this
loan account, the latter were represented by the law firm "Cedo, Ferrer, Maynigo & Associates" of which respondent is one
of the Senior Partners.
Accuseds Contention: In his Comment on the complaint, respondent admitted that he appeared as counsel for Mrs.
Ong Siy but only with respect to the execution pending appeal of the RTC decision. He alleged that he did not participate
in the litigation of the case before the trial court. With respect to the case of the Almeda spouses, respondent alleged that
he never appeared as counsel for them. He contended that while the law firm "Cedo Ferrer, Maynigo & Associates" is
designated as counsel of record, the case is actually handled only by Atty. Pedro Ferrer. Respondent averred that he did
not enter into a general partnership with Atty. Pedro Ferrer nor with the other lawyers named therein. They are only using
the aforesaid name to designate a law firm maintained by lawyers, who although not partners, maintain one office as well
as one clerical and supporting staff. Each one of them handles their own cases independently and individually receives
the revenues therefrom which are not shared among them.
Issue: Whether foregoing disquisition on conflicting interest applies with equal force and effect to respondent in the case
at bar
Held: In the resolution of this Court dated January 27, 1992, this case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
(IBP), for investigation, report and recommendation.
During the investigation conducted by the IBP, it was discovered that respondent was previously fined by this Court in the
amount of P1,000.00 in connection with G.R. No. 94456 entitled "Milagros Ong Siy vs. Hon. Salvador Tensuan, et al." for
forum shopping, where respondent appeared as counsel for petitioner Milagros Ong Siy "through the law firm of Cedo
Ferrer Maynigo and Associates."
The IBP further found that the charges herein against respondent were fully substantiated. Respondent's averment that
the law firm handling the case of the Almeda spouses is not a partnership deserves scant consideration in the light of the
attestation of complainant's counsel, Atty. Pedro Singson, that in one of the hearings of the Almeda spouses' case,
respondent attended the same with his partner Atty. Ferrer, and although he did not enter his appearance, he was
practically dictating to Atty. Ferrer what to say and argue before the court. Furthermore, during the hearing of the
application for a writ of injunction in the same case, respondent impliedly admitted being the partner of Atty. Ferrer, when it
was made of record that respondent was working in the same office as Atty. Ferrer.
From the foregoing, the IBP found a deliberate intent on the part of respondent to devise ways and means to attract as
clients former borrowers of complainant bank since he was in the best position to see the legal weaknesses of his former
employer, a convincing factor for the said clients to seek his professional service. In sum, the IBP saw a deliberate
sacrifice by respondent of his ethics in consideration of the money he expected to earn.
The IBP thus recommended the suspension of respondent from the practice of law for 3 years.

The foregoing disquisition on conflicting interest applies with equal force and effect to respondent in the case at bar.
Having been an executive of complainant bank, respondent now seeks to litigate as counsel for the opposite side, a case
against his former employer involving a transaction which he formerly handled while still an employee of complainant, in
violation of Canon 6 of the Canons of Professional Ethics on adverse influence and conflicting interests, to wit:
It is unprofessional to represent conflicting interests, except by express conflicting consent of all concerned given after a
full disclosure of the facts. Within the meaning of this canon, a lawyer represents conflicting interest when, in behalf on
one client, it is his duty to contend for that which duty to another client requires him to oppose.