You are on page 1of 1

[Legal Profession]

2nd semester, A.Y. 2014-2015

PNB v Cedo - Almeda case: Atty Pedro Singson of PNB attested that in one of the hearings, Att
y. Cedo was present although he did not enter his appearance, and was dictating t
A.C. No. 3701 o Atty. Ferrer what to say and argue before the court. He also admitted in one of th
Ponente: J. Bidin e hearings that he was the partner of Atty Ferrer.
Date: March 28, 1995
IBP recommended suspension from the practice for 3 years. Cedo violated Rule 15.02 of the CP
Complainant: PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK R, since the client’s secrets and confidential records and information are exposed to the other lawy
Respondent: ATTY. TELESFORO S. CEDO ers and staff members at all times.

There also was a deliberate intent to devise ways and means to attract as clients former borrowers
FACTS: of PNB since he was in the best position to see the legal weaknesses of PNB. He sacrificed ethics i
 Atty. Telesforo Cedo is the former Assistant Vice President of the Asset Management G n consideration of money.
roup of PNB, who is now the counsel of Milagros Ong Siy in a case against PNB. Compl
ainant-bank charged Atty Cedo with violation of Canon 5, rule 6.03 of the Code of Prof It is unprofessional to represent conflicting interests, except by express conflicting consent of all
essional Responsibility, which states that: concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts.
“A lawyer shall not, after leaving government service, accept engagement or
employment in connection with any matter in which he had intervened while i DISPOSITIVE:
n said service.” This Court resolves to suspend Atty Cedo from the practice of law for 3 years.
 PNB stated that while Atty Cedo was still employed in their bank, he participated in arra DOCTRINE:
nging sale of steel sheets in favor of Mrs. Ong Siy for P200,000. He even “noted” the ga
te passes issued by his subordinate, Mr. Emmanuel Elefan, in favor of Mrs. Ong Siy aut DEFINITION:
horizing the pull-out of the steel sheets from the DMC Man Division Compound.
 Similarly, Atty. Cedo already appeared as a counsel for Mr. Elefan in an administrative c NOTES:
ase against PNB, but was disqualified by the Civil Service Commission. Communications between attorney and client are, in a great number of litigations, a complicated
 Atty. Cedo also became the counsel of Ponciano and Eufemia Almeda against PNB as t affair, consisting of entangled relevant and irrelevant, secret and well-known facts. In the
hey were represented by the law firm “Cedo, Ferrer, Maynigo & Associates” (of which C complexity of what is said in the course of dealings between an attorney and client, inquiry of the
edo is one of the Senior Partners). PNB added that while Atty Cedo was still with them, nature suggested would lead to the revelation, in advance of the trial, of other matters that might
he intervened in the handling of the loan account of the spouses. only further prejudice the complainant's cause. (Hilado v David)

 ATTY CEDO’s DEFENSE:


- Ong Siy case: He appeared as counsel for Mrs. Ong Siy but only with respect to t
he execution pending appeal of the RTC decision. He did not participate in the litig
ation of the case before the trial court.
- Almeda case: He never appeared as counsel for them. Only Atty. Pedro Ferrer of
the said law firm handled the case. He also added that the law firm was not of a ge
neral partnership. They are only using the name to designate a law firm maintaine
d by lawyers, who although not partners, maintain one office as well as one clerica
l and supporting staff. They handle their cases independently and individually.

ISSUE1:
Whether or not Atty. Cedo was guilty of violating Canon 6 – YES

HELD/RATIO1:
This case was referred to the IBP. Their findings are the ff:
- Ong Siy case: He was the counsel through the law firm and was fined by the cour
t in the amount of P1,000 for forum shopping.
Batac, Endaya, Lingat, Santos, Saturnino, Villafuerte, Yee 1

You might also like