TITLE: Pasok vs Zapatos A.C. No.

7388

A LAWYER SHALL NOT, AFTER LEAVING GOVERNMENT SERVICE, ACCEPT

DOCTRINE: ENGAGEMENT OR EMPLOYMENT IN CONNECTION WITH ANY MATTER IN
WHICH HE HAD INTERVENED WHILE IN SAID SERVICE.

FACTS:

Respondent(B) was a former MTCC judge who heard cases where complainant(A) was the
counsel for the plaintiff(Z). One of these cases was a forcible entry where B decided against Z.
Another civil case was also filed by A, as counsel of Z, for declaration of nullity of deed of
absolute sale, reconveyance of ownership, and other reliefs.
When the case was already scheduled for trial, B suspended the same, motu proprio, because
there were affirmative defenses to be heard. As a result, A filed a manifestation seeking B to
inhibit himself from trying the case. B acceded.
The case hibernated and B was appointed as an RTC judge.
The newly appointed MTCC judge issued an order informing the parties to file their
memorandum.
Meanwhile, B, now a retired judge, became the counsel of the adverse party of Z. A warned B
that such engagement was illegal because B was the previous presiding judge of the case.
Nevertheless, B continued his appearance as counsel.
The new MTCC judge dismissed the case because of lack of jurisdiction over the subject
matter, hence A appealed the case to the RTC.
A filed a motion to expunge from the court the memorandum filed by B because he was
allegedly disqualified to appear as counsel for the defendants. In his defense, he alleged that
he believed he was completely neutral when he dismissed the case for forcible entry. Further,
he only appeared as counsel for the adverse party because of his extreme poverty.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the act of B in representing a party to a case that he formerly intervened as

a judge amounted to a violation of Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility

HELD:

The Court ruled in the affirmative.

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.

The respondent, in his capacity as the judge of the MTCC, presided over the case before
eventually inhibiting himself from further proceedings. His act of presiding constituted
intervention. It does not consider the degree or length of the intervention in the particular
case or matter. The fact is he accepted an engagement or employment on a matter in
which he had previously intervened.

Further, the restriction extends beyond his tenure as a judge. Accordingly, the fact that
he was already retired and engaged in private practice were immaterial, because he still
violated Rule 6.03 due to such engagement.