Legal Ethics Cases - DIGESTED violation of his oath as a lawyer, and it is recommended
that respondent be suspended from the practice of law
1) Cojuangco vs. Palma, Adm. Case No. 2474
September 15, 2004
FACTS: To practice law is a privilege one. It is only for
those who can pass the bar and pass the standards
sets- out which are indispensible. One of the
requirements to admit the bar is to have a satisfactory
testimonial of good character. Such good moral
character must be maintained throughout his life as a
lawyer.
In this case the complainant is a client of Angara
Concepcion Regala & Cruz Law Offices (ACCRA), who
assigned the case to Atty. Palma, the respondent. The
former hired the latter as his personal counsel for his
business. The same becomes very close to the family,
dine and goes with them abroad. He even tutored,
complainant’s 22-year old daughter Maria Luisa
Cojuangco (Lisa).
On June 22, 1982, respondent married Lisa in
Hongkong without the knowledge of the complainant
despite the facts that the former is already married and
with three (3 ) children. Complainant sends his two
sons to persuade Lisa to go home with them, which she
did. In the celebration of respondent’s marriage with
Lisa he misrepresented himself as a bachelor.
On August 24, 1982, complainant filed with the Court
of First Instance, a petition for declaration of nullity of
the marriage and which was granted. Subsequently
complainant filed a disbarment complaint on the
ground of grave abuse and betrayal of the trust and
confidence reposed in him.
Respondent in his answer filed a motion to dismiss for
lack of cause of action. As he contends that complaint
fails to allege acts constituting deceit, malpractice,
gross misconduct or violation of his lawyer’s oath.
ISSUE: WON respondent’s acts constitute deceit,
malpractice, gross misconduct in office, grossly
immoral conduct and violation of his oath as a lawyer
that would warrant his disbarment.
RULING: There is no question that respondent as a
lawyer, is well versed in the law, fully well that in
marrying Maria Luisa he was entering into a bigamous
marriage defined and penalized under Article 349 of
the Revised Penal Code. The respondent betrayed the
trust reposed in him by complainant. He was treated as
part of the family and was allowed to tutor Maria Luisa.
For the foregoing reasons, it is submitted that
respondent committed grossly immoral conduct and
for a period of three (3) years and which later lessen to
one (1) year.
According to IBP: “At the outset, it must be stressed
that the law profession does not prescribe a dichotomy
of standards among its members. There is no
distinction as to whether the transgression is
committed in the lawyers professional capacity or in his
private life. This is because a lawyer may not divide his
personality so as to be an attorney at one time and a
mere citizen at another. Thus, not only his professional
activities but even his private life, insofar as the latter
may reflect unfavorably upon the good name and
prestige of the profession and the courts, may at any
time be the subject of inquiry on the part of the proper
authorities.”
Professional competency alone does not make a
lawyer a worthy member of the Bar. Good moral
character is always an indispensable requirement.
The interdict upon lawyers, as inscribed in Rule 1.01 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility, is that they
shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
deceitful conduct. This is founded on the lawyer’s
primordial duty to society as spelled out in Canon 1
which states:
CANON 1. A lawyer shall uphold the Constitution, obey
the laws of the land and promote respect for law and
legal processes.
And the suspension of 1 year which is previously 3
years is not commensurate to the gravity of his offense,
thus he is disbarred from the practice of law.
2) OVERGAARD VS. VALDEZ
FACTS: Torben Overgaard engaged the services of
respondent Valdez as his legal counsel in two cases
filed by him and two cases filed against him.
Despite the receipt of the full amount of legal fees of
P900,000.00 as stipulated in a Retainer Agreement, the
respondent refused to perform any of his obligations
under their contract for legal services, ignored the
complainant‘s request for a report of the status of the
cases entrusted to his care, and rejected the
complainant‘s demands for the return of the money
paid to him.
Complainant Overgaard filed a complaint for
disbarment against Valdez before the IBP.
Valdez argues that he did not abandon his client. He
claims that he gave periodic status reports on the result
of his work, that he returned the documents in
connection with the case, and that he rendered an
accounting of the money that he actually received.
Overgaard declared that he did not receive the
documents being demanded from the respondent, nor
did he receive an accounting of the money he paid to
Atty. Valdez.
ISSUE/S: WON Atty. Valdez violated Canon 16.01 for
failing to account for all money or property collected or
received for or from Overgaard.
HELD: Atty. Valdez violated Canon 16.01 for failing to
account for all money or property collected or received
for or from Overgaard.
If the respondent had indeed returned the documents
sometime in the middle of July 2006, he would have
presented a receipt to prove such turnover of
documents. And if the respondent had indeed
rendered an accounting of the money that was paid to
him, he would have attached a received copy of the
accounting to his Motion for Reconsideration. But he
failed to do both. There was no proof presented.
It is a lawyer‘s duty to properly account for the money
he received from the client. If indeed the respondent
told the client that he would pay P300,000.00 to two
intelligence operatives, as he claims in his Motion for
Reconsideration, he should have held this money in
trust, and he was under an obligation to make an
accounting. It was his duty to secure a receipt for the
payment of this amount on behalf of his client. But he
failed to present any receipt or certification from
Collado that the payment was received. Since the
respondent was not able either to present an
accounting of the P900,000.00 paid to him upon the
complainant‘s demand, or to provide a sufficient and
plausible explanation for where such amount was
spent, he must immediately return the same.
3) RE: FINANCIAL AUDIT OF ATTY. RAQUEL G. KHO
FACTS: Atty. Kho is a former clerk of court of the RTC in
Eastern Samar. He was found guilty of gross
misconduct for his failure to make a timely remittance
of judiciary funds in his custody. She was fined P10k.
Since his malfeasance prima facie contravened Canon
1, Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility,
the Supreme Court ordered him to show cause why he
should not be disciplined as a lawyer and as an officer
of the court. In his explanation, Atty. Kho admitted that
his failure to make a timely remittance of the cash
deposited with him was inexcusable. He maintained,
however, that he kept the money in the court’s safety
vault and never once used it for his own benefit.
ISSUE: Whether Atty. Kho is guilty of violating Canon 1,
Rule 1.01.
HELD: Atty. Kho’s apparent good faith and his ready
admission of the infraction, although certainly
mitigating, cannot negate the fact that his failure to
remit P65,000 in judiciary funds for over a year was
contrary to the mandatory provisions of OCA Circular
8A-93. That omission is a breach of his oath to obey the
laws as well as the legal orders of the duly constituted
authorities and of his duties under Canon 1, Rule 1.01
of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Canon 1 - A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey
the laws of the land and promote respect for law and
for legal processes
Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful,
dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
As servants of the law and officers of the court, lawyers
are required to be at the forefront of observing and
maintaining the rule of law. They are expected to make
themselves exemplars worthy of emulation.
The least a lawyer can do in compliance with Canon 1
is to refrain from engaging in unlawful conduct. By
definition, any act or omission contrary to law is
unlawful. It does not necessarily imply the element of
criminality although it is broad enough to include it.
Thus, the presence of evil intent on the part of the
lawyer is not essential in order to bring his act or
omission within the terms of Rule 1.01 which
specifically prohibits lawyers from engaging in unlawful
conduct.
Atty. Kho’s conduct was not only far from exemplary, it
was unlawful as well. For this, he must be called to
account. Atty. Kho is ordered to pay FINE of P5,000.00.
4) TAN VS. GUMBA
Respondent attorney was found to have violated Rule
1.01 of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. Respondent’s actions clearly show that
she deceived complainant into lending money to her
through the use of documents and false
representations and by taking advantage of her
education and complainant’s ignorance in legal
matters. As manifested by complainant, he would have
never granted the loan to respondent were it not for
respondent’s misrepresentation that she was
authorized to sell the property and that complainant
could register the “open” deed of sale if respondent
fails to pay the loan. By her misdeed, respondent has
eroded not only complainant’s perception of the legal
profession but the public’s perception as well. Her
actions constitute gross misconduct for which she may
be disciplined.
5) RONQUILLO VS. CEZAR
FACTS:
• Complainant Marili C. Ronquillo is a Filipino citizen
currently residing in Cannes, France with her sons.
• Complainants and respondent entered into a Deed of
Assignment regarding a townhouse unit and lot for
P1.5M. Respondent transferred his rights and interests
over and promised to give a copy of the Contract to Sell
he executed with Crown Asia, the townhouse
developer.
• Respondent received P750K upon execution of the
DOA. The balance will be paid in four equal quarterly
installments of P187.5K each. Respondent encashed
the first check.

• Crown Asia informed the complainants that
respondent has not paid the full price yet. Respondent
also failed to give a copy of the Contract to Sell. For
these reasons, complainant Marili ordered the bank to
stop payment on her checks.
• Complainants wrote the respondent to inform him
that they were willing to pay the balance if he can have
Crown Asia to issue a Deed of Absolute Sale in their
favor. Otherwise, they are asking for their money with
legal interest within 10 days.
• Respondent’s response was that he will work on the
DOAS or return the money in 20 days. The period
lapsed but respondent did not fulfill his promise.
• Complainants’ sent a second letter demand letter.
The demand was unheeded.
• Hence, this administrative complaint since
respondent violated his oath under Rule 1.01, Canon 1
of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
• Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Investigating
Commissioner Milagros V. San Juan, recommended
that respondent be suspended from the practice of
law. The IBP Board of Governors, approved the
recommendation.
ISSUE: Whether Cezar violated his oath under Rule
1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility
RULING: YES. Under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised
Rules of Court, a member of the Bar may be disbarred
or suspended on any of the following grounds: (1)
deceit; (2) malpractice or other gross misconduct in
office; (3) grossly immoral conduct; (4) conviction of a
crime involving moral turpitude; (5) violation of the
lawyer’s oath; (6) willful disobedience of any lawful
order of a superior court; and (7) willfully appearing as
an attorney for a party without authority. Rule 1.01,
Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
provides that “A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful,
dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.” “Conduct,”
as used in this rule, does not refer exclusively to the
performance of a lawyer’s professional duties. This
Court has made clear in a long line of cases that a
lawyer may be disbarred or suspended for misconduct,
whether in his professional or private capacity, which
shows him to be wanting in moral character, honesty,
probity and good demeanor, or unworthy to continue
as an officer of the court.
6) DONTON VS. TANSINGCO
FACTS: Peter Donton filed a complaint against Atty.
Emmanuel Tansingco, as the notary public who
notarized the Occupancy Agreement, and against
others (Duane Stier, and Emelyn Manggay) for estafa
thru falsification of public document.
A disbarment complaint filed by petitioner on May 20,
2003 against respondent Atty. Emmanual O. Tansingco
for serious misconduct and deliberate violation of
Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and 1.02 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility arose when respondent Atty. Tansingco
filed a counter-charge of perjury against Donton.
Atty. Tansingco in his complaint stated that he
prepared and notarized the Occupancy Agreement at
the request of Mr. Stier, an owner and long-time
resident of a real property located at Cubao, Quezon
City. Since Mr. Stier is a U.S. Citizen and thereby
disqualified to own real property in his name, he
agreed that the property be transferred in the name of
Mr. Donton, a Filipino.
Donton averred that Atty. Tansingco’s act of preparing
the Occupancy Agreement, despite knowledge that
Stier is a foreign national, constitutes serious
misconduct and is a deliberate violation of the Code.
Donton prayed that Atty. Tansingco be disbarred.
Atty. Tansingco claimed that complainant Donton filed
disbarment case against him upon the instigation of
complainant’s counsel, Atty. Bonifacio A. Aletajan,
because he refused to act witness in the criminal case
against Stier and Manggay.
In Resolution dated October 1, 2003, the court referred
the matter to the IBP for investigation, report and
recommendation and for which the latter, through
Commissioner Milagros San Juan of the IBP
Commission of Discipline recommended suspension
from the practice of law for two years and cancellation
of his commission as Notary Public.
The IBP Board of Governors adopted, with
modification, the Report and recommended
respondent’s suspension from the practice of law for
six months.
The report was then forwarded to SC as mandated
under Section 12(b), Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court.
ISSUE: WON Atty. Tansingco is guilty of serious
misconduct?
RULING: Yes. Atty. Tansingco is liable for violation of
Canon 1 and Rule 1.02 of the Code. The Court ruled that
a lawyer should not render any service or give advice
to any client which will involve defiance of the laws
which he is bound to uphold and obey. A lawyer who
assists a client in a dishonest scheme or who connives
in violating law commits an act which justifies
disciplinary action against the lawyer.
Atty. Tansingco had sworn to uphold the Constitution.
Thus, he violated his oath and the Code when he
prepared and notarized the Occupancy Agreement to
evade the law against foreign ownership of lands. Atty.
Tansingco used his knowledge of the law to achieve an
unlawful end. Such an act amounts to malpractice in his
office, for which he may be suspended. As such,
respondent is being suspended for six (6) months.
7) LAMBINO VS. DIZON
FACTS:
• There was a killing on a rumble happen in UP on 1994.
The then Chancellor of UP(Posadas) seek the help of
the NBI.
• Responding on Posadas request, Atty Dizon the head
of Special Operation Group of NBI arrived.
• Atty Dizon acted to arrest the two student-suspect in
the said incident. However, Atty Lambino (legal counsel
of UP Diliman) refused and object the arrest alleging
that the arrest is illegal due to lack of warrant.
• Atty Dizon claims that it is under the NBI charter to
make warrantless arrest. Thus, this a review for a
complaint against Atty Lambino for opposing the
arrest. And a complaint against Atty Dizon for making
warrantless arrest.
ISSUE1: WON Lambino committed an error for
opposing the arrest by the NBI
ISSUE2: WON Dizon commited an error for arresting
without warrant
RULING:
(1) Lambino is not guilty of any acts of abuse.
Investigating Commissioner Siegfrid B. Mison
recommended the dismissal of the complaint against
Atty. Lambino in light of a finding that she “acted within
her official duties as she safeguarded the rights of the
students in accordance with the school’s substitute
parental authority” and “within the bounds of the law
as the NBI agents had no warrants of arrest.”
(2) Yes. With respect to the complaint against Atty.
Dizon, the Commissioner recommended to reprimand
him for violating the Code of Professional
Responsibility in “recklessly tr[ying] to arrest” the
suspects without warrant.
It is held that the objection of the said UP officials to
the arrest of the students “cannot be construed as a
violation of P.D. No. 1829, Sec. 1 (c) without rendering
it unconstitutional,”[2] they having “a right to prevent
the arrest [of the students] at the time because their
attempted arrest was illegal.”[3]
In the main, Atty. Dizon invoked Section 1 (a) of
Republic Act 157 (The NBI Charter) which empowers
the NBI “to undertake investigations of crimes and
other offenses against the laws of the Philippines, upon
its own initiative and as public interest may require”[5]
and to make arrests. The invocation does not impress.
Said section does not grant the NBI the power to make
warrantless arrests. The NBI Charter clearly qualifies
the power to make arrests to be “in accordance with
existing laws and rules.”
Members of the investigation staff of the Bureau of
Investigation shall be peace officers, and as such have
the following powers:
(a) To make arrests, searches and seizures in
accordance with existing laws and rules.[6]
x x x x (Emphasis supplied)
By persisting in his attempt to arrest the suspected
students without a warrant, Atty. Dizon violated Rule
1.02 of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility which provides:
CANON 1 – A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE
CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF THE LAND AND
PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW AND LEGAL PROCESSES.
xxxx
Rule 1.02 – A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities
aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening confidence
in the legal system. (Emphasis supplied).
8) SORIANO VS. DIZON
FACTS: This is a case of disbarment filed against the
accused due to his conviction of frustrated homicide.
The case stemmed from a traffic altercation by the
respondent with the complainant. In the course of their
trouble, respondent was able to hit the neck of the
complainant by his revolver making the complainant
physically paralyzed. The manner which the
respondent attacked the complainant and a credible
corroboration of witnesses as to the crime lead the
conviction of the respondent of the said crime but later
the RTC suspended the sentence by granting the
respondent a probation. Respondent banking his
defense on a concocted story and alibi which later
disregarded by the court due to existence of credible
documentary and testimonial evidence.
ISSUE: Whether his crime of frustrated homicide
involves moral turpitude? Whether his conviction
warrants disbarment?
RULING: The court resolved the matter by declaring
the actuation of the respondent in the crime of
frustrated homicide involved moral turpitude. The
court also considers the RTC’s findings of treachery as
a further indications of skewed morals of respondent.it
is also glaringly clear that respondent seriously
transgressed canon 1 of the code of professional
responsibility through his possession of an unlicensed
fire arm and his unjust refusal to satisfy civil liabilities.
The court reminds him both the attorney’s oath and
code of professional responsibility. The appalling
vindictiveness, treachery, and brazen dishonesty of
respondent clearly show his unworthiness to continue
as member of the bar. Thus, the court disbarred the
respondent and ordered the name of the latter be
stricken from the roll of attorneys.
9) ABELLA VS. BARRIOS
FACTS: Complainant obtained a favorable judgment
from the Court of Appeals involving a Labor Case.
Complainant then filed a Motion for Issuance of a Writ
of Execution before the Regional Arbitration Branch
which the respondent was the Labor Arbiter. After the
lapse of five (5) months, complainant’s motion
remained unacted, prompting him to file a Second
Motion for Execution. However, still, there was no
action until the complainant agreed to give respondent
a portion of the monetary award thereof after the
latter asked from the former how much would be his
share. Thereafter, respondent issued a writ of
execution but the employer of the complainant moved
to quash the said writ. Eventually, issued a new writ of
execution wherein complainant’s monetary awards
were reduced to the effect that it modifies the
DECISION of the CA. Complainant now filed the instant
disbarment complaint before the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP), averring that respondent violated the
Code of Professional Responsibility for (a) soliciting
money from complainant in exchange for a favorable
resolution; and (b) issuing a wrong decision to give
benefit and advantage to PT&T, complainant’s
employer.
ISSUE: WON respondent is guilty of gross immorality
for his violation of Rules 1.01 and 1.03, Canon 1, and
Rule 6.02, Canon 6 of the Code.
RULING: YES. The above-cited rules, which are
contained under Chapter 1 of the Code, delineate the
lawyer’s responsibility to society: Rule 1.01 engraves
the overriding prohibition against lawyers from
engaging in any unlawful, dishonest, immoral and
deceitful conduct; Rule 1.03 proscribes lawyers from
encouraging any suit or proceeding or delaying any
man’s cause for any corrupt motive or interest;
meanwhile, Rule 6.02 is particularly directed to lawyers
in government service, enjoining them from using
one’s public position to: (1) promote private interests;
(2) advance private interests; or (3) allow private
interests to interfere with public duties. It is well to
note that a lawyer who holds a government office may
be disciplined as a member of the Bar only when his
misconduct also constitutes a violation of his oath as a
lawyer.
The infractions of the respondent constitute gross
misconduct. Jurisprudence illumines that immoral
conduct involves acts that are willful, flagrant, or
shameless, and that show a moral indifference to the
opinion of the upright and respectable members of the
community. It treads the line of grossness when it is so
corrupt as to constitute a criminal act, or so
unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high degree,
or when committed under such scandalous or revolting
circumstances as to shock the community’s sense of
decency. On the other hand, gross misconduct
constitutes "improper or wrong conduct, the
transgression of some established and definite rule of
action, a forbidden act, a dereliction of duty, willful in
character, and implies a wrongful intent and not mere
error of judgment."
In this relation, Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of
Court states that when a lawyer is found guilty of gross
immoral conduct or gross misconduct, he may be
suspended or disbarred.However, the Court takes
judicial notice of the fact that he had already been
disbarred in a previous administrative case, entitled
Sps. Rafols, Jr. v. Ricardo G. Barrios, Jr., which therefore
precludes the Court from duplicitously decreeing the
same. In view of the foregoing, the Court deems it
proper to, instead, impose a fine in the amount of
P40,000.00 in order to penalize respondent’s
transgressions as discussed herein and to equally deter
the commission of the same or similar acts in the
future.
10) LINSANGAN V. TOLENTINO
FACTS: A complaint for disbarment was filed by Pedro
Linsangan against Atty. Nicomedes Tolentino for
solicitation of clients and encroachment of
professional services. Complaint alleged that
respondent, with the help of paralegal Fe Marie
Labiano, convinced his clients to transfer legal
representation. Respondent promised them financial
assistance and expeditious collection on their claims.
To induce them to hire his services, he persistently
called them and sent them text messages. To support
his allegations, complainant presented the sworn
affidavit of James Gregorio attesting that Labiano tried
to prevail upon him to sever his lawyer-client relations
with complainant and utilize respondent’s services
instead, in exchange for a loan of P50, 000.00.
Complainant also attached “respondent’s” calling card.
Respondent, in his defense, denied knowing Labiano
and authorizing the printing and circulation of the said
calling card.
ISSUE: WON Tolentino’s actions warrant disbarment.
RULING: Yes. Rule 2.03 of the CPR provides that a
lawyer shall not do or permit to be done any act
designed primarily to solicit legal business. Hence,
lawyers are prohibited from soliciting cases for the
purpose of gain, either personally or through paid
agents or brokers. Such actuation constitutes
malpractice, a ground for disbarment. Rule 2.03 should
be read in connection with Rule 1.03 of the CPR which
provides that lawyer, shall not for any corrupt motive
or interest, encourage any suit or proceeding or delay
any man’s cause. This rule proscribes “ambulance
chasing” (the solicitation of almost any kind of legal
business by an attorney, personally or through an
agent in order to gain employment) as a measure to
protect the community from barratry and champerty.
In the case at bar, complainant presented substantial
evidence (consisting of the sworn statements of the
very same persons coaxed by Labiano and referred to
respondent’s office) to prove that respondent indeed
solicited legal business as well as profited from
referrals’ suits. Through Labiano’s actions,
respondent’s law practice was benefited. Hapless
seamen were enticed to transfer representation on the
strength of Labiano’s word that respondent could
produce a more favorable result. Based on the
foregoing, respondent clearly solicited employment
violating Rule 2.03, and Rule 1.03 and Canon 3 of the
CPR and section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court. Any
act of solicitations constitutes malpractice which calls
for the exercise of the Court’s disciplinary powers.
Violation of anti-solicitation statues warrants serious
sanctions for initiating contact with a prospective client
for the purpose of obtaining employment. Thus in this
jurisdiction, the Court adheres to the rule to protect
the public from the Machiavellian machinations of
unscrupulous lawyers and to uphold the nobility of the
legal profession.
Canon 2: A lawyer shall make his legal services available
in an efficient and convenient manner compatible with
the independence, integrity and effectiveness of the
profession. Rule 2.03: A lawyer shall not do or permit
to be done any act designed primarily to solicit legal
business
11) PCGG V. SANDIGANBAYAN
FACTS: General Bank and Trust Company was declared
insolvent by the Central Bank and subjected it to
liquidation. A public bidding followed, which was
bought by the highest bidder, Lucio Tan. Thereafter,
the government, represented by then Solicitor
General, Estelito Mendoza, filed a petition with the trial
court praying for the assistance and supervision of the
court in GENBANK’s liquidation docketed as Special
Proceeding No. 107812.
After the end of the Marcos administration, and the
election of Corazon Aquino as president, Presidential
Commision on Good Governance (PCGG) was formed
to recover the alleged ill-gotten wealth of the Marcos
family and his cronies.
One of the first civil cases filed by the PCGG in the
Sandiganbayan was a complaint for reversion,
reconveyance, restitution, accounting and damages
against respondents Tan et al. and the then First
Couple, Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos together with
several others.
By the time Civil Cases Nos. 0005 and 0096-0099 were
filed, Estelito Mendoza has returned to his private life
together into the private practice of law. He was
engaged as counsel for respondents Tan, et al. and
thereafter filed petitions for certiorari, prohibition and
injunction to annul the writs of sequestration issued by
the PCGG.
This led to the filing of several motions by the PCGG to
disqualify Mendoza from the cases he was
representing for the respondents, alleging that as
former Solicitor General, he actively intervened in the
liquidation proceedings of GENBANK (currently Allied
Bank) that was acquired by the same group of Tan et
al.
The allegation of the government in its motions
stresses that as former Solicitor General, and acting as
counsel for Central Bank, he advised the Central Bank’s
officials on how to go about with the procedure of the
liquidation. In doing so, PCGG says that he violated
Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility,
prohibiting former government lawyers from accepting
engagement or employment in connection with any
matter in which he had intervened while in said service.
The Sandinbayan, through a resolution, denied the
motion to disqualify which led to the filing of a petition
for certiorari and prohibition before the Supreme
Court.
ISSUE1: WON the definitions of “matter” and
“intervene” as interpreted by the PCGG are the same
as the definitions contemplated by the Code of
Professional Responsibility
ISSUE2: WON Estelito Mendoza violated Rule 6.03 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility in his
engagement with the civil cases involving Tan, et al.
RULING: The issues were resolved both in the negative.
The Court resolved the case by going through the
history of the adoption of the Code of the Professional
Conduct from the American System and stating the
rationale behind Rule 6.03. The evil sought to be
prevented is that a government lawyer’s actions be
influenced by the temptation to take action on behalf
of the government client that latter could be to the
advantage of parties who might later become private
practice clients.
In the adoption of the said rule from Canon 36
paragraph 2 of the American Bar Association’s Canons
of Professional Ethics, the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines replaced the phrase “investigated and
passed upon” with the word “intervened”.
This led to the explanation behind the phrasing of the
canon in the American Legal System where members
of the ABA addressed the issues of “revolving door”,
“adverse-interest conflicts”, and “congruent-interest
conflicts”.
ABA further defined the following terms:
Revolving Door: the process by which lawyers and
others temporarily enter the government service from
private life then leave it for large fees in private
practice, where they can exploit information, contacts
and influence gathered while in government service.
Adverse-interest conflicts: exists when a former
government lawyer represents a client in private
practice in which the matter 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
Congruent-interest conflicts: where former
government lawyers are prohibited from representing
a client in private practice even if the interests of the
former government client and new client are entirely
parallel.
It was through the definitions that the Court ruled that
Mendoza’s case does not involve an adverse-interest
conflict because he has not shown any adverse interest
when he acted as Solicitor General in the Special
Proceeding case and as counsel for the Civil cases
pending before the Sandiganbayan.
As to the violation of Rule 6.03 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, the Court shed light
through the definitions of “matter” and “intervention”
based on the Formal Opinion 342 of the American Bar
Association.
“Matter” is any discrete, isolatable act as well as
identifiable transaction or conduct involving a
particular situation and specific party and not merely
an act of drafting, enforcing, or interpreting
government or agency procedures, regulations or laws,
or briefing abstract principles of law.
“Intervention” was classified in two definitions.
The first includes the participation in a proceeding even
if the intervention is irrelevant or has no effect or little
influence as implied from the definition of intervene
which is “to occur, fall, or come in between points of
time or events”.
While the second includes an act of a person who has
the power to influence the subject proceeding which is
rooted from the definition of intervene “to come in or
between by way of hindrance or modification and that
interference which may affect the interests of others.”
The Court said that it is beyond doubt that “matter” or
the act of Mendoza as Solicitor General in the
liquidation case, advising the Central Bank on how to
proceed with it, is not the “matter” contemplated by
Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
The ABA Formal Opinion No. 342 stressed that the
matter which will not disqualify a lawyer would be the
mere “drafting, enforcing, or interpreting government
or agency procedures, regulations or laws, or briefing
abstract principles of law. “
The “matter” where Mendoza got himself involved
with was in acting as counsel for the Central Bank; he
informed them of the proper procedure provided by
law to liquidate GENBANK through the filing of the
necessary petition in the RTC of Manila.

Mendoza is not privy to the decision of the Central

Bank to liquidate GENBANK nor was he involved in the
sale of GENBANK to presently Allied Bank.
Furthermore, the matter of liquidation involved in the
Special Proceeding case is entirely different from the
matter of sequestration involved in the Civil Cases
.
Moreover, Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility cannot apply to Mendoza because his
alleged intervention as Solicitor General is an
intervention on a matter different from the
sequestration of stocks as ill-gotten wealth in the Civil
Case. The Court opines that the second interpretation
of intervention is more fitting to the intention of the
law based on its historical background.

There can be no intervention when a government

lawyer acts only in “drafting, enforcing, or interpreting
government or agency procedures, regulations or
laws.” It has to be that the lawyer participated
personally and substantially in a matter related to his
office. To this, the PCGG failed to substantiate that
Mendoza played a significant and substantial
intervention in the Special Proceeding case.

Acting as Solicitor General, he had to sign the petition

as an initiatory pleading for the Central Bank. The
assistance extended to the Central Bank by Mendoza
was only that of an agent of the government more than
a court litigator acting in behalf of the government. It
is still the Central Bank that has the sole authority and
jurisdiction to promulgate the rules and regulations in
the liquidation of insolvent banks.

For these reasons, the Court denied the petitions of the

PCGG in disqualifying Estelito Mendoza as counsel for
respondents Tan, et al.