A.C. No.

6705             March 31, 2006

RUTHIE LIM-SANTIAGO, Complainant,
vs.
ATTY. CARLOS B. SAGUCIO, Respondent.

Facts:
 Employees of Taggat Industries, Inc. filed a criminal complaint against complainant Ruthie Lim-Santiago.
It appears that Santiago took over the management and control of Taggat Industries after the death of her
father, Alfonso Lim.

 Respondent, Atty. Sagucio, was the former Personnel Manager and Retained Counsel of Taggat and
thereafter was appointed as Assistant Provincial Prosecutor of Cagayan.

 The criminal complaint against Santiago was assigned to respondent for the latter to conduct preliminary
investigation. He resolved it by recommending the filing of informations for violations of Art. 288 of the
Labor Code.

 Complainant seeks the disbarment of respondent for violating Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility and for defying the prohibition against private practice of law while working as government
prosecutor.

Complainant’s contention:
 Respondent is guilty of representing conflicting interests. He being the former Personnel Manager and
Retained Counsel of Taggat, knew the operations of Taggat very well and should have inhibited himself
from the case.
 Respondent is guilty of engaging in the private practice of law while working as a government prosecutor

Respondent’s contention:
 He alleged that when the crim case was filed he was no longer connected with Taggat Industries; hence, no
conflict of interest may arise and that he merely performed his duty to conduct preliminary investigation.
 As to the alleged private practice, he did not dispute the receipt of retainer fees from complainant but
claims that it was only on case-to-case basis. That consultation is not the same as representation and that
rendering consultancy services is not prohibited.

ISSUE:
WON respondent is guilty of the complained acts

HELD:

 Respondent is exonerated from the charge of violation of Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility but liable for violation of Rule 1.01 Canon 1 against unlawful conduct.
 Gen. Rule: A government lawyer is thus bound by the prohibition "not [to] represent conflicting
interests.
 Excep: does not apply when no conflict of interest exists, when a written consent of all concerned is
given after a full disclosure of the facts or when no true attorney-client relationship exists

Various tests to determine conflict of interests:

 inconsistency of interests is whether the lawyer will be asked to use against his former client any
confidential information acquired through their connection or previous employment.

 In this case, no conflict of interests exist when respondent handled the preliminary investigation of the
criminal complaint in 1997 as he was no longer connected with Taggat during those period.
A.C. No. 6705             March 31, 2006

RUTHIE LIM-SANTIAGO, Complainant,
vs.
ATTY. CARLOS B. SAGUCIO, Respondent.

 To charge respondent for representing conflicting interests, evidence must be presented to prove that
respondent used against Taggat, his former client, any confidential information acquired through his
previous employment.

 As to the contention that respondent only rendered consultancy services to Taggat, the SC held that the law
does not distinguish between consultancy services and retainer agreement. As long as respondent
performed acts that are usually rendered by lawyers with the use of their legal knowledge, the same falls
within the ambit of the term "practice of law." Respondent clearly violated the prohibition in R.A. 6713.

 IBP has no jurisdiction to investigate violations of R.A. 6713 unless the acts involved violations of Code of
Professional Responsibility. In this case, violation of RA 6713 constitutes also as a violation of Rule 1.01
of Canon 1 which mandates that "[a] lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
conduct."

 Respondent is GUILTY of violation of Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and
was suspended from the practice of law for six months.