PCGG vs Sandiganbayan
Respondent Mendoza had nothing to do with the
In 1976 the General Bank and Trust Company
(GENBANK) encountered financial difficulties.
GENBANK had extended considerable financial support
to Filcapital Development Corporation causing it to incur
daily overdrawings on its current account with Central
Bank. Despite the mega loans GENBANK failed to
recover from its financial woes. The Central Bank issued
a resolution declaring GENBANK insolvent and unable to
resume business with safety to its depositors, creditors
and the general public, and ordering its liquidation. A
public bidding of GENBANK’s assets was held where
Lucio Tan group submitted the winning bid. Solicitor
General Estelito Mendoza filed a petition with the CFI
praying for the assistance and supervision of the court in
GENBANK’s liquidation as mandated by RA 265. After
EDSA Revolution I Pres Aquino established the PCGG
to recover the alleged ill-gotten wealth of former Pres
Marcos, his family and cronies. Pursuant to this
mandate, the PCGG filed with the Sandiganbayan a
complaint for reversion, reconveyance, restitution
against respondents Lucio Tan, at.al. PCGG issued
several writs of sequestration on properties allegedly
acquired by them by taking advantage of their close
relationship and influence with former Pres. Marcos. The
abovementioned respondents Tan, et. al are represented
as their counsel, former Solicitor General Mendoza.
PCGG filed motions to disqualify respondent Mendoza
as counsel for respondents Tan et. al. with
Sandiganbayan. It was alleged that Mendoza as then Sol
Gen and counsel to Central Bank actively intervened in
the liquidation of GENBANK which was subsequently
acquired by respondents Tan et. al., which subsequently
became Allied Banking Corporation. The motions to
disqualify invoked Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility which prohibits former government
lawyers from accepting “engagement” or employment in
connection with any matter in which he had intervened
while in the said service. The Sandiganbayan issued a
resolution denyting PCGG’s motion to disqualify
respondent Mendoza. It failed to prove the existence of
an inconsistency between respondent Mendoza’s former
function as SolGen and his present employment as
counsel of the Lucio Tan group. PCGGs recourse to this
court assailing the Resolutions of the Sandiganbayan.
ISSUE
Whether Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility applies to respondent Mendoza. The
prohibition states: “A lawyer shall not, after leaving
government service, accept engagement or employment
in connection with any matter in which he had intervened
while in the said service.”
HELD
The case at bar does not involve the “adverse interest”
aspect of Rule 6.03. Respondent Mendoza, it is
conceded, has no adverse interest problem when he
acted as SOlGen and later as counsel of respondents
et.al. before the Sandiganbayan. However there is still
the issue of whether there exists a “congruent-interest
conflict” sufficient to disqualify respondent Mendoza from
representing respondents et. al. The key is unlocking the
meaning of “matter” and the metes and bounds of
“intervention” that he made on the matter. Beyond doubt
that the “matter” or the act of respondent Mendoza as
SolGen involved in the case at bar is “advising the
Central Bank, on how to proceed with the said bank’s
liquidation and even filing the petition for its liquidation in
CFI of Manila. The Court held that the advice given by
respondent Mendoza on the procedure to liquidate
GENBANK is not the “matter” contemplated by Rule 6.03
of the Code of Professional Responsibility. ABA Formal
Opinion No. 342 is clear in stressing that “drafting,
enforcing or interpreting government or agency
procedures, regulations and laws, or briefing abstract
principles of law are acts which do not fall within the
scope of the term “matter” and cannot disqualify.
decision of the Central Bank to liquidate GENBANK. He
also did not participate in the sale of GENBANK to Allied
Bank. The legality of the liquidation of GENBANK is not
an issue in the sequestration cases. Indeed, the
jurisdiction of the PCGG does not include the dissolution
and liquidation of banks. Thus, the Code 6.03 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility cannot apply to
respondent Mendoza because his alleged intervention
while SolGen is an intervention on a matter different from
the matter involved in the Civil case of sequestration. In
the metes and bounds of the “intervention”. The
applicable meaning as the term is used in the Code of
Professional Ethics is that it is an act of a person who
has the power to influence the subject proceedings. The
evil sought to be remedied by the Code do not exist
where the government lawyer does not act which can be
considered as innocuous such as “ drafting, enforcing, or
interpreting government or agency procedures,
regulations or laws or briefing abstract principles of law.”
The court rules that the intervention of Mendoza is not
significant and substantial. He merely petitions that the
court gives assistance in the liquidation of GENBANK.
The role of court is not strictly as a court of justice but as
an agent to assist the Central Bank in determining the
claims of creditors. In such a proceeding the role of the
SolGen is not that of the usual court litigator protecting
the interest of government.
Petition assailing the Resolution of the Sandiganbayan is
denied.
Relevant Dissenting Opinion of Justice Callejo:
Rule 6.03 is a restatement of Canon 36 of the Canons of
Professional Ethics: “ A lawyer, having once held public
office or having been in the public employ, should not
after his retirement accept employment in connection
with any matter which he has investigated or passed
upon while in such office or employ.”
Indeed, the restriction against a public official from using
his public position as a vehicle to promote or advance
his private interests extends beyond his tenure on
certain matters in which he intervened as a public
official. Rule 6.03 makes this restriction specifically
applicable to lawyers who once held public office.” A
plain reading shows that the interdiction 1. applies to a
lawyer who once served in the government and 2.
relates to his accepting “engagement or employment” in
connection with any matter in which he had intervened
while in the service.
FRANCIA v. ABDON
Raul M. Francia prayed for the disbarment and
imposition of other disciplinary sanctions on Labor
Arbiter Reynaldo V. Abdon for violation of the lawyer's
oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility.
The complainant alleged that in November 2006, he had
a meeting with the respondent at the Makati Cinema
Square to seek his assistance with respect to a pending
case in the Court of Appeals involving the labor union of
Nueva Ecija III Electric Cooperative. The respondent told
the complainant that he can facilitate, expedite and
ensure the release of a favorable decision, particularly
the award of assets and management of NEECO III to
the union. To bolster his representation, he told him that
the same regional office where he was assigned had
earlier rendered a decision in favor of the labor union
and against the National Electrification Administration.
With the respondent’s assurance, the complainant
yielded. In December 2006, the complainant met the
respondent and told him that in order to facilitate the
release of such favorable decision, the union must
produce the amount of P1,000,000.00. The complainant
handed him the amount of P350,000.00. The
complainant made several follow-ups with the
respondent about the status of the decision. He
promised favorable decision before the end of that year
was not issued by the CA, with no explanation from the
respondent. The respondent denied that he made any
representation to the complainant; that he had the
capacity to facilitate the release of a favorable decision
in the CA; and that he received money in exchange
therefor.
The respondent, however, instead of promptly declining
the favor sought in order to avoid any appearance of
impropriety, even volunteered to introduce the
complainant to Vistan. His connection with Vistan was
the reason why the complainant had suspected that he
was in connivance with him and that he got a portion of
the loot. In doing so, he has exposed the legal
profession to undeserved condemnation and invited
suspicion on the integrity of the judiciary for which he
must be imposed with a disciplinary sanction. Canon 7 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility mandates that a
"lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity
of the legal profession." For, the strength of the legal
profession lies in the dignity and integrity of its members.
It is every lawyer’s duty to maintain the high regard to
the profession by staying true to his oath and keeping his
actions beyond reproach.
Also, the respondent, as a member of the legal
profession, has a further responsibility to safeguard the
dignity of the courts which the public perceives as the
bastion of justice. He must at all times keep its good
name untarnished and not be instrumental to its
disrepute. For having committed an act which
compromised the public’s trust in the justice system,
Atty. Reynaldo V. Abdon is hereby suspended from the
practice of law for a period of one (1) month with a stern
warning that a repetition of the same or similar act in the
future shall be dealt with severely.

He admitted that he had a chance meeting with the

complainant at the Makati Cinema Square in December
2006. He inquired if he knew anyone from the CA who
can help the union members in their case as he was
assisting them in following up their case. The respondent
answered in the negative but told him that he can refer
him to his former client, a certain Jaime "Jimmy" Vistan,
who may be able to help him. The complainant had a
conversation with Vistan over the phone.

Sometime thereafter, he received a call from Vistan who

told him that he was given P350,000.00 as facilitation
fee. After their conversation, he never heard from Vistan
again.

ISSUE:

Whether Respondent is guilty of violating of the lawyer's

oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility

RULING:

It is well to remember that in disbarment proceedings,

the burden of proof rests upon the complainant. For the
Court to exercise its disciplinary powers, the case
against the respondent must be established by
convincing and satisfactory proof. In the absence of
preponderant evidence, the presumption of innocence of
the lawyer subsists and the complaint against him must
be dismissed. After a careful review of the facts and
circumstances of the case, the Court finds that the
evidence submitted by the complainant fell short of the
required quantum of proof.

Aside from bare allegations, no evidence was presented

to convincingly establish that the respondent engaged in
unlawful and dishonest conduct, particularly in extortion
and influence peddling. The respondent, however, is not
entirely faultless. He has, nonetheless, engendered the
suspicion that he is engaged in an illegal deal when he
introduced the complainant to Vistan, who was the one
who allegedly demanded P1,000,000.00 in facilitation
fee from the union members.
BUNAGAN-BANSIG v ATTY CELERA

Bansig, sister of bunagan narrated that, respondent and

Gracemarie R. Bunagan, entered into a contract of
marriage. However, notwithstanding respondent’s
marriage with Bunagan, respondent contracted another
marriage with a certain Ma. Cielo Paz Torres Alba, as
evidenced by a certified xerox copy of the certificate of
marriage Bansig stressed that the marriage between
respondent and Bunagan was still valid and in fulllegal
existence when he contracted his second marriage with
Alba, and that the first marriage had never been annulled
or rendered void by any lawful authority.

Bansig alleged that respondent’s act of contracting

marriage with Alba, while his marriage is still subsisting,
constitutes grossly immoral and conduct unbecoming of
a member of the Bar, which renders him unfit to continue
his membership in the Bar.

ISSUE

Whether respondent is still fit to continue to be an officer

of the court in the dispensation of justice

RULING

For purposes of this disbarment proceeding, these

Marriage Certificates bearing thename of respondent are
competent and convincing evidence to prove that he
committed bigamy, which renders him unfit to continue
as a member of the Bar

The Code of Professional Responsibility provides:

Rule 1.01- A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful,

dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.

Canon 7- A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity

and dignity of the legal profession, and support the
activities of the Integrated Bar.
IN RE: GALANG 2. Yes. Ramon Galang is guilty of fraudulently
concealing and withholding from the Court his pending
Landicho wrote a confidential letter to the court about the criminal case for physical injuries in 1961, 1962, 1963,
startling fact that the grade in one examination (Civil 1964, 1966, 1967, 1969, and 1971; and in 1966, 1967,
Law) of at least one bar candidate was raised for one 1969, and 1971, he committed perjury when he declared
reason or another, before the bar results were released under oath that he had no pending criminal case in court.
that year and that there are grades in other examination That the concealment of an attorney of the fact that he
notebooks in other subjects that underwent alterations to had been charged with, or indicted for, an alleged crime,
raise the grades prior to the release of results. The Court in his application to take the Bar Exam is a ground for
checked the records of the 1971 Bar Examinations and revocation of his license to practice law as well-settled.
found that the grades in five subjects — Political Law He is therefore unworthy of becoming a member of the
and Public International Law, Civil Law, Mercantile Law, noble profession of law.
Criminal Law, and Remedial Law — of a successful bar
candidate with office code no. 954, Ramon Galang,
underwent some changes which, however, were duly
initialed and authenticated by the respective examiner
concerned. Each of the five examiners in his individual
sworn statement admitted having re-evaluated and/or re-
checked the notebook involved pertaining to his subject
upon the representation to him by Bar Confidant
Lanuevo that he has the authority to do the same and
that the examinee concerned failed only in his particular
and/or was on the borderline of passing.

The investigation showed that the re-evaluation of the

examination papers of Ramon E. Galang alias Roman
Galang, was unauthorized, and therefore he did noy
obtain a passing average in the 1971 Bar Examinations.

Lanuevo admitted having brought the five

examination notebooks of Ramon E. Galang back to the
respective examiners for re-evaluation or re-checking.
The five examiners having re-evaluated or re-checked
the notebook to him by the Bar Confidant.

As investigator conducted by the NBI also showed

that Ramon Galang was charged with the crime of slight
physical injuries committed on certain de Vera, of the
same University. Confronted with this information,
respondent Galang declared that he does not remember
having been charged with the crime of slight physical
injuries in that case.

It must also be noted that immediately after the

official release of the results of the 1971 Bar
Examinations, Lanuevo gained possession of few
properties, including that of a house in V+BF Homes,
which was never declared in his declaration of assets
and liabilities. But Lanuevo’s statement of assets and
liabilities were not taken up during the investigation but
were examined as parts of the records of the court.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not Lanuevo is guilty defrauding the

examiners into re-evaluating Galang’s exam notebook.

2. Whether or not Galang is guilty of fraudulently

concealing and withholding from the court his pending
case.

RULING:

1. Yes. It is evident that Lanuevo staged the plot to

convince the examiners to individually re-examine the
grades of Galang to help him pass even without the
authority of the Court.
RE: 2003 BAR EXAM

On September 22, 2003, there was a rumored leakage in

the bar examination on the Mercantile Law subject.
Investigation was lead back to the office of Atty. Marcial
O.T. Balgos, then Mercantile Law Examiner, where the
leakage started. Allegedly, Atty. Danilo de Guzman
(assistant lawyer in the firm of Balgos and Perez) stole a
copy of Atty. Balgos’ file on Mercantile Law with the
proposed test items, and the former sent it to some
members of the Beta Sigma Lambda Fraternity.

ISSUE:

WON Atty. Balgos and Atty. de Guzman are guilty of

gross misconduct unbecoming a member of the Bar.

RULING:

Yes. De Guzman abetted cheating or dishonesty by his

fraternity brothers in the examination, which is violative
of Rule 1.01 of Canon 1, as well as Canon 7 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility for members of the Bar.
As for Atty. Balgos’ negligence, if he had taken those
simple precautions to protect the secrecy of his papers,
nobody could have stolen them and copied and
circulated them. The integrity of the bar examinations
would not have been sullied by the scandal.
PLUS BUILDERS v. REVILLA for the client what is justly due him or to present every
defense provided by law to enable the latter’s cause to
In the case of PLUS BUILDERS, INC., and EDGARDO succeed. In this case, respondent may not be wanting in
C. GARCIA vs. ATTY. ANASTACIO E. REVILLA, JR., , this regard. On the contrary, it is apparent that the
En Banc, A.C. No. 7056, respondent’s acts complained of were committed out of
February 11, 2009, the respondent lawyer filed a motion his over-zealousness and misguided desire to protect
for reconsideration of the decision of the Philippine the interests of his clients who were poor and
Supreme Court, finding respondent guilty of gross uneducated. We are not unmindful of his dedication and
misconduct for committing a willful and intentional conviction in defending the less fortunate. Taking the
falsehood before the court, misusing court procedure cudgels from the former lawyer in this case is rather
and processes to delay the execution of a judgment and commendable, but respondent should not forget his first
collaborating with non-lawyers in the illegal practice of and foremost responsibility as an officer of the court. In
law. support of the cause of their clients, lawyers have the
duty to present every remedy or defense within the
On November 15, 1999, a decision was rendered by the authority of the law. This obligation, however, is not to be
Provincial Adjudicator of Cavite (PARAD) in favor of performed at the expense of truth and justice. This is the
complainant, Plus Builders, Inc. and against the criterion that must be borne in mind in every exertion a
tenants/farmers Leopoldo de Guzman, et. al., who were lawyer gives to his case. Under the Code of Professional
the clients of respondent Responsibility, a lawyer has the duty to assist in the
speedy and efficient administration of justice, and is
Atty. Anastacio E. Revilla, Jr. The PARAD found that
enjoined from unduly delaying a case by impeding
respondent’s clients were mere tenants and not rightful
execution of a judgment or by misusing court processes.
possessors/owners of the subject land. The case was
elevated all the way up to the Supreme Court, with this
Court sustaining complainant’s rights over the land.
Continuing to pursue his clients’ lost cause, respondent
was found to have committed intentional falsehood; and
misused court processes with the intention to delay the
execution of the decision through the filing of several
motions, petitions for temporary restraining orders, and
the last, an action to quiet title despite the finality of the
decision. Furthermore, he allowed non-lawyers to
engage in the unauthorized practice of law – holding
themselves out as his partners/associates in the law
firm.

Respondent maintains that he did not commit the acts

complained of. The courses of action he took were not
meant to unduly delay the execution of the DARAB
Decision dated November 19, 1999, but were based on
his serious study, research and experience as a litigation
lawyer for more than 20 years and on the facts given to
him by his clients in the DARAB case. He believes that
the courses of action he took were valid and proper legal
theory designed to protect the rights and interests of
Leopoldo de Guzman, et. al. He stresses that he was not
the original lawyer in this case. The lawyer-client
relationship with the former lawyer was terminated
because Leopoldo de Guzman, et. al. felt that their
former counsel did not explain/argue their position very
well, refused to listen to them and, in fact, even
castigated them. As the new counsel, respondent
candidly relied on what the tenants/farmers told him in
the course of his interview. They maintained that they
had been in open, adverse, continuous and notorious
possession of the land in the concept of an owner for
more than 50 years. Thus, the filing of the action to quiet
title was resorted to in order to determine the rights of his
clients respecting the subject property. He avers that he
merely exhausted all possible remedies and defenses to
which his clients were entitled under the law, considering
that his clients were subjected to harassment and threats
of physical harm and summary eviction by the
complainant. He posited that he was only being
protective of the interest of his clients as a good father
would be protective of his own family, and that his
services to Leopoldo de Guzman, et. al were almost pro
bono.

HELD

It is the rule that when a lawyer accepts a case, he is

expected to give his full attention, diligence, skill and
competence to the case, regardless of its importance
and whether he accepts it for a fee or for free. A lawyer’s
devotion to his client’s cause not only requires but also
entitles him to deploy every honorable means to secure
IN RE: MEDADO
Michael A. Medado passed the Philippine bar exams in
1979. On 7 May 1980, he took the Attorney’s Oath at the
PICC. He was scheduled to sign in the Roll of Attorneys
on 13 May 1980, but failed to do so allegedly because
he had misplaced the Notice to Sign the Roll of
Attorneys. Several years later, while rummaging through
his things, he found said Notice. He then realized that he
had not signed in the roll, and that what he had signed at
the entrance of the PICC was probably just an
attendance record.
He thought that since he already took the oath, the
signing of the Roll of Attorneys was not as important.
The matter of signing in the Roll of Attorneys was
subsequently forgotten.
In 2005, when Medado attended MCLE seminars, he
was required to provide his roll number for his MCLE
compliances to be credited. Not having signed in the Roll
of Attorneys, he was unable to provide his roll number.
About seven years later, in 2012, Medado filed the
instant Petition, praying that he be allowed to sign in the
Roll of Attorneys. Medado justifies this lapse by
characterizing his acts as “neither willful nor intentional
but based on a mistaken belief and an honest error of
judgment.
However, Medado is not free from all liability for his
years of inaction.
A mistake of law cannot be utilized as a lawful
justification, because everyone is presumed to know the
law and its consequences.
Medado may have at first operated under an honest
mistake of fact when he thought that what he had signed
at the PICC entrance before the oath-taking was already
the Roll of Attorneys. However, the moment he realized
that what he had signed was just an attendance record,
he could no longer claim an honest mistake of fact as a
valid justification. At that point, he should have known
that he was not a full-fledged member of the Philippine
Bar, as it was the act of signing therein that would have
made him so. When, in spite of this knowledge, he chose
to continue practicing law, he willfully engaged in the
unauthorized practice of law.
Knowingly engaging in unauthorized practice of law
likewise transgresses Canon 9 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. At the heart of Canon 9 is
the lawyer’s duty to prevent the unauthorized practice of
law. This duty likewise applies to law students and Bar
candidates. As aspiring members of the Bar, they are
bound to conduct themselves in accordance with the
ethical standards of the legal profession.

Medado cannot be suspended as he is not yet a full-

The Office of the Bar Confidant recommended that the
instant petition be denied for petitioner’s gross
negligence, gross misconduct and utter lack of merit,
saying that petitioner could offer no valid justification for
his negligence in signing in the Roll of Attorneys.
fledged lawyer. However, the Court imposed upon him a
penalty akin to suspension by allowing him to sign in the
Roll of Attorneys one (1) year after receipt of the
Resolution. He was also made to pay a fine of P32,000.
Also, during the one-year period, petitioner was not
allowed to engage in the practice of law.

ISSUE:

Whether or not petitioner may be allowed to sign the Roll

of Attorneys.

RULING:

Yes, the Supreme Court granted the petition subject to

the payment of a fine and the imposition of a penalty
equivalent to suspension from the practice of law.

Not allowing Medado to sign in the Roll of Attorneys

would be akin to imposing upon him the ultimate penalty
of disbarment, a penalty reserved for the most serious
ethical transgressions. In this case, said action is not
warranted.

The Court considered Medado’s demonstration of good

faith in filing the petition himself, albeit after the passage
of more than 30 years; that he has shown that he
possesses the character required to be a member of the
Philippine Bar; and that he appears to have been a
competent and able legal practitioner, having held
various positions at different firms and companies.