LEGAL ETHICS

University of San Agustin

College of Law
 CANON 6 –
THESE CANONS SHALL
APPLY TO LAWYERS IN
GOVERNMENT SERVICES IN
THE DISCHARGE OF THEIR
TASKS.
 The Code of Professional Responsibility
is not intended for private practitioners alone.
 It governs the acts of all lawyers
including those in the service of the
Government .
 A member of the Bar who assumes
public office does not shed his professional
obligations. Hence, the Code of
Professional Responsibility, promulgated on
June 21, 1988, was not meant to govern the
conduct of private practitioners alone, but of
all lawyers including those in government
service. Lawyers in government are public
servants who owe the utmost fidelity to the
public service. Thus, they should be more
sensitive in the performance of their
professional obligations, as their conduct is
subject to the ever-constant scrutiny of the
public.
 Judges, prosecutors, solicitors and
other lawyers in the government service are
governed by special laws with particular
application to them, like RA 7160, RA 6713,
and RA 6770.
Rule 6.01 - The primary duty of a lawyer
engaged in public prosecution is not to
convict but to see that justice is done. The
suppression of facts or the concealment
of witnesses capable of establishing the
innocence of the accused is highly
reprehensible and is cause for
disciplinary action.
 In Suarez vs. Platon, 69 Phil 556, the
SC said that the interest of a prosecutor in a
criminal prosecution is not to win the case but
to see that justice is done.
 Rule 6.02 - A lawyer in the
government service shall not use his
public position to promote or advance his
private interests, nor allow the latter to
interfere with his public duties.
 A lawyer in government service shall not
use his public position to promote or advance
his public interest. If a lawyer is concurrently
allowed to engage in the practice of law, he
should not use his public position to enhance
his private practice of law.
 May a lawyer in the public service who
committed any act of misconduct relative to
his government position be disciplined
according to the Code?
 General Rule: A lawyer who holds a
government office may not be disciplined as
a member of the Bar for misconduct in the
discharge of his duties as a government
official.
 Exception: If the lawyer’s misconduct in
the discharge of his official duties as
government official is of such character as to
affect his qualification a lawyer or to show
moral delinquency, he may be disciplined as
a member of the Bar; acts are in violation of
the lawyers oath
 In Viriolo vs. Atty. Dasig, the SC ruled
that generally speaking, a lawyer who holds a
government office may not be disciplined as
a member of the Bar for misconduct in the
discharge of his duties as a government
official. However, if said misconduct as a
government official also constitutes a
violation of his oath as a lawyer, then he may
be disciplined by this Court as a member of
the Bar.
 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.
 A government lawyer ay leave the
government service in various ways:

n Retirement
n Resignation
n Expiration of the Term of Office
n Dismissal
n Abandonment
 A lawyer is prohibited from accepting
engagement or employment in connection
with any matter in which he had intervened
while in the said service.
 General Rule: Practice of profession
immediately after leaving public service is
allowed.
 Except: in connection with any matter
before the office of the lawyer used to
be with, subject to the following:

n If he had not intervened therein, the

one year prohibition applies as provided
in RA 6713, Sec. 7(b)

n If he had intervened therein, prohibition

is perpetual under canon 6, Rule 6.03.
 Read the case of PCGG vs.
Sandiganbayan and Mendoza (GR Nos.
151800-12, April 12, 2005), where the
concept of revolving door or “the process by
which lawyers and others temporarily enter
government service from private life and then
leave it for large fees in private practice,
where they can exploit information, contacts,
and influence garnered in government
service” was discussed.