Title (with GR No.

and Date) PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, complainant, vs. ATTY. TELESFORO S. CEDO,
respondent.
A.M. No. 3701 | 1995-03-28

Ponente BIDIN, J.

Doctrine / The Philippine National Bank (PNB) charged Atty. Telesforo S. Cedo, former Assistant Vice
Summary President of the PNB Asset Management Group, with violation of Canon 6, Rule 6.03 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility (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) because he appeared as counsel in 3 instances for
individuals who had transacted with PNB. The IBP, upon investigation, found that the complaint
was fully substantiated and recommended his suspension for 3 years. The SC adopted the
recommendation and reiterated that lawyers should not represent conflicting interests.

Facts Philippine National Bank (PNB) charged Atty. Telesforo S. Cedo, former Asst. Vice-President of
the Asset Management Group of PNB, with violation of Canon 6, Rule 6.03 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. According to PNB, Atty. Cedo appeared as a counsel for individuals
who had transactions with the bank in which Atty. Cedo, during his employment with the bank,
had intervened.

Contentions PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK ATTY. TELESFORO S. CEDO

PNB averred that while Atty. Cedo was still in In his comment, Atty. Cedo admitted that he
the bank's employ, he participated in arranging appeared as counsel for Mrs. Siy but only
the sale of steel sheets in favor of Milagros Ong with respect to the execution pending appeal
Siy for P200,000. He even “noted” the gate of the RTC decision. He alleged that he did
passes issued by his subordinate in favor of not participate in the litigation of the case.
Mrs. Siy authorizing the pull-out of the steel
sheets from the DMC Man Division Compound.
When a civil action arose out of these
transactions between Mrs. Siy and PNB, he
appeared as one of the former’s counsels.

Lower Courts N/A

Appellate Court The case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and
recommendation. During the said investigation, it was discovered that Atty. Cedo was previously
fined by the court in the amount of P1,000.0 in connection with the Siy case for forum shopping,
where he appeared as counsel for Siy through the law firm of Cedo Ferrer Maynigo and
Associates. The IBP recommended the suspension from the practice of law for three years.

Issue/s W/N Atty. Cedo violated the Code of Professional Responsibility? YES.

SC Ruling Communications between attorney and client are, in a great number of litigations, a complicated
affair, consisting of entangled relevant and irrelevant, secret and well-known facts. In the
 complexity of what is said in the course of dealings between an attorney and client, inquiry of the
nature suggested would lead to the revelation, in advance of the trial, of other matters that might
only further prejudice the complainant's cause.

Whatever may be said as to whether or not respondent utilized against his former client
information given to him in a professional capacity, the mere fact of their previous relationship
should have precluded him from appearing as counsel for the other side.

There is a need to settle down the existence of the bare relationship of attorney and client as the
yardstick for testing incompatibility of interests. This rule is designed not alone to prevent the
dishonest practitioner from fraudulent conduct, but as well to protect the honest lawyer from
unfounded suspicion of unprofessional practice. It is founded on principles of public policy, of
good taste. As has been said in cases, the question is not necessarily one of the rights of the
parties, but as to whether the attorney has adhered to proper professional standard.

The rule on conflicting interest applies with equal force and effect to Atty. Cedo in this case.
Having been an executive of the bank, he now seeks to litigate as counsel for the
opposite side, a case against his former employer involving a transaction which he
formerly handled while still an employee of PNB. He violated Canon 6 of the Code of
Professional Ethics on adverse influence and conflicting interests. Thus, Atty. Cedo was
suspended from the practice of law for three years. 

Others / Notes Alleged clients: (1) Mr. Milagros Ong Siy, (2) Emmanuel Elefan; and (3) Spouses Ponciano and
Eufemia Almeda.

How did Atty. Cedo allegedly represented the abovementioned:

(1) Mr. Milagros Ong Siy - appeared as counsel for Ong Siy before RTC Makati, Branch
146 when civil complaint was filed against Ong Siy by PNB.
(2) Emmanuel Elefan – counsel for Elefan when he was charged also by PNB for grave
misconduct and dishonesty in relation to the issuance of gate passes to Mr. Ong Siy.
(3) Spouses Ponciano and Eufemia Almeda - the couple was represented by the law firm
“Cedo, Ferrer, Maynigo and Associates” of which Atty. Cedo is a senior partner.