Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC

A.C. No. 3701 March 28, 1995 PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BAN , complainant, vs. ATT!. TELES"ORO S. CE#O, respondent. RESO !"#ON

BI#IN, J.: #n a verified letter$complaint dated Au%ust &', &((&, complainant Philippine National Ban) char%ed respondent Att*. "elesforo S. Cedo, former Asst. +ice$President of the Asset Mana%ement ,roup of complainant ban) -ith violation of Canon ., Rule ../0 of the Code of Professional Responsibilit*, thus1 A la-*er shall not, after leavin% %overnment service, accept en%a%ement or emplo*ment in connection -ith an* matter in -hich he had intervened -hile in said service. b* appearin% as counsel for individuals -ho had transactions -ith complainant ban) in -hich respondent durin% his emplo*ment -ith aforesaid ban), had intervened. Complainant averred that -hile respondent -as still in its emplo*, he participated in arran%in% the sale of steel sheets 2denominated as ots '3$M and ''$M4 in favor of Mila%ros On% Si* for P5//,///. 6e even 7noted7 the %ate passes issued b* his subordinate, Mr. Emmanuel Elefan, in favor of Mrs. On% Si* authori8in% the pull$out of the steel sheets from the 9MC Man 9ivision Compound. :hen a civil action arose out of this transaction bet-een Mrs. On% Si* and complainant ban) before the Re%ional "rial Court of Ma)ati, Branch &3., respondent -ho had since left the emplo* of complainant ban), appeared as one of the counsels of Mrs. On% Si*. Similarl*, -hen the same transaction became the sub;ect of an administrative case filed b* complainant ban) a%ainst his former subordinate Emmanuel Elefan, for %rave misconduct and dishonest*, respondent appeared as counsel for Elefan onl* to be later dis<ualified b* the Civil Service Commission. Moreover, -hile respondent -as still the Asst. +ice President of complainant=s Asset Mana%ement ,roup, he intervened in the handlin% of the loan account of the spouses Ponciano and Eufemia Almeda -ith complainant ban) b* -ritin% demand letters to the couple. :hen a civil action ensued bet-een complainant ban) and the Almeda spouses as a result of this loan account, the latter -ere represented b* the la- firm 7Cedo, >errer, Ma*ni%o ? Associates7 of -hich respondent is one of the Senior Partners. #n his Comment on the complaint, respondent admitted that he appeared as counsel for Mrs. On% Si* but onl* -ith respect to the e@ecution pendin% appeal of the R"C decision. 6e alle%ed that he did not participate in the liti%ation of the case before the trial court. :ith respect to the case of the Almeda spouses, respondent alle%ed that he never appeared as counsel for them. 6e contended that -hile the la- firm 7Cedo >errer, Ma*ni%o ? Associates7 is desi%nated as counsel of record, the case is actuall* handled onl* b* Att*. Pedro >errer. Respondent averred that he did not enter into a %eneral partnership -ith Att*. Pedro >errer nor -ith the other la-*ers named therein. "he* are onl* usin% the aforesaid name to desi%nate a la- firm maintained b* la-*ers, -ho althou%h not partners, maintain one office as -ell as one clerical and supportin% staff. Each one of them handles their o-n cases independentl* and individuall* receives the revenues therefrom -hich are not shared amon% them.

#n the resolution of this Court dated Aanuar* 5B, &((5, this case -as referred to the #nte%rated Bar of the Philippines 2#BP4, for investi%ation, report and recommendation. 9urin% the investi%ation conducted b* the #BP, it -as discovered that respondent -as previousl* fined b* this Court in the amount of P&,///.// in connection -ith ,.R. No. (33'. entitled 7Mila%ros On% Si* vs. 6on. Salvador "ensuan, et al.7 for forum shoppin%, -here respondent appeared as counsel for petitioner Mila%ros On% Si* 7throu%h the la- firm of Cedo >errer Ma*ni%o and Associates.7 "he #BP further found that the char%es herein a%ainst respondent -ere full* substantiated. RespondentCs averment that the lafirm handlin% the case of the Almeda spouses is not a partnership deserves scant consideration in the li%ht of the attestation of complainantCs counsel, Att*. Pedro Sin%son, that in one of the hearin%s of the Almeda spousesC case, respondent attended the same -ith his partner Att*. >errer, and althou%h he did not enter his appearance, he -as practicall* dictatin% to Att*. >errer -hat to sa* and ar%ue before the court. >urthermore, durin% the hearin% of the application for a -rit of in;unction in the same case, respondent impliedl* admitted bein% the partner of Att*. >errer, -hen it -as made of record that respondent -as -or)in% in the same office as Att*. >errer. Moreover, the #BP noted that assumin% the alle%ed set$up of the firm is true, it is in itself a violation of the Code of Professional Responsibilit* 2Rule &'./54 since the client=s secrets and confidential records and information are e@posed to the other la-*ers and staff members at all times. >rom the fore%oin%, the #BP found a deliberate intent on the part of respondent to devise -a*s and means to attract as clients former borro-ers of complainant ban) since he -as in the best position to see the le%al -ea)nesses of his former emplo*er, a convincin% factor for the said clients to see) his professional service. #n sum, the #BP sa- a deliberate sacrifice b* respondent of his ethics in consideration of the mone* he e@pected to earn. "he #BP thus recommended the suspension of respondent from the practice of la- for 0 *ears. "he records sho- that after the Board of ,overnors of the #BP had, on October 3, &((3, submitted to this Court its Report and recommendation in this case, respondent filed a Motion for Reconsideration dated October 5', &((3 of the recommendation contained in the said Report -ith the #BP Board of ,overnors. On 9ecember &5, &((3, respondent also filed another 7Motion to Set 6earin%7 before this Court, the aforesaid Motion for Reconsideration. #n resolvin% this case, the Court too) into consideration the aforesaid pleadin%s. #n addition to the findin%s of the #BP, this Court finds this occasion appropriate to emphasi8e the paramount importance of avoidin% the representation of conflictin% interests. #n the similar case of Pasay Law and Conscience Union, Inc. vs. Paz, 2(' SCRA 53 D&(E/F4 -here a former e%al Officer and e%al Prosecutor of PAR,O -ho participated in the investi%ation of the Anti$,raft case a%ainst Ma*or Pablo Cuneta later on acted as counsel for the said Ma*or in the same anti$%raft case, this Court, citin% Nombrado vs. Hernandez 25. SCRA &0 &&(.E&4 ruled1 "he Solicitor ,eneral is of the opinion, and -e find no reason to disa%ree -ith him, that even if respondent did not use a%ainst his client an* information or evidence ac<uired b* him as counsel it cannot be denied that he did become priv* to information re%ardin% the o-nership of the parcel of land -hich -as later liti%ated in the forcible entr* case, for it -as the dispute over the land that tri%%ered the maulin% incident -hich %ave rise to the criminal action for ph*sical in;uries. "his CourtCs remar)s in Hilado vs. David, E3 Phil. 'B&, are apropos1 7Communications bet-een attorne* and client are, in a %reat number of liti%ations, a complicated affair, consistin% of entan%led relevant and irrelevant, secret and -ell$)no-n facts. #n the comple@it* of -hat is said in the course of dealin%s bet-een an attorne* and client, in<uir* of the nature su%%ested -ould lead to the revelation, in advance of the trial, of other matters that mi%ht onl* further pre;udice the complainantCs cause.7 :hatever ma* be said as to -hether or not respondent utili8ed a%ainst his former client information %iven to him in a professional capacit*, the mere fact of their previous relationship should have precluded him from appearin% as counsel for the other side in the forcible entr* case. #n the case ofHilado vs. David, supra, this "ribunal further said1

6ence the necessit* of settin% the e@istence of the bare relationship of attorne* and client as the *ardstic) for testin% incompatibilit* of interests. "his stern rule is desi%ned not alone to prevent the dishonest practitioner from fraudulent conduct, but as -ell to protect the honest la-*er from unfounded suspicion of unprofessional practice. . . . #t is founded on principles of public polic*, of %ood taste. As has been said in another case, the <uestion is not necessaril* one of the ri%hts of the parties, but as to -hether the attorne* has adhered to proper professional standard. :ith these thou%hts in mind, it behooves attorne*, li)e CaesarCs -ife, not onl* to )eep inviolate the clientCs confidence, but also to avoid the appearance of treacher* and double dealin%. Onl* thus can liti%ants. be encoura%ed to entrust their secrets to their attorne*s -hich is of paramount importance in the administration of ;ustice. "he fore%oin% dis<uisition on conflictin% interest applies -ith e<ual force and effect to respondent in the case at bar. 6avin% been an e@ecutive of complainant ban), respondent no- see)s to liti%ate as counsel for the opposite side, a case a%ainst his former emplo*er involvin% a transaction -hich he formerl* handled -hile still an emplo*ee of complainant, in violation of Canon . of the Canons of Professional Ethics on adverse influence and conflictin% interests, to -it1 #t is unprofessional to represent conflictin% interests, e@cept b* e@press conflictin% consent of all concerned %iven after a full disclosure of the facts. :ithin the meanin% of this canon, a la-*er represents conflictin% interest -hen, in behalf on one client, it is his dut* to contend for that -hich dut* to another client re<uires him to oppose. ACCOR9#N, G, this Court resolves to S!SPEN9 respondent A""G. "E ES>ORO S. CE9O from the practice of la- for "6REE 204 GEARS, effective immediatel*. et copies of this resolution be furnished the #nte%rated Bar of the Philippines and all courts in Metro Manila. SO OR9ERE9.