#5: CAYETANO V MONSOD

Facts:



Renato Cayetano now assails the appointment. He says that Monsod is not qualified to the position because hehas not been engaged
in the practice of law for ten years (requirement is provided by Consti Art. 9-C Sec. 1(1)).
Issue:
W/n Monsod is qualified for the position of COMELEC chairman.

Held:

SC says yes. Monsod passed the bar in 1960 and had been consistently paying his professional fees. He workedin a law firm for
several years after graduating but after that, had been more engaged in business and politics (fora list of his jobs, see p.238). Still, the
SC said that he can still be considered as practicing law, if we consider themodern concept of the practice of law. This modern concept
pertains to any act, whether in or out of court, whichrequires the application of law, legal procedure, knowledge, training and
experience.

SC now says that since most of Monsods jobs involved the law, even if he has not been engaged in traditionallawyering (i.e. making
pleadings or appearing in court), he can still be considered as to have been engaged in thepractice of law.

Dissents:
on the issue that the Consti requirement pertains to habitual practice of law. The dissenters pointed out
that for the past ten years, Monsod really seldom practiced law. This group believed that the Consti required that the practice of law be
on a regular basis. Justice Padilla even came up with qualifications habituality; compensation; application of law, legal principle,
practice or procedure; and atty.-client relationship to determine w/n a person has been engaged in the practice of law.

#6 Donna Marie S. Aguirre vs. Edwin L. Rana(B.M. No. 1036. June 10, 2003)
Facts: Respondent Edwin L. Rana ("respondent") was among those who passed the 2000 Bar Examinations. On 21 May 2001, one
day before the scheduled mass oath-taking of successful bar examinees as members of the Philippine Bar, complainant Donna
Marie Aguirre ("complainant") filed against respondent a Petition for Denial of Admission to the Bar. Complainant charged respondent
with unauthorized practice of law, grave misconduct, violation of law, and grave misrepresentation. The Court allowed respondent to
take his oath as a member of the Bar during the scheduled oath-taking on 22 May 2001 at the Philippine International Convention
Center. However, the Court ruled that respondent could not sign the Roll of Attorneys pending the resolution of the charge against him.
Thus, respondent took the lawyer's oath on the scheduled date but has not signed the Roll of Attorneys up to now. Complainant
charges respondent for unauthorized practice of law and grave misconduct. Complainant alleges that respondent, while not yet a
lawyer, appeared as counsel for a candidate in the May 2001 elections before the Municipal Board of Election Canvassers ("MBEC") of
Mandaon, Masbate. Complainant further alleges that respondent filed with the MBEC a pleading dated 19 May 2001 entitled Formal
Objection to the Inclusion in the Canvassing of Votes in Some Precincts for the Office of Vice-Mayor. In this pleading, respondent
represented himself as "counsel for and in behalf of Vice Mayoralty Candidate, George Bunan," and signed the pleading as counsel for
George Bunan ("Bunan"). In his Comment, respondent admits that Bunan sought his "specific assistance" to represent him before the
MBEC. Respondent claims that "he decided to assist and advice Bunan, not as a lawyer but as a person who knows the law."
Respondent admits signing the 19 May 2001 pleading that objected to the inclusion of certain votes in the canvassing. He explains,
however, that he did not sign the pleading as a lawyer or represented himself as an "attorney" in the pleading.

Issue: Whether respondent is engaged in unauthorized practice of law.

Held: Yes, We agree with the findings and conclusions of the OBC that respondent engaged in the unauthorized practice of law and
thus does not deserve admission to the Philippine Bar. Respondent took his oath as lawyer on 22 May 2001. However, the records
show that respondent appeared as counsel fo rBunan prior to 22 May 2001, before respondent took the lawyer's oath.

Verily, respondent was engaged in the practice of law when he appeared in the proceedings before the MBEC and filed various
pleadings, without license to do so. Evidence clearly supports the charge of unauthorized practice of law. Respondent called himself
"counsel" knowing fully well that he was not a member of the Bar. Having held himself out as "counsel" knowing that he had no
authority to practice law, respondent has shown moral unfitness to be a member of the Philippine Bar.

The right to practice law is not a natural or constitutional right but is a privilege. It is limited to persons of good moral character with
special qualifications duly ascertained and certified. The exercise of this privilege presupposes possession of integrity, legal
knowledge, educational attainment, and even public trust since a lawyer is an officer of the court. A bar candidate does not acquire the
right to practice law simply by passing the bar examinations. The practice of law is a privilege that can be withheld even from one who
has passed the bar examinations, if the person seeking admission had practiced law without a license.

True, respondent here passed the 2000 Bar Examinations and took the lawyer's oath. However, it is the signing in the Roll of Attorneys
that finally makes one a full-fledged lawyer. The fact that respondent passed the bar examinations is immaterial. Passing the bar is not
the only qualification to become an attorney-at-law. Respondent should know that two essential requisites for becoming a lawyer
still had to be performed, namely: his lawyer's oath to be administered by this Court and his signature in the Roll of Attorneys/

#15: COJUANGCO v PALMA
Facts: Complainant Cojuangco was a client of Angara Concepcion Regala and Cruz Law Offices and Palma was the lawyer assigned
to handle his cases. Palma's relationship with the Cojuangcos became intimate. He frequented their house and even tutored
Cojuangco's 22-year old daughter Maria Luis Cojuangco. Without the knowledge of complainant Cojuangco's family, Palma
married Lisa in Hongkong. It was only the next day that Palma informed complainant of such fact. Complainant was shocked, knowing
fully well that Palma is a married man and has 3 children. Complainant filed with CFI a petition for declaration of nullity of the marriage
between respondent Palma and Lisa. CFI delared that marriage null and void. Thereafter, Cojuangco filed with the SC the instant
complaint for disbarment. Meanwhile, the first division of SC issued a resolution setting aside the CFI Decision declaring the marriage
null and void and remanding the case to the CFI for proper proceeding. To this date, the records fail to disclose the outcome of this
case.

Issue:W/n Palma should be disbarred..

.Held: YES. There is no distinction as to whether the transgression is committed in the lawyer's professional capacity or in his private
life. Professional competency alone does not make a lawyer worthy member of the Bar. Good moral character is always an
indispensable requirement. The truth is respondent married Lisa while he has a subsisting marriage with Elizabeth
Herosisima. Therefore he exhibited a deplorable lack of that degree of morality required of him as a member of the bar. Respondent's
culpability is aggravated by the fact that Lisa was just 22 years old and was under psychological treatment for emotional
immaturity. The subsequent judgment of annullment of marriage has no bearing to the instant disbarment proceeding. A disbarment
case is sui generis for it is an investigation by the court into the conduct of its officers

# 1 6 : L e s l i e U i v s . A t t y . I r i s B o n i f a c i o A C # 3 3 1 9 J u n e 8 , 2 0 0 0

F:Leslie Ui and Carlos Ui were married on January 1971. On June 1988, Leslie confronted the respondent Atty. Iris Bonifacio for the
illicit affair . Respondent admitted the relationship and said that she will cut off thesaid relationship. On December 1988 Carlos and Iris
had a second child. On March 1989 complainant pleaded to respondent to stop their illicit relationship. On Atty Iris side, she asserts
that she had no knowledge of Carlos previous marriage. Carlos Ui was the one who represented himself as single during their
courtship. She submitted her Certificate of marriage dated Oct. 1985 to court. Upon the courts investigation it was found out that the
marriage was in fact on Oct 1987.In the case at bar, it is the claim of respondent Atty. Bonifacio that when she met Carlos Ui, she knew
and believed him to be single. Respondent fell in love with him and they got married and as a result of such marriage, she gave birth to
two (2) children. Upon her knowledge of the true civil status of Carlos Ui, she left him.

Issue: Whether or not Atty Iris Bonifacio is guilty of gross immoral conduct as aground for disbarment


UI v BONIFACIO
FACTS

-LESLIE Ui married CARLOS and had 4 children with him
-Subsquently, LESLIE found out CARLOS was having illicit relations with Atty IRIS Bonifacio and begot adaughter
-CARLOS admitted this relationship with LESLIE who confronted IRIS
-IRIS told LESLIE everything was over between her and CARLOS
-However, LESLIE found out later the illicit relations continued and IRIS even had 2
nd
child with CARLOS
-LESLIE filed a complaint for disbarment against IRIS on ground of immorality


-Met CARLOS who represented himself as a bachelor with children by a Chinese woman with whom he had long been estranged
-CARLOS and IRIS got married in Hawaii
-Upon return to Manila, they did not live together because CARLOS wanted his children with the Chinese woman to gradually know
and accept his marriage with IRIS
-When IRIS knew about the 1
st
marriage, she cut all ties with him
Answer
to impress upon the IBP that her 1
st
child by CARLOS was within wedlock
-IRIS indicated in Answer she got married to CARLOS in Oct 22, 1985
-However, Certificate of Marriage certified by State Registrar revealed that date of marriage was actuallyOct 22, 1987

I S S U E :
W / N I R I S S H O U L D B E D I S B A R R E D

H E L D
N O
RATIO
Immorality
must be
continuous

was imprudent in her personal affairs
together as husband
and wife, children by another woman, etc) but she did not do anything about it
ver, the fact remains that IRIS relationship with CARLOS was clothed with marriage and cannot be considered immoral
constitute a criminal act
or moral indifference to the opinion of respectable members of the community
flaunting the law

False allegation


Moreover, any prudent lawyer would verify the information contained in an attachment to her pleading especially in this case since IRIS
had personal knowledge of facts stated therein



#17: IN RE TAGORDA
Facts:
provincial board of Isabela.
to the last election, he used placards which in a way was advertising his services as a lawyer and notary public

He al so wrote a l etter to a l i eutenant of a barri o i n Echague,Isabel a. In essence he was i nformi ng the l i eutenant
tthat he wi l l be i n Echague duri ng the weekends and the l i eutenant shoul d convey thi s i nformati on to the other people
in his town.

Issue:


Held:
Yes, Tagorda is in a way advertising his services and this is contrary to the Canons of Professional Ethics (wala pa yung code of
professional responsibility, 1929 case to)
-merited reputation for professional capacity.
Sol i ci t at i on of busi ness by ci r cul ar s or adver t i sement s, or by per sonal communi cat i ons or i nt er vi ews n
ot warranted by personal relations, is unprofessional.

esults in
needless litigations and in incenting to strife.
Tagorda suspended for a month.

#18: ULEP V LEGAL CLINIC
FACTS:
prays the Supreme Court to order the Legal Clinic to cease, issuing advertisement similar to or of the sametenor as that of
annexes A and B (p381). Legal Clinic admits the facts of publication of said advertisement thatclaims that it is not engage in the
practice of law but in the rendering of legal support services through paralegalswith the use of modern computers and electronic
machine.

ISSUE:

n properly be the subject of the advertisement complained of.

HELD:
rvices
and legal services, common sense would readily dictate that the same are essentially without substantial distinction. The use of the
name the Legal Clinic gives the impression that the respondent corporation is being managed by lawyers and that it renders legal
services. The advertisement in question is meant to induce the performance of acts contrary to law, morals, public order and public
policy. This is in violation of Canon 1 Rule 1.02 that is counseling illegal activities.
ion of law, legal procedures, knowledge, training and
experience. Applying the case Cayetano vs. Monsod, the court agrees that the activities of the respondent Legal Clinic constitute the
practice of law. Such a conclusion will not be altered by the fact that respondent does not represent clients in court since law practice is
not limited merely to court appearances.
lawyer, in
making known his legal services shall use only true, honest, fair, and objective information or statement of facts. The proscription
against advertising of legal services rests on the fundamental postulate that the practice of law is a profession.

1. Publication in reputable law lists, in a manner consistent with the standards of conduct imposed by thecanon
2. Ordinary, simple professional card. The card may contain only the statement of his name, the law firm,address and branch of
law practiced.
dering that Atty. Nogales who is the prime incorporator, major stockholder and proprietor of the legal clinic is a member of the
Philippine Bar, he is hereby reprimanded with a warning that the repetition of the same or similar acts which are involved in this
proceeding will be dealt with more severely.

Ulep vs Legal Clinic June 17, 1993
Facts: Petitioner prays that respondent cease and desist from issuing ads similar to annexes A and B and to prohibit them from making
ads pertaining to theexercise of the law professions other than those allowed by law
- Annex A

SECRET MARRIAGE?
P560 for a valid marriage

Info on DIVORCE. ABSENCE. ANNULMENT. VISA.
THE LEGAL CLINIC, INC.
Pls call: 5210767, 5217232, 5222041
8:30am-6pm7F Victoria Bldg, UN Ave, Mla

- Annex B

GUAM DIVORCED ON PARKINSON
An Atty in Guam, is giving FREE BOOKS on Guam Divorce thru the Leg Clinic beg Mon-Fri during office hours

Guam divorce. Annulment of Marriage. Immigration Probs, Visaext. Quota/Non-quota Res and Special Retirees Visa.Declaration of
Absence. Remarriage to Filipina Fiancees.Adoption. Investment in the Phil. US/Foreign Visa for FilipinaSp/Shil. Call Marivic THE
LEGAL CLINIC, etc

Petitioners Claim:-Ads are unethical and demeaning of the law profession and destructive of the confidence of the community in
the integrity of the members of the bar.-As a member of the legal profession, he is ashamed and offended by the ads Respondents
Comment:-They are not engaged in the practice of law but in the rendering of leg support services thru paralegals with the use of
modern computers and electronic machines- Even if they are leg services, the act of advertising them should be allowed under Bates v.
State bar of Arizona

Issues:
1. WON the services offered by The Legal Clinic constitutes practice of law?
2. WON their services can be advertised?

Held:
1. Yes. The Practice of law involves any activity, in or out of the court, which requires the application of law, legal procedures,
knowledge, training and expertise
- To engage in the practice is to perform those acts which are characteristic of the profession; to give advice or render any kind of
service that involves legal knowledge/skill
- Not limited to the conduct of cases in court; includes legal advice and counsel and preparation of legal instruments and contracts by
which legal rights are secured regardless of WON theyre pending in court
3 types of legal profession activity: 1. legal advice and instructions to clients to inform them of their rights and obligations 2. preparation
for clients of documents requiring knowledge of legal principles not possessed by ordinary layman 3. appearance for clients before
public tribunals which possess power and authority to determine rights of life, liberty and property according to law, in order to assist in
proper inter and enforcement of law.
Respondents description of its services shows it falls within the practice of law: Giving info by paralegals to laymen and lawyers thru
the use of comps and modern info tech- computerized legal research, document search, evidence gathering, locating parties/witnesses
to a case, fact finding investigations, assistance to laymen in need of services from agencies like birth, marriage, prop, bus
registrations, etc.*even if some of the services offered merely involve mechanical and technical knowhow like installing computer
system for law offices, this doesnt make it an exception to the general rule- gives out leg info to laymen and lawyers not non-advisory
and non-diagnostic ex. foreign laws on marriage, divorce and adoption have to explain to client the intricacies of the law and advise
him on the proper course of action- what its ads represent and what it will be paid for- It doesnt matter that they dont represent clients
in court since practice of law isnt limited to ct appearances but also leg research, leg advice and drafting contracts Phil Star Art Rx
for Leg Probs, int by proprietor Atty Nogales:- Takes care of probs as complicated as the Cuneta-Concepcion domestic sit- lawyers,
who like drs, are specialists in various fields and can take care of it (taxation, crim law, medico-leg probs, labor, litigation, fam law)
- backed up by paralegals, counselors and attys- caters to clients who cant afford big firms- can prepare a simple deed of sale or
affidavit of loss and also those w/ more extensive treatment
-The fact that they employ paralegals to carry out its services doesnt matter; whats important is that its engaged in the practice of law
cause of the nature of the services it renders, which brings it within the statutory prohibitions against ads only a person duly admitted
as a member of the bar and whos in good and regular standing is entitled to the practice of law
- public policy requires that the practice of law be limited to those individuals found duly qualified in education and character to protect
the public, court,client and bar from incompetence/dishonesty of those unlicensed to the practice and not subject to the discipline of
court

2.No. The Code of Professional Responsibility provides that a lawyer, in making known his legal services, shall use only true, honest,
fair, dignified and objective info/statement of facts
- not supposed to use any false, fraudulent, misleading, deceptive, undignified, self-laudatory or unfair statement re his
qualifications/legal services
- not supposed to pay representatives of the mass media in return for publicity to attract legal business
Canons of professional Ethics (before CPR) provides that lawyers shouldnt resort to indirect ads for professional employment like
furnishing newspaper comments, publishing his pictures with causes the lawyers been engaged in, importance of his position and
other self-laudation. Stands of legal profession condemn lawyers advertisement of his talents like a merchant does of his goods
because of the fact that law is a profession. The canons of profession tell us that the best advertising possible for a lawyer is a well-
merited reputation for professional capacity and fidelity to trust which must be earned as the outcome of character and conduct. Good
and efficient service to a client and the community has a way of publicizing itself and catching public attention; this shouldnt be done
thru propaganda
EXCEPTIONS:
1. expressly allowed publication in reputable law lists of informative data thats not misleading and may include only: name,
professional assoc, adds, nos,branches of law practiced, date and place of birth and admission to the bar, schools attended
w/ dates of grad, degrees , public offices, posts of honor, legalauthorships, legal teaching positions, membership and offices in
bar association, legal and scientific societies and legal fraternities, listings in other reputablelaw lists, names and adds of
references with written consent and clients regularly represented
- cant be mere supplemental feature of paper, magazine, trade journal or periodical thats published for other purposes- never in a
law list that are calculated or likely to deceive/injure the public/the bar or lower the dignity/standing of the profession
- ordinary simple professional card allowed
name, law firm, add, no and special branch of law practiced- publication of simple announcement of the opening of a law firm or
change in partnership, assoc, firm name or office add, for the convenience of theprofession- have name listed in phone directory but
not under designation of special branch of law
2. necessarily implied from the restrictions Bates v. State Bar of Arizona: allowed lawyer to publish a statement of leg fees for an initial
consultation or give, uponrequest, a written schedule of fees or estimate for spec services as an exception to the prohibition against
advertisements by lawyers


# 19. Atty. Ismael G. Khan Jr. vs. Atty. Rizalino T. Simbillo


FACTS:
-4333/521-
2667.
information.
ng
annulment cases and guarantees a court decree within 4-6 month. The services of Atty.Simbillo is for P48,000. half of which is payable
at the filing of the case and the balance after the decision hasbeen rendered.

ing the Code of ProfessionalResponsibility, Rule 2.03 and
3.01.

se and that
it is about time to change our views about the prohibition on advertising and solicitation. He also said that the interest of the public is
not served by the prohibition and suggested that the ban be lifted.
lt with more severely.
uy & Sell
Free Ads Magazine.

ISSUE:

WON Atty. Rizalino Simbillo is guilty of violating Rule 2.03 and Rule 3.01 of the Code of ProfessionalResponsibility and Rule 138,
Section 27 of theRules of Court

HELD:
YES!
le 3.01
states that a lawyer shall not use or permit the use of any false, fraudulent, misleading, deceptive, undignified, self-laudatory or unfair
statement or claim regarding his qualifications or legal services.
the practice of law is not a business. It is a profession in which the duty to public service, not
money, is the primary consideration. The gaining of livelihood should be a secondary consideration.
urance of his clients that an annulment may be
obtained in 4-6 months from the filing of the case encourages people, who might other have 2nd thought, to dissolve their marriage.
However, solicitation must be compatible with the dignity of the legal profession. The
use of simple signs stating the name/s of the lawyers, the office and residence address and the fields of expertise, as well as
advertisement in legal periodicals bearing the same brief data, are permissible.
The use of calling cards is now acceptable.

Canon 3
Khan, Jr., vs Simbillo August 19, 2003

Facts: Atty. Rizalino Simbillo publicized his legal services in the July 5, 2000 issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer via a paid
advertisement which read:Annulment of Marriage Specialist 532-4333/521-2667. A staff member of the Public Information Office of
the Supreme Court took notice and called the number posing as an interested party. She spoke to Mrs. Simbillo, who said that her
husband was an expert in handling annulment cases and can guarantee a court decree within four to six months, and that the fee was
P48,000. Further research by the Office of the Court Administrator and the Public Information Office revealed that similar ads were
published in the August 2 and 6, 2000 issues of the Manila Bulletin and August 5, 2000 issue of the Philippine Star. Atty.Ismael Khan,
Jr., in his capacity as Assistant Court Administrator and Chief of the Public Information Office filed an administrative complaint against
Atty. Simbillo for improper advertising and solicitation in violation of Rule 2.03 and Rule 3.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
and Rule 138, Section 27 of the Rules of Court. The case was referred to the IBP for investigation, report and recommendation.
IBP found respondent guilty. Respondent filed an Urgent Motion for Reconsideration, which was denied. Hence, this petition for
certiorari Issue:

WON Atty. Rizalino Simbillo is guilty of violating Rule 2.03 and Rule 3.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Rule 138,
Section 27 of the Rules of Court

Held: Yes, petitioner was suspended from the practice of law for one year and was sternly warned that a repetition of the same or
similar offense will be dealt with more severely.

Ratio: The practice of law is not a business. It is a profession in which duty to public service, not money is the primary consideration.

Reasoning:
- Rule 2.03 - A lawyer shall not do or permit to be done any act designed primarily to solicit legal business.
- Rule 3.01 - A lawyer shall not use or permit the use of any false, fraudulent, misleading, deceptive, undignified, self-
laudatory or unfair statement orclaim regarding his qualifications or legal services.
- Rule 138, Sec 27 of the Rules of Court states: Disbarment and suspension of attorneys by Supreme Court, grounds therefore.
A member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice, or
other gross misconduct in such office, grossly immoral conduct or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, or for
any violation of the oath which he is required to take before the admission to practice, or for a willful disobedience appearing as
attorney for a party without authority to do so.
- The following elements distinguish legal profession from business:1. A duty of public service 2. A relation as an officer of the court to
the administration of justice involving thorough sincerity, integrity and reliability 3. A relation to clients in the highest degree of fiduciary
4. A relation to colleagues at the bar characterized by candor, fairness, and unwillingness to resort to current business methods of
advertising and encroachment on their practice, or dealing directly with their clients.- Respondent advertised himself as an Annulment
Specialist, and by this he undermined the stability and sanctity of marriage encouraging people who might have otherwise been
disinclined and would have refrained form dissolving their marriage bonds, to do so.- Solicitation of legal business is not altogether
proscribed, however, for solicitation to be proper, it must be compatible with the dignity of the legal profession.

#20: BR SEBASTIAN v CA
Facts:

the Director of Public Works was exonerated.
During the pendency of the appeal, Reyes died. He was substituted by his heirs (the Reyeses).
file Appelants Brief within 45 days from receipt.


reconsideration. It alleged that as a result of the death of Atty Crispin Baizas, senior partner, theaffairs of the aid firm are still being
settled between Atty. Jose Baizas (son of Crispin) and Atty Ruby Alberto. Andthat Atty Espiritu, the lawyer who handled this case in the
trial court and who is believed to have also attended tothe preparation of the Appelants Brief but failed to submit it through oversight
and inadvertence, had also leftthe firm.

Issue:


Held:

his case, no fraud is involved. Only simple negligence on the part of the BRS counsel.
failure to file the
brief.
The responsibility of the associates to the petitioner as counsel remained until withdrawal by the former of their appearance in the
manner provided by the Rules of Court.
The law firm should have assigned the case to another associate. Or it could have withdrawn as counsel in the manner provided by
the Rules of Court so that the petitioner could contract the services of a new lawyer.
The negligence of the counsel binds the client

#22 Vitriolo vs. Dasig(A.C. No. 4984, April 1, 2003)
Facts: The complainants, all high ranking officials of the Commission on Higher Education (CHED), filed an administrative case for
disbarment against Atty.Felina S. Dasig, also an official of the CHED. The charge involves gross misconduct of respondent in violation
of the Attorneys Oath for having used her public office to secure financial spoils to the detriment of the dignity and reputation of the
CHED. The complainants allege that during her tenure as OIC of the Legal Affairs Service of the CHED, she attempted to extort from
four different people sums of money as consideration for her favorable action on their pending applications or requests before her
office.

Issue: Whether or not respondent should be disbarred for the acts she committed during her tenure

Held: The respondent was DISBARRED for violation of the Attorneys Oath as well as of Rule 1.01 and 1.03 of Canon 1 and Rule 6.02
of Canon 6 of the Code of Professional Responsibility for acts of dishonesty and gross misconduct as OIC of Legal
Services. Respondents attempts to extort money from persons with applications or requests pending before her office are violative of
Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which prohibits members of the Bar from engaging or participating in any
unlawful, dishonest, or deceitful acts. Said acts also constitute a breach of Rule 6.02 of the Code which bars lawyers in government
service from promoting their private interests. Promotion of private interests includes soliciting gifts or anything of monetary value in
any transaction requiring the approval of his office or which may be affected by the functions of his office.


PCGG v SANDIGANBAYAN
*kalokohan na kaso to, 140++ pages (disclaimer) main decision 28 pages lang** merong history of Rule 6.03 and other historical
stuff sa case

Facts:
e
hope of rehabilitating it (P310M). Nonetheless, Genbank failed to recover.
wi nni ng the bi d.
Sol i ci tor General Mendoza, representi ng the government, i ntervened wi th the l i qui dati on of Genbank.
er EDSA I, Cory established the PCGG to recover the ill-gotten wealth of Marcos, his family and cronies.
1987: PCGG fi l ed a case agai nst Luci o Tan and certai n other peopl e (basta marami si l a). In rel ati on to thi s
case,PCGG i ssued several wri ts of sequestrati on on properti es al l egedl y acqui red by the respondents
by taki ngadvantage of their close relationship and influence with Marcos. Sandiganbayan heard the case.

1991: PCGG fi l ed a moti on to di squal i fy Mendoza, because of hi s parti ci pati on i n the l i qui dati on of
Genbank.Genbank (now Al l i ed Bank) i s one of the properti es that PCGG i s seeki ng to be sequestered from
the Luci on Tangroup. PCGG invoked Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Sandi ganbayan deni ed PCGG s moti on. Accordi ng to the Sandi ganbayan, Mendoza di d not take an adverseposi ti on
to that taken on behal f of the Central Bank. And Mendoza s appearance as counsel was beyond the 1 year prohibitory
period since he retired in 1986.

Issue:


Held:

The matter (see 3
rd
note), or the act of Mendoza as Sol i ci tor General i s advi si ng the Central Bank on how to proceed
wi th the l i qui dati on of Gen bank. Thi s i s not the matter contempl ated by Rul e 6.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
The matter involved in the liquidation of Gen bank is entirely different from the matter involved in the PCGG case against the Lucio
Tan group.
The i nterventi on contempl ated i n Rul e 6.03 shoul d be substanti al and i mportant. The rol e of Mendoza i n the
liquidation of Gen bank is considered insubstantial.
even questioning why PCGG took such a long time to revive the motion to disqualify Mendoza. Apparently, PCGG already lost a
lot of cases against Mendoza. Kyles interpretation: PCGG getting desperate
that Rule 6.03 will make it harder for the government to get good l awyers
i n the future to work for them because of the prohi bi ti on of accepti ng cases i n the future that were related to ones work
as a government counsel.

Concurring Opinions:
& Carpio: the congruent interest prong of Rule 6.03 should have a prescriptive period
Tinga: Rule 6.03 cannot apply retroactively to Mendoza (when he was Solicitor General, no Rule 6.03 yet)
Bottom l i ne, they are al l questi oni ng the unfai rness of the r ul e i f appl i ed wi thout any prescri pti ve peri od and
i f applied retroactively

Notes:
Adverse-i nterest confl i cts where the matter i n whi ch the former government l awyer represents a cl i ent i n
pr i vat e pr act i ce i s subst ant i al l y r el at ed t o a mat t er t hat t he l awyer deal t wi t h whi l e empl oyed wi t h t he
government and the interests of the current and former are adverse
-interest conflicts the use of the word conflict is a misnomer, it does not involve conflicts at all, as it prohibits lawyers
from representing a private person even if the interests of the former government client and the new client are entirely parallel
any discrete, isolatable act as well as identifiable transaction or conduct involving a particular situation and specific party
interference that may affect the interests of others