Philippine National Bank v. Atty. Telesforo S. Cedo| March 28, 1995| AC No.

3701 | Justice Bidin

Nature of the Case: Suspension from the Practice of Law
Complainant: Philippine National Bank
Respondent: Atty. Telesforo S. Cedo

Summary: The Philippine National Bank (PNB) charged Atty. Telesforo S. Cedo, former Assistant Vice 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.

Topic: Canon 6, Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility

FACTS:

 In this case, the 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:
“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 for individuals who had transactions with PNB.

 3 INSTANCES
 1st instance: counsel for Mr. Milagros Ong Siy
How?
While still in PNB: a) He participated in arranging the sale of steel sheets (denominated as Lots
54-M and 55-M) in favor of Milagros Ong Siy for 200,000 PHP
b) noted the gate passes issued by subordinate, Emmanuel Elefan, which authorized Ong
Siy to pull-out steel sheets from the DMC Man Division Compound
After: appeared as counsel for Ong Siy before RTC Makati, Branch 146 when civil complaint was
filed against Ong Siy by PNB

 2nd instance: counsel for Emmanuel Elefan (before he was disqualified by the Civil Service Commission)
-Elefan was charged also by PNB for grave misconduct and dishonesty in relation to the issuance
of gate passes to Mr. Ong Siy.

 3rd instance: counsel for spouses Ponciano and Eufemia Almeda

While still in PNB: Atty. Cedo intervened in the handling of the loan account of the couple by
writing demand letters to them
-when civil action arose, the couple was represented by the law firm “Cedo, Ferrer, Maynigo and
Associates” of which Atty. Cedo is a senior partner.

 Atty. Cedo alleged that he did not participate in the litigation of Mr. Ong Siy’s case.
 With regard to the Almeda spouses’ case, he alleged that he never appeared as counsel. Eventhough the
firm’s name is declared, he argued that only Atty. Pedro Ferrer handles the case.
  He further argued that he did not enter into a general partnership with the other named partners. They
are only using his name to designate a law firm maintained by lawyers, who although not partners,
maintain one office as well as one clerical and supporting staff. They handle their own cases
independently and individually receives the revenues.

 IBP, through its investigation:

 Discovered that Atty. Cedo was previously fined 1000 PHP by the Court in Milagros V. Ong Siy v. Hon.
Salvador Tensuon, et. al. for FORUM SHOPPING when he appeared as counsel in that case.
 Arguments by complainant are fully substantiated.
 In Almeda spouses’ case, Atty. Cedo attended a hearing with Atty. Ferrer. It was even seen that he was
practically throwing the arguments for Atty. Ferrer to say before the court. He also impliedly admitted
then that he’s a partner of Atty. Ferrer in the aforementioned firm.
 Also, Atty. Cedo violated Rule 15.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility because by his acts, he was
actually revealing the client’s confidential records and information (in PNB) to other lawyers.
 There was a deliberate sacrifice of ethics for money.
 Recommended that Atty. Cedo be suspended for 3 years.

 Atty Cedo filed a Motion for Reconsideration

ISSUE + RULING:

1) WON Atty. Cedo should be suspended? YES

 Court emphasizes the importance of avoiding the representation of conflicting interests.

Nombrado v. Hernandez: even if respondent did not use against his client any information or evidence acquired
by him as counsel, it cannot be denied that he did become privy to the information

Hilado v. David: "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."

 Atty. Cedo violated Canon 6 of the Canons of Professional Ethics

“It is unprofessional to represent conflicting interests, except by express conflicting consent of all
concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts. Within the meaning of this canon, a lawyer represents
conflicting interest when, in behalf on one client, it is his duty to contend for that which duty to another
client requires him to oppose.”

FINAL RULING:

Court resolves to SUSPEND respondent ATTY. TELESFORO S. CEDO from the practice of law for THREE (3) YEARS