WILFREDO M. CATU vs. ATTY. VICENTE G.

RELLOSA
A.C. No. 5738
February 19, 2008
FACTS:
Petitioner is a co-owner of a lot and a building wherein his wife, Elizabeth Diaz-Catu and Antonio Pasto possessed one of the units in the building.
His mother and brother contested, and a complaint was initiated against the wife and Pasto in the Lupong Tagapamayapa. Respondent, as punong
barangay, summoned the parties to conciliation meetings. When the parties failed to arrive at an amicable settlement, respondent issued a
certification for the filing of the appropriate action in court.

Thereafter, Regina and Antonio filed a complaint for ejectment against Elizabeth and Pastor. Respondent entered his appearance as counsel for the
defendants in that case. Because of this, complainant filed the instant administrative complaint, claiming that respondent committed an act of
impropriety as a lawyer and as a public officer when he stood as counsel for the defendants despite the fact that he presided over the conciliation
proceedings between the litigants as Punong barangay.In his defense, respondent claimed that one of his duties as punong barangay was to hear
complaints referred to the barangay's Lupong Tagapamayapa.

The complaint was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and recommendation. As there was no factual issue
to thresh out, the IBP's Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) required the parties to submit their respective position papers. After evaluating the
contentions of the parties, the IBP-CBD found sufficient ground to discipline respondent.

ISSUE: Whether or not respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibility.

HELD:
No. Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility Applies Only to Former Government Lawyers. Respondent cannot be found liable for
violation of Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. As worded,that Rule applies only to a lawyer who has left government service and
in connection "with any matter in which he intervened while in said service. Rule 6.03 prohibits former government lawyers from accepting
"engagement or employment in connection with any matter in which [they] had intervened while in said service." Respondent was an incumbent
punong barangay at the time he committed the act complained of. Therefore, he was not covered by that provision.

However, as a civil service officer or employee whose responsibilities do not require his time to be fully at the disposal of the government can engage
in the private practice of law only with the written permission of the head of the department concerned as provided in Section 12, Rule XVIII of the
Revised Civil Service Rules provides:

Sec. 12. No officer or employee shall engage directly in any private business, vocation, or profession or be connected with any commercial, credit,
agricultural, or industrial undertaking without a written permission from the head of the Department: Provided, That this prohibition will be
absolute in the case of those officers and employees whose duties and responsibilities require that their entire time be at the disposal of the
Government; Provided, further, That if an employee is granted permission to engage in outside activities, time so devoted outside of office hours
should be fixed by the agency to the end that it will not impair in any way the efficiency of the officer or employee: And provided, finally, that no
permission is necessary in the case of investments, made by an officer or employee, which do not involve real or apparent conflict between his
private interests and public duties, or in any way influence him in the discharge of his duties, and he shall not take part in the management of the
enterprise or become an officer of the board of directors.

As punong barangay, respondent should have therefore obtained the prior written permission of the Secretary of Interior and Local Government
before he entered his appearance as counsel for Elizabeth and Pastor. This he failed to do.The failure of respondent to comply with Section 12, Rule
XVIII of the Revised Civil Service Rules constitutes a violation of his oath as a lawyer: to obey the laws.

In acting as counsel for a party without first securing the required written permission, respondent not only engaged in the unauthorized practice of
law but also violated civil service rules which is a breach of Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility:

Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.

For not living up to his oath as well as for not complying with the exacting ethical standards of the legal profession, respondent also failed to comply
with Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility:

CANON 7. A LAWYER SHALL AT ALL TIMES UPHOLD THE INTEGRITY AND THE DIGNITY OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION AND
SUPPORT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE INTEGRATED BAR

Indeed, a lawyer who disobeys the law disrespects it. In so doing, he disregards legal ethics and disgraces the dignity of the legal profession. A
member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended from his office as an attorney for violation of the lawyer's Oath and/or for breach of the ethics of
the legal profession as embodied in the Code of Professional Responsibility.

FALLO

WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Vicente G. Rellosa is hereby found GUILTY of professional misconduct for violating his oath as a lawyer and
Canons 1 and 7 and Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He is therefore SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of six
months effective from his receipt of this resolution. He is sternly WARNED that any repetition of similar acts shall be dealt with more severely
Respondent is strongly advised to look up and take to heart the meaning of the word delicadeza.
 PCGG V SANDIGANBAYAN

FACTS

In 1976 the General Bank and Trust Company (GENBANK) encountered financial difficulties. GENBANK had
extended considerable financial support to Filcapital Development Corporation causing it to incur daily overdrawings on its current
account with Central Bank. Despite the mega loans GENBANK failed to recover from its financial woes. The Central Bank issued a
resolution declaring GENBANK insolvent and unable to resume business with safety to its depositors, creditors and the general
public, and ordering its liquidation. A public bidding of GENBANK’s assets was held where Lucio Tan group submitted the winning
bid. Solicitor General Estelito Mendoza filed a petition with the CFI praying for the assistance and supervision of the court in
GENBANK’s liquidation as mandated by RA 265. After EDSA Revolution I Pres Aquino established the PCGG to recover the alleged
ill-gotten wealth of former Pres Marcos, his family and cronies. Pursuant to this mandate, the PCGG filed with the Sandiganbayan a
complaint for reversion, reconveyance, restitution against respondents Lucio Tan, at.al. PCGG issued several writs of sequestration on
properties allegedly acquired by them by taking advantage of their close relationship and influence with former Pres. Marcos. The
abovementioned respondents Tan, et. al are represented as their counsel, former Solicitor General Mendoza. PCGG filed motions to
disqualify respondent Mendoza as counsel for respondents Tan et. al. with Sandiganbayan. It was alleged that Mendoza as then Sol
Gen and counsel to Central Bank actively intervened in the liquidation of GENBANK which was subsequently acquired by
respondents Tan et. al., which subsequently became Allied Banking Corporation. The motions to disqualify invoked Rule 6.03 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility which prohibits former government lawyers from accepting “engagement” or employment in
connection with any matter in which he had intervened while in the said service. The Sandiganbayan issued a resolution denyting
PCGG’s motion to disqualify respondent Mendoza. It failed to prove the existence of an inconsistency between respondent Mendoza’s
former function as SolGen and his present employment as counsel of the Lucio Tan group. PCGGs recourse to this court assailing the
Resolutions of the Sandiganbayan.

ISSUE

Whether Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility applies to respondent Mendoza. The prohibition states: “A lawyer shall
not, after leaving government service, accept engagement or employment in connection with any matter in which he had intervened
while in the said service.”

HELD

The case at bar does not involve the “adverse interest” aspect of Rule 6.03. Respondent Mendoza, it is conceded, has no adverse
interest problem when he acted as SOlGen and later as counsel of respondents et.al. before the Sandiganbayan. However there is still
the issue of whether there exists a “congruent-interest conflict” sufficient to disqualify respondent Mendoza from representing
respondents et. al. The key is unlocking the meaning of “matter” and the metes and bounds of “intervention” that he made on the
matter. Beyond doubt that the “matter” or the act of respondent Mendoza as SolGen involved in the case at bar is “advising the Central
Bank, on how to proceed with the said bank’s liquidation and even filing the petition for its liquidation in CFI of Manila. The Court
held that the advice given by respondent Mendoza on the procedure to liquidate GENBANK is not the “matter” contemplated by Rule
6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. ABA Formal Opinion No. 342 is clear in stressing that “drafting, enforcing or
interpreting government or agency procedures, regulations and laws, or briefing abstract principles of law are acts which do not fall
within the scope of the term “matter” and cannot disqualify. Respondent Mendoza had nothing to do with the decision of the Central
Bank to liquidate GENBANK. He also did not participate in the sale of GENBANK to Allied Bank. The legality of the liquidation of
GENBANK is not an issue in the sequestration cases. Indeed, the jurisdiction of the PCGG does not include the dissolution and
liquidation of banks. Thus, the Code 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility cannot apply to respondent Mendoza because his
alleged intervention while SolGen is an intervention on a matter different from the matter involved in the Civil case of
sequestration. In the metes and bounds of the “intervention”. The applicable meaning as the term is used in the Code of Professional
Ethics is that it is an act of a person who has the power to influence the subject proceedings. The evil sought to be remedied by the
Code do not exist where the government lawyer does not act which can be considered as innocuous such as “ drafting, enforcing, or
interpreting government or agency procedures, regulations or laws or briefing abstract principles of law.” The court rules that the
intervention of Mendoza is not significant and substantial. He merely petitions that the court gives assistance in the liquidation of
GENBANK. The role of court is not strictly as a court of justice but as an agent to assist the Central Bank in determining the claims
of creditors. In such a proceeding the role of the SolGen is not that of the usual court litigator protecting the interest of government.
Petition assailing the Resolution of the Sandiganbayan is denied.
Relevant Dissenting Opinion of Justice Callejo:
Rule 6.03 is a restatement of Canon 36 of the Canons of Professional Ethics: “ A lawyer, having once held public office or having
been in the public employ, should not after his retirement accept employment in connection with any matter which he has investigated
or passed upon while in such office or employ.”
Indeed, the restriction against a public official from using his public position as a vehicle to promote or advance his private interests
extends beyond his tenure on certain matters in which he intervened as a public official. Rule 6.03 makes this restriction specifically
applicable to lawyers who once held public office.” A plain reading shows that the interdiction 1. applies to a lawyer who once served
in the government and 2. relates to his accepting “engagement or employment” in connection with any matter in which he had
intervened while in the service.
 REPUBLIC ACT No. 9946

AN ACT GRANTING ADDITIONAL RETIREMENT. SURVIVORSHIP, AND OTHER BENEFITS TO

MEMBERS OF THE JUDICIARY, AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE REPUBLIC ACT NO. 910, AS
AMENDED, PROVIDING FUNDS THEREFOR AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

Be it enacted by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the Philippines in Congress Assembled:

Section 1. Section 1 of Republic Act No. 910, as amended, is hereby further amended to read as follows:

"SECTION 1. When a Justice of the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan, or of the Court of Tax
Appeals, or a Judge of the regional trial court, metropolitan trial court, municipal trial court, municipal circuit trial court,
shari'a district court, shari'a circuit court, or any other court hereafter established who has rendered at least fifteen (15)
years service in the Judiciary or in any other branch of the Government, or in both, (a) retires for having attained the age
of seventy years, or (b) resigns by reason of his/her incapacity to discharge the duties of his/her office as certified by the
Supreme Court, he/she shall receive during the residue of his/her natural life, in the manner hereinafter Provided, the
salary which plus the highest monthly aggregate of transportation, representation and other allowances such as personal
economic relief allowance (PERA) and additional compensation allowance which he/she was receiving at the time of
his/her retirement, or resignation, and non - wage benefit in the form of education scholarship to one (1) child of all
Justices and Judges to free tuition fee in a state university or college: Provided, That such grant will cover only one (1)
bachelor's degree. When a Justice of the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan or of the Court of Tax
Appeals, or a Judge of the regional trial court, metropolitan trial court, municipal trial court, municipal circuit trial court,
shari'a district court, shari'a circuit court. or any other court hereafter established has attained the age of sixty (60) years
and has rendered at least fifteen (15) years service in the Government, the last three (3) of which shall have been
continuously rendered in the Judiciary, he/she shall likewise be entitled to retire and receive during the residue of his/her
natural life also in the manner hereinafter Provided, the salary plus the highest monthly aggregate of transportation,
representation and other allowances such as personal economic relief allowance (PERA) and additional compensation
allowance which he/she was then receiving and the non - wage benefit in the form of education scholarship to one (1)
child of all Justices and Judges to free tuition fee in a state university or college: Provided, however, That any Justice or
Judge with less the fifteen (15) years service In the Government or Judiciary, who shall retire due to reasons
hereinabove Provided, shall be entitled to a pro - rata monthly pension computed as follows:

Number of years in the

Government or Judiciary Basic pay plus the highest monthly aggregate transportation, representation
x
and other allowances (PERA and additional compensation allowance)
15 years

"It is a condition of the pension provided for herein that no retiring Justice or Judge of the aforementioned courts or
his/her surviving spouse receiving the benefits of this Act during the tune that he/she is receiving said pension shall appear
as counsel before any court in any civil case wherein the Government or any subdivision or instrumentality thereof is the
adverse party, or in any criminal case wherein an incumbent or former officer or employee of the Government is accused
of an offense committed In relation to his/ her office, or collect any fee for his/her appearance In any administrative
proceedings to maintain an Interest to the Government, national, provincial Or municipal, or to any of its legally
constituted officers. It is also a condition of the pension provided for herein that when a member of the Judiciary or
his/her surviving spouse entitled to the benefits of this Act shall assume an elective public office, he/she shall not, upon
assumption of office and during his/her term, receive the monthly pension due to his/her."

Section 2. Section 2 of the same Republic Act, as amended, is hereby further amended to read as follows:

"SEC. 2. In case a Justice of the Supreme

Court or Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan or of the Court of Tax Appeals, or a Judge of the regional trial court,
metropolitan trial court, municipal trial court in cities, municipal trial court, municipal circuit trial court, shari'a district
court, shari'a circuit court, or any other court hereafter established, dies while in actual service, regardless of his/her age
and length of service as required in Section 1 hereof, his/her heirs shall receive a lump sum of five (5) years' gratuity
computed on the basis of the highest monthly salary plus the highest monthly aggregate of transportation, representation
and other allowances such as personal economic relief allowance (PERA) and additional compensation allowance
received by him/her as such Justice or Judge: Provided, however, That where the deceased Justice or Judge has rendered
at least fifteen (15) years either in the Judiciary or in any other branch of Government, or both, his/her heirs shall instead
be entitled to a lump sum of ten (10) years gratuity computed on the same basis as indicated in this provision: Provided,
further, That the lump sum of ten (10) years gratuity shall be received by the heirs of the Justice or the Judge who was
killed because of his/her work as such: Provided, That the Justice or Judge has served in Government for at least five (5)
years regardless of age at the time of death. When a Justice or Judge is killed intentionally while in service, the
presumption is that the death is work - related."
Section 3. Section 3 of the same Act, as amended, is hereby further amended to read as follows:

"SEC. 3. Upon retirement, a Justice of the Supreme Court or of the Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan or of the Court
of Tax Appeals, or a Judge of the regional trial court, metropolitan trial court, municipal trial court in cities, municipal
trial court, municipal circuit trial court, shari'a district court," shari'a circuit court, or any other court hereafter established
shall be automatically entitled to a lump sum of five (5) years' gratuity computed on the basis of the highest monthly
salary plus the highest monthly aggregate of transportation, representation and other allowances such as personal
economic relief allowance (PERA) and additional compensation allowance he/she was receiving on the date of his/her
retirement and thereafter upon survival after the expiration of five (5) years, to further annuity payable monthly during the
residue of his/her natural life pursuant to Section 1 hereof: Provided, however, That If the reason for the retirement be any
permanent disability contracted during his/her incumbency m office and prior to the date of retirement, he/she shall
receive a gratuity equivalent to ten (10) years' salary and the allowances aforementioned: Provided, further, That should
the retirement under Section 1(a) hereof be with the attendance of any partial permanent disability contracted during
his/her incumbency and prior to the date of retirement, he/she shall receive an additional gratuity equivalent to two (2)
years lump sum that he/she is entitled to under this Act; Provided, furthermore, That if he/she survives after ten (10) years
or seven (7) years, as the case may be, he/she shall continue to receive a monthly annuity as computed under this Act
during the residue of his/her natural life pursuant to Section 1 hereof: Provided, finally, That those who have retired with
the attendance of any partial permanent disability five (5) years prior to the effectivity of this Act shall be entitled to the
same benefits provided herein.

"Upon the death of a Justice or Judge of any court m the Judiciary, if such Justice or Judge has retired, or was eligible to
retire optionally at the time of death, the surviving legitimate spouse shall be entitled to receive all the retirement benefits
that the deceased Justice or Judge would have received had the Justice or Judge not died. The surviving spouse shall
continue to receive such retirement benefits until the surviving spouse's death or remarriage."

Section 4. Two (2) new sections are hereby inserted in Republic Act No. 910, as amended, to read as Section 3 - A and
Section 3 - B.

"SEC. 3 - A. All pension benefits of retired members of the Judiciary shall be automatically increased whenever there is
an increase in the salary of the same position from which he/she retired."

"SEC. 3 - B. The benefits under this Act shall be granted to all those who have retired prior to the effectivity of this
Act: Provided, that the benefits shall be applicable only to members of the Judiciary: Provided, further", That the benefits
to be granted shall be prospective."

Section 5. The amount necessary for the initial implementation of this Act shall be charged against the current year's
savings of the Judiciary. Thereafter, such sums as may be necessary for the continued implementation of this Act shall be
included in the annual General Appropriations Act.1avvphi1

Section 6. All laws, decrees, orders, rules and regulations or parts thereof inconsistent with the provisions of this Act are
hereby repealed or modified accordingly.

Section 7. This Act shall take effect fifteen (l5) days following the completion of its publication in the Official Gazette or
in any two (2) newspapers of genera) circulation.

Miranda Rights: ”You have the right to remain silent. Any statement you make may be used for or against you in any
court of law in the Philippines. You have the right to have a competent and independent counsel preferably of your own
choice. If you cannot afford the services of counsel the government will provide one for you.”

(Warning for torture: You have the right to demand physical examination by an independent and competent doctor of
your choice. If you cannot afford the services of a doctor, the state shall provide one for you. )