LIMITATIONS/RESTRICTIO

NS OF GOVERNMENT
LAWYERS IN THE
PRACTICE OF LAW

Group 9
Precy Bacalangco
Karen Tolentino
Christine Abroguea

CODE OF PROFESSIONAL
RESPONSIBILITY
CANON 6
THESE CANONS SHALL APPLY TO LAWYERS IN GOVERNMENT
SERVICE IN THE DISCHARGE OF THEIR OFFICIAL TASKS

Rule 6.01 - The primary duty of a lawyer engaged in public

prosecution is not to convict but to see that justice is done. The
suppression of facts or the concealment of witnesses capable of
establishing the innocence of the accused is highly reprehensible
and is cause for disciplinary action
Rule 6.02 - A lawyer in the government service shall not use
his public position to promote or advance his private interests,
nor allow the latter to interfere with his public duties.
Rule 6.03 - 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.

CODE OF PROFESSIONAL
RESPONSIBILITY
Prohibition/Limitation under Canon 6
1. suppression of facts or the concealment of witnesses
capable of establishing the innocence of the accused in
the case of public prosecutor (Preserve public trust in a
public office)
2. use his public position to promote or advance his
private interests, nor allow the latter to interfere with
his public duties in the case of government lawyers
(Avoid conflict of interest)
3. accept engagement or employment in connection
with any matter in which he had intervened while in
said service in the case of government lawyers after
leaving government (Assure people of impartiality in
the performance of public functions
thereby
promoting the public welfare

Related laws with express prohibition to government lawyers

in the practice of law
1. Section 7(b)(2) of RA 6713
Section 7. Prohibited Acts and Transactions. - In addition to acts and
omissions of public officials and employees now prescribed in the
Constitution and existing laws, the following shall constitute prohibited acts
and transactions of any public official and employee and are hereby declared
to be unlawful:
xxx
(b) Outside employment and other activities related thereto. - Public officials
and employees during their incumbency shall not:
xxx
(2) Engage in the private practice of their profession unless authorized by the
Constitution or law, provided, that such practice will not conflict or tend to
conflict with their official functions;
xxx
QUERY OF ATTY. KAREN M. SILVERIO-BUFFE, FORMER Clerk of Court BRANCH 81,
ROMBLON, ROMBLON ON THE PROHIBITION FROM ENGAGING IN THE PRIVATE
PRACTICE OF LAW.
An act establishing a code of conduct and ethical standards for public officials and employees

Related laws with express prohibition to government lawyers

in the practice of law
2. Memorandum Circular No. 17 of the Executive Department in relation
to Section 12, Rule XVIII of the Revised Civil Service Rules
allows government employees to engage directly in the private practice of
their profession provided there is a written permission from the Department
head. It provides:
The authority to grant permission to any official or employee shall be granted
by the head of the ministry or agency in accordance with Section 12, Rule
XVIII of the Revised Civil Service Rules
In the case of FELIPE E. ABELLA vs. ATTY. ASTERIA E. CRUZABRA,
A.C. No. 5688, June 4, 2009, the Supreme Court found Atty. Asteria E.
Cruzabra guilty of engaging in notarial practice without the written authority
from the Secretary of the Department of Justice, and accordingly it
REPRIMANDED her.

CASES
Rule 6.01
LIM SANTIAGO VS SAGUICO
A.C No. 6705
March 31, 2006
Facts:
Complainant is the daughter of Alfonso Lim and Special Administratrix of his
estate
Atty. Carlos B. Saguico was appointed as Asst. Provincial Prosecutor in
Cagayan in 1992
Sometime in 1997, he was assigned to conduct preliminary investigation of a
timber company for withholding wages from 21 employees. He resolved the
complaints by recommending charges for several violations of the Labor Code of
the Philippines
However, he failed to disclose that he had formerly worked as a Personnel
Manager and Retained Counsel for the defendant company and received
retainer's fee in the year 1995 and 1996

CASES
For acting as retained counsel for the company, he was charged with engaging
in the private practice of law while working as a government prosecutor
In response to the charge, the prosecutor claimed that once he became a
prosecutor, he retained fees only for consultation, not legal representation, and
that this didn't constitute "practice of law"
The case went to the Supreme Court

Issue :
WON respondent violated the prohibition on practice of law by government
prosecutors

LIM SANTIAGO VS SAGUICO

CASES
Held :
Yes.
Violations of RA 6713 are not subject to disciplinary actions under CPR
unless the violations also constitute infractions of specific provisions of CPR.
Here, respondents violation of RA 6713 also constitutes violation of Rule 1.01
which mandates a lawyer not to engage in unlawful conduct , that being a
violation of the statutory prohibition on a government employee to engage in
the private practice of his profession unless authorized by the constitution or
law.
The law does not distinguish consultancy services and retainer agreement.

LIM SANTIAGO VS SAGUICO

CASES
Held :
The propriety of receiving "Retainer Fees" or "consultancy fees" while being
an Assistant Provincial Prosecutor, and for rendering legal consultancy work
while being an Assistant Provincial Prosecutor, had long been settled.
Government prosecutors are prohibited to engage in the private
practice of law (see Legal and Judicial Ethics, Ernesto Pineda, 1994 ed., p.
20; People v. Villanueva, 14 SCRA 109; Aquino v. Blanco 70 Phil. 647)
The act of being a legal consultant is a practice of law. To engage in the
practice of law is to do any of those acts that are characteristic of the legal
profession (In re: David, 93 Phil. 461).
"For as long as respondent performed acts that are usually rendered by
lawyers with the use of their legal knowledge, the same falls within the ambit
of the term 'practice of law.'"
As punishment, the Court suspended the prosecutor from the practice of
law for six months
LIM SANTIAGO VS SAGUICO

CASES
Rule 6.02
GISELA HUYSSEN, complainant, vs. ATTY. FRED L. GUTIERREZ, respondent.
[A.C. No. 6707. March 24, 2006.]

Facts:
In 1995, Atty. Fred L. Gutierrez was connected with the Bureau of
Immigration and Deportation (BID).
Gisela Huyssen and her three sons, who are all American citizens, applied
for Philippine Visas under Section 13[g] of the Immigration Law
Atty. Gutierrez told Huyssen that in order that their visa applications will
be favorably acted upon by the BID they needed to deposit a certain sum of
money for a period of one year which could be withdrawn after one year
Believing that the deposit was indeed required by law, complainant
deposited with respondent on six different occasions from April 1995 to
April 1996 the total amount of US$20,000

CASES
After one year, Huyssen demanded from Atty. Gutierrez the return of
US$20,000 who assured her that said amount would be returned
Atty. Gutierrez admitted having received the US$20,000 from Huyssen as
shown by his signatures in the petty cash vouchers and receipts he prepared,
on the false representation that it was needed in complainant's application
for visa with the BID
Atty. Gutierrez failed to return the money

Issue:
Whether Atty. Gutierrezs acts constitute a breach of Rule 6.02 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility

GISELA HUYSSEN, complainant, vs. ATTY. FRED L. GUTIERREZ

CASES
Held:
Yes.
Lawyers in government service in the discharge of their official task have
more restrictions than lawyers in private practice. Want of moral integrity is
to be more severely condemned in a lawyer who holds a responsible public
office
Atty. Gutierrez's act of asking money from complainant in consideration of
the latter's pending application for visas is 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
Moreover, said acts constitute a breach of Rule 6.02 of the Code which
bars lawyers in government service from promoting their private interest

GISELA HUYSSEN, complainant, vs. ATTY. FRED L. GUTIERREZ

CASES
Promotion of private interest 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.
Atty. Gutierrez's conduct in office betrays the integrity and good moral
character required from all lawyers, especially from one occupying a high
public office. A lawyer in public office is expected not only to refrain from any
act or omission which might tend to lessen the trust and confidence of the
citizenry in government; he must also uphold the dignity of the legal
profession at all times and observe a high standard of honesty and fair
dealing. Otherwise said, a lawyer in government service is a keeper of the
public faith and is burdened with high degree of social responsibility, perhaps
higher than his brethren in private practice
Atty. Gutierrez is hereby DISBARRED from the practice of law

GISELA HUYSSEN, complainant, vs. ATTY. FRED L. GUTIERREZ

CASES
EDUARDO A. ABELLA, complainant, vs. RICARDO G. BARRIOS, JR.,
respondent.
[A.C. No. 7332. June 18, 2013.]
Facts:
Eduardo Abella filed an illegal dismissal case against Philippine Telegraph
and Telephone Corporation (PT&T) before the Cebu City Regional Arbitration
Branch (RAB) of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC)
Labor Arbiter (LA) Ernesto F. Carreon ordered PT&T to pay Abella
separation pay and backwages. Dissatisfied, PT&T appealed the LA's
Decision to the NLRC
NLRC set aside LA Carreon's ruling and instead ordered PT&T to reinstate
Abella to his former position and pay backwages, 13th month pay and service
incentive leave pay, including moral damages and attorney's fees

CASES
PT&T filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA)
CA affirmed the NLRC's ruling with modification, ordering PT&T to pay
complainant separation pay in lieu of reinstatement
Abella moved for partial reconsideration. CA granted the motion and
remanded the case to the LA. CAs decision became final and executory
Abella filed with the Atty. Ricardo Barrios, Jr., the new LA, two (2) motions
for execution. Atty. Barrios requested Php30,000.00 from Abella to facilitate
the execution of judgment
Notwithstanding their agreement, immoral and illegal as it was, Atty.
Barrios later went as far as turning the proceedings into some bidding war
which eventually resulted into a resolution in favor of PT&T

EDUARDO A. ABELLA, complainant, vs. RICARDO G. BARRIOS, JR.

CASES
Issue:
Whether Atty. Barrios is guilty of violating Rule 6.02 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility
Held:
Yes.
Rule 6.02 is particularly directed to lawyers in government service,
enjoining them from using one's public position to:
(1) promote private interests;
(2) advance private interests; or
(3) allow private interests to interfere with public duties
It is well to note that a lawyer who holds a government office may be
disciplined as a member of the Bar only when his misconduct also constitutes
a violation of his oath as a lawyer
EDUARDO A. ABELLA, complainant, vs. RICARDO G. BARRIOS, JR.

CASES
In this case, records show that respondent was merely tasked to re-compute the
monetary awards due to the complainant who sought to execute the CA Decision
which had already been final and executory. When complainant moved for
execution twice at that respondent slept on the same for more than a year. It
was only when complainant paid respondent a personal visit on November 4,
2005 that the latter speedily issued a writ of execution three (3) days after, or on
November 7, 2005. Based on these incidents, the Court observes that the sudden
dispatch in respondents action soon after the aforesaid visit casts serious doubt
on the legitimacy of his denial, i.e., that he did not extort money from the
complainant.
Atty. Barrios is hereby found GUILTY of gross immoral conduct and gross
misconduct in violation of Rule 6.02

EDUARDO A. ABELLA, complainant, vs. RICARDO G. BARRIOS, JR.

CASES
Rule 6.03
PCGG V. SANDIGANBAYAN GR 151805 (2005)
FACTS :
General Bank and Trust Company (GENBANK) encountered financial
difficulties
Later on, Central Bank issued a resolution declaring GENBANK insolvent
Former Solicitor General Estelito P. Mendoza filed a petition with the then
Court of First Instance praying for the assistance and supervision of the court
in GENBANK's liquidation

CASES
After EDSA 1, Pres. Aquino established the PCGG for the purpose of
recovering ill gotten wealth. The PCGG, on July 17, 1987, filed with the
Sandiganbayan a complaint for reversion, reconveyance, restitution,
accounting and damages against respondents Tan, et al. so PCGG issued
several writs of sequestration on properties allegedly acquired by the abovenamed persons by taking advantage of their close relationship and influence
with former President Marcos. These respondents were represented by
Mendoza
PCGG filed motions to disqualify respondent Mendoza as counsel for
respondents. The motions alleged that respondent Mendoza, as then
Solicitor General and counsel to Central Bank, actively intervened in the
liquidation of GENBANK, which was subsequently acquired by respondents
Tan, et al. and became Allied Banking Corporation
The motions to disqualify invoked Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. Rule 6.03 prohibits former government lawyers from
accepting 'engagement or employment in connection with any matter in
which he had intervened while in said service
PCGG V. SANDIGANBAYAN GR 151805 (2005)

CASES
ISSUE
W/N Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility applies to
respondent Mendoza?
HELD
NO, IT DOES NOT APPLY
The matter or the act of respondent Mendoza as Solicitor General 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 with
the CFI
In fine, the Court should resolve whether his act of advising the Central
Bank on the legal procedure to liquidate GENBANK is included within the
concept of 'matter under Rule 6.03

PCGG V. SANDIGANBAYAN GR 151805 (2005)

CASES
The 'matter where he got himself involved was in informing Central Bank on
the procedure provided by law to liquidate GENBANK thru the courts and in
filing the necessary petition
The subject 'matter of Sp. Proc. No. 107812, therefore, is not the same nor is
related to but is different from the subject matter in Civil Case No. 0096 which
is about the sequestration of the shares of respondents Tan, et al.
The jurisdiction of the PCGG does not include the dissolution and liquidation of
banks. It goes without saying that Code 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
cannot apply to respondent Mendoza because his alleged intervention while a Solicitor
General in Sp. Proc. No. 107812 is an intervention on a matter different from the matter
involved in Civil Case No. 0096.

It is also submitted that the Court should apply Rule 6.03 in all its strictness
for it correctly disfavors lawyers who 'switch sides. It is claimed that 'switching
sides' carries the danger that former government employee may compromise
confidential official information in the process
There is no switching sides for there were no sides
PCGG V. SANDIGANBAYAN GR 151805 (2005)

Thank
you

Open
Forum