Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • PNB v. Cedo

    Uploaded by

    angelo prieto
    109 views2 pages
    Respondent, a former assistant vice president at Philippine National Bank, is charged with violating professional ethics rules. While employed at the bank, respondent intervened in two transactions - the sale of steel sheets to Milagros Ong Siy and handling the loan account of spouses Ponciano and Eufemia Almeda. After leaving the bank, respondent represented these clients against the bank in legal matters related to the prior transactions. The IBP found respondent violated rules against representing conflicting interests by litigating against his former employer in matters he was previously involved in during his employment. Respondent was suspended from practice for 3 years.

    Original Description:

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Respondent, a former assistant vice president at Philippine National Bank, is charged with violating professional ethics rules. While employed at the bank, respondent intervened in two transactions - the sale of steel sheets to Milagros Ong Siy and handling the loan account of spouses Ponciano and Eufemia Almeda. After leaving the bank, respondent represented these clients against the bank in legal matters related to the prior transactions. The IBP found respondent violated rules against representing conflicting interests by litigating against his former employer in matters he was previously involved in during his employment. Respondent was suspended from practice for 3 years.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    109 views2 pages

    PNB v. Cedo

    Uploaded by

    angelo prieto
    Respondent, a former assistant vice president at Philippine National Bank, is charged with violating professional ethics rules. While employed at the bank, respondent intervened in two transactions - the sale of steel sheets to Milagros Ong Siy and handling the loan account of spouses Ponciano and Eufemia Almeda. After leaving the bank, respondent represented these clients against the bank in legal matters related to the prior transactions. The IBP found respondent violated rules against representing conflicting interests by litigating against his former employer in matters he was previously involved in during his employment. Respondent was suspended from practice for 3 years.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    PNB v.

    Cedo

    Facts:

    Philippine National Bank charged respondent Atty. Telesforo S. Cedo, former Asst. Vice-
    President of the Asset Management Group of complainant bank with violation of Canon 6, Rule
    6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, thus:

    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 by appearing as
    counsel for individuals who had transactions with complainant bank

    There are 2 instances:

    1. Complainant averred that while respondent was still in its employ, he participated in
    arranging the sale of steel sheets (denominated as Lots 54-M and 55-M) in favor of
    Milagros Ong Siy for P200,000. When a civil action arose out of this transaction between
    Mrs. Ong Siy and complainant bank before the RTC respondent who had since left the
    employ of complainant bank, appeared as one of the counsels of Mrs. Ong Siy.
    2. While respondent was still the Asst. Vice President of complainant’s Asset Management
    Group, he intervened in the handling of the loan account of the spouses Ponciano and
    Eufemia Almeda with complainant bank by writing demand letters to the couple. When a
    civil action ensued between complainant bank and the Almeda spouses as a result of this
    loan account, the latter were represented by the law firm "Cedo, Ferrer, Maynigo &
    Associates" of which respondent is one of the Senior Partners.

    Respondent’s comments:

    - Did not participate in litigation


    - There was no partnership between him and the other persons named in the firm, they are
    merely working in the same office and they work individually and independently from
    each other

    Issue: Whether or not Respondent violated Canon 6

    Held: Yes

    IBP’s findings:

    a. That the law firm handling the case of the Almeda spouses is not a partnership deserves
    scant consideration in the light of the attestation of complainant's counsel, Atty. Pedro
    Singson, that in one of the hearings of the Almeda spouses' case, respondent attended the
    same with his partner Atty. Ferrer, and although he did not enter his appearance, he was
    practically dictating to Atty. Ferrer what to say and argue
    b. Furthermore, during the hearing of the application for a writ of injunction in the same
    case, respondent impliedly admitted being the partner of Atty. Ferrer, when it was made
    of record that respondent was working in the same office as Atty. Ferrer.
    Having been an executive of complainant bank, respondent now seeks to litigate as counsel for
    the opposite side, a case against his former employer involving a transaction which he formerly
    handled while still an employee of complainant, in violation of Canon 6 of the Canons of
    Professional Ethics on adverse influence and conflicting interests, to wit:

    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.

    Suspended for 3 years.

    You might also like