Professional Documents
Culture Documents
PNB v. Cedo
PNB v. Cedo
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
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:
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: