PCGG v.

Sandiganbayan
GR Nos. 151809-12
April 12, 2005

FACTS:
Former Solicitor General Estelito Mendoza filed a petition with the CFI praying for the assistance and
supervision of the court in the GenBank’s liquidation. Mendoza gave advice on the procedure to liquidate the
GenBank. Subsequently, President Aquino established the PCGG to recover the alleged ill-gotten wealth of
former President Marcos, his family and cronies. The PCGG filed with the Sandiganbayan a complaint for
reversion, reconveyance, restitution, accounting and damages against Tan, et al. and issued several writs of
sequestration on properties they allegedly acquired. Tan, et al. were represented by former SolGen Mendoza,
who has then resumed his private practice of law. The PCGG filed motions to disqualify Mendoza as counsel
for Tan, et al., alleging that then SolGen and counsel to Central Bank, “actively intervened” in the liquidation of
GenBank, which was subsequently acquired by Tan, et al.

ISSUE:

W/N Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility applies to respondent Mendoza. (NO)

HELD:

No. 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 of Manila.” Said procedure of liquidation is given in black and white in Republic
Act No. 265, Section 29. Thus, the Court held that this 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.
People v. Villanueva
G.R. No. L-19450
May 27, 1965

FACTS:

Simplicio Villanueva was charged with the crime of Malicious Mischief Before the Justice of the Peace
Court of Alaminos, Laguna. The complainant in the same case was represented by City Attorney Ariston Fule
of San Pablo City, having entered his appearance as private-prosecutor, after securing the permission of the
Secretary of Justice. The condition of his appearance as such, was that every time he would at the trial of the
case, he would be considered on official leave of absence, and that he would not receive any payment for his
services. The appearance of City Attorney Fule as private prosecutor was questioned by the counsel for the
accused, invoking the case of Aquino, et al., vs. Blanco, et al., wherein it was ruled that "when an attorney had
been appointed to the position of Assistant Provincial Fiscal or City Fiscal and therein qualified, by operation
of law, he ceased to engage in private law practice.” Section 32, Rule 127, now Section 35, Rule 138 of the
Revised Rules of Court was also invoked which bars certain attorneys from practicing.

ISSUE:

W/N Atty. Rule violated Section 32, Rule 127, now Section 35, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court

HELD:

No. The isolated appearance of City Attorney Fule did not constitute private practice, within the
meaning and contemplation of the Rules. Practice is more than an isolated appearance, for it consists in
frequent or customary action, a succession of acts of the same kind. In other words, it is frequent habitual
exercise. Practice of law to fall within the prohibition of statute has been interpreted as customarily or
habitually holding one's self out to the public, as a lawyer and demanding payment for such services. The
appearance as counsel on one occasion, is not conclusive as determinative of engagement in the private
practice of law. Further, Atty. Fule had been given permission by his immediate Superior, the Secretary of
Justice, to represent the complainant in the case.
Noriega vs. Sison
GR No. L-24548
Oct. 27, 1983

FACTS:

In 1981, Noriega filed a disbarment case against Sison. Noriega alleged that Sison as a hearing officer
of the Securities and Exchange Commission is not allowed to engage in the private practice of law; yet Noriega
alleged that Sison has created another identity under the name “Manuel Sison” in order for him to engage in
private practice and represent one Juan Sacquing before a trial court in Manila. Sison, in his defense, argued
that he is in fact representing Juan Sacquing but the same is with the permission of the SEC Commissioner;
that he never held himself out to the public as a practicing lawyer; that he provided legal services to Sacquing
in view of close family friendship and for free; that he never represented himself deliberately and
intentionally as “Atty. Manuel Sison” in the Manila JDRC where, in the early stages of his appearance, he
always signed the minutes as “Atty. Emmanuel R. Sison”, and in one instance, he even made the necessary
correction when the court staff wrote his name as Atty. Manuel Sison”; that due to the “inept and careless
work of the clerical staff of the JDRC”, notices were sent to “Atty. Manuel Sison”.

ISSUE:

W/N the disbarment case should prosper

HELD:

No. The arguments of presented by Sison is well merited and backed by evidence. The allegations in
the complaint do not warrant disbarment of the Sison. There is no evidence that Sison has committed an act
constituting deceit, immoral conduct, violation of his oath as a lawyer, willful disobedience of any lawful
order of the court, or corruptly and willfully appearing as an attorney to a part to a case without attorney to
do so. His isolated appearance for Sacquing does not constitute private practice of law, more so since Sison
did not derive any pecuniary gain for his appearance because Sison and Sacquing were close family friends.
Such act of Sison in going out of his way to aid as counsel to a close family friend should not be allowed to be
used as an instrument of harassment against him.
Lim- Santiago v. Sagucio
A.C. No. 6705
March 31, 2006

FACTS:

Atty. Sagucio was the former Personnel Manager and Retained Counsel of Taggat Industries Inc. until
his appointment as Assistant Provincial Prosecutor of Tuguegarao. Taggat Industries was sequestered by the
PCGG and thus ceased its operations. As Assistant Provincial Prosecutor, he was assigned to conduct the
preliminary investigation over a criminal case filed against Taggat Industries. He recommended the filing of
651 Informations for violation of the Labor Code. He was then charged for violating Rule 15.03 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility and for defying the prohibition against private practice of law while working as
government prosecutor.

ISSUE:
W/N Atty. Sagucio guilty of engaging in private practice of law while working as an Assistant
Provincial Prosecutor?

HELD:
Yes. “Private practice of law” contemplates a succession of acts of the same nature habitually or
customarily holding one’s self to the public as a lawyer. Atty. Sagucio admitted that he rendered his legal
services to complainant while working as a government prosecutor. Even the receipts he signed stated that
the payments by Taggat were for "Retainer’s fee.” Thus, as correctly pointed out by complainant, Atty. Sagucio
clearly violated the prohibition in RA 6713.

Atty. Sagucio’s violation of RA 6713 also constitutes a violation of Rule 1.01 of Canon 1, which
mandates that “[a] lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.” His
admission that he received from Taggat fees for legal services while serving as a government prosecutor is an
unlawful conduct, which constitutes a violation of Rule 1.01.
Catu vs. Rellosa
A.C. No. 5738
February 19, 2008

FACTS:

Complainant Wilfredo M. Catu is a co-owner of a lot and the building erected thereon located in
Manila. His mother and brother contested the possession of Elizabeth C. Diaz-Catu and Antonio Pastor of one
of the units in the building. The latter ignored demands for them to vacate the premises. Thus, a complaint
was initiated against them in the Lupong Tagapamayapa of Barangay. 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.Respondent entered his
appearance as counsel for the defendants in the (subsequent ejectment) case. 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.

ISSUE:

W/N Atty. Rellosa violated the Code of Professional Responsibility

HELD:

Yes. Respondent suspended for six (6) months. Respondent was 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. 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 in accordance with Section 12, Rule XVIII of the Revised Civil Service
Rules. Respondent was strongly advised to look up and take to heart the meaning of the word delicadeza.
Brennisen v. Atty. Contawi
A.C. No. 7481
April 24, 2012

FACTS:
An administrative complaint was filed against Atty. Contawi for having violated his oath as a lawyer,
causing him damage and prejudice. He had mortgaged and sold the property of his client without the latter's
knowledge or consent, facilitated by the use of a falsified Special Power of Attorney.

ISSUE:
W/N the act of Atty. Contawi violate his lawyer's oath?
HELD:

Yes. Atty. Contawi disposed of complainant's property without the latter’s knowledge or consent, and
partook of the proceeds of the sale for his own benefit. The established acts exhibited his unfitness and plain
inability to discharge the bounden duties of a member of the legal profession. He failed to prove himself
worthy of the privilege to practice law and to live up to the exacting standards demanded of the members of
the bar. It bears to stress that the practice of law is a privilege given to lawyers who meet the high standards
of legal proficiency and morality. Any violation of these standards exposes the lawyer to administrative
liability.

OBLES v. DECIEMBRE
A.C. No. 5365
April 27, 2005

FACTS:
On July 1, 1999, Lourdes Obles renewed her loan from Rodela Loans, Inc., in the amount of P10 000,
through respondent, Atty. Victor Deciembre. As security for the loan, she issued five PNB blank checks to
Deciembre. Two months after, Lourdes paid P14 874.37 for the loan plus surcharges, penalties and interests.
Notwithstanding, Deciembre filled up four blank checks for P50 000 each. He then filed a criminal suit against
the spouses for Estafa and violation of BP 22. 

ISSUE:
W/N Deciembre violated provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

HELD:
Yes. Deciembre, by not returning the blank checks to the spouses committed abominable Dishonesty
by Abusing the Confidence invested by the spouses to him as their high regard for lawyers. By filling the same
and filing criminal suits against them deprived Franklin of his constitutional right to liberty for three months.
These results to Deciembre being guilty of Serious Dishonesty and Professional Misconduct amounting to
Moral Depravity. Possessing good moral character must least have common honesty for lawyers must be
ministers of Truth. The Court finds the suspension of two years to be too mild. Deceit and Misrepresentation
is reprehensible. Hence, Deciembre is guilty of Gross Misconduct and Violation of Rules 1.03 and 7.03 of the
CPR and is indefinitely suspended.