LEGAL ETHICS CASE DIGESTS

Canon 6 – Rule 6.01, 6.02, 6.03

Edilberto M. Cuenca vs Court of Appeals

G.R. No. 109870. December 1, 1995.

Castillon, Jay-ar

FACTS:

Cuenca was convicted for violation of the trust receipt law. He then filed a pleading for
substitution of counsel with motion for leave to file a motion for new trial. The court
subsequently granted the substitution but denied the petition for new trial. The solicitor
general was required to comment about the said motion of the petitioner.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the new trial should be granted?

RULING:

Yes, there is no reason why the petitioner should be denied of a new trial. The prosecutor
shall aim shall not to convict but to deliver justice to both parties.

Under Rule 6.01 of Canon 6 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, prosecutors

who represent the People of the Philippines in a criminal case are not duty bound to seek
conviction of the accused but to see that justice is done. Said Rule 6.01 of Canon 6 states:

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.
LEGAL ETHICS CASE DIGESTS
Canon 6 – Rule 6.01, 6.02, 6.03

Ronaldo C. Facturan vs. Prosecutor Alfredo L. Barcelona, Jr.

A.C. No. 11069, June 08, 2016

Castillon-Maglente, Charry Joy C.

FACTS:

This administrative case arose from an Affidavit-Complaint for disbarment anchored on

gross misconduct or serious gross misconduct in office, dishonesty, and conduct
unbecoming of a lawyer or prosecutor filed by complainant Ronaldo C. Facturan against
respondent Prosecutor Alfredo L. Barcelona, Jr before the Office of the Court Administrator.

Complainant alleged that he filed a complaint for qualified theft against Mendoza, et al.
before the Provincial Prosecution Office of Alabel, Sarangani Province. The case was
assigned for preliminary investigation to Prosecutor Faisal D. Amerkhan.

Thereafter, Prosecutor Amerkhan forwarded the records of the case, together with his
Resolution and the corresponding Information, to respondent for his approval and
signature. However, respondent neither approved nor signed the resolution. Instead, he
removed the case records from the office of the Provincial Prosecutor and brought them to
his residence, where they were kept in his custody. It appears that the respondents in the
criminal case were personally known to respondent, as Elezar is his cousin, while Mendoza,
Sarcon, Arro, and Montero are his close friends.

The Commission on Bar Discipline of the IBP found respondent to have violated Canons
18 and 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Furthermore, he is also found
guilty of violating Canon 6.01 of the CPR for his failure to return the case records in his
possession.

ISSUE:

Whether or not grounds exist to hold respondent administratively liable.

RULING:

The Court concurs with the IBP's factual findings and recommendation to hold respondent
administratively liable, but not for violating Rule 18.03, Canon 18 of the CPR, but instead,
of Rule 6.02, Canon 6 of the same Code. The pertinent rules provide:

Canon 6 – these canons shall apply to lawyers in government service in the

discharge of their official tasks.

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.

Generally, a lawyer who holds a government office may not be disciplined as a member of
the Bar for misconduct in the discharge of his duties as a government official. He may be
disciplined by this Court as a member of the Bar only when his misconduct also constitutes
a violation of his oath as a lawyer. In this regard, Rule 6.02 above-quoted is particularly
directed to lawyers in the government service, enjoining them from using one's public
LEGAL ETHICS CASE DIGESTS
Canon 6 – Rule 6.01, 6.02, 6.03

position to: (1) promote private interests; (2) advance private interests; or (3) allow
private interests to interfere with public duties.
LEGAL ETHICS CASE DIGESTS
Canon 6 – Rule 6.01, 6.02, 6.03

PCGG vs. Sandiganbayan

G.R. No. 151809-12. April 12, 2005.

Carrillo, Zazi Dizz

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. Corazon Aquino established the PCGG to recover the alleged ill-
gotten wealth of former Pres. Ferdinand 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 et 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, Lucio Tan et. al. with Sandiganbayan. It was alleged that 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., 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 denying 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/S:

Whether or not Atty. Mendoza is disqualified to appear as counsel for Lucio Tan et al. under
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 the said
service.”

RULINGS:

1. Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility retained the general structure of
paragraph 2, Canon 36 of the Canons of Professional Ethics but replaced the expansive
phrase “investigated and passed upon” with the word “intervened.” It is, therefore, properly
applicable to both “adverse-interest conflicts” and “congruent-interest conflicts.”

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 Solicitor General
in Sp. Proc. No. 107812 and later as counsel of respondents Tan, et. al. in Civil Case No.
0005 and Civil Case No. 0096-0099 before the Sandiganbayan. Nonetheless, there remains
the issue of whether there exists a “congruent-interest conflict” sufficient to disqualify
respondent Mendoza from representing respondents Tan et. al.
LEGAL ETHICS CASE DIGESTS
Canon 6 – Rule 6.01, 6.02, 6.03

We hold 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.

Similarly, the Court in interpreting Rule 6.03 was not unconcerned with the prejudice to the
client which will be caused by its misapplication. It cannot be doubted that granting
disqualification motion causes the client to lose not only the law firm of choice, but probably
in individual lawyer in whom the client has confidence. The client with a disqualified lawyer
must start again often without the benefit of the work done by the latter. The effects of the
prejudice to the right to choose an effective counsel cannot be overstated for it can result
in denial of due process.

No less significant a consideration is the deprivation of the former government lawyer of

the freedom to exercise his profession. Given the current state of our law, the
disqualification of a former government lawyer may extend to all members of his law firm.
Former government lawyers stand in danger of becoming the lepers of the legal profession.

It is, however, preferred that the mischief sought to be remedied by Rule 6.03 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility is the possible appearance of impropriety and loss of public
confidence in government. But as well observed, the accuracy of gauging public perceptions
is a highly speculative exercise at best which can lead to untoward results. No less than
Judge Kaufman doubts that the lessening of restrictions as to former government attorneys
will have any detrimental effect on that free flow of information between the government-
client and its attorneys which the canons seek to protect. Notably, the appearance of
impropriety theory has been rejected in the 1983 ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct
and some courts have abandoned per se disqualification based on Canon 4 and 9 when an
actual conflict of interest exists, and demand an evaluation of the interests of the defendant,
government, the witnesses in the case, and the public.

Atty. Mendoza was not disqualified by the Supreme Court. 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.
LEGAL ETHICS CASE DIGESTS
Canon 6 – Rule 6.01, 6.02, 6.03

Atty. Policarpio I. Catalan Jr. vs. Atty. Joselito M. Silvosa

A.C. No. 7360. July 24, 2012.

Calizo, Juztine

FACTS:

Atty. Catalan filed a complaint against Atty. Silvosa. The case has three causes of action:
(1) Atty. Silvosa appeared as counsel for the accused in the same case for which he
previously appeared as prosecutor; (2) Atty. Silvosa bribed his then colleague, Pros.
Toribio, for P30,000; (3) the Sandiganbayan convicted Atty. Silvosa in a criminal case for
direct bribery.

For the first cause of action, Atty. Catalan contended that Atty. Silvosa violated Rule 6.03
of the Code of Professional Responsibility for appearing as counsel in a case where he also
appeared as a prosecutor before. Atty. Catalan also contended that the accused in that
case and Atty. Silvosa have the same middle name so they are relatives. Moreover, in a
murder case where Atty. Catalan’s brother is the accused, Pros. Toribio testified that Atty.
Silvosa offered P30,000 to her so she would reconsider her findings and uphold the charge
of murder.

On Atty. Silvosa’s side, he said that he only appeared in the case (first cause of action) for
the purpose of the reinstatement of bail and he also denied any relationship between him
and the accused. Aside from that, he also dismissed the testimony of Pros. Toribio.

The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) ruled that Atty. Silvosa was only guilty of the
first charge so he was sentenced to a suspension of 6 months and it was then changed to
a suspension of 2 years.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Atty. Silvosa shouldbe disbarred from his profession.

RULING:

Atty. Silvosa should be disbarred from his profession. First, he is guilty of not
following Rule 6.03 of the code of Professional Responsibility which states that “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.” His
contention that he only appeared for the purpose of reinstatement of the bail is out of
merit because as Comm. Funa said, he forgot Rule 15.03 which states that “A lawyer shall
not present conflicting interests except by written consent of all concerned after giving full
disclosure of facts.” His attempt to minimize his participation in the same case on two
occasions makes him desperate.

Moreover, Atty. Silvoso not following Rule 6.03 and his failed attempt to bribe Pros. Toribio
constitutes suspension. However, his criminal case for the crime of direct bribery which
was stated by Atty. Catalan in the third cause of action constitutes disbarment. Disbarment
follows after Atty. Silvosa’s conviction of the crime.
LEGAL ETHICS CASE DIGESTS
Canon 6 – Rule 6.01, 6.02, 6.03

Philippine National Bank vs. Atty. Telesforo S. Cedo

A.C. No. 3701, March 28, 1995

Balbuena, John Dondi

FACTS:

Philippine National Bank charged 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 by appearing as counsel for individuals who had
transactions with PNB in which Cedo during his employment with aforesaid bank, had
intervened.

ISSUE:

Whether Cedo is guilty for going against Canon 6, Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. (YES)

RULING:

Canon 6, Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides:

“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.”

It is unprofessional to represent conflicting interests, except by express consent of all

concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts. Within the meaning of this canon, a
lawyer represents conflicting interests when, in behalf of one client, it is his duty to contend
for that which duty to another client requires him to oppose.

Accordingly, this Court resolves to suspend respondent Atty. Telesforo A. Cedo from the
practice of law for three years, effective immediately.
LEGAL ETHICS CASE DIGESTS
Canon 6 – Rule 6.01, 6.02, 6.03

Wilfredo M Catu vs. Atty. Vicente G Rellosa

A.C. No. 5738. February 19, 2008.

Archua, Ivy

FACTS:

Catu initiated a complaint against Elizabeth Catu and Antonio Pastor who were occupying one
of the units in a building in Malate which was owned by the former. The said complaint was
filed in the Lupong Tagapamayapa of Barangay 723, one 79 of the 5thDistrict of Manila
whererespondent was the punong barangay. The parties, having been summoned for conciliat
ionproceedings and failing to arrive at an amicable settlement, were issued by the respondent
a certification for the filing of the appropriate action in court.

Petitioner, thus, filed a complaint for ejectment against Elizabeth and Pastor in the Metropolitan
Trial Court of Manila where respondent entered his appearance as counsel for the defendants.
Because of this, petitioner filed the instant administrative complaint against the respondent on
the ground that he 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 as punong barangay, he performed his task without
bias and that he acceded to Elizabeth’s request to handle the case for free as she was financially
distressed. The complaint was then referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) where
after evaluation, they found sufficient ground to discipline respondent.

According to them, respondent violated Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
and, as an elective official, the prohibition under Section 7(b) (2) of RA 6713. Consequently,
for the violation of the latter prohibition, respondent committed a breach of Canon 1.
Consequently, for the violation of the latter prohibition, respondent was then recommended
suspension from the practice of law for one month with a stern warning that the commission
of the same or similar act will be dealt with more severely.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the foregoing findings regarding the transgression of respondent as well as the
recommendation on the imposable penalty of the respondent were proper.

RULING:

No. First, respondent cannot be found liable for violation of Rule 6.03 the Code of Professional
Responsibility as this applies only to a lawyer who has left government service and in
connectionto former government lawyers who are prohibited from accepting employment in
connection with any matter in which [they] had intervened while in their service. In the case
at bar, respondent was an incumbent punong barangay. Apparently, he does not fall within the
purview of the said provision.

Second, it is not Section 90 of RA 7160 but Section 7(b) (2) of RA 6713 which governs the
practice of profession of elective local government officials. While RA 6713 generally applies
to all public officials and employees, RA 7160, being a special law, constitutes an exception to
RA 6713.Moreover, while under RA 7160, certain local elective officials (like governors,
mayors, provincial board members and councilors)are expressly subjected to a totalor partial
proscription to practice their profession or engage in any occupation, no suchinterdiction is m
ade on the punong barangay and the members of the sangguniang barangay. Expressio unius
est exclusio alterius since they are excluded from any prohibition, the presumption is that they
are allowed to practice their profession. Respondent, therefore, is not forbidden to practice his
profession.

Third, notwithstanding all of these, respondent still should have procured a prior permission or
authorization from the head of his department, as required by civil service regulations. 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
LEGAL ETHICS CASE DIGESTS
Canon 6 – Rule 6.01, 6.02, 6.03

without first securing the required written permission, respondent not only engaged in the
unauthorized practice of law but also violated a civil service rule 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