[A.C. No. 3701. March 28, 1995.
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, complainant, vs. ATTY.
TELESFORO S. CEDO, respondent.
Facts:
PNB averred that while Atty. Cedo was still in its employ, he participated in
arranging the sale of steel sheets in favor of Milagros Ong Siy. He even "noted"
the gate passes issued by his subordinate, Mr. Emmanuel Elefan, in favor of
Mrs. Ong Siy authorizing the pull-out of the steel sheets from the DMC Man
Division Compound.
When a civil action arose out of this transaction between Mrs. Ong Siy and PNB
Atty. Cedo who had since left the employ of PNB, appeared as one of the
counsels of Mrs. Ong Siy.
Similarly, when the same transaction became the subject of an administrative
case filed by PNB against his former subordinate Emmanuel Elefan, for grave
misconduct and dishonesty, Atty. Cedo appeared as counsel for Elefan only to
be later disqualified by the Civil Service Commission.
Moreover, while Atty. Cedo 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 PNB by writing demand letters
to the couple. When a civil action ensued PNB 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 Atty. Cedo is one of the Senior
Partners.
In his Comment on the complaint, Atty. Cedo admitted that he appeared as
counsel for Mrs. Ong Siy but only with respect to the execution pending appeal
of the RTC decision. He alleged that he did not participate in the litigation of
the case before the trial court. With respect to the case of the Almeda spouses,
He alleged that he never appeared as counsel for them. He contended that
while the law firm "Cedo, Ferrer, Maynigo & Associates" is designated as
counsel of record, the case is actually handled only by Atty. Pedro Ferrer. He
averred that he did not enter into a general partnership with Atty. Pedro Ferrer
nor with the other lawyers named therein. They are only using the aforesaid
name to designate a law firm maintained by lawyers, who although not
partners, maintain one office as well as one clerical and supporting staff. Each
one of them handles their own cases independently and individually receives
the revenues therefrom which are not shared among them.
During the investigation conducted by the IBP, it was discovered that Atty.
Cedo was previously fined by this Court in the amount of P1,000.00 in
connection with G.R. No. 94456 entitled "Milagros Ong Siy vs. Hon. Salvador
Tensuan, et al." for forum shopping, where Atty. Cedo appeared as counsel for
petitioner Milagros Ong Siy "through the law firm of Cedo Ferrer Maynigo and
Associates."
The IBP further found that the charges herein against respondent were fully
substantiated. Respondent's averment 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, Atty. Cedo 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 before the court.
Furthermore, during the hearing of the application for a writ of injunction in the
same case, Atty. Cedo impliedly admitted being the partner of Atty. Ferrer,
when it was made of record that Atty. Cedo was working in the same office as
Atty. Ferrer.
Moreover, the IBP noted that assuming the alleged set-up of the firm to be
true, it is in itself a violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility (Rule
15.02) since the client's secrets and confidential records and information are
exposed to the other lawyers and staff members at all times.
From the foregoing, the IBP found a deliberate intent on the part of Atty. Cedo
to devise ways and means to attract as clients former borrowers of PNB since
he was in the best position to see the legal weaknesses of his former employer,
a convincing factor for the said clients to seek his professional services. In sum,
the IBP saw a deliberate sacrifice by Atty. Cedo of his ethics in consideration of
the money he expected to earn.
The IBP thus recommended the suspension of Atty. Cedo from the practice of
law for 3 years.
Issue: Whether Atty. Telesforo Cedo violated Canon 6, Rule 6.03 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.
Ruling:
In the similar case of Pasay Law and Conscience Union, Inc. vs. Paz , (95 SCRA
24 [1980]) where a former Legal Officer and Legal Prosecutor of PARGO who
participated in the investigation of the Anti-Graft case against Mayor Pablo
Cuneta later on acted as counsel for the said Mayor in the same anti-graft case,
this Court, citing Nombrado vs. Hernandez (26 SCRA 13 [1968]) ruled:
"The Solicitor General is of the opinion, and we find no
reason to disagree with him, that even if respondent did not use
against his client any information or evidence acquired by him as
counsel it cannot be denied that he did become privy to
information regarding the ownership of the parcel of land which
was later litigated in the forcible entry case.
In another case, Hilado vs. David, 84 Phil. 571, are apropos:
"Whatever may be said as to whether or not respondent
utilized against his former client information given to him in a
professional capacity, the mere fact of their previous relationship
should have precluded him from appearing as counsel for the
other side in the forcible entry case. In the same case of Hilado
vs. David, supra, this Tribunal further said:
'Hence the necessity of setting down the existence of the
bare relationship of attorney and client as the yardstick for testing
incompatibility of interests. This stern rule is designed not alone
to prevent the dishonest practitioner from fraudulent conduct, but
as well to protect the honest lawyer from unfounded suspicion of
unprofessional practice. . . . It is founded on principles of public
policy, of good taste. As has been said in another case, the
question is not necessarily one of the rights of the parties, but as
to whether the attorney has adhered to proper professional
standard. With these thoughts in mind, it behooves attorneys, like
Caesar's wife, not only to keep inviolate the client's confidence,
but also to avoid the appearance of treachery and double dealing.
Only thus can litigants be encouraged to entrust their secrets to
their attorneys which is of paramount importance in the
administration of justice."
The foregoing disquisition on conflicting interest applies with equal force and
effect to Atty. Cedo in the case at bar. Having been an executive of PNB,
Atty. Cedo 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 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 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 S. CEDO from the practice of law for THREE (3) YEARS, effective
immediately.
