Power to SC: Constitution, In re: Cunanan

FACTS:
 The Congress passed a law which is known as the “Bar Flunkers’ Act
of 1953.” According to the said law, those candidates who obtained
72% average, were allowed by the SC to passed and be admitted to the
bar by raising it to 75%.
 Because of this, many questioned the validity and constitutionality of
said law.
 As for others, who are unsuccessful candidates before said law was
passed, of course filed petitions for admission to the bar invoking its
provisions, others they filed motions for the revision of their
examination, while others just want for the consideration of their
grades.

ISSUE:
Whether or not R.A. No. 972 is constitutional and valid?
RULING:
No, said law is unconstitutional and invalid.
According to the Supreme Court, the admission, suspension, disbarment
or reinstatement of attorneys at law in the practice of the profession is a
judicial function, or is vested in the judiciary.
In this case, there is a clear distinction between the functions of the
judicial and legislative departments of the government. So clearly, power
to grant license for the practice of law belongs exclusively to the Judiciary
or the SC.
The SC also explained and give other reasons for the unconstitutionality
of said law.
1. There was an encroachment/violation on the constitutional
responsibility of the Supreme Court.
2. What the Congress did is in effect a judgment revoking the resolution
of the court, and only the SC may revise or alter them, in attempting to
do R.A. 972 violated the Constitution.
3. That Congress has exceeded its power to repeal, alter, and supplement
the rules on admission to the bar. Given the following reasons, said law
is held to be unconstitutional.
 Practice of Law – Cayetano v. Monsod, Canon III, Sec.1, Ulep v. Legal
Clinic

FACTS:
 Respondent Christian Monsod was nominated by President Corazon
C. Aquino to the position of Chairman of the COMELEC in a letter
received by the Secretariat of the Commission on Appointments on
April 25, 1991.

 Petitioner opposed the nomination because allegedly Monsod does not

possess the required qualification of having been engaged in the
practice of law for at least ten years.

 On June 5, 1991, the Commission on Appointments confirmed the

nomination of Monsod as Chairman of the COMELEC.

 On June 18, 1991, he took his oath of office. On the same day, he
assumed office as Chairman of the COMELEC.

 Challenging the validity of the confirmation by the Commission on

Appointments of Monsod's nomination, petitioner as a citizen and
taxpayer, filed the instant petition for certiorari and Prohibition
praying that said confirmation and the consequent appointment of
Monsod as Chairman of the Commission on Elections be declared null
and void.
4. In 1970, he returned to the Philippines and held executive jobs for
various local corporations until 1986.
5. In 1986, he became a member of the Constitutional Commission.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Monsod has been engaged in the “practice of law” for at
least ten years.
RULING:
Yes. The rendition of services requiring the knowledge and the application of
legal principles and technique to serve the interest of another with his
consent. It is not limited to appearing in court, or advising and assisting in
the conduct of litigation, but embraces the preparation of pleadings, and
other papers incident to actions and special proceedings, conveyancing, the
preparation of legal instruments of all kinds, and the giving of all legal
advice to clients. It embraces all advice to clients and all actions taken for
them in matters connected with the law. An attorney engages in the practice
of law by maintaining an office where he is held out to be-an attorney, using
a letterhead describing himself as an attorney, counseling clients in legal
matters, negotiating with opposing counsel about pending litigation, and
fixing and collecting fees for services rendered by his associate. (Black's Law
Dictionary, 3rd ed.)
Canon III Section 1:
- Practice of law.- The practice of law is the rendition of legal service or
performance of acts or the application of law, legal principles, and
judgment, in or out of court, with regard to the circumstances or
objectives of a person or a cause, and pursuant to a lawyer-client
relationship or other engagement governed by the Code of Professional
Responsibility and Accountability for lawyers. It includes employment
in the public service or private sector and requires membership in the
Philippine bar as qualification.

ULEP vs. LEGAL CLINIC, 223 SCRA 378 (1993)

FACTS:
• The petitioner contends that the advertisements reproduced by the
respondents are champertous, unethical, demeaning of the law profession,
and destructive of the confidence of the community in the integrity of the
members of the bar and that, to which as a member of the legal profession,
he is ashamed and offended by the following advertisements:

• In its answer to the petition, respondent admits the fact of publication of

said advertisements at its instance, but claims that it is not engaged in the
practice of law but in the rendering of "legal support services" through
paralegals with the use of modern computers and electronic machines.
• Respondent further argues that assuming that the services advertised are
legal services, the act of advertising these services should be allowed
supposedly in the light of the case of John R. Bates and Van O'Steen vs.
State Bar of Arizona, reportedly decided by the United States Supreme Court
on June 7, 1977.
ISSUE:
Whether or not, the advertised services offered by the Legal Clinic, Inc.,
constitutes practice of law and whether the same are in violation of the Code
of Professional responsibility.
RULING:

• The advertisement of the respondent is covered in the term practice of law

as defined in the case of Cayetano vs. Monsod. There is a restricted concept
and limited acceptance of paralegal services in the Philippines. It is allowed
that some persons not duly licensed to practice law are or have been
permitted with a limited representation in behalf of another or to render
legal services, but such allowable services are limited in scope and extent by
the law, rules or regulations granting permission therefore.

• Canon 3 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that a lawyer

in making known his legal services shall use only true, honest, fair, dignified
and objective information or statement of facts.
• Canon 3.01 adds that he is not supposed to use or permit the use of any
false, fraudulent, misleading, deceptive, undignified, self-laudatory or unfair
statement or claim regarding his qualifications or legal services. Nor shall he
pay or give something of value to representatives of the mass media in
anticipation of, or in return for, publicity to attract legal business.
• Canon 3.04 The Canons of Professional Ethics, before the adoption of the
CPR, had also warned that lawyers should not resort to indirect
advertisements for professional employment, such as furnishing or inspiring
newspaper comments, or procuring his photograph to be published in
connection with causes in which the lawyer have been engaged of
concerning the manner of the conduct, the magnitude of the interest
involved, the importance the lawyer's position, and all other like self-
laudation.
• There are existing exceptions under the law on the rule prohibiting the
advertisement of a lawyer’s services. However, taking into consideration the
nature and contents of the advertisements for which respondent is being
taken to task, which even includes a quotation of the fees charged by said
respondent corporation for services rendered, the court found and held that
the same definitely do not and conclusively cannot fall under any of the
exceptions.
• The respondent’s defense with the case of Bates vs. State Bar applies only
when there is an exception to the prohibition against advertisements by
lawyers, to publish a statement of legal fees for an initial consultation or the
availability upon request of a written schedule of fees or an estimate of the
fee to be charged for the specific services. No such exception is provided for,
expressly or impliedly whether in our former Canons of Professional Ethics
or the present Code of Professional Responsibility. Besides, even the
disciplinary rule in the Bates case contains a proviso that the exceptions
stand therein are "not applicable in any state unless and until it is
implemented by such authority in that state.”
• The Court Resolved to RESTRAIN and ENJOIN The Legal Clinic, Inc., from
issuing or causing the publication or dissemination of any advertisement in
any form which is of the same or similar tenor and purpose as Annexes "A"
and "B" of this petition, and from conducting, directly or indirectly, any
activity, operation or transaction proscribed by law or the Code of
Professional Ethics as indicated herein. Principle: The Code of Professional
Responsibility provides that a lawyer in making known his legal services
shall use only true, honest, fair, dignified and objective information or
statement of facts. He is not supposed to use or permit the use of any false,
fraudulent, misleading, deceptive, undignified, self-laudatory or unfair
statement or claim regarding his qualifications or legal services. Nor shall he
pay or give something of value to representatives of the mass media in
anticipation of, or in return for, publicity to attract legal business.
Practice of law
o Section 1, Rule 138. Who may practice law? – Any person heretofore
duly admitted as a member of the bar, or hereafter admitted as such
in accordance with the provisions of this rule, and who is in good and
regular standing, is entitled to practice law.

What may non lawyers practice law?

1. Section 34, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court:

in the court of a justice of the peace a party may conduct his
litigation in person, with the aid of an agent or friend appointed by
him for the purpose.
2. Before any other court, a party may conduct his litigation personally or
by an attorney.
Bound by the same rules.
2. Section 7, Rule 116, Rules of Court:
In a criminal case before the MTC in a locality where there is no
member of the bar, the judge may appoint a resident of the province,
of good repute for probity and ability to aid the accused in his defense.
4. Bar Matter No. 730, Circular No. 19, in conjunction with Rule 138-A of
the Rules of Court governing law student practice.
A law student now needs to be certified to be able to engage in the
limited practice of law.
5. Art. 222, Labor Code: Non-lawyers may appear before the NLRC or any
Labor Arbiter provided:
a.) They represent themselves or
b.) If they represent their organization or members, they must have the
written authorization or
c.) They are members of a duly accredited legal aid office by the DOJ or the
IBP and the case was referred to them.
6. Sec. 9, Act No. 2259, The Cadastral Act: A non-lawyer may represent a
claimant before the Cadastral Court.
7. Sec. 33, Rule 138, Rules of Court: Any person appointed to appear for
the Government of the Philippines in accordance with law.
8. Before the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DA-
RAB).
Qualifications/Requirements for Admission

Sec. 2, Rule 138, Rules of Court

•Section 2. Requirements for all applicants for admission to the bar. —
Every applicant for admission as a member of the bar must be
- a citizen of the Philippines, at
- 21 years of age
- of good moral character,
- and resident of the Philippines;
- and must produce before the Supreme Court
- satisfactory evidence of good moral character, and that no charges
against him, involving moral turpitude, have been filed or are pending
in any court in the Philippines.
• Citizenship: Filipino- In Re: Application for Admission to the Philippine
Bar, Ching; Reacquisition of Citizenship- Petition to Resume Practice of Law,
Benjamin M. Dacanay,
• Exceptions: Secs. 3, Rule 138, Rules of Court.
Section 3. Requirements for lawyers who are citizens of the United States of
America. — Citizens of the United States of America who, before July 4,
1946, were duly licensed members of the Philippine Bar, in active practice in
the courts of the Philippines and in good and regular standing as such may,
upon satisfactory proof of those facts before the Supreme Court, be allowed
to continue such practice after taking the following oath of office:
• Age: At least 21 years of age
• Proof of Possession of Good Moral Character- Tan vs. Sabandal, In Re:
Petition to Take the Lawyer’s Oath, Villanueva, Aguirre v, Rana, Villa v.
Ama, et al.
Applicability of CPRA
In re: Atty. Lorenzo Gadon
 - The CPRA expressly provides that it shall have retroactive application,
that is, it shall be applied to all pending cases.
Moral turpitude, good moral character (professional and private
dealings), grossly immoral conduct
Grossly Immoral Conduct.
It refers to the act that is so corrupt and false as to constitute a criminal act
or so unprincipled or disgraceful as to be reprehensible to a high degree.” It
is a willful, flagrant, or shameless act which shows a moral indifference to
the opinion of respectable members of the community
Moral Turpitude
- It refers to “an act of baseness, vileness, or depravity in the private
duties which a man owes to his fellow men or to society in general,
contrary to justice, honesty, modesty, or good morals.” (Garcia v.
Sesbreno, A.C. No. 7973 and A.C. No. 10457, 03 Feb. 2015)

- “includes everything which is done contrary to justice, honesty,

modesty, or good morals.” It involves “an act of baseness, vileness,
or depravity in the private duties which a man owes his fellow
men, or to society in general, contrary to the accepted and
customary rule of right and duty between man and woman, or
conduct contrary to justice, honesty, modesty, or good morals.”
NOTE: Moral turpitude is not involved in every criminal act and is not
shown by every known and intentional violation of statute, but whether any
conviction involves moral turpitude may be a question of fact and frequently
depends on all the surrounding circumstances.
Good moral conduct
CONTRACTED SECOND MARRIAGE WITH DECEIT MACARRUBO V.
MACARRUBO, AC NO. 6148, (2004)
As officers of the court, lawyers must not only in fact be of good moral
character but must also be perceived to be of good moral character and
must lead a life in accordance with the highest moral standards of the
community. The moral delinquency that affects the fitness of a member of
the bar to continue as such, including that which makes a mockery of the
inviolable social institution of marriage, outrages the generally
accepted moral standards of the community.
Use of respectful language, not to mislead the court
RULE 8.01, CANON 8 A lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use
language which is abusive, offensive or otherwise improper
The following acts are deemed to be disrespectful language:
1. categorizes the Supreme Court decision as false, erroneous and illegal
(Surigao Mineral Reservation Board v. Cloribel, G.R. No. L-27072, 09 Jan.
1970);
2. describes a judge’s attitude as “unjust, hostile, vindictive and dangerous.”
(Cornejo v. Judge Tan, G.R. No. L-2217, 23 Mar. 1950);
3. states that “justice is not only blind, but also deaf and dumb.” (In Re:
Almacen, G.R. No. L27654, 18 Feb. 1970);
4. attributes to the Supreme Court acts of dismissing judges “without rhyme
and reason”
1. Prohibition against misleading the court, tribunal, or other
government agency
a. No misquoting, misrepresenting, misleading the court
Lawyers should not misquote, misrepresent, or mislead the court as to the
existence of the contents of any:
1) Document;
2) Argument;
3) Evidence;
4) Law; or
5) Other legal authority.
Misquoting or intercalating phrases in the text of a court decision
constitutes willful disregard of the lawyer’s solemn duty to act at all times in
manner consistent with the truth. A lawyer should never venture to mislead
the court by false statements or quotations of facts or laws. Thus, in
Bautista v. Gonzales, the Supreme Court suspended respondent for six (6)
months for, among other submitting to the lower court falsified documents,
representing them to the true copies.
In Chavez v. Viola, the Supreme Court suspended respondent counsel for
five (5) months after he filed an Amended Application for Original
Registration of Title which contained false statements. (Adez Realty,
Incorporated v. CA, En Banc, G.R. No. 100643, 30 October 1992)
Where a respondent-lawyer intercalated a material fact in the judgment of
the court a quo thereby altering and modifying its factual findings with the
apparent purpose of misleading this Court in order to obtain a favorable
judgment, and thus failing to live up to the standards expected of a member
of the Bar, he was disbarred.
Those who attempt to misguide this Court, the last forum for appeal, should
be dealt with more severely lest We be made unwilling instruments of
inequity and injustice. Indeed, counsel has demonstrated his wanton
disregard for truth and fair play even before the Highest Court of the land.
Worse, he compounded his unprofessional mischief by laying the blame on
his hapless secretary whose duty is was simply to obey him. (Adez Realty,
Incorporated v. CA [1992], supra.)

Proper solicitation/advertisement, no self-promotion

For solicitation to be proper, it must be compatible with the dignity of the
legal profession. If made in a modest and decorous manner, it would bring
no injury to the lawyer or to the bar. (Pineda, 2009)
Rationale for the Prohibition of Advertisements
1. The profession is primarily for public service.
2. It commercializes the profession.
3. It involves self-praise and puffing.
4. It damages public confidence.
5. It may increase lawsuits and result in needless litigation.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
The mere filing of several cases based on the same incident does not
necessarily constitute forum shopping. The question is whether the several
actions filed involve the same transactions, essential facts and
circumstances. If they involve essentially different facts, circumstances and
causes of action, there is no forum shopping. (Paredes v. Sandiganbayan,
G.R. No. 108251, 31 Jan. 1996)
The essence of forum shopping is the filing of multiple suits involving the
same parties for the same cause of action, either simultaneously or
successively, to obtain a favorable judgment. (Foronda v. Atty. Guerrero,
A.C. No. 5469, 10 Aug. 2004
PERMISSIBLE ADVERTISEMENT
1. Simple signage with lawyer/s name, office and residence address
2. Advertisement in legal periodicals with brief data
3. Calling cards (even with formal picture)
4. Publication in reputable law list
5. Modest announcement in newspapers on the opening of a law firm
NO TO SELF-PROMOTION
Self-promotion is also known as self-laudatory remarks.

Under this section, lawyers are prohibited from making public appearances
and statements in relation to a terminated case or legal matter for the
purpose of self-promotion. Thus, lawyers should refrain from promoting
one’s self, such as one’s qualifications, achievements, and similar therewith.

[A lawyer] is not supposed to use or permit the use of any false, fraudulent,
misleading, deceptive, undignified, self-laudatory or unfair statement or
claim regarding his qualifications or legal services. Nor shall he pay or give
something of value to representatives of the mass media in anticipation of,
or in return for, publicity to attract legal business. (Ulep v. The Legal Clinic,
Inc., En Banc, Bar Matter No. 553, 17 June 1993)

SUB-JUDICE RULE

Section 19. Sub-judice rule. — A lawyer shall not use any forum or
medium to comment or publicize opinion pertaining to a pending proceeding
before any court, tribunal, or other government agency that may:
(a) cause a pre-judgment, or

(b) sway public perception so as to impede, obstruct, or influence the

decision of such court, tribunal, or other government agency, or which tends
to tarnish the court’s or tribunal’s integrity, or

(c) impute improper motives against any of its members,

(d) create a widespread perception of guilt or innocence before a final

decision.
FORUM SHOPPING
The mere filing of several cases based on the same incident does not
necessarily constitute forum shopping. The question is whether the several
actions filed involve the same transactions, essential facts and
circumstances. If they involve essentially different facts, circumstances and
causes of action, there is no forum shopping. (Paredes v. Sandiganbayan,
G.R. No. 108251, 31 Jan. 1996)
The essence of forum shopping is the filing of multiple suits involving the
same parties for the same cause of action, either simultaneously or
successively, to obtain a favorable judgment. (Foronda v. Atty. Guerrero,
A.C. No. 5469, 10 Aug. 2004

Non encroachment in another lawyer’s engagement, profession and not

a money-making business
Section 24. Encroaching or interfering in another lawyer’s engagement;
exception. — A lawyer shall not, directly or indirectly, encroach upon or
interfere in the professional engagement of another lawyer.
This includes a lawyer’s attempt to communicate, negotiate, or deal with the
person represented by another lawyer on any matter, whether pending or
not in any court, tribunal, body, or agency, unless when initiated by the
client or with the knowledge of the latter’s lawyer.
A lawyer, however, may give proper advice and assistance to anyone seeking
relief against perceived unfaithful or neglectful counsel based on the Code.
Rule 8.02 - A lawyer shall not, directly or indirectly, encroach upon the
professional employment of another lawyer, however, it is the right of any
lawyer, without fear or favor, to give proper advice and assistance to those
seeking relief against unfaithful or neglectful counsel. (Vrigilio vs. Adame)
Firm name, foreign law firm
Section 26. Definition of a law firm; choice of firm name. — A law firm is
any private office, partnership, or association, exclusively comprised of a
lawyer or lawyers engaged to practice law, and who hold themselves out as
such to the public.
In the choice of a firm name, no false, misleading, or assumed name shall be
used. The continued use of the name of a deceased, incapacitated, or retired
partner is permissible provided that the firm indicates in all its
communications that said partner is deceased, incapacitated, or retired.
Section 33. Foreign lawyers. — Foreign lawyers cannot, directly or
indirectly, practice law in the Philippines.
NOTE: The use of the firm name of a foreign law firm is unethical
RULE 3.03, CANON 3
Where a partner accepts public office, he shall withdraw from the firm and his
name shall be dropped from the firm name unless the law allows him to
practice law concurrently.
Name of a partner in law firm should be dropped if appointed as judge since
he is no longer allowed to practice law. (Pineda, 2009)
RATIONALE: To prevent the law firm or partners from making use of the
name of the public official to attract business and to avoid suspicion of
undue influence
RULE 3.02, CANON 3 In the choice of a firm name, no false, misleading or
assumed name shall be used. The continued use of the name of a deceased
partner is permissible provided that the firm indicates in all its
communications that said partner is deceased.
A lawyer is not authorized to use a name other than the name inscribed in
the Roll of Attorneys in his practice of law. (Pangan v. Atty. Ramos, A.M. No.
1053, 07 Sept. 1979)
 Lawyers formerly in government service

Section 29. Lawyers formerly in government service. — A lawyer who

has left government service shall not engage in private practice
pertaining to any matter before the office where he or she used to be
connected within a period of one (1) year from his or her separation
from such office. Justices, judges, clerks of court, city, provincial, and
regional prosecutors shall not appear before any court within the territorial
jurisdiction where they previously served within the same period.

After leaving government service, a lawyer shall not accept an engagement

which could improperly influence the outcome of the proceedings which the
lawyer handled or intervened in, or over which the lawyer previously
exercised authority, while in said service.

Section 30. No financial interest in transactions; no gifts. — A lawyer

in government shall not, directly or indirectly, promote or advance his or her
private or financial interest or that of another, in any transaction requiring
the approval of his or her office. Neither shall such lawyer solicit gifts or
receive anything of value in relation to such interest.

Such lawyer in government shall not give anything of value to, or otherwise
unduly favor, any person transacting with his or her office, with the
expectation of any benefit in return.

Tasks that cannot be delegated to a non-lawyer

Section 35. Non-delegable legal tasks. — A lawyer shall not delegate to or

permit a non-lawyer, including a paralegal, to:
(a) accept cases on behalf of the lawyer;

(b) give legal advice or opinion;

(c) act independently without the lawyer’s supervision or direction;

(d) to hold himself or herself out as a lawyer, or be named in association

with a lawyer in any pleading or submission to any court, tribunal, or other
government agency;

(e) appear in any court, tribunal, or other government agency, or actively

participate in formal legal proceedings on behalf of a client, except when
allowed by the law or rules;

(f) conduct negotiations with third parties unless allowed in administrative

agencies, without a lawyer’s supervision or direction;

(g) sign correspondence containing a legal opinion;

(h) perform any of the duties that only lawyers may undertake.

These provisions shall not apply to law student practitioners under Rule
138-A of the Rules of Court.

1 question on responsible use of social media based on the provisions

of the law

RESPONSIBLE USE OF SOCIAL MEDIA

A lawyer shall uphold the dignity of the legal profession in all social media
interactions in a manner that enhances the people’s confidence in the legal
system, as well as promote its responsible use.

Section 36. Responsible use. — A lawyer shall have the duty to

understand the benefits, risks, and ethical implications associated with the
use of social media.

Section 37. Online posts. — A lawyer shall ensure that his or her online
posts, whether made in a public or restricted privacy setting that still holds
an audience, uphold the dignity of the legal profession and shield it from
disrepute, as well as maintain respect for the law.

Section 38. Non-posting of false or unverified statements,

disinformation. — A lawyer shall not knowingly or maliciously post, share,
upload or otherwise disseminate false or unverified statements, claims, or
commit any other act of disinformation.

Section 39. Prohibition against fraudulent accounts. — A lawyer shall

not create, maintain or operate accounts in social media to hide his or her
identity for the purpose of circumventing the law or the provisions of the
CPRA.

Section 40. Non-disclosure of privileged information through online

posts. — A lawyer shall not reveal, directly or indirectly, in his or her online
posts confidential information obtained from a client or in the course of, or
emanating from, the representation, except when allowed by law or the
CPRA.

Section 41. Duty to safeguard client confidences in social media. — A

lawyer, who uses a social media account to communicate with any other
person in relation to client confidences and information, shall exert efforts to
prevent the inadvertent or unauthorized disclosure or use of, or
unauthorized access to, such an account.

Section 42. Prohibition against influence through social media. — A

lawyer shall not communicate, whether directly or indirectly, with an officer
of any court, tribunal, or other government agency through social media to
influence the latter’s performance of official duties.

Section 43. Legal information; legal advice. — Pursuant to a lawyer’s

duty to society and the legal profession, a lawyer may provide general legal
information, including in answer to questions asked, at any fora, through
traditional or electronic means, in all forms or types of mass or social media.

A lawyer who gives legal advice on a specific set of facts as disclosed by a

potential client in such fora or media dispenses Limited Legal Service and
shall be bound by all the duties in the CPRA, in relation to such Limited
Legal Service.

Section 44. Online posts that could violate conflict of interest. — A

lawyer shall exercise prudence in making posts or comments in social media
that could violate the provisions on conflict of interest under the CPRA.

PCGG vs Sandiganbayan, et alG.R. Nos. 151809-12, April 12, 2005

FACTS:
 On February 1991, Former Solicitor General Estelito Mendoz, who has
currently resumed the private practice of law, was sought to be
disqualified by the Presidential Commission on Good Government
(PCGG) from representing the Lucio Tan group, in the 1987 case
involving General Bank and Trust Company (GENBANK).

 GENBANK was one of those properties subject to a writ of

sequestration by PCGG being allegedly one of the ill–gotten wealth
acquired during the Marcos regime.

 It was argued by the PCGG that there exists an adverse interest on

Mendoza since he was the one who filed a petition praying for
assistance and supervision of the court in the liquidation of
GENBANK, the same bank that was subsequently owned by the Lucio
Tan group after winning the bid, when he was still the Solicitor
General.

 PCGG invokes Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility

(CPR) which prohibits former government lawyers from accepting
“engagement or employment in connection with any matter in which
he had intervened while in said service.”

 The Sandiganbayan rejects the PCGG’s motion by arguing that PCGG

failed to prove the existence of an inconsistency between respondent
Mendoza’s former function as Solicitor General and his present
employment as counsel of the Lucio Tan group and that Mendoza’s
 appearance as counsel for respondents Tan, et al. was beyond the
one-year prohibited period under Section 7(b) of Republic Act No.
6713 since he ceased to be Solicitor General in the year1986.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility applies
to respondent Mendoza.
RULING:
No, The Supreme Court held that Rule 6.03 of the CPR is inapplicable in the
case. The act of Atty. Mendoza as Solicitor General in advising
the Central Bank on how to proceed with the liquidation of GENBANK is
entirely different from the matter involved in the PCGG case against the
lucio tan group.
Furthermore, the motion for disqualification should be dismissed since the
intervention contemplated in Rule 6.03 should be substantial and important
whereas the role of Atty. Mendoza in the liquidation of GENBANK is
considered insubstantial and insignificant to warrant his disqualification.
the petition filed merely seeks the assistance of the court in the liquidation
of GENBANK. The principal role of the court in this type of proceedings is
to assist the Central Bank in determining claims of creditors against the
GENBANK. It is worthy to note that in construing the words of such rule in
this case, the Court balanced the two policy considerations of having a
chilling effect on government recruitment of able legal talent and the use of
former government employment as a litigation tactic to harass opposing
counsel.