You are on page 1of 12

Legal profession Canon 3-6 Villamor Adalem Saulog Canon 3 A LAWYER IN MAKING KNOWN HIS LEGAL SERVICES SHALL

LL USE ONLY TRUE, HONEST, FAIR, DIGNIFIED AND OBJECTIVE INFORMATION OR STATEMENT OF FACTS. Canon 3 General Rule: A lawyer cannot adverse his talent as a shopkeeper advertises his wares. The proscription against advertising of legal services / solicitation of legal business aims to preserve the dignity of the profession To allow a lawyer to advertise his talent or skill is to commercialize the practice of law, lower professions public confidence and lessen its ability to render high character of service which every member of the bar is called. Canon 3 Not all types of advertising / solicitation are prohibited. What makes advertising / solicitation improper is the employment of such methods as are incompatible with the traditional dignity of a lawyer and the maintenance of correct professional standards. Permissible Advertising or Solicitation Publication in a reputable law list, in a manner consistent with the standards of conduct imposed by canons. The law list must be published for that purpose and not merely supplemental to magazine or paper. Lawyer can also be listed in a Telephone Directory but not under designation of special branch of law Use of an ordinary simple professional card is also permitted. It may contain the following: name, name of law firm, address, telephone no., and special branch of law practiced Permissible Advertising or Solicitation In writing legal articles:

An attorney may with propriety write articles for publications in which he gives information upon the law, but he should not accept employment from such publications to advise inquiries in respect to their individual rights. Permissible Advertising or Solicitation Engaging in business or other occupation The fact that he is a lawyer does not preclude him from engaging in business Impropriety arises when the business is of such nature or in such a manner as to be inconsistent with the lawyers duties as a member of the bar It is usually necessary for a lawyer to keep his business entirely separate from his practice of law. In Re Tagorda Facts: The respondent Atty. Luis Tagorda, a member of the provincial board of Isabela, admits that in the last general elections he made use of a card written in Spanish and Ilocano, which in translation, read as follows: LUIS B. TAGORDA Attoney; Notary Public; CANDIDATE FOR BOARD MEMBER, Province of Isabela. Along with it Tagorda admits to being the author of a letter addressed to a lieutenant of barrio in his home municipality reassuring him the he (Luis) is still free to exercise his functions as an attorney and notary public and with it his availability despite his induction to the board. He also instructed the Lieutenant to disseminate the information to the barrio people. In Re Tagorda Issue: WON his act of solicitation as an attorney through the above mentioned means result to his disbarment. In Re Tagorda Held: YES Ratio: The solicitation of employment by an attorney is a ground for disbarment or suspension.

"The practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either personally or through paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice." a statue conforming to the principle of the Canons of Professionals Ethics adopted by the American Bar Association in 1908 and by the Philippine Bar Association in 1917. Canons 27 and 28 of the Code of Ethics pertaining to Advertising be it direct or indirect and stirring up litigation directly or through agents respectively. The reason of the statute is that the law is a profession and not a business. The lawyer may not seek or obtain employment by himself or through others for to do so would be unprofessional. ULEP vs Legal Clinic Facts: In 1984, The Legal Clinic was formed by Atty. Rogelio Nogales. Its aim, according to Nogales was to move toward specialization and to cater to clients who cannot afford the services of big law firms. Now, Atty. Mauricio Ulep filed a complaint against TheLegal Clinic because of the latters advertisements which contain the following: ULEP vs Legal Clinic SECRET MARRIAGE? P560.00 for a valid marriage. Info on DIVORCE. ABSENCE. ANNULMENT. VISA. THE LEGAL CLINIC, INC. Please call: 521-0767; 521-7232; 522-2041 8:30am 6:00pm 7th Flr. Victoria Bldg., UN Ave., Manila ULEP vs Legal Clinic GUAM DIVORCE DON PARKINSON An attorney in Guam is giving FREE BOOKS on Guam Divorce through The Legal Clinic beginning Monday to Friday during office hours. Guam divorce. Annulment of Marriage. Immigration Problems, Visa Ext. Quota/Non-quota Res. & Special Retirees Visa. Declaration of Absence. Remarriage to Filipina Fiancees. Adoption. Investment in the Phil. US/Foreign Visa for Filipina Spouse/Children.

Call Marivic. THE LEGAL CLINIC, INC. 7th Flr. Victoria Bldg., UN Ave., Manila nr. US Embassy Tel. 521-7232, 521-7251, 522-2041, 521-0767 ULEP vs Legal Clinic It is also alleged that The Legal Clinic published an article entitled Rx for Legal Problems in Star Week of Philippine Star wherein Nogales stated that they The Legal Clinic is composed of specialists that can take care of a clients problem no matter how complicated it is even if it is complicated. He said that he and his staff of lawyers, who, like doctors, are specialists in various fields, can take care of it. The Legal Clinic, Inc. has specialists in taxation and criminal law, medico-legal problems, labor, litigation and family law. These specialists are backed up by a battery ofparalegals, counselors and attorneys. ULEP vs Legal Clinic Issue: Whether or not The Legal Clinics advertisements may be allowed. ULEP vs Legal Clinic Held:NO Ratio: 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. The standards of the legal profession condemn the lawyers advertisement of his talents. A lawyer cannot, without violating the ethics of his profession, advertise his talents or skills as in a manner similar to a merchant advertising his goods. Further, the advertisements of Legal Clinic seem to promote divorce, secret marriage, bigamous marriage, and other circumventions of law which their experts can facilitate. Such is highly reprehensible. Rule 3.01 A lawyer shall not 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.

Rule 3.01 Nor shall a lawyer pay or give something of value to representatives of the mass media in anticipation of, or in return for publicity to attract legal business. A lawyer should not resort to indirect advertisements such as: Furnishing newspaper comments Posing for photos of incidents whith a case which he/she is handling Requesting business from other lawyers Rule 3.02 In a 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. Rule 3.02 The reason for allowing the continued use of a name of a deceased partner is that all partners by their joint efforts over a period of years contributed to the goodwill attached to the firm name, and this goodwill is disturbed by a change in firm name everytime a partner dies. Filipino lawyers cannot practice law under a name of a foreign lawfirm. In the Matter of Petition for Authority To Continue use of the Firm Name Ozaeta, Romulo, etc. Two separate petitions were filed before the court by the surviving partners Alexander Sycip and Herminio Ozaeta that they be allowed to continue using, in the names of the firms, the names of partners who passed away. They argued that the continued use of a deceased partners name in a firm name is not unethical, but care should be taken that no imposition or deception is practiced through this use. In the Matter of Petition for Authority To Continue use of the Firm Name Ozaeta, Romulo, etc. Issue:

WON petitioners are allowed to continue using the names of their deceased partners in their firms name. In the Matter of Petition for Authority To Continue use of the Firm Name Ozaeta, Romulo, etc. Held: NO Ratio: It is true that Canon 33 does not consider as unethical the continued use of the name of the deceased partner when such practice is permissible by local custom but the canon warns that care should be taken that no imposition or deception is practiced through this use. A glimpse of the firms history shows how their firm names have evolved and changed from time to time as the composition of the partnership changed. The possibility of deception upon the public, real or consequential In fine, petitioners desire to preserve the identity of their firms in the eyes of the public must bow to legal and ethical impediments. Petitions were denied, as there are only 4 votes for granting them Dacanay vs Baker & McKenzie Facts: Lawyer Adriano E. Dacanay, admitted to the bar in 1954, in his 1980 verified complaint, sought to enjoin Juan G. Collas, Jr. and nine other lawyers from practising law under the name of Baker & McKenzie, a law firm organized in Illinois. In a letter dated November 16, 1979 respondent Vicente A. Torres, using the letterhead of Baker & McKenzie, which contains the names of the ten lawyers, asked Rosie Clurman for the release of 87 shares of Cathay Products International, Inc. to H.E. Gabriel, a client. Attorney Dacanay, in his reply dated December 7, 1979, denied any liability of Clurman to Gabriel. He requested that he be informed whether the lawyer of Gabriel is Baker & McKenzie "and if not, what is your purpose in using the letterhead of another law office." Not having received any reply, he filed the instant complaint. Dacanay vs Baker & McKenzie Issue: WON Baker & Mckenzie can practice law here in the Philippines?

Dacanay vs Baker & McKenzie Held: NO Ratio: We hold that Baker & McKenzie, being an alien law firm, cannot practice law in the Philippines (Sec. 1, Rule 138, Rules of Court). As admitted by the respondents in their memorandum, Baker & McKenzie is a professional partnership organized in 1949 in Chicago, Illinois with members and associates in 30 cities around the world. Respondents, aside from being members of the Philippine bar, practising under the firm name of Guerrero & Torres, are members or associates of Baker &Mckenzie. As pointed out by the Solicitor General, respondents' use of the firm name Baker & McKenzie constitutes a representation that being associated with the firm they could "render legal services of the highest quality to multinational business enterprises and others engaged in foreign trade and investment" (p. 3, respondents' memo). This is unethical because Baker & McKenzie is not authorized to practice law here. Wherefore, the respondents are enjoined from practising law under the firm name Baker & McKenzie Rule 3.03 When 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. Rule 3.03 Generally, the appointment or election of an attorney to a government office disqualifies him from engaging in the private practice of law The disqualification is intended to preserve the public trust, and a public officer or employee is obliged not only to perform his duties with the highest degree of responsibility, integrity, loyalty, efficiency and exclusive fidelity. Public Officials absolutely prohibited from engaging in the private practice of law or giving professional advice to clients: Judges and other officials / employees of the courts Office of the Solicitor General and other government prosecution offices

President, Vice-President, members of the cabinet and their deputy assistants Members of the Constitutional Commission Civil Service officers or employees whose duties require that their entire time be at the disposal of the government General Rule: When one of these officials gets appointed, he ceases to engage in the practice of law and his right to practice is suspended until his tenure of office. Public Officials not absolutely prohibited from engaging in the private practice of law A lawyer member of the Legislature is only prohibited from appearing as counsel before any court of justice or before Electoral Tribunals, or quasi-judicial and other administrative bodies. Samonte vs Gatdula The complaint filed by Julieta Borromeo Samonte charges Rolando R. Gatdula, RTC, Branch 220, Quezon City with grave misconduct consisting in the alleged engaging in the private practice of law which is in conflict with his official functions as Branch Clerk of Court. Samonte vs Gatdula Facts: Complainant alleges that when she went to Branch 220, RTC, Quezon City, to inquire about the reason for the issuance of the temporary restraining order, respondent Atty. Rolando Gatdula, blamed her lawyer for writing the wrong address in the complaint for ejectment and told her that if she wanted the execution to proceed, she should change her lawyer and retain the law office of respondent at the same time giving his calling card with the name "Baligod, Gatdula, Tacardon, Dimailig and Celera" with office at Rm. 220 Mariwasa Bldg., 717 Aurora Blvd., Cubao, Quezon City; otherwise she will not be able to eject the defendant Dave Knope. Complainant told respondent that she could not decide because she was only representing her sister. Respondent Gatdula claims that thereafter complainant returned to his office, and informed him that she wanted to change counsel and that a friend of hers recommended the Law Finn of "Baligod, Gatdula,

Tacardon, Dimailig and Celera," at the same time showing a calling card, and asking if he could handle her case. Respondent refused as he was not connected with the law firm, although he was invited to join but he chose to remain in the judiciary. Samonte vs Gatdula The case was referred to Executive Judge Estrella Estrada, RTC, Quezon City, for investigation, report and recommendation. Findings: It could not be established who really gave the calling card and if Atty. Gatdula was really convincing compainant to change lawyers. Issue: WON Atty. Gatdula a Clerk of Court has engaged in the private practice of law. Samonte vs Gatdula Held: YES Ratio: The above explanation tendered by the Respondent is an admission that it is his name which appears on the calling card, a permissible form of advertising or solicitation of legal services The card clearly gives the impression that he is connected with the said law firm. The inclusion/retention of his name in the professional card constitutes an act of solicitation which violates Section 7 sub-par. (b)(2) of Republic Act No. 6713, otherwise known as "Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees" which declares it unlawful for a public official or employee to, among others: "(2) Engage in the private practice of their profession unless authorized by the Constitution or law, provided that such practice will not conflict or tend to conflict with official functions. WHEREFORE, respondent Rolando R. Gatdula. Branch Clerk of Court, RTC, Branch 220, Quezon City is hereby reprimanded for engaging in the private practice of law with the warning that a repetition of the same offense will be dealt with more severely. Rule 3.04 A lawyer shall not pay or give anything of value to representatives of the mass media in anticipation of, or in

return for, publicity to attract legal business. Rule 3.04 The purpose of the rule is to prevent some lawyers from gaining an unfair advantage over others through the use of gimmickry press agency or other artificial means. It is improper for a lawyer to resort to adroit propaganda to secure media publicity for the purpose of attracting legal business. Media publicity, as a normal by-product of efficient legal service, is not improper The rule prohibits from making indirect publicity gimmicks: Furnishing or inspiring newspaper comments Procuring his photograph to be published with cases he is handling Making a courtroom scene to attract the attention of the newspapermen Arranging for the purpose an interview with him by media people Cruz v Salva Facts: Following the killing of Manuel Monroy in 1953 a number of persons, including Oscar Castelo, were accused in said crime. After a long trial, the CFI of Pasay City found the accused guilty of the crime of murder and sentenced them to death. They all appealed, however, they were again found guilty. Pending appeal, the late President Magsaysay ordered a reinvestigation of the case. The agents of Philippine Constabulary conducted the said investigation. Counsel for Oscar Castelo and his co-defendants wrote to respondent Fiscal Salva to conduct a reinvestigation. A conference was held by Fiscal Salva with the Secretary of Justice who decided to have the results of the investigation by the Philippine Constabulary made available to counsel for the appellants. In connection with said preliminary investigation, petitioner Timoteo Cruz was subpoenaed by respondent to appear at his office, to testify. The connection, if any, that petitioner Cruz had with the preliminary investigation was that affidavits and confessions sent to Salva by the

Chief, Philippine Constabulary, and which were being investigated, implicated petitioner Cruz, even picturing him as the instigator and mastermind in the killing of Manuel Monroy. Petitioners Contention: While a criminal case (vs. Oscar Castelo, et al) is pending appeal, no court, much less a prosecuting attorney like respondent Salva, had any right or authority to conduct a preliminary investigation of the case for that would be obstructing the administration of justice and interferring with the consideration on appeal of the main case; Issue: WON Atty. Salva have sought media publicity in conducting the investigation. (Rule 3.04 Held: Yes. In the present case the investigation was conducted not in respondents office but in the session hall of the Municipal Court of Pasay City evidently, to accommodate the big crowd that wanted to witness the proceeding, including members of the press. A number of microphones were installed. Reporters were everywhere and photographers were busy taking pictures. The newspapers certainly played up and gave wide publicity to what took place during the investigation, and this involved headlines and extensive recitals, narrations of and comments on the testimonies The members of the Court were greatly disturbed and annoyed by such publicity and sensationalism made by the respondent. It is bad enough to have such undue publicity when a criminal case is being investigated by the authorities even when it being tried in court. Thus, respondent Francisco G. H. Salva was publicly reprehended and censured for the uncalled for and wide publicity and sensationalism that he had given to and allowed in connection with his investigation, which the SC considers and find to be in contempt of court Canon 4 A LAWYER SHALL PARTICIPATE IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE LEGAL SYSTEM BY INITIATING OR SUPPORTING EFFORTS IN LAW REFORM AND IN THE IMPROVEMENT OF THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE. A lawyer must recognize that the law is a part of a vast social network and he has to interact with the rest of the society

A lawyer must broaden out and continue to grow in knowledge and competence in order to make the law socially responsive Canon 5 A LAWYER SHALL KEEP ABREAST OF LEGAL DEVELOPMENTS, PARTICIPATE IN CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS, SUPPORT EFFORTS TO ACHIEVE HIGH STANDARDS IN LAW SCHOOLS AS WELL AS IN THE PRACTICAL TRAINING OF LAW STUDENTS AND ASSIST IN DISSEMINATING THE LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE. It is a duty of a lawyer in the active practice of law to keep abreast of decisions of the SC and changes in the law Legal education should be a continuing concern Three fold obligation He owes it to himself to continue improving his knowledge of the law He owes it to his profession to take an active interest in the maintenance of high standards of legal obligation He owes it to the lay public to make the law a part of social consciousness Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) Purpose: to ensure that throughout their career they keep abreast with Jaw and jurisprudence, maintain the ethics of the profession and enhance the standards of the practice of law. Completion of MCLE Members of the IBP not exempt under Rule 7 shall complete every three (3) years at least thirty-six (36) hours of continuing legal education activities approved by the MCLE Committee. Rule 7 - EXEMPTIONS Parties exempted from the MCLE: (a) The President and the Vice President of the Philippines, and the Secretaries and Undersecretaries of Executive Departments; (b) Senators and Members of the House of Representatives; (c) The Chief Justice and Associate Justices of the Supreme Court, incumbent and retired members of the judiciary, incumbent members of the Judicial and

Bar Council and incumbent court lawyers covered by the Philippine Judicial Academy program of continuing judicial education; (d) The Chief State Counsel, Chief State Prosecutor and Assistant Secretaries of the Department of Justice; (e) The Solicitor General and the Assistant Solicitors General; (f) The Government Corporate Counsel, Deputy and Assistant Government Corporate Counsel; (g) The Chairmen and Members of the Constitutional Commissions; (h) The Ombudsman, the Overall Deputy Ombudsman, the Deputy Ombudsmen and the Special Prosecutor of the Office of the Ombudsman; (i) Heads of government agencies exercising quasi-judicial functions; (j) Incumbent deans, bar reviewers and professors of law who have teaching experience for at least 10 years in accredited law schools; (k) The Chancellor, Vice-Chancellor and members of the Corps of Professors and Professorial Lecturers of the Philippine Judicial Academy; and (I) Governors and Mayors SEC. 2. Other parties exempted from the MCLE. -- The following Members of the Bar are likewise exempt: (a) Those who are not in law practice, private or public. (b) Those who have retired from law practice with the approval of the IBP Board of Governors. NON-COMPLIANCE PROCEDURES Constitutes non-compliance: (a) Failure to complete the education requirement within the compliance period; (b) Failure to provide attestation of compliance or exemption; (c) Failure to provide satisfactory evidence of compliance (including evidence of exempt status) within the prescribed period;

(d) Failure to satisfy the education requirement and furnish evidence of such compliance within sixty (60) days from receipt of a noncompliance notice; (e) Any other act or omission analogous to any of the foregoing or intended to circumvent or evade compliance with the MCLE requirements. CONSEQUENCES OF NON-COMPLIANCE Non-compliance fee. -- A member who, for whatever reason, is in noncompliance at the end of the compliance period shall pay a noncompliance fee. Listing as delinquent member. -- Any member who fails to satisfactorily comply with Section 2 of Rule 12 (Non-compliance notice and 60-day period to attain compliance.) shall be listed as a delinquent member by the IBP Board of Governors upon the recommendation of the MCLE Committee, in which case Rule 139-A of the Rules of Court shall apply. Canon 6 THESE CANONS SHALL APPLY TO LAWYERS IN GOVERNMENT SERVICES IN THE DISCHARGE OF THEIR OFFICIAL DUTIES Applicable to lawyers in the government service in the discharge of their official duties A lawyer does not shed his professional obligations upon his assuming in public office A government lawyer may be administratively liable for breach of the canons and rules of the Code of Professional Responsibility in the discharge of official duties Government lawyers should be more sensitive to their obligations as their disreputable conduct is more likely to be magnified in the public eye. RA 6713, Sec. 4 Commitment to public interest Professionalism Justness and sincerity Political neutrality Responsiveness to the public Nationalism and patriotism Commitment to democracy

Simple living Huysen v. Gutierrez Facts: Respondent Atty. Gutierrez, a Bureau of Immigration and Deportation officer, received US$20,000 from complainant Huyssen. Accused of falsely representing that it was needed in complainants application for visa and failing to return the same, respondent denied misappropriating the said amount, claiming that he gave it to a certain Atty. Mendoza who assisted complainant and children in their application for visa. He failed however to substantiate such denial. Atty. Gutierrez had many alibis on why the money could not immediately be returned to the complainant, and promised her several times that he would repay her out of his personal funds. He even issued personal post-dated checks on this, but which later bounced. Issue WON respondents conduct violated Canon 6 the Code of Professional Responsibility Held: Yes, the respondent should be disbarred Ratio: Lawyers in government service in the discharge of their official task have more restrictions than lawyers in private practice. Want of moral integrity is to be more severely condemned in a lawyer who holds a responsible public office. Considering that respondent was able to perpetrate the fraud by taking advantage of his position with the Board of Special Inquiry of the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation, makes it more reprehensible as it has caused damage to the reputation and integrity of said office It is submitted that respondent has violated Rule 6.02 of Canon 6 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which reads: "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."

Collantes v. Renomeron Facts: This complaint for disbarment is relative to the administrative case filed by Atty. Collantes, house counsel for V& G Better Homes Subdivision, Inc. (V&G), against Atty. Renomeron, Register of Deeds of Tacloban City, for the latters irregular actuations with regard to the application of V&G for registration of 163 pro forma Deed of Absolute Sale with Assignment (in favor of GSIS) of lots in its subdivision. Although V&G complied with the desired requirements, respondent suspended the registration of the documents with certain special conditions between them, which was that V&G should provide him with weekly round trip ticket from Tacloban to Manila plus P2,000.00 as pocket money per trip, or, in lieu thereof, the sale of respondents Quezon City house and lot by V&G or GSIS representatives. Eventually, respondent formally denied the registration of the documents. He himself elevated the question on the registrability of the said documents to Administrator Bonifacio (of the National Land Titles and Deeds Registration Administration-NLTDRA). The Administrator then resolved in favor of the registrability of the documents. Despite the resolution of the Administrator, the respondent still refused the registration thereof but demanded from the parties interested the submission of additional requirements not adverted in his previous denial. Issue: WON the Code of Professional Responsibility applies to government service in the discharge of official tasks. Held: Yes, the Code of Professional Responsibility applies to government service in the discharge of their official tasks (Canon 6). The administrative complaint has to do with his position in public service. The disbarment case has to do with his status as member of the IBP A lawyers misconduct as a public official also constitutes a violation of his oath as a lawyer. The lawyers oath is a source of obligations and its violation is a ground for his suspension, disbarment or other disciplinary action. Rule 6.01

A prosecutor shall see to it that justice is done Rule 6.01 Public Prosecutor A quasi-judicial officer The representative not of an ordinary party to a controversy, but of a sovereignty, whose obligation to govern impartially is as compelling as its obligation to govern at all. Primary duty is to see to it that justice is done Must not suppress the facts nor conceal the witnesses capable of establishing the innocence of the accused It is as much his duty to refrain from improper methods calculated to produce a wrongful conviction as it is to use every legitimate means to bring about a just one He may not assert his personal knowledge of a crime unless he withdraws as prosecutor AND takes the witness stand, to give the defense counsel the opportunity to cross-examine him Rule 6.01 Role of a Private Prosecutor His sole purpose is to enforce the civil liability and not demand punishment of the accused GENERAL Rule: The offended party has the right to intervene in the prosecution of a crime Exception: Where from the nature of the crime and the law defining and punishing it, no civil liability arises in favor of a private offended party In cases where from the nature of the offenses the offended party is entitled to civil indemnity arising therefrom but he has waived the same or has expressly reserved his right to institute a civil action or he has already instituted such civil action Rule 6.01 Intervention by Private Lawyer is subject to Prosecutors control He cannot take a different stand from that of the prosecutor

He cannot file for the revival of a previous case which was dismissed upon motion of the prosecutor SC amended Sec 5 Rule 110 of the Rules of Court, which took effect May 1, 2002 and which provides in part: Rule 6.01 In case of heavy work schedule of the public prosecutor or in the event of lack of public prosecutors, the private prosecutor may be authorize in writing by the Chief of Prosecution Office or the Regional State Prosecutor to prosecute the case subject to the approval of the court. Once so authorized to prosecute the criminal action, the private prosecutor shall continue to prosecute the case up to the end of the trial even in the absence of the public prosecutor, unless the authority is revoked or otherwise withdrawn. People vs Pineda Facts: 5 separate cases, 4 for murder, 1 for frustrated murder for Tomas Narbasa, Tambac Alindo and Rufino Borres The 5 informations were planted upon facts by the prosecuting attorney from his investigation 2 of the 3 moved for the consolidation of all the 5 cases, their plea is that said cases arose out of the same incident and motivated by one impulse Repondent Judge granted respondents claim To obviate the necessity of trying 5 cases instead of one People vs Pineda Issue: Whether or not Judges decision will prevail over that of the fiscals Held: Decision of Respondent Judge was declared null and void Ratio: People vs Sope it is very logical that the prosecuting attorney, being the one charged with the prosecution of offenses, should determine the information to be filed and cannot be controlled by the offended party People vs Pineda

The impact of the respondent Judges orders is that his judgement to be substituted for that of the prosecutors on the matter of what crime is to be filed in court. The question of instituting a criminal charge is one addressed to the sound discretion of the investigating Fiscal. The information which the fiscal lodges in court must have to be supported by facts brought about by inquiry made by him. Rule 6.02 A lawyer shall not use his public position to promote his private interest This provision requires that a lawyer in government service shall not use his public position to promote or advance his private interest nor shall allow the latter to interfere with his public duties. Neither should he accept any private legal business in which his duty to his client will or may conflict with his official duties. If some unforeseen conflict arises, he must explain to his client that his official duties must prevail. Vitriolo vs Dasig Facts: - Respondent is an official of the Commission on Higher Education - Complainants alleged that respondent, while she was OIC of Legal Affairs and Service, committed acts which are grounds for disbarment under Sec 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court: - While being the OIC, demanded from a teacher and 3 students, some certain amount of money for the facilitation of their application for correction of name pending before the Legal Affairs Service of CHED - Vitriolo vs Dasig - The cases the proceeded ex parte since the respondent failed to submit her answer to the complaint - In the IBP Commission on Bar Disciplines Report and Recommendation, it concluded that respondent, in violation of her oath as a government official and as a member of the Bar, indeed made unlawful demands or attempted to extort money from certain people who had pending applications request before her office in exchange for his promise to act favorably

on said applications/request. Clearly, respondent unlawfully used her public office in order to secure financial spoils to the detriment of the dignity and reputation of CHED - Vitriolo vs Dasig - IBP Commission on Bar Discipline further recommended that respondent be suspended for 3 years with a further warning that simlira action in the future will be a ground for disbarment of respondent. - IBP Board of Governors approved such recommendation Issue: whether or not the respondent is guilty of unlawfully using her public office in order to secure financial spoils to the detriment of the dignity and reputation of CHED Vitriolo vs Dasig Held: respondent was disbarred Ratio: The records shows that respondent attempted to extort money from the teacher and the student as a consideration for her favorable action on their pending applications before her office. The attorneys Oath is the source of the obligations and duties of every lawyer and any violation thereof is a ground for disbarment. The Oath imposes upon every member of the bar the duty to delay no man for money o rmalice (rule 1.03) Vitriolo vs Dasig Respondents attempts to extort money constitutes a breach of Rule 6.02 of the Code which bars lawyers in government service from promoting their private interests. Promotion of private interests includes soliciting gifts or anything of monetary value in any transaction requiring the approval of his office which maybe affected by the functions of his office. Lim-Santiago vs Sagucio Facts: Atty. Sagucio was the former Personnel Manager and Retained Counsel of Taggat industries,Inc. until his appointment as Asst. Provincial Prosecutor of Tuguegarao

Employees of Taggat filed a criminal complaint, they alleged that complainant, who took over the management and control of Taggat after the death of her father, withheld payment of their salaries and wages without valid cause. Respondent was the one who conducted the preliminary investigation of the case and recomended its filing of 651 informations in violation of Art 11612 of the Labor Code. Complainant now charges respondent with the violationsRule 15.03 of CPR and engaging in the private practice of law while working as a government prosecutor. Lim-Santiago vs Sagucio Issue: WON being a former lawyer of Taggatconflicts with his role as Asst. Provincial Prosecutor Held: The Supreme Court finds no conflict of interests when respondent handled preliminaryinvestigation of criminal complaint filed by Taggat employees Ration: The issue in the criminalcomplaint pertains to non-payment of wages that occurred from April 1 1996 to July 15, 1997. Lim-Santiago vs Sagucio Clearly, respondent was no longer connected with Taggat during that period since he resigned sometime in 1992. In order to charge respondent for representing conflicting interests, evidence must be presented to prove that respondent used against Taggat, his former client, any confidential information acquired thru his previous employment. It does not necessarily follow that respondent used any confidential information from his previous employment with complainant or Taggat in resolving the criminal complaint Rule 6.03 Former official may not accept certain employment A lawyer shall not, after leaving the government service, accept engagement or employment in connection with any matter which he had intervened while in said service

Rule 6.03 The restriction against a public official from using his public position as a vehicle to promote or advance his private interests extends beyond his tenure on certain matters in which he intervened while ins aid service RA 6713 prohibits any former public official or employee for a period of 1 year after retirement or separation from office to practice his profession in connection with any matter before the office he used to be with PCGG vs Sandiganbayan Facts: PCGG, on behalf of the Republic of the Philippines, filed with the Sandiganbayan a complaint for reversion, reconveyance, restitution, accounting and damages against respondents Lucio Tan, then President Ferdinand E. Marcos and Imelda R. Marcos and others referred to as dummies of the Marcoses. PCGG vs Sandiganbayan Shortly thereafter, respondents Tan, et al. filed with this Court petitions for certiorari, prohibition and injunction seeking to, among others, nullify the writs of sequestration issued by the PCGG. After the filing of the comments thereon, this Court referred the cases to the Sandiganbayan (Fifth Division) for proper disposition. PCGG vs Sandiganbayan In all these cases, respondents Tan, et al. are represented by their counsel Atty. Estelito P. Mendoza, who served as the Solicitor General from 1972 to 1986 during the administration of former President Marcos. The PCGG opined that Atty. Mendozas present appearance as counsel for respondents Tan, et al. in the case involving the sequestered shares of stock in Allied Banking Corp. runs afoul of Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility proscribing former government lawyers from accepting engagement or employment in connection with any matter in which he had intervened while in said service. PCGG vs Sandiganbayan

Issue: Whether or not the present engagement of Atty. Mendoza as counsel for respondents Tan violates the interdiction embodied in Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility PCGG vs Sandiganbayan Held: The petition is denied Ratio Matter is defined any discrete, isolatable act as well as identifiable transaction or conduct involving a particular situation and specific party, and not merely an act of drafting, enforcing or interpreting government or agency procedures, regulations or laws, or briefing abstract principles of law. The act of advising the Central Bank, on how to proceed with the said banks liquidation and even filing the petition for its liquidation with the CFI of Manila is not the matter contemplated by Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. PCGG vs Sandiganbayan Beyond doubt, 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 banks liquidation and even filing the petition for its liquidation with the CFI of Manila. 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. ABA Formal Opinion No. 342 is clear as daylight in stressing that the drafting, enforcing or interpreting government or agency procedures, regulations or laws, or briefing abstract principles of law are acts which do not fall within the scope of the term matter and cannot disqualify.