University of St.

La Salle
Bacolod City, Negros Occidental, Philippines

College of Law

In partial fulfillment of the requirements in

Legal Ethics
S.Y. 2014-2015

CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY

CHAPTER 1: THE LAWYER AND SOCIETY

Sugar Jan Abino Jess Michael Arsenal

Roda Bravo Jeremae Ceriaco

Marianne Endriano Mecille Jermeo

Fatima Rodrigues Prechie Magallanes

Giofel Magbanua Genette Quiddauen

Charisse Tomaro Alexandra Soledad

Re Charles Tupas
Promulgation
It was promulgated by the Supreme Court on June 21, 1988

Drafted by
It was initially drafted by the:
a. Committee on Responsibility, Discipline and Disbarment of the Integrated Bar of
the Philippines composed of ;
a. Dean Irene Cortes as Chairman
b. Justice Carolina Grino Aquino
c. Attorney Gonzalo W. Gonzales (members)
d. Attorney Marcelo B. Fernan (members)
e. Attorney Camillo Quiason (members)
f. Attorney Jose F. Espinoisa (members)
g. Attorney Carmelo V. Sison (members)
h. Former Chief Justice Concepcion (consultant)
i. Former Justice Jose B.L. Reyes a (consultant)
j. Professor Myrna S. Feliciano (resource person)
k. Attorney Concepcion Lim-Jardeleza (resource person)

LEGAL ETHICS

Body of principles by which the conduct of members of the legal profession is

controlled. It is that branch of moral science which treats of the duties which an attorney
at law owes to his clients, to the courts, to the bar and to the public.(G.A. Malcolm,
Legal and Judicial Ethics 8,1949)

It is a branch of moral science which treats of the duties which an attorney owes to the
court, to his client, to his colleagues in the profession and to the public as embodied in
the Constitution, Rules of Court, the Code of Professional Responsibilities, Canons of
Professional Ethics,  jurisprudence, moral laws and special laws. (Justice George
Malcolm) (1993, 1996 Bar Question)

NATURE OF OFFICE OF ATTORNEY

The title “attorney” is reserved to those who, having obtained the necessary degree in
the study of law, and passed the bar examinations, have been admitted to the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines and remain members thereof of good standing; and it
is they only who are authorized to practice law in the Philippines.

PRIVILEGES OF ATTORNEY
 a. A lawyer has the privilege and right to practice law during good behavior before
any judicial, quasi-judicial or administrative tribunal.
b. An attorney enjoys the presumption of regularity in the discharge of his duty. (i.e.
He is immune, in the performance of his obligation to his client, from liability to a
third person insofar as he does not materially depart from his character as a
quasi-judicial officer.)
c. There are also privileges inherent in his status as a quasi-judicial officer. (i.e. the
law makes his passing the bar examination equivalent to a first grade or second
grade civil service eligibility.)

DUTIES OF A LAWYER
Statutory Basis: Rule 138, Sec. 20

1. To maintain allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines and to support the

Constitutionand obey the laws of the Philippines;
2. To observe and maintain the respect due tothe courts of justice and judicial
officers;
3. To counsel or maintain such actions or proceedings only as appear to him to
be just, and such defenses only as he believesto be honestly debatable under
the law;
4. To employ, for the purpose of maintainingthe causes confided to him, such
meansonly as are consistent with truth and honor,and never seek to mislead the
judge or any judicial officer by an artifice or falsestatement of fact or law;
5. To maintain inviolate the confidence, and atevery peril to himself, to preserve
thesecrets of his client, and to accept nocompensation in connection with his
client'sbusiness except from him or with hisknowledge and approval;
6. To abstain from all offensive personality andto advance no fact prejudicial to the
honor or reputation of a party or witness, unlessrequired by the justice of the
cause withwhich he is charged;
7. Not to encourage either the commencementor the continuance of an action
or proceeding, or delay any man's cause, fromany corrupt motive or interest;
8. Never to reject, for any considerationpersonal to himself, the cause of
thedefenseless or oppressed;
9. In the defense of a person accused of crime,by all fair and honorable means,
regardlessof his personal opinion as to the guilt of theaccused, to present every
defense that thelaw permits, to the end that no person maybe deprived of life or
liberty, but by dueprocess of law.

DUTIES MAY ALSO BE CLASSIFIED INTO:

 1. PUBLIC (operating as a faithful assistant of the court in search of a just solution
to disputes)
 A counsel de officio is expected to render effective service and to
exert his best efforts on behalf of an indigent accused. He has a
high duty to the poor litigant as to a paying client. He should have a
bigger dose of social conscience and a little less of self interest.
(1991, 1993, 1994, 1998, 2001, 2004 BAR EXAMS)

2. PRIVATE (an attorney operating as a trusted agent of his client)

 A private prosecutor may intervene in the prosecution of a criminal
action when the offended party is entitled to indemnity and has not
waived expressly, reserved or instituted the civil action for
damages.

 In case of heavy work schedule of the public prosecutors, the

private prosecutor may be authorized in writing by the Chief of the
Prosecution Office or the Regional State Prosecution 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 a publicprosecutor, unless the authority is revoked or otherwise
withdrawn. (Rule 110, Sec.5, ROC, as amended per A.M. No. 02-
2-07-SC, May 1, 2002)

FOUR-FOLD DUTIES OF A LAWYER

(Per the Code of Professional Responsibility)

1.DUTIES TO SOCIETY
a. should not violate his responsibility tosociety
b. exemplar for righteousness
c. ready to render legal aid
d. foster social reforms
e. guardian of due process
f. aware of special role in the solution of special problems and be always readyto
lend assistance in the study andsolution of social problems

2. DUTIES TO LEGAL PROFESSION

a. candor 
b. fairness
 c. courtesy and truthfulness
d. avoid encroachment in the business of other lawyers
e. uphold the honor of the profession

3. DUTIES TO THE COURT

a. respect or defend against criticisms
b. uphold authority and dignity
c. obey order and processes
d. assist in the administration of justice

4. DUTIES TO THE CLIENT

entire devotion to client’s interest

CANON 1 – A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS
OF THE LAND AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW AND FOR LEGAL
PROCESSES

Duties of Attorneys:
1. To maintain allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines and to support the
Constitution and obey the laws of the Philippines;
2. To observe and maintain the respect due to the courts of justice and judicial
officers;
3. To counsel or maintain such actions or proceedings only as appear to him as
just, and such defenses only as he believes to be honestly debatable under the
laws;
4. To employ, for the purpose of maintaining the causes confided to him, such
means only as are consistent with truth and honor, and never seek to mislead the
judge or  any judicial officer by an artifice or false statement of fact or law;
5. To maintain inviolate the confidence, and at every peril to himself, to preserve the
secrets of his client, and to accept no compensation in connection with his client’s
business except from him or with his knowledge and approval;
6. To abstain from all offensive personality and to advance no fact prejudicial to the
honor or reputation of a party or witness, unless required by the justice of the
cause with which he is charged;
7. Not to encourage either the commencement or the continuance of an action or
proceeding, or delay any man’s cause for any corrupt motive or interest;
8. Never to reject, for any consideration personal to himself, the cause of the
defenseless or oppressed;
9. In the defense of a person accused of a crime, by all fair and honorable means,
regardless of his personal opinion as to the guilt of the accused, to present every
 defense that the law permits, to the end that no person may be deprived of life or
liberty, but by due process of law.

Rule 1.01 – A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
conduct.

 Conviction for crimes involving moral turpitude – a number of lawyers have been
suspended or disbarred for conviction of crimes involving moral turpitude such as:

1. Estafa - defrauds another causing him to suffer damage, by means of

unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence, or of false pretense opt fraudulent acts.
(A.C No. 6273 Vaflor-Fabroa vs. Paguinto)
2. Bribery
-the offering, giving, receiving, or soliciting of something of value for the purpose 
of influencing the action of an official in the discharge of hisor her public or legal 
duties.
3. Murder – unlawfully kills another human being
4. Seduction -
a man entices a woman to have unlawful sexual relations with him by means of p
ersuasions, solicitations, promises, or
bribes without the use of physical force or violence.
5. Abduction - The act of restraining another through the use or threat of deadly
force or through fraudulent persuasion.
6. Smuggling - illegal transport of goods, especially across borderlines. 
7. falsification of public documents

 Morality as understood in law - This is a human standard based on natural

moral law which is embodied in man’s conscience and which guides him to do
good and avoid evil.
 Moral Turpitude: any thing that is done contrary to justice, honesty, modesty or
good morals.
 Immoral Conduct: that conduct which is willful, flagrant, or shameless and
which shows a moral indifference to the opinion of the good and respectable
members of the community (Arciga vs. Maniwag, 106 SCRA 591).
 Grossly Immoral Conduct: One 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. (Narag vs. Narag, 1998)

Rule 1.02 – A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the law or
at lessening confidence in the legal system.
 Respect for law is gravely eroded when lawyers themselves engage in unlawful
practices and brush aside the rules of the IBP formulated for their observance.
Preparation of a document contrary to law and morals is malpractice.
All acts of lawyers which are unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful corrode
public confidence in the legal system.
 Cosmos Foundry Shop Workers Union vs. Lo Bu 63 SCRA 321

Rule 1.03 – A lawyer shall not, for any corrupt motive or interest, encourage any
suit or proceeding or delay any man’s cause.
 Volunteer legal advice to bring lawsuit is unethical. (Except in rare cases)
 Tempering Client’s Propensity to litigate. (Cobb-Perez vs. Lanyin, 24 SCRA 291)
 Lawyer should not be an instigator of controversy but a mediator for concord and
conciliator for compromise.
 Appealing a case for purposes of delay is obstruction of justice. (Samar Mining
OC. Inc. vs. Arnado 24 SCRA 402)
 Some instances of delay condemned by the Supreme Court:
1. Resort to technicalities as a means to frustrate justice
2. Befuddling of the issues in the case by counsel which invariably will be
exposed for what they are.
3. Filing of multiple or repetitious petitions.
4. Filing of several actions covering the same subject matter or seeking
substantial identical relief.
5. Filing frivolous appeals for purposes of delay.
6. Filing of motions for postponement and other kinds of motions for dilatory
purposes.
7. Indiscriminate filing of suits against a party clearly intended for
harassment.

Rule 1.04 – A lawyer shall encourage his clients to avoid, end or settle the
controversy if it will admit of a fair settlement.

 If a lawyer finds that his client’s cause is defenseless, it is his burden/duty to

advise the latter to acquiesce and submit, rather than traverse the incontrovertible.
 It is unprofessional for a lawyer to volunteer advice to bring a lawsuit, except in
rare cases where the blood, relationship or trust makes it his duty to do so.
 Temper client’s propensity to litigate.
 Should not be an instigator of controversy but a mediator for concord and
conciliator for compromise.
 The law violated need not be a penal law. “Moral Turpitude” – everything which is
done contrary to justice, honesty, modesty or good morals.
  Give advice tending to impress upon the client and his undertaking exact
compliance with the strictest principles of moral law.
 Until a statute shall have been construed and interpreted by competent
adjudication, he is free and is entitled to advise as to its validity and as to what he
conscientiously believes to be its just meaning and extent.
 A lawyer has the obligation not to encourage suits. This is so as to prevent
barratry and ambulance chasing.
 Barratry – offense of frequently exciting and stirring up quarrels and suits, either
at law or otherwise; Lawyer’s act of fomenting suits among individuals and offering
his legal services to one of them.
 Ambulance Chasing – Act of chasing victims of accidents for the purpose of
talking to the said victims (or relatives) and offering his legal services for the filing
of a case against the person(s) who caused the accident(s).

Cases:

A.C No. 6273 Vaflor-Fabroa vs. Paguinto

Facts: Complainant, Atty. Iluminada M. Vaflor-Fabroa, who was Chairperson of the

General Mariano Alvarez Service Cooperative, Inc. (GEMASCO), was removed as a
member of the Board of Directors (the Board) and thereafter, respondent, Oscar
Paguinto and his group took over the GEMASCO office and its premises, the
pumphouses, water facilities, and operations. Complainant thus filed a complaint for
annulment of the proceedings of her removal as well as other members of the Board
and a complaint against respondent for disbarment alleging that respondent had
violated the Code ofProfessional Responsibility, particularly, among others, Canon 10 –
A lawyer owes candor, fairness and good faith to the court, when having ordered
to submit position papers and despite grant, on his motion, of extension of time, did not
file any position paper and further ignored the Court’s subsequent show cause order.
Moreover, respondent caused the filing of baseless criminal complaints against
complainant. 

Issue: Whether or not respondent’s acts constitute a violation of the provisions of the

Code of Professional Responsibility, particularly, Canon 10. 

Held: Yes, lawyers are called upon to obey court orders and processes and
respondent’s deference is underscored by the fact that willful disregard thereof will
subject the lawyer not only to punishment for contempt but to disciplinary sanctions as
well. In fact, graver responsibility is imposed upon a lawyer than any other to uphold the
integrity of the courts and to show respect to their processes. The Court further noted
that respondent had previously been suspended from the practice of law for violation of
the Code of Professional Responsibility, however, that respondent has not reformed his
ways. Hence, a more severe penalty is thus called for, respondent was subjected to
suspension for two years. 

Arciga vs. Maniwag, 106 SCRA 591

Facts: In 1970, when Maniwang was still a law student, he had a relationship with
Arciga, then a medical technology student. They started having a sexual relationship in
1971. In 1973, Arciga got pregnant. The two then went to Arciga’s hometown to tell the
latter’s parent about the pregnancy. They also made Arciga’s parents believe that they
were already married but they would have to have the church wedding in abeyance until
Maniwang passes the bar exams. Maniwang secured a copy of his birth certificate in
preparation of securing a marriage license.
In 1975, Maniwang passed the bar. But after his oath taking, he stopped communicating
with Arciga. Arciga located his whereabouts and there she found out that Maniwang
married another woman. Arciga confronted Maniwang’s wife and this irked Maniwang so
he inflicted physical injuries against Arciga.
Arciga then filed a disbarment case against Maniwang grounded on gross immoral
conduct. Maniwang admitted that he is the father of Arciga’s child; that he did promise
to marry Arciga many times; that he broke those promises because of Arciga’s shady
past because apparently Arciga had an illegitimate child even before her son with
Maniwang was born.
ISSUE: Whether or not Maniwang should be disbarred.
HELD:  No. The Supreme Court ruled that Maniwang’s case is different from the cases
of Mortel vs Aspiras and Almirez vs Lopez, and other cases therein cited. Maniwang’s
refusal to marry Arciga was not so corrupt nor unprincipled as to warrant disbarment
(though not much discussion was provided by the ponente as to why). But the Supreme
Court did say that it is difficult to state with precision and to fix an inflexible standard as
to what is “grossly immoral conduct” or to specify the moral delinquency and obliquity
which render a lawyer unworthy of continuing as a member of the bar. The rule implies
that what appears to be unconventional behavior to the straight-laced may not be the
immoral conduct that warrants disbarment. Immoral conduct has been defined as “that
conduct which is willful, flagrant, or shameless, and which shows a moral indifference to
the opinion of the good and respectable members of the community”.

Narag vs. Narag, 1998

FACTS: Atty. Narag’s spouse filed a petition for disbarment in the IBP alleging that
her husband courted one of his students, later maintaining her as a mistress and having
children by her.  Atty. Narag claims that his wife was a possessive, jealous woman who
abused him and filed the complaint out of spite.

ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Narag should be disbarred.

HELD: Atty.Dominador Narag failed to prove his innocence because he failed to refute

the testimony given against him and it was proved that his actions were
of public knowledge and brought disrepute and suffering to his wife and children.  Good
moral character is a continuing qualification required of every member of the bar.  Thus,
when a lawyer fails to meet the exacting standard of moral integrity, the Supreme Court
may withdraw his or her privilege to practice law.  (Canons 1&7, Rule 7.03, Code of
Ethics for Lawyers) It is not only a condition precedent to the practice of law, but a
continuing qualification for all members.  Hence when a lawyer is found guilty of gross
immoral conduct, he may be suspended or disbarred.  Grossly immoral means it must
be so corrupt as to constitute a criminal act or so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to
a high degree or committed under such scandalous or revolting circumstances as to
shock the common sense of decency.  As a lawyer, one must not only refrain from
adulterous relationships but must not behave in a way that scandalizes the public by
creating a belief that he is flouting those moral standards.

Cosmos Foundry Shop Workers Union vs. Lo Bu 63 SCRA 321

Facts: After Cosmos Foundry Shop was burned, Ong Ting established Century
Foundry Shop where he and his family resided in the premises. After several attempts
to settle a pending unfair labor practice case proved unsuccessful, Ong Ting sold all his
business, including equipment and rights in the New Century Foundry Shop to his
compadre Lo Bu, for Php20,000. 

On Jan 16, 1973, petitioner CFSWU obtained from the Court of Industrial Relations the
third alias writ of execution for the satisfaction and enforcement of the judgment in its
favor. Thereafter, writ was served January 17 and 18, 1973, levying on the personal
properties of the Cosmos Foundry Shop or the New Century Foundry Shop for the
purpose of conducting the public auction sale. 

Respondent Lo Bu filed an urgent motion to recall writ of execution, asserting lack of

jurisdiction of the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR). The CIR, in its order dated Feb 23,
1973, denied his motion. So likewise was the motion for reconsideration. 

Lo Bu appealed by certiorari but the Court denied this petition in its resolution dated July
17, 1993. In the meanwhile, there was a replevin suit by Lo Bu in the Court of First
Instance (CFI) Manila covering the same properties. 
Upon receipt of order from the Court denying certiorari, petitioner Labor Union filed a
second motion to dismiss complaint. After the complaint was dismissed by the lower
court, decision was elevated to the Court of Appeals. 

Issues: 
(1) Whether or not petitioner Labor union has made out a case for certiorari and
prohibition. 
(2) Whether or not counsel Atty Busmente performed his obligation as an officer of the
court while sustaining the dignity of the profession while acting as counsel for Lo Bu. 

Held: 
Writ of certiorari is granted and the order of Respondent CA reinstating appeal is
nullified and set aside. The writ of prohibition is likewise granted, respondent CA being
perpetually restrained from taking any further action in such appeal, except that of
dismissing it. Courts should dismiss a suit which has all the earmarks of a subterfuge
that was resorted to for the purpose of frustrating the execution of a judgment in an
unfair labor controversy. There was a replevin suit by the same vendee in  bad faith, Lo
Bu, which was dismissed by the CFI Manila. What is worse, private respondent Lo Bu
certainly cannot plead ignorance , as he himself was the petitioner in the certiorari
proceedings before this Court. He was a prinicipal in the nefarious scheme to frustrate
the award in favor of the petitioner labor union. Rule that certiorari will not be granted
where petitioners have plain and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law will not
be enforced where it would result in further delay in satisfaction of judgment that
ought to have been enforced years ago. It is about time that a halt be called to the
schemes utilized by respondent Lo Bu in his far-from-commendable efforts to defeat
labor’s just claim. 

A legal counsel is expected to defend a client’s cause but not at the expense of truth
and in defiance of the clear purpose of labor laws. For even such case, Atty Busmente
had not exculpated himself. He ought to remember that his obligation as an officer of
the court, no less than the dignity of the profession, requires that should not act like an
errand-boy at the beck and call of his client, ready and eager to do his every bidding. If
he fails to keep that admonition in mind, then he puts into serious question his good
standing in the bar.

Cobb-Perez vs. Lanyin, 24 SCRA 291

Facts: A civil case was filed by Ricardo Hermoso against Damaso Perez for the latter’s
failure to pay a debt of P17k. Hermoso won and a writ of execution was issued in his
favor. The sheriff was to conduct a public sale of a property owned by Damaso worth
P300k. This was opposed by Damaso as he claimed the amount of said property was
more than the amount of the debt. Judge Lantin, issuing judge, found merit on this
hence he amended his earlier decision and so he issued a second writ this time
directing the sheriff to conduct  a public sale on Damaso’s 210 shares of stock
approximately worth P17k.

Subsequently, Damaso and his wife filed five more petitions for injunction trying to
enjoin the public sale. The case eventually reached the Supreme Court where the SC
ruled that the petition of the Perez spouses are without merit; that their numerous
petitions for injunction are contemplated for delay. In said decision, the Supreme Court
ordered petitioners to pay the cost of the suit but said cost should be paid by their
counsels. The counsels now appeal said decision by the Supreme Court as they
claimed that such decision reflected adversely against their professionalism; that “If
there was delay, it was because petitioners’ counsel happened to be more assertive . . .
a quality of the lawyers (which) is not to be condemned.”
ISSUE: Whether or not the counsels for the Spouses Perez are excused.
HELD: No. A counsel’s assertiveness in espousing with candor and honesty his client’s
cause must be encouraged and is to be commended; what is not tolerated  is a lawyer’s
insistence despite the patent futility of his client’s position, as in the case at bar. It is the
duty of a counsel to advise his client, ordinarily a layman to the intricacies and vagaries
of the law, on the merit or lack of merit of his case. If he finds that his client’s cause is
defenseless, then it is his bounden duty to advise the latter to acquiesce and submit,
rather than traverse the incontrovertible. A lawyer must resist the whims and caprices of
his client, and temper his client’s propensity to litigate. A lawyer’s oath to uphold the
cause of justice is superior to his duty to his client; its primacy is indisputable.

Samar Mining OC. Inc. vs. Arnado 24 SCRA 402

Facts: In 1958, Rufino Abuyen won a labor case against Samar Mining Company.
Abuyen was awarded compensation plus hospitalization expenses for a disease he
incurred while working for Samar Mining. The decision was rendered by Pompeyo Tan,
a labor lawyer duly appointed by Francisco Arnado, a regional administrator of the
Department of Labor. In 1961, Samar Mining’s lawyer, Atty. Benedicto Arcinas, filed
an action for certiorari before CFI Cebu  contending that Tan has no authority or
jurisdiction over said case because he was a “mere labor lawyer” who had no authority
to render the award being complained of. CFI Cebu dismissed the petition of Arcinas.
Meanwhile, in the same year, the Supreme Court made a ruling in the case of Caltex v.
Villanueva (L-15658, August 21, 1961) that duly appointed hearing officers by regional
administrators of the labor department may issue awards. Notwithstanding this ruling,
Arcinas still filed an appeal before the Supreme Court.
ISSUE: Whether or not the appeal has merit.
HELD: No. It is obvious that the purpose of the filing is just to delay and prolong the
litigation in the hope of “draining the resources of the poorer party” “and of compelling it
to submit out of sheer exhaustion.” The conduct of Atty. Arcinas is hardly compatible
with the duty of the Bar to assist in the Administration of Justice, not to obstruct or
defeat the same.  The Supreme Court ordered Samar Mining and Atty. Arcinas to
shoulder the litigation costs of this case jointly and severally

CANON 2 - A LAWYER SHALL MAKE HIS LEGAL SERVICES AVAILABLE IN AN

EFFICIENT AND CONVENIENT MANNER COMPATIBLE WITH THE
INDEPENDENCE, INTEGRITY AND EFFECTIVENESS OF THE PROFESSION.

Rule 2.01 – A lawyer shall not reject, except for valid reasons, the cause of the
defenseless or oppressed.

- Stems from one of the obligations incident to the status and privileges of a
lawyer- To represent the poor and oppressed in the prosecution of their claims or
the defense of their rights.

Rule 2.02 – In such a case, even if a lawyer does not accept a case, he shall not
refuse to render legal advice to the person concerned if only to the extent
necessary to safeguard latter’s rights.

General Rule: A lawyer may refuse to accept the cause of the defenseless or the
oppressed. A lawyer is not obliged to act as counsel for any person who may wish to
become his client.

Exceptions:
1. A lawyer shall not refuse his services to the needy.
2. He shall not decline to represent a person solely on account of the latter’s race,
sex, creed or status of life or because of his own opinion regarding the guilt of
said person. ( Canon 14, Rule 14.01)
3. If there is serious and sufficient cause, an appointment as counsel de oficio or as
amici curiae , or a request from the integrated Bar of the Philippines or any of its
chapters for rendition of free legal aid.(Canon 14, Rule 14.02)

Exception to the exception: A lawyer may refuse to accept representation of an indigent

client if:

a. He is not a position to carry out the work effectively or competently;

b. He labors under a conflict of interests between him and the present client and
prospective client.( Canon 14, Rule 14.03)

Rule 2.03 – a lawyer shall not do or permit to be done any act designed primarily
to solicit legal business.

 Primary characteristics which distinguish the legal profession from business;

1 duty of service, of which the emolument is a by product, and in which one may
attain the highest eminence without making such money;
2 a relation as an ‘officer of court’ to the administration of justice involving thorough
sincerity, integrity and reliability;
3 a relation to clients in the highest degree of fiduciary;
4 a relation to colleagues at the bar characterized by candor, fairness and
unwillingness to resort to current business methods of advertising and
encroachment on their practice or dealing with their clients.
 Defenseless – not in the position to defend themselves due to poverty,
weakness, ignorance or other similar reasons.
 Oppressed – victims of acts of cruelty, unlawful exaction, domination or
excessive use of authority.

Rule on Advertisements

 General Rule: No advertisements allowed. The most worthy and effective

advertisement possible is the establishment of a well-merited reputation for
professional capacity and fidelity to trust.

Lawyers may not advertise their services or expertise nor 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 has been engaged or concerning the manner of their conduct, the
magnitude of the interest involved, the importance of the lawyer’s position, and all other
self-laudation.

 Exceptions/ Permissible advertisements:

1. Reputable law lists, in a manner consistent with the standards of conduct
imposed by the canons, of brief biographical and informative data, are
allowed.
2. Ordinary simple professional Card. It may contain only a statement of his
 name, the name of the law firm which he is connected with, address,
telephone number and the special branch of law practiced.
3. A simple announcement of the opening of a law firm or of changes in the
partnership, associates, firm name or office address, being for the
convenience of the profession, is not objectionable.
4. Advertisements or simple announcement of the existence of a lawyer or his
law firm posted anywhere it is proper such as his place of business or
residence except courtrooms and government buildings.
5. Advertisements or announcement in any legal publication, including books,
journals, and legal magazines.

Rule 2.04 – A lawyer shall not charge rates lower than those customarily or
prescribed, unless circumstances so warrant.

A lawyer cannot delay the approval of a compromise agreement entered into

between parties, just because his attorney’s fees were not provided for in the
agreement.

Rule: A lawyer cannot compromise the case without client’s consent (special
authority).
Exception: Lawyer has exclusive management of the procedural aspect of the
litigation (e.g. Submission for decision on the evidence so far presented. But in case
where lawyer is confronted with an emergency and prompt/urgent action is
necessary to protect client’s interest and there is no opportunity for consultation, the
lawyer may compromise.
Rule: Refrain from charging rates lower than the customary rates.

Atty. Ismael Khan v. Atty. Rizalino Simbillo

Facts:
A paid advertisement in the Philippine Daily Inquirer was published which reads:
“Annulment of Marriage Specialist (Contact Number)”. Espeleta, a staff of the Supreme
Court, called up the number but it was Mrs. Simbillo who answered. She claims that her
husband, Atty Simbillo was an expert in handling annulment cases and can guarantee a
court decree within 4-6 mos. provided the case will not involve separation of property
and custody of children. It appears that similar advertisements were also published.
An administrative complaint was filed which was referred to the IBP for
investigation and recommendation. The IBP resolved to suspend Atty Simbillo for 1 yea.
Note that although the name of Atty. Simbillo did not appear in the advertisement, he
admitted the acts imputed against him but argued that he should not be charged. He
said that it was time to lift the absolute prohibition against advertisement because the
interest of the public isn’t served in any way by the prohibition.
Issue:
Whether or not Simbillo violated the Rule 2.03 and Rule 3.01

Held:

Yes, The practice of law is not a business. It is a profession in which the primary
duty is public service and money. Gaining livelihood is a secondary consideration while
duty to public service and administration of justice should be primary. Lawyers should
subordinate their primary interest.
Worse, advertising himself as an “annulment of marriage specialist” he erodes
and undermines the sanctity of an institution still considered as sacrosanct—he in fact
encourages people otherwise disinclined to dissolve their marriage bond.
Solicitation of business is not altogether proscribed but for it to be proper it must
be compatible with the dignity of the legal profession. Note that the law list where the
lawyer’s name appears must be a reputable law list only for that purpose. A lawyer may
not properly publish in a daily paper, magazine.. etc., nor may a lawyer permit his name
to be published the contents of which are likely to deceive or injure the public or the bar.

CANON 3 -

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.

While the lawyer’s task in contributing to the improvement of the legal system is not a
matter of strict duty, it is a duty nevertheless that flows from the lawyer’s sense of public
responsibility.

The improvement of the legal system cannot, however, be done by dreaming in a

vacuum. The lawyer must recognize that the law is a part of vast social network and
whether he likes it or not, he has to interact with the rest of society. There is thus the
need on the part of the lawyer to transcend the narrow limits of technical law. Intricately
woven is the law with the social fabric that the legal profession cannot afford to confine
itself to narrowly technical legal questions. A lawyer must broaden out and continue to
grow in knowledge and competence in order to be able to make the law socially
responsive. (Agpalo)
Improving th legal system and the administration of justice can be done by participating
in various legal activities, viz:

1. Participation in Mandatory Continuing Legal Education

2. Participate in Lectures for law professors.
3. Write-ups in legal periodicals on particular aspect of law.
4. Passage of important pieces of legislation either by of amendment to an
existing law or passage of an entirely new law to supplant existing laws and
jurisprudence.

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
INFORMATION REGARDING THE LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE.

- It is the bounded duty of counsel in the active practice to keep abreast of

decisions of the Supreme Court and changes in the law.

- It is imperative that judges should be conversant with basic legal principles and
with the changes in the law and with the latest decisions and precedents.

- For the service in the judiciary and being in the active practice of law require
continuous study and research on the law from beginning to end.

- Legal education should be a continuing concern.

- After admission to practice, a lawyer incurs a THREE-FOLD OBLIGATION:

1. He owes it to himself to continue improving his knowledge of the law.

2. He owes it to his profession to take an active interest in the
maintenance of high standards of legal obligation.
3. He owes it to the lay public to make the law a part of its social
consciousness.

LAWS

1. B.M. No. 850 (MANDATORY CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION)

 Amended: October 2, 2001

 Members of the IBP, except those exempted under rule 7 of Bar Matter
No. 850 (Mandatory Continuing Legal Education), are required every 3
 years to complete at least 36 hours of continuing legal education activities,
with appropriate penalties for failure to do so.

2. B.M. No. 1922

 June 3, 2008
 Re: Number and Date of Mandatory Continuing Legal Education
Certificate of Completion/Exemption Required In All Pleadings/Motions.

[B.M. 850.  October 2, 2001]

MANDATORY CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION
RESOLUTION

PURPOSE
Continuing legal education is required of members of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP) to ensure that throughout their career, they keep abreast with law and
jurisprudence, maintain the ethics of the profession and enhance the standards of the
practice of law.

REQUIREMENTS OF 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. Of the 36 hours:

(a) At least six (6) hours shall be devoted to legal ethics equivalent to six (6)
credit units.
(b) At least four (4) hours shall be devoted to trial and pretrial
skills equivalent to four (4) credit units.
(c) At least five (5) hours shall be devoted to alternative dispute
resolution equivalent to five (5) credit units.
(d) At least nine (9) hours shall be devoted to updates on substantive and
procedural laws, and jurisprudence equivalent to nine (9) credit units.
(e) At least four (4) hours shall be devoted to legal writing and oral
advocacy equivalent to four (4) credit units.
(f) At least two (2) hours shall be devoted to international law and
international conventions equivalent to two (2) credit units.
(g) The remaining six (6) hours shall be devoted to such subjects as may be
prescribed by the MCLE Committee equivalent to six (6) credit units.
COMPUTATION OF CREDIT UNITS(CU)
Guidelines.
- CREDIT UNITS ARE EQUIVALENT TO CREDIT HOURS.
- CREDIT UNITS measure compliance with the MCLE requirement
under the Rules, based on the category of the lawyer’s participation in
the MCLE activity. The following are the guidelines for computing credit
units and the supporting documents required therefor:

PROGRAMS/ACTIVITY                    CREDIT
UNITS                             SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS

1.  SEMINARS, CONVENTIONS, CONFERENCES, SYMPOSIA, IN-HOUSE

EDUCATION PROGRAMS, WORKSHOPS, DIALOGUES, ROUND TABLE
DISCUSSIONS BY APPROVED PROVIDERS UNDER RULE 7 AND OTHER
RELATED RULES

                  
                                         
1.1 PARTICIPANT/ 1 CU PER HOUR OF CERTIFICATE OF ATTENDANCE
ATTENDEE             ATTENDANCE
WITH NUMBER OF HOURS

1.2 LECTURER FULL CU FOR THE PHOTOCOPY OF PLAQUE OR

RESOURCE  SPEAKER SUBJECT PER SPONSOR’S CERTIFICATION
COMPLIANCE PERIOD

1.3 PANELIST/REACTOR 1/2 OF CU FOR THE CERTIFICATION FROM

COMMENTATOR/ SUBJECT PER SPONSORING FACILITATOR
MODERATOR/ COMPLIANCE PERIOD
COORDINATOR/  ORGANIZATION

                         
                                                   
                               

                 

2. AUTHORSHIP, EDITING AND REVIEW

2.1 LAW BOOK OF FULL CU FOR THE PUBLISHED BOOK

NOT LESS THAN 100 SUBJECT PER
PAGES COMPLIANCE PERIOD

2.2 BOOK EDITOR 1/2 OF THE CU OF PUBLISHED BOOK WITH

AUTHORSHIP CATEGORY PROOF AS EDITOR

2.3 RESEARCH PAPER 1/2 OF CU FOR THE DULY CERTIFIED/

INNOVATIVE PROGRAM/ SUBJECT PER PUBLISHED
CREATIVE PROJECT TECHNICAL TECHNICAL
COMPLIANCE PERIOD REPORT/PAPER REPORT/PAPER

2.4 LEGAL ARTICLE OF 1/2 OF CU FOR THE PUBLISHED ARTICLE

ATLEAST TEN (10) PAGES SUBJECT PER
COMPLIANCE PERIOD

2.5 LEGAL NEWSLETTER/ 1 CU PER ISSUE PUBLISHED

LAW JOURNAL EDITOR  NEWSLETTER/JOURNAL

2.6 PROFESSORIAL CHAIR/ FULL CU FOR THE CERTIFICATION

OF BAR REVIEW LECTURE SUBJECT PER
LAW TEACHING/ LAW DEAN COMPLIANCE PERIOD
OR BAR DIRECTOR

                   

CATEGORIES OF CREDIT UNITS

1.Claim for participatory credit units.
2.Claim for non-participatory credit units.
EXEMPTIONS
Parties exempted from the MCLE. -- The following members of the Bar are exempt
from the MCLE requirement:
(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
Ombudsman 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 ten (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
(l)  Governors and Mayors.

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.

Good cause for exemption from or modification of requirement —A member may file
a verified request setting forth good cause for exemption (such as physical disability,
illness, post graduate study abroad, proven expertise in law, etc.) from compliance with
or modification of any of the requirements, including an extension of time for
compliance, in accordance with a procedure to be established by the MCLE Committee.
Change of status. — The compliance period shall begin on the first day of the
month in which a member ceases to be exempt under Sections 1, 2, or 3 of this Rule
and shall end on the same day as that of all other members in the same Compliance
Group.
Proof of exemption. — Applications for exemption from or modification of the MCLE
requirement shall be under oath and supported by documents.
STANDARDS FOR APPROVAL OF EDUCATION ACTIVITIES
 Approval of MCLE program. — Subject to the implementing regulations that may
be adopted by the MCLE Committee, continuing legal education program may be
granted approval in either of two (2) ways:
(1) the provider of the activity is an accredited provider and certifies that the activity
meets the criteria of Section 2 of this Rule; and
(2) the provider is specifically mandated by law to provide continuing legal
education.

GENERAL COMPLIANCE PROCEDURES

1. Compliance card. 
2. Member record keeping requirement.

NON-COMPLIANCE PROCEDURES
SECTION 1. What constitutes non-compliance. — The following shall constitute
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 non-compliance notice;
(e) Failure to pay non-compliance fee within the prescribed period;
(f) Any other act or omission analogous to any of the foregoing or intended to
circumvent or evade compliance with the MCLE requirements.

Non-compliance notice and 60-day period to attain compliance. -Members

failing to comply will receive a Non-Compliance Notice stating the specific
deficiency and will be given sixty (60) days from the date of notification to file
a response clarifying the deficiency or otherwise showing compliance with
the requirements.

CONSEQUENCES OF NON-COMPLIANCE
Non-compliance fee. -- A member who, for whatever reason, is in non-compliance
at the end of the compliance period shall pay a non-compliance fee.
Listing as delinquent member. -- A member who fails to comply with the
requirements after the sixty (60) day period for compliance has expired, shall be listed
as a delinquent member of the IBP upon the recommendation of the MCLE Committee.
The investigation of a member for non-compliance shall be conducted by the IBP’s
Commission on Bar Discipline as a fact-finding arm of the MCLE Committee.
Accrual of membership fee. -- Membership fees shall continue to accrue at the
active rate against a member during the period he/she is listed as a delinquent member.

REINSTATEMENT
Process. -- The involuntary listing as a delinquent member shall be terminated
when the member provides proof of compliance with the MCLE requirement, including
payment of non-compliance fee. A member may attain the necessary credit units to
meet the requirement for the period of non-compliance during the period the member is
on inactive status. These credit unitsmay not be counted toward meeting the current
compliance period requirement. Credit unitsearned during the period of non-
compliance in excess of the number needed to satisfy the prior compliance period
requirement may be counted toward meeting the current compliance period
requirement.

TERMINATION OF DELINQUENT LISTING MEMBER

Is an administrative process and made by the MCLE Committee.

COMMITTEE ON MANDATORY CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION

The MCLE Committee shall be composed of five (5) members, namely, a retired
Justice of the Supreme Court as Chair, and four (4) members respectively nominated by
the IBP, the Philippine Judicial Academy, a law center designated by the Supreme
Court and associations of law schools and/or law professors.
The members of the Committee shall be of proven probity and integrity. They shall
be appointed by the Supreme Court for a term of three (3) years and shall receive such
compensation as may be determined by the Court.

CASES

1. A.C. No. 6252 (Jonar Santiago Vs. Atty. Edison V. Rafanan)

2. A.C. No. 9387 (Emilia R. Hernandez Vs. Atty. Venancio B. Padilla)

CANON 6 – THESE CANONS SHALL APPLY TO LAWYERS IN GOVERNMNT

SERVICE IN THE DISCHARGE OF THEIR OFFICIAL TASKS
 Unlike the old canon law, the Code of Professional Responsibility for Lawyers
promulgated on June 21, 1988 made explicit the application of its provision to all
lawyers including those employed in government service whether directly, indirectly or
not at all involved in the handling of cases.

Omar Ali v. Atty Mosib Bubong

The Supreme Court disbarred respondent in his capacity as a lawyer and

Register of Deeds in Marawi City for grave misconduct for his imprudent issuance of
Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-2821, and manipulating the criminal case for violation
of the Anti-Squatting Law. The Supreme Court said “The Code of Professional
Responsibility does not cease to apply to lawyer simply because he has joined
the government service. In fact, by the express provision of Canon 6 thereof, the
rules governing the conduct of lawyers shall apply to lawyers in government
service in the discharge of their official tasks. Thus, where a lawyer’s misconduct
as a government official is of such nature as to affect his qualification as a lawyer
or to show moral delinquency then he may be disciplined as a member of the Bar
on such grounds. Although the general rule is that a lawyer who holds a
government office may not be disciplined as a member of the Bar for infractions
he committed as a government official, he may, however be disciplined as a
lawyer if his misconduct constitute a violation of his oath as a member of the
legal profession.”

EXEMPTION:

Judges and Lawyers employed in the judiciary shall be governed by the Code of
Judicial Conduct.

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.

This provision is enacted for the purpose of erasing the so called prosecutorial
mentality of public prosecutors (known as Fiscals) in the prosecution of cases. It is now
clear that the primary aim of our justice system is not to convict but to see it that justice
is done. Suppression of facts or concealment of witnesses capable of establishing the
innocence of the accused is a case of misconduct warranting the imposition of
disciplinary action on the part of an erring lawyer.

Since the duty of the public prosecutor is to prosecute the case, is he,
therefore, administratively liable for not presenting a witness capable of
establishing the guilt of the accused? Or is it the duty of the defense counsel to
prove the innocence of his client? A reading of the provision would show that
nonwithstanding his duty to prosecute, it seems that it is still the duty of the prosecutor
to present such witness in his custody capable of establishing the innocence of the
accused since the non-presentation of the witness is tantamount to suppression of facts
which is highly reprehensible under the CPR. The interest of the prosecutor in the
criminal case is not to win by convicting the accused, but to see that justice is done
even if it will cause acquittal of the accused. (Suarez v Platon, 69 Phil 556,564)

Furthermore, The benefit of the doubt belongs to the prosecuting attorney. The
prosecuting attorney is under no compulsion to file a particular criminal information
where he is not convinced that he has evidence to prop up the averments thereof, or
that the evidence at hand points to a different conclusion. (People v. Pineda, 20 SCRA
748 (1967)

A public prosecutor is a quasi-judicial officer who represents, not an ordinary

party to a controversy, but sovereignty. This sovereignty has its obligation to govern
impartially. Therefore, the interest in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case
but that justice shall be done. (Agpalo)

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.

 If the law allows a public official to practice law concurrently, he must not use his
public position to feather his law practice.
 He should not accept any private legal business in which his duty to his client will
or may conflict with his official duties, and if some unforeseen conflict with his
official duties arises he should terminate his professional relationship.
 A public official should see to it that his private activity does not interfere with the
discharge of his official functions. He should avoid all impropriety and the
appearance of impropriety.
 Neither should he inferentially create a public image that he is utilizing his public
position to advance his professional success or personal interest at the expense
of the public.

RA 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Official and
Employees)

Sec 4. Norms of Conduct of Public Officials and Employees. –

(A) Every public official and employee shall observe the following as standards of
personal conduct in the discharge and execution of official duties:
(a) Commitment to public interest. - Public officials and employees shall always
uphold the public interest over and above personal interest. All government
resources and powers of their respective offices must be employed and used
efficiently, effectively, honestly and economically, particularly to avoid wastage in
public funds and revenues.

(b) Professionalism. - Public officials and employees shall perform and discharge
their duties with the highest degree of excellence, professionalism, intelligence and
skill. They shall enter public service with utmost devotion and dedication to duty.
They shall endeavor to discourage wrong perceptions of their roles as dispensers or
peddlers of undue patronage.

(c) Justness and sincerity. - Public officials and employees shall remain true to the
people at all times. They must act with justness and sincerity and shall not
discriminate against anyone, especially the poor and the underprivileged. They shall
at all times respect the rights of others, and shall refrain from doing acts contrary to
law, good morals, good customs, public policy, public order, public safety and public
interest. They shall not dispense or extend undue favors on account of their office to
their relatives whether by consanguinity or affinity except with respect to
appointments of such relatives to positions considered strictly confidential or as
members of their personal staff whose terms are coterminous with theirs.

(d) Political neutrality. - Public officials and employees shall provide service to
everyone without unfair discrimination and regardless of party affiliation or
preference.

(e) Responsiveness to the public. - Public officials and employees shall extend
prompt, courteous, and adequate service to the public. Unless otherwise provided
by law or when required by the public interest, public officials and employees shall
provide information of their policies and procedures in clear and understandable
language, ensure openness of information, public consultations and hearings
whenever appropriate, encourage suggestions, simplify and systematize policy,
rules and procedures, avoid red tape and develop an understanding and
appreciation of the socio-economic conditions prevailing in the country, especially in
the depressed rural and urban areas.

(f) Nationalism and patriotism. - Public officials and employees shall at all times be
loyal to the Republic and to the Filipino people, promote the use of locally produced
goods, resources and technology and encourage appreciation and pride of country
 and people. They shall endeavor to maintain and defend Philippine sovereignty
against foreign intrusion.

(g) Commitment to democracy. - Public officials and employees shall commit

themselves to the democratic way of life and values, maintain the principle of public
accountability, and manifest by deeds the supremacy of civilian authority over the
military. They shall at all times uphold the Constitution and put loyalty to country
above loyalty to persons or party.

(h) Simple living. - Public officials and employees and their families shall lead
modest lives appropriate to their positions and income. They shall not indulge in
extravagant or ostentatious display of wealth in any form.

and

Sec. 7(b). In addition to acts and omissions of public officials and employees not
prescribed in the Constitution and existing laws, the following shall constitute
prohibited acts and transactions of any public official and employee and are hereby
declared to be unlawful:

(b) Outside employment and other activities related thereto. – Public officials and
employees during their incumbency shall not:

1.) Own, control, manage or accept employment as officer employee, consultant,

counsel, broker, agent, trustee or nominee/ in any private enterprise regulated,
supervised or licensed by their office/ unless expressly allowed by law;

2.) Engage in the private practice of their profession unless unauthorized by the
Constitution or law, provided that such practice will conflict or tend to conflict with
their official functions; or

3.) Recommend any person to any position in a private enterprise which has a
regular or pending official transaction with their office.

EXEMPTION: Former official may not accept certain employment

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 said service.

 The restriction covers “engagement and employment,” which means that he

cannot accept any work or employment from anyone that will involve or relate to
 the matter in which he intervened as a public official, except on behalf of the
body or authority which he served during his public employment.

PCGG v. Sandiganbayan, 455 SCRA 526 (2005):

PCGG seeks to disqualify Atty. Estelito Mendoza as counsel for the Lucio Group of
Companies in the suit involving the sequestration of shares of stock of the LGC as
alleged ill-gotten wealth, on the ground that as a former Solicitor General, he intervened
in the matter of the liquidation of Genbank, which was subsequently purchased by LGC.

The Court ruled that Atty. Mendoza could not be disqualified from representing the LGC.
The Court explained:

 The key to unlock Rule 6.03 lies in comprehending.

1. The meaning of “matter” referred to in the rules.
2. The metes and bounds of the “intervention” made by the former government
lawyer on the “matter.”

 The American Bar Association, in its Formal Opinion 342, defined “matter” as:
Any discrete, isolatable act as well as identifiable transaction and not merely an
act of drafting, enforcing or interpreting government or agency procedures,
regulations or laws, or briefing abstract principles of law.

 The “matter” or the act of Atty. Mendoza as Solicitor General is “advising the
Central Bank on how to proceed with Genbank’s liquidation is held not to be the
“matter” contemplated by the Rule 6.03.
 Clearly, ABA Formal Opinion 342 stresses that Atty. Mendoza’s acts did not fall
within the scope of the term “matter.”
 It is given that respondent Mendoza had nothing to do with the decision of the
Central Bank to liquidate Genbank and did not even participate in the sale of
Genbank to Allied Bank.
 The “matter” which he got himself involved was informing the Central bank on
the procedure by law to liquidate Genbank.
 It is not the same as the subject “matter” of the civil case of sequestration of
stocks owned by Tan in Allied Bank on the alleged ground that they are ill-gotten.
This case does not involve liquidation of Genbank.
 Whether the shares of stock of Allied Bank are ill-gotten is far removed from the
issue of the dissolution and liquidation of GenBank.

“Intervention” is interference that may affect the interest of and influence others.
Intervention must not be insubstantial and insignificant.
“Substantial responsibility” is required by the prohibition.

In interpreting Rule 6.03, the Court also cast a harsh eye on its use as a litigation
tactic to harass opposing counsel as well as deprive his client of competent legal
representation.

In the case at bar, the new attempt to disqualify respondent Mendoza has long
been a dead issue, resuscitated after the lapse of many years and only after
PCGG has lost many legal incidents in the hands of the respondent.

It is also submitted that the Court should apply Rule 6.03 in all its strictness for it
correctly disfavour lawyers who “switch sides” and intended to avoid conflict of
loyalties. It is claimed that “switching sides” carries the danger that former
government employee may compromise confidential official information in the
process.

The act of respondent Mendoza in informing the Central Bank on the procedure
how to liquidate Genbank is a different matter from the subject matter of Civil
Case No. 0005 which is about sequestration of the shares of respondents Tan in
Allied Bank. There is no switching sides for no two sides are involved.