A.C. No.

5161             April 14, 2004

ISIDRA TING-DUMALI, complainant,
vs.
ATTY. ROLANDO S. TORRES, respondent.

FACTS:

Isidra Ting-Dumali, complainant, is one of the six children of the late spouses Julita
Reynante and Vicente Ting. According to her, respondent Atty. Rolando Torres, being
her brother-in-law, took advantage of his relationship with her and her brothers and
immorally used his profession when he participated in, consented to, and failed to
advice against, the perjury committed by his wife Felicisima and his sister-in-law Miriam
when the two made it appear that they were the sole heirs of the late Julita Reynante
and Vicente Ting.

ISSUE:

WON respondent should be disbarred.

RULING:

Yes. Respondent’s acts or omissions reveal his moral flaws and doubtless bring
intolerable dishonor to the legal profession. The Court found respondent Atty. Rolando
Torres guilty of gross misconduct and violation of the lawyer’s oath, as well as Canons 1
and 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, thereby rendering him unworthy of
continuing membership in the legal profession.

G.R. Nos. 151809-12. April 12, 2005

PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENT (PCGG), Petitioners,

vs.
SANDIGANBAYAN, ET Al., Respondents.

FACTS

In 1976 the General Bank and Trust Company (GENBANK) encountered financial
difficulties. GENBANK had extended considerable financial support to Filcapital
Development Corporation causing it to incur daily overdrawings on its current
account with Central Bank. Despite the mega loans GENBANK failed to recover from its
financial woes. The Central Bank issued a resolution declaring GENBANK insolvent and
unable to resume business with safety to its depositors, creditors and the general
public, and ordering its liquidation. A public bidding of GENBANK’s assets was held
where Lucio Tan group submitted the winning bid. Solicitor General Estelito Mendoza
filed a petition with the CFI praying for the assistance and supervision of the court in
GENBANK’s liquidation as mandated by RA 265. After EDSA Revolution I Pres Aquino
established the PCGG to recover the alleged ill-gotten wealth of former Pres Marcos,
his family and cronies. Pursuant to this mandate, the PCGG filed with the
Sandiganbayan a complaint for reversion, reconveyance, restitution against
respondents Lucio Tan, at.al. PCGG issued several writs of sequestration on
properties allegedly acquired by them by taking advantage of their close relationship
and influence with former Pres. Marcos. The abovementioned respondents Tan, et. al
are represented as their counsel, former Solicitor General Mendoza. PCGG filed
motions to disqualify respondent Mendoza as counsel for respondents Tan et. al. with
Sandiganbayan. It was alleged that Mendoza as then Sol Gen and counsel to Central
Bank actively intervened in the liquidation of GENBANK which was subsequently
acquired by respondents Tan et. al., which subsequently became Allied Banking
Corporation. The motions to disqualify invoked Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility which prohibits former government lawyers from accepting “engagement”
or employment in connection with any matter in which he had intervened while in the
said service. The Sandiganbayan issued a resolution denyting PCGG’s motion to
disqualify respondent Mendoza. It failed to prove the existence of an inconsistency
between respondent Mendoza’s former function as SolGen and his present employment
as counsel of the Lucio Tan group. PCGGs recourse to this court assailing the
Resolutions of the Sandiganbayan.

ISSUE

Whether Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility applies to respondent

Mendoza. The prohibition states: “A lawyer shall not, after leaving government service,
accept engagement or employment in connection with any matter in which he had
intervened while in the said service.”

HELD

The case at bar does not involve the “adverse interest” aspect of Rule 6.03.
Respondent Mendoza, it is conceded, has no adverse interest problem when he acted
as SOlGen and later as counsel of respondents et.al. before the Sandiganbayan.
However there is still the issue of whether there exists a “congruent-interest conflict”
sufficient to disqualify respondent Mendoza from representing respondents et. al. The
key is unlocking the meaning of “matter” and the metes and bounds of “intervention”
that he made on the matter. Beyond doubt that the “matter” or the act of respondent
Mendoza as SolGen involved in the case at bar is “advising the Central Bank, on how to
proceed with the said bank’s liquidation and even filing the petition for its liquidation in
CFI of Manila. The Court held that the 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 in stressing
that “drafting, enforcing or interpreting government or agency procedures, regulations
and laws, or briefing abstract principles of law are acts which do not fall within the scope
of the term “matter” and cannot disqualify. Respondent Mendoza had nothing to do with
the decision of the Central Bank to liquidate GENBANK. He also did not participate in
the sale of GENBANK to Allied Bank. The legality of the liquidation of GENBANK is not
an issue in the sequestration cases. Indeed, the jurisdiction of the PCGG does not
include the dissolution and liquidation of banks. Thus, the Code 6.03 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility cannot apply to respondent Mendoza because his alleged
intervention while SolGen is an intervention on a matter different from the matter
involved in the Civil case of sequestration. In the metes and bounds of the
“intervention”. The applicable meaning as the term is used in the Code of Professional
Ethics is that it is an act of a person who has the power to influence the subject
proceedings. The evil sought to be remedied by the Code do not exist where the
government lawyer does not act which can be considered as innocuous such as “
drafting, enforcing, or interpreting government or agency procedures, regulations or
laws or briefing abstract principles of law.” The court rules that the intervention of
Mendoza is not significant and substantial. He merely petitions that the court gives
assistance in the liquidation of GENBANK. The role of court is not strictly as a court of
justice but as an agent to assist the Central Bank in determining the claims of creditors.
In such a proceeding the role of the SolGen is not that of the usual court litigator
protecting the interest of government.
Petition assailing the Resolution of the Sandiganbayan is denied.
Relevant Dissenting Opinion of Justice Callejo:
Rule 6.03 is a restatement of Canon 36 of the Canons of Professional Ethics: “ A
lawyer, having once held public office or having been in the public employ, should not
after his retirement accept employment in connection with any matter which he has
investigated or passed upon while in such office or employ.”
Indeed, 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 as a public official. Rule 6.03 makes this restriction
specifically applicable to lawyers who once held public office.” A plain reading shows
that the interdiction 1. applies to a lawyer who once served in the government and 2.
relates to his accepting “engagement or employment” in connection with any matter in
which he had intervened while in the service.

A.C. No. 5325, February 09, 2016

NEMESIO FLORAN AND CARIDAD FLORAN, Complainants, v. ATTY. ROY PRULE

EDIZA, Respondent.
G.R. No. 100113 September 3, 1991

RENATO CAYETANO, petitioner,
vs.
CHRISTIAN MONSOD, HON. JOVITO R. SALONGA, COMMISSION ON
APPOINTMENT, and HON. GUILLERMO CARAGUE, in his capacity as Secretary of
Budget and Management, respondents.

Held: In the case of Philippine Lawyers Association vs. Agrava, stated: The practice of
law is not limited to the conduct of cases or litigation in court; it embraces the
preparation of pleadings and other papers incident to actions and special proceeding,
the management of such actions and proceedings on behalf of clients before judges
and courts, and in addition, conveying. In general, all advice to clients, and all action
taken for them in matters connected with the law incorporation services, assessment
and condemnation services, contemplating an appearance before judicial body, the
foreclosure of mortgage, enforcement of a creditor’s claim in bankruptcy and insolvency
proceedings, and conducting proceedings in attachment, and in matters of estate and
guardianship have been held to constitute law practice. Practice of law means any
activity, in or out court, which requires the application of law, legal procedure,
knowledge, training and experience.

The contention that Atty. Monsod does not posses the required qualification of having
engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years is incorrect since Atty. Monsod’s
past work experience as a lawyer-economist, a lawyer-manager, a lawyer-entrepreneur
of industry, a lawyer-negotiator of contracts, and a lawyer-legislator of both rich and the
poor – verily more than satisfy the constitutional requirement for the position of
COMELEC chairman, The respondent has been engaged in the practice of law for at
least ten years does In the view of the foregoing, the petition is DISMISSED.

FACTS:
Respondent Christian Monsod was nominated by President Corazon C. Aquino to the
position of Chairman of the COMELEC in a letter received by the Secretariat of the
Commission on Appointments on April 25, 1991. Petitioner Renato Cayetano opposed
the nomination because allegedly Monsod does not possess the required qualification
of having been engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years. Atty. Monsod has
worked as a lawyer in the law office of his father (1960-1963); an operations officer with
the World Bank Group (1963-1970); Chief Executive Officer of an investment bank
(1970-1986); legal or economic consultant on various companies (1986); Secretary
General of NAMFREL (1986); member of Constitutional Commission (1986-1987);
National Chairman of NAMFREL (1987); and member of the quasi-judicial Davide
Commission (1990).

On June 5, 1991, the Commission on Appointments confirmed the nomination of

Monsod as Chairman of the COMELEC.On June 18, 1991, he took his oath of office.
On the same day, he assumed office as Chairman of the COMELEC.Challenging the
validity of the confirmation by the Commission on Appointments of Monsod’s
nomination, petitioner as a citizen and taxpayer, filed the instant petition for certiorari
and prohibition praying that said confirmation and the consequent appointment of
Monsod as Chairman of the Commission on Elections be declared null and void.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondent posseses the required qualification of having engaged in
the practice of law for at least ten years.

HELD:
The Supreme Court ruled that Atty. Monsod possessed the required qualification. In the
case of Philippine Lawyers Association vs. Agrava: The practice of law is not limited to
the conduct of cases or litigation in court. In general, all advice to clients, and all action
taken for them in matters connected with the law incorporation services, assessment
and condemnation services, contemplating an appearance before judicial body, the
foreclosure of mortgage, enforcement of a creditor’s claim in bankruptcy and insolvency
proceedings, and conducting proceedings in attachment, and in matters of estate and
guardianship have been held to constitute law practice.

Practice of law means any activity, in or out court, which requires the application of law,
legal procedure, knowledge, training and experience. “To engage in the practice of law
is to perform those acts which are characteristics of the profession. In general, a
practice of law requires a lawyer and client relationship, it is whether in or out of court.

Atty. Monsod’s past work experiences as a lawyer-economist, a lawyer-manager, a

lawyer-entrepreneur of industry, a lawyer-negotiator of contracts, and a lawyer-
legislator of both the rich and the poor — verily more than satisfy the constitutional
requirement — that he has been engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years.

As such, the petition is dismissed.

April 6, 2016

A.C. No. 11128

PEDRO RAMOS, Complainant,
vs.
ATTY. MARIA NYMPHA C. MANDAGAN, Respondent.

Facts
Atty. Mandagan demanded three hundred thousand pesos from Ramos to be used as
bail bond in the event that his petition for bail in the latter’s criminal case is granted.
Ramos’ bail was denied and Atty. Mandagan withdrew as his counsel without returning
the amount despite the demand sent by Ramos’ new counsel.

Atty. Mandagan argued that the amount was not intended for payment of bail, but as
mobilization expenses. She also alleged that she was never paid acceptance and
appearance fees for legal services.

Issue
Whether respondent is guilty of violating Canon 16 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility

Ruling
Yes, the respondent is guilty of violating Canon 16 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.

The respondent’s failure to make an accounting or to return the money to the client is a
violation of the trust reposed on her. As a lawyer, she should be scrupulously careful in
handling money entrusted to her in her professional capacity because the CPR exacts a
high degree of fidelity and trust from members of the bar.

The defense that the amount she received was merely for mobilization expenses was
not substantiated by the records.