Code of Professional Responsibility

Canon 6. These canons shall apply to lawyers in

government services in the discharge of their tasks.
Sec. 4, RA 6713 The law requires the observance of the
following norms of conduct by every public official in the
discharge and execution of their official duties:
1. commitment to public interest
2. Professionalism
3. justness and sincerity
 Code of Professional Responsibility
5. responsiveness to the public
6. nationalism and patriotism
7. commitment to democracy
4. political neutrality
8. simple living
 Code of Professional Responsibility
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 of disciplinary action.
 Code of Professional Responsibility
It is improper for a public prosecutor to:
1. Assist in the escape of a prisoner.
2. Institute a criminal action to force settlement of
a case.
3. Agree to refrain from prosecuting a person in
consideration of some reward.
4. Receive money for dismissing a complaint.
 Code of Professional Responsibility
It is improper for a public prosecutor to:
5. Induce an accused to plead guilty.
6. Willfully fail to prosecute violations of law.
7. Have a secret partner with whom he divides the
attorney’s fees.
 Code of Professional Responsibility
VITRIOLO v. DASIG A.C. No. 4984, April 1, 2003
Facts: This is an administrative case for disbarment filed
against Atty. Felina S. Dasig, an official of the Commission on
Higher Education (CHED). The charge involves gross
misconduct of respondent in violation of the Attorney’s Oath
for having used her public office to secure financial spoils to
the detriment of the dignity and reputation of the CHED.
Almost all complainants in the instant case are high ranking
officers of the CHED. In their sworn Complaint-Affidavit filed
with this Court on December 4, 1998, complainants allege
that respondent, while she was OIC of Legal Affairs Service,
CHED, committed acts that are grounds for disbarment
under Section 27,2 Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, to wit:
 Code of Professional Responsibility
She demanded from Betty C. Mangohon, a teacher of Our
Lady of Mariazel Educational Center in Novaliches,
Quezon City, the amount of P5,000.00 for the facilitation
of her application for correction of name then pending
before the Legal Affairs Service, CHED. she demanded
from Rosalie B. Dela Torre, a student, the amount of
P18,000.00 to P20,000.00 for facilitation of her
application for correction of name then pending before
the Legal Affairs Service, CHED. She demanded from
Rocella G. Eje, a student, the amount of P5,000.00 for
facilitation of her application for correction of name then
pending before the Legal Affairs Service, CHED.
 Code of Professional Responsibility
She demanded from Jacqueline N. Ng, a student, a
considerable amount which was subsequently confirmed
to be P15,000.00 and initial fee of P5,000.00 more or less
for facilitation of her application for correction of name
then pending before the Legal Affairs Service, CHED.

Issue: Whether the Respondent violated her Oath as well

as the Code of Professional Responsibility.
 Code of Professional Responsibility
Held: Yes, respondent Arty. Felina S. Dasig is found
liable for gross misconduct and dishonesty in violation of
the Attorney’s Oath as well as the Code of Professional
Responsibility, and is hereby ordered DISBARRED.
Respondent’s attempts to extort money from persons with
applications or requests pending before her office are
violative of Rule 1.0118 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, which prohibits members of the Bar from
engaging or participating in any unlawful, dishonest, or
deceitful acts.
 Code of Professional Responsibility
Moreover, said acts constitute a breach of Rule 6.0219 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 or which may be affected by the
functions of his office. Respondent’s conduct in office falls
short of the integrity and good moral character required
from all lawyers, specially from one occupying a high
public office.
 Code of Professional Responsibility
For a lawyer in public office is expected not only to refrain
from any act or omission which might tend to lessen the
trust and confidence of the citizenry in government, she
must also uphold the dignity of the legal profession at all
times and observe a high standard of honesty and fair
dealing. Otherwise said, a lawyer in government service is
a keeper of the public faith and is burdened with high
degree of social responsibility, perhaps higher than her
brethren in private practice.
 Code of Professional Responsibility
For her violation of the Attorney’s Oath as well as of Rule
1.01 and Rule 1.03 of Canon 120 and Rule 6.02 of Canon 6
of the Code of Professional Responsibility, particularly for
acts of dishonesty as well as gross misconduct as OIC,
Legal Services, CHED, we find that respondent deserves
not just the penalty of three years’ suspension from
membership in the Bar as well as the practice of law, as
recommended by the IBP Board of Governors, but
outright disbarment. Her name shall be stricken off the
list of attorneys upon finality of this decision.
 Code of Professional Responsibility
Rule 6.02 – A lawyer in the government service shall
not use his public position to promote or advance his
private interest, nor allow the latter to interfere with his
public duties.
 Code of Professional Responsibility
Diana Ramos v. Atty. Jose R. Imbang, AC No. 6788, August 23,
2007
Facts: This case is about the disbarment or suspension against
Atty. Jose R. Imbang for multiple violations of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. In 1992, Ramos sought the
assistance of Atty. Imbang in filing and criminal actions against
the spouses Roque and Elenita Jovellanos. She gave Imbang
Php 8,500.00 as attorney’s fees but the latter issued a receipt for
Php 5,000.00 only. Ramos tried to attend the scheduled hearings
of her cases against the Jovellanoses. Imbang never allowed her
to enter the courtroom and always told her to wait outside.
 Code of Professional Responsibility
He would the come out after several hours to inform her that the
hearing been cancelled and rescheduled. This happened six
times and for each “appearance” in court, respondent charged
her Php 350.00. Ramos was shocked to learn that Imbang never
filed any against the Jovellanoses and that he was in fact
employed in the Public Attorney’s Office.

Issue: Whether or not Atty. Imbang should be disbarred.

 Code of Professional Responsibility
Held: Yes, as per SC’s decision Lawyers are expected to
conduct themselves with honesty and integrity. More
specifically, lawyers in government service are expected to be
more conscientious of their actuations as they are subject to
public scrutiny. They are not only members of the bar but also
public servants who owe utmost fidelity to public service. The
SC supported this with three explanations:
1. Code of Ethical Standards for Public Officials and
Employees.
2. Revised Administrative Code.
3. Code of Professional Responsibility
 Code of Professional Responsibility
Rule 6.03 – A lawyer shall not, after leaving
government service, accept engagements or
employment in connection with any matter in
which he had intervened while in said service.
Public Officials not allowed to engage in private
practice of law in the Philippines:
1. Judges and other officials as employees of the
Supreme Court (Rule 148, Sec. 35, RRC)
 Code of Professional Responsibility
Public Officials not allowed to engage in private
practice of law in the Philippines:
2. Officials and employees of the OSG (Ibid.) The
OSG is not authorized to represent a public official
at any stage of a criminal case.
3. Government prosecutors (People v. Villanueva,
14 SCRA 109)
 Code of Professional Responsibility
Public Officials not allowed to engage in private
practice of law in the Philippines:
4. President, Vice-President, members of the
cabinet, their deputies and assistants (Art. VIII
Sec. 15, 1987 Constitution)
5. Members of the Constitutional Commission (Art
IX-A, Sec. 2, 1987 Constitution)
 Code of Professional Responsibility
Public Officials not allowed to engage in private
practice of law in the Philippines:
6. Ombudsman and his deputies (Art. IX, Sec. 8
(2nd par), 1987 Constitution)
7. All governors, city and municipal mayors
 Code of Professional Responsibility
PCGG vs Sandiganbayan, et al. G.R. Nos. 151809-
12, April 12, 2005.
Facts:
In 1976, 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 the Central
Bank.
 Code of Professional Responsibility
It was later found by the Central Bank that GENBANK had
approved various loans to directors, officers, stockholders
and related interests totaling P172.3 million, of which 59%
was classified as doubtful and P0.505 million as
uncollectible. As a bailout, the Central Bank extended
emergency loans to GENBANK which reached a total of
P310 million. Despite the mega loans, GENBANK failed to
recover from its financial woes. On March 25, 1977, 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.
 Code of Professional Responsibility
A public bidding of GENBANK's assets was held from
March 26 to 28, 1977, wherein the Lucio Tan group
submitted the winning bid. Subsequently, former Solicitor
General Estelito P. Mendoza filed a petition with the then
Court of First Instance praying for the assistance and
supervision of the court in GENBANK's liquidation as
mandated by Section 29 of Republic Act No. 265.
 Code of Professional Responsibility
In February 1986, the EDSA I revolution toppled the Marcos
government. One of the first acts of President Corazon C. Aquino
was to establish the Presidential Commission on Good
Government (PCGG) to recover the alleged ill-gotten wealth of
former President Ferdinand Marcos, his family and his cronies.
Pursuant to this mandate, the PCGG, on July 17, 1987, filed with
the Sandiganbayan a complaint for "reversion, reconveyance,
restitution, accounting and damages" against respondents Lucio
Tan, Carmen Khao Tan, Florencio T. Santos, Natividad P. Santos,
Domingo Chua, Tan Hui Nee, Mariano Tan Eng Lian, Estate of
Benito Tan Kee Hiong, Florencio N. Santos, Jr., Harry C. Tan,
Tan Eng Chan, Chung Poe Kee, Mariano Khoo, Manuel Khoo,
Miguel Khoo, Jaime Khoo, Elizabeth Khoo, Celso Ranola,
 Code of Professional Responsibility
William T. Wong, Ernesto B. Lim, Benjamin T. Albacita, Willy Co,
Allied Banking Corporation (Allied Bank), Allied Leasing and
Finance Corporation, Asia Brewery, Inc., Basic Holdings Corp.,
Foremost Farms, Inc., Fortune Tobacco Corporation, Grandspan
Development Corp., Himmel Industries, Iris Holdings and
Development Corp., Jewel Holdings, Inc., Manufacturing
Services and Trade Corp., Maranaw Hotels and Resort Corp.,
Northern Tobacco Redrying Plant, Progressive Farms, Inc.,
Shareholdings, Inc., Sipalay Trading Corp., Virgo Holdings &
Development Corp., (collectively referred to herein as
respondents Tan, et al.), then President Ferdinand E. Marcos,
Imelda R. Marcos, Panfilo O. Domingo, Cesar Zalamea, Don
Ferry and Gregorio Licaros.
 Code of Professional Responsibility
The case was docketed as Civil Case No. 0005 of the Second
Division of the Sandiganbayan. In connection therewith, the
PCGG issued several writs of sequestration on properties
allegedly acquired by the above-named persons by taking
advantage of their close relationship and influence with former
President Marcos.
 Code of Professional Responsibility
Respondents Tan, et al. repaired to this Court and filed
petitions for certiorari, prohibition and injunction to
nullify, among others, the writs of sequestration issued by
the PCGG. After the filing of the parties' comments, this
Court referred the cases to the Sandiganbayan for proper
disposition. These cases were docketed as Civil Case Nos.
0096-0099. In all these cases, respondents Tan, et al.
were represented by their counsel, former Solicitor
General Estelito P. Mendoza, who has then resumed his
private practice of law.
 Code of Professional Responsibility
On February 5, 1991, the PCGG filed motions to disqualify
respondent Mendoza as counsel for respondents Tan, et
al. withthe Second Division of the Sandiganbayan in Civil
Case Nos. 0005 and 0096-0099. The motions alleged that
respondent Mendoza, as then Solicitor General and
counsel to Central Bank, "actively intervened" in the
liquidation of GENBANK, which was subsequently
acquired by respondents Tan, et al. and became Allied
Banking Corporation. Respondent Mendoza allegedly
"intervened" in the acquisition of GENBANK by
respondents Tan, et al. when, in his capacity as then
Solicitor General, he advised the Central Bank's officials
 Code of Professional Responsibility
on the procedure to bring about GENBANK’s liquidation
and appeared as counsel for the Central Bank in
connection with its petition for assistance in the
liquidation of GENBANK which he filed with the Court of
First Instance (now Regional Trial Court) of Manila and
was docketed as Special Proceeding No. 107812. The
motions to disqualify invoked Rule 6.03 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. Rule 6.03 prohibits former
government lawyers from accepting "engagement or
employment in connection with any matter in which he
had intervened while in said service."
 Code of Professional Responsibility
On April 22, 1991, the Second Division of the
Sandiganbayan issued a resolution denying PCGG's
motion todisqualify respondent Mendoza in Civil Case No.
0005. It found that the PCGG failed to prove the existence
of an inconsistency between respondent Mendoza's
former function as Solicitor General and his present
employment as counsel of the Lucio Tan group. It noted
that respondent Mendoza did not take a position adverse
to that taken on behalf of the Central Bank during his
term as Solicitor General.
 Code of Professional Responsibility
It further ruled that respondent Mendoza's appearance as
counsel for respondents Tan, et al. was beyond the one-
year prohibited period under Section 7(b) of Republic Act
No. 6713 since he ceased to be Solicitor General in the year
1986. The said section prohibits a former public official or
employee from practicing his profession in connection
with any matter before the office he used to be with within
one year from his resignation, retirementor separation
from public office. The PCGG did not seek any
reconsideration of the ruling.
 Code of Professional Responsibility
Issue:
Whether or not the present engagement of Atty. Mendoza as
counsel for respondents Tan, et al. in Civil Cases Nos. 0096-0099
violates the interdiction embodied in Rule 6.03 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility
Held:
No. The Supreme Court ruled that Atty. Mendoza can be a counsel if
Tan, et al. in Civil Cases Nos. 0096-0099 without violating Rule
6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. 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
bank's liquidation and even filing the petition for its liquidation
with the CFI of Manila."
 Code of Professional Responsibility
In fine, the Court should resolve whether his act of
advising the Central Bank on the legal procedure to
liquidate GENBANK is included within the concept of
"matter" under Rule 6.03. the Supreme Court held 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. It is given that respondent Mendoza had
nothing to do with the decision of the Central Bank to
liquidate GENBANK. It is also given that he did not
participate in the sale of GENBANK to Allied Bank.
 Code of Professional Responsibility
The "matter" where he got himself involved was in
informing Central Bank on the procedure provided by law
to liquidate GENBANK thru the courts and in filing the
necessary petition in Sp. Proc. No. 107812 in the then
Court of First Instance. The subject "matter" of Sp. Proc.
No. 107812, therefore, is not the same nor is related to but
is different from the subject “matter” in Civil Case No.
0096. Civil Case No. 0096 involves the sequestration of
the stocks owned by respondents Tan, et al., in Allied
Bank on the alleged ground that they are ill-gotten. The
case does not involve the liquidation of GENBANK. Nor
does it involve the sale of GENBANK to Allied Bank.
 Code of Professional Responsibility
Whether the shares of stock of the reorganized Allied Bank
are ill-gotten is far removed from the issue of the dissolution
and liquidation of GENBANK. GENBANK was liquidated by
the Central Bank due, among others, to the alleged banking
malpractices of its owners and officers. In other words, 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. It goes
without saying that Code 6.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility cannot apply to respondent Mendoza because
his alleged intervention while a Solicitor General in Sp. Proc.
No. 107812 is an intervention on a matter different from the
matter involved in Civil