RULE 6.03- A lawyer shall not , after leaving government RULE 6.03- A lawyer shall not , after leaving government services, accept engagement or employment in connection services, accept engagement or employment in connection with any matter in which he had intervened while in said with any matter in which he had intervened while in said service.service.

•Various ways of leaving government service(lawyer):•Retirement•Resignation

•Expiration of the term of office•Dismissal or Abandonment

Note: Whichever way he leaves government service, he is prohibited by the Rule from accepting engagement or employment in connection with

any matter in which he had inteervened while in said service.

Section 7 of RA 6713, prohibits public officials Section 7 of RA 6713, prohibits public officials from doing any of the following acts:from doing any of the following acts:

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.

HOW LONG WILL THE PROHIBITION WILL APPLY FOR A RESIGNED, SEPARATED OR RETIRED LAWYER EMPLOYEE FROM PUBLIC OFFICE?

1 (ONE) Year The Section 7 prohibitions continue to apply for a period of one year after the

public official or employee’s resignation, retirement, or separation from public office, except for the private practice of profession under subsection (b)(2), which can already be undertaken even within the one-year prohibition period. As an exception to this exception, the one-year prohibited period applies with respect to any matter before the office the public officer or employee used to work with.

PCGG vs SANDIGANBAYANPCGG vs SANDIGANBAYANFacts:Facts: 1976: General Bank & Trust Company (Genbank) encountered financial difficulties. Central Bank 1976: General Bank & Trust Company (Genbank) encountered financial difficulties. Central Bank

extended loans to Genbank in the hope of rehabilitating it (P310M). Nonetheless, Genbank failed extended loans to Genbank in the hope of rehabilitating it (P310M). Nonetheless, Genbank failed to recover.to recover.

1977: Genbank was declared insolvent. A public bidding of Genbank’s assets was held with the 1977: Genbank was declared insolvent. A public bidding of Genbank’s assets was held with the Lucio Tan Group winning the bid. Solicitor General Mendoza, representing the government, Lucio Tan Group winning the bid. Solicitor General Mendoza, representing the government, intervened with the liquidation of Genbank.intervened with the liquidation of Genbank.

1986: after EDSA I, Cory established the PCGG to recover the ill-gotten wealth of Marcos, his 1986: after EDSA I, Cory established the PCGG to recover the ill-gotten wealth of Marcos, his family and cronies.family and cronies.

1987: PCGG filed a case against Lucio Tan and certain other people (basta marami sila). In 1987: PCGG filed a case against Lucio Tan and certain other people (basta marami sila). In relation to this case, PCGG issued several writs of sequestration on properties allegedly acquired relation to this case, PCGG issued several writs of sequestration on properties allegedly acquired by the respondents by taking advantage of their close relationship and influence with Marcos. by the respondents by taking advantage of their close relationship and influence with Marcos. Sandiganbayan heard the case.Sandiganbayan heard the case.

Estelito Mendoza (Solicitor General during the time of Marcos) represented the respondents.Estelito Mendoza (Solicitor General during the time of Marcos) represented the respondents. 1991: PCGG filed a motion to disqualify Mendoza, because of his participation in the liquidation of 1991: PCGG filed a motion to disqualify Mendoza, because of his participation in the liquidation of

Genbank. Genbank (now Allied Bank) is one of the properties that PCGG is seeking to be Genbank. Genbank (now Allied Bank) is one of the properties that PCGG is seeking to be sequestered from the Lucion Tan group. PCGG invoked Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional sequestered from the Lucion Tan group. PCGG invoked Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.Responsibility.

Sandiganbayan denied PCGG’s motion. According to the Sandiganbayan, Mendoza did not take Sandiganbayan denied PCGG’s motion. According to the Sandiganbayan, Mendoza did not take an adverse position to that taken on behalf of the Central Bank. And Mendoza’s appearance as an adverse position to that taken on behalf of the Central Bank. And Mendoza’s appearance as counsel was beyond the 1 year prohibitory period since he retired in 1986.counsel was beyond the 1 year prohibitory period since he retired in 1986.

  

Issue: W/N Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility apllies to Estelito Mendoza?Issue: W/N Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility apllies to Estelito Mendoza?  Held:Held: No, it does not apply to Mendoza. Sandiganbayan decision is affirmed.No, it does not apply to Mendoza. Sandiganbayan decision is affirmed. The matter (see 3The matter (see 3rdrd note), or the act of Mendoza as Solicitor General is advising the Central Bank note), or the act of Mendoza as Solicitor General is advising the Central Bank

on how to proceed with the liquidation of Genbank. This is not the “matter” contemplated by Rule on how to proceed with the liquidation of Genbank. This is not the “matter” contemplated by Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

The matter involved in the liquidation of Genbank is entirely different from the matter involved in The matter involved in the liquidation of Genbank is entirely different from the matter involved in the PCGG case against the Lucio Tan group.the PCGG case against the Lucio Tan group.

The intervention contemplated in Rule 6.03 should be substantial and important. The role of The intervention contemplated in Rule 6.03 should be substantial and important. The role of Mendoza in the liquidation of Genbank is considered insubstantial.Mendoza in the liquidation of Genbank is considered insubstantial.

SC is even questioning why PCGG took such a long time to revive the motion to disqualify SC is even questioning why PCGG took such a long time to revive the motion to disqualify Mendoza. Apparently, PCGG already lost a lot of cases against Mendoza. Kyle’s interpretation: Mendoza. Apparently, PCGG already lost a lot of cases against Mendoza. Kyle’s interpretation: PCGG getting desperatePCGG getting desperate

Something to think about: SC is somehow of the opinion that Rule 6.03 will make it harder for the Something to think about: SC is somehow of the opinion that Rule 6.03 will make it harder for the government to get good lawyers in the future to work for them because of the prohibition of government to get good lawyers in the future to work for them because of the prohibition of accepting cases in the future that were related to one’s work as a government counsel.accepting cases in the future that were related to one’s work as a government counsel.

General RuleGeneral Rule The lawyers in government service The lawyers in government service

cannot engage in private cases for cannot engage in private cases for they are expected to devote their full they are expected to devote their full time and knowledge in the time and knowledge in the performance of their duties and performance of their duties and responsibilities as public servant.responsibilities as public servant.

LAWYERS IN GOVERNMENT WHEN ALLOWED TO PRACTICE:

Memorandum Circular No. 17 of the Executive Department allows government employees to engage directly in the private practice of their profession provided that there is a written permission from the Department Head.

the private practice is authorized by the Constitution or by the law; and

the practice will not conflict, or tend to conflict, with his or her official functions.

UNIFORM RULES ON ADMINISTRATIVE UNIFORM RULES ON ADMINISTRATIVE CASES IN THE CIVIL SERVICECASES IN THE CIVIL SERVICE

Engaging in the private practice of profession, when unauthorized, is classified as light offense puni shable by reprimand. Case of Felipe E. Abella vs Atty. Asteria E. Cruzabra, AC. No. 5688.

Facts:Atty. Cruzabra was admitted to the Philippine Bar on May 30, 1986 and was appointed asDeputy Register of Deeds of General Santos City on Aug. 11, 1987. The complainant Felipe Abella asserted that Atty. Cruzabra filed a petition for commission as a notary public and was commisioned on Feb. 29, 1988 without obtaining prior authority from the Secretary of Department of Justice. Complainant claimed that repondent has notarized some 3,000 documents. Complainant pointed out that respondent only stopped notarizing documents when she was reprimanded by the Chief of the Investigation Division of the Land Registration Authority.

Continuation:Continuation:Respondent invoke good faith as her defense. Respondent insists that she cannot be punish because she was given permission by her senior officer to notarize.. In fact, one of the agreement in her appointment letter was that she will not imposed charges on papers from their office that need notarization. The respondent argued that she is new in the legal profession and that she does not know the intrecacies thereof.

Issue: Whether or not respondent’s act merits disciplinary action?

Ruling: The Supreme Court held that Atty. Asteria E. Cruzabra guilty of engaging in notarial practice without the written autority of the Department of Justice and was reprimanded and warned that repitition of the same or similar act in the future shall merit a more severe action.

Section 12, Rule XVIII of the Revised Civil Service Rules provides that no officer or employee shall engage directly in any private business, vocation or profession or be connected with any commercial, credit, agricultural ,or industrial undertaking without written permission from the head of the Department. It is clear that when respondent filed her petition for commission as a notary public, she did not obtain permission from the

Secretary of the Department of Justice. Respondent superior, the Register of Deeds, cannot issue any authorization because he is not the head of the Department. And even assuming that the Register of deeds authorized her, respondent failed to present any proof of that written permission. Respondent cannot feign ignorance or good faith because respondent filed her petition for commission as a notary public after Memorandum Circular No. 17 was issued in 1986.

Code of Ethical Standards for Public Code of Ethical Standards for Public Officials and EmployeesOfficials and Employees

RA 6713 Rule XRA 6713 Rule X Section 7. Prohibited Acts and Transactions. - In

addition to acts and omissions of public officials and employees now 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:

(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 their official functions;

Cont…Cont…

These prohibitions shall continue to apply for a These prohibitions shall continue to apply for a period of one (1) year after resignation, period of one (1) year after resignation, retirement, or separation from public office, retirement, or separation from public office, except in the case of subparagraph (b) (2) aboveexcept in the case of subparagraph (b) (2) above, , but the professional concerned but the professional concerned cannot practice his cannot practice his profession in connection with any matter before profession in connection with any matter before the office he used to be withthe office he used to be with, , in which case the in which case the one-year prohibition shall likewise apply. one-year prohibition shall likewise apply.

IRR of RA 6713 IRR of RA 6713 Rule XRule X

Grounds for Administrative Disciplinary ActionSection 1. In addition to the grounds for administrative

disciplinary action prescribed under existing laws, the acts and omissions of any official or employee, whether or not he holds office or employment in a casual, temporary, hold-over, permanent or regular capacity, declared unlawful or prohibited by the Code, shall constitute the grounds for administrative disciplinary action, and without prejudice to criminal and civil liabilities provided herein, such as:

(c) Engaging in the private practice of his profession unless authorized by the, Constitution, law or regulation, provided that such practice will not conflict or tend to conflict with his official functions;

Cont…Cont…

These acts shall continue to be prohibited for a period of one (1) year after resignation, retirement, or separation from public office, except in the case of paragraph (c) above, but the professional concerned cannot practice his profession in connection with any matter before the office he used to be with, within one year after such resignation, retirement, or separation, provided that any violation hereof shall be a ground for administrative disciplinary action upon re-entry to the government service.

Two theories on the disqualification Two theories on the disqualification of former government lawyers in of former government lawyers in

representing a clientrepresenting a client

“Adverse-interest conflict” “Congruent-interest representation conflicts."

14

"Adverse-interest conflicts" "Adverse-interest conflicts"

"Adverse-interest conflicts" exist where the matter in which the former government lawyer represents a client in private practice is substantially related to a matter that the lawyer dealt with while employed by the government and the interests of the current and former are adverse

15

Congruent-interest conflictCongruent-interest conflict

In “congruent-interest conflict”, The use of the word conflict is a misnomer, it does not involve conflicts at all, as it prohibits lawyers from representing a private person even if the interests of the former government client and the new client are entirely parallel.

16

Section 5, Canon 3 of the Code Section 5, Canon 3 of the Code of Conduct for Court Personnelof Conduct for Court Personnel

Outside employment may be allowed by the head of office provided it complies with all of the following requirements:(a) The outside employment is not with a person or entity that practices law before the courts or conducts business with the Judiciary;(b) The outside employment can be performed outside of normal working hours and is not incompatible with the performance of the court personnel’s duties and responsibilities;(c) That outside employment does not require the practice of law; Provided, however, that court personnel may render services as professor, lecturer, or resource person in law schools, review or continuing education centers or similar institutions;(d) The outside employment does not require or induce the court personnel to disclose confidential information acquired while performing officials duties;(e) The outside employment shall not be with the legislative or executive branch of government, unless specifically authorized by the Supreme Court.

Section 5 Canon 3 of the Code Section 5 Canon 3 of the Code of Conduct of Conduct for Court Personnelfor Court Personnel

SECTION 5. The full-time position in the Judiciary of every SECTION 5. The full-time position in the Judiciary of every court personnel shall be the personnel’s primary court personnel shall be the personnel’s primary employment. For purposes of this code, “primary employment. For purposes of this code, “primary employment” means the position that consumes the entire employment” means the position that consumes the entire normal working hours of the court personnel and requires normal working hours of the court personnel and requires the personnel’s exclusive attention in performing official the personnel’s exclusive attention in performing official duties.duties.

Outside employment may be allowed by the head of office provided it Outside employment may be allowed by the head of office provided it

complies with all of the following requirementscomplies with all of the following requirements::(a) The outside employment is not with a person or entity that practices law before(a) The outside employment is not with a person or entity that practices law beforehe courts or conducts business with the Judiciary;he courts or conducts business with the Judiciary;(b) The outside employment can be performed outside of normal working hours and(b) The outside employment can be performed outside of normal working hours andis not incompatible with the performance of the court personnel’s duties andis not incompatible with the performance of the court personnel’s duties andresponsibilities;responsibilities;(c) The outside employment does not require the practice of law; Provided,(c) The outside employment does not require the practice of law; Provided,however, that court personnel may render services as professor, lecturer, orhowever, that court personnel may render services as professor, lecturer, orresource person in law schools, review or continuing education centers or similarresource person in law schools, review or continuing education centers or similarinstitutions;institutions;(d) The outside employment does not require or induce the court personnel to disclose(d) The outside employment does not require or induce the court personnel to discloseconfidential information acquired while performing official duties; andconfidential information acquired while performing official duties; and(e) The outside employment shall not be with the legislative or executive branch of(e) The outside employment shall not be with the legislative or executive branch ofgovernment, unless specifically authorized by the Supreme Court.government, unless specifically authorized by the Supreme Court.Where a conflict of interest exists, may reasonably appear to exist, or where Where a conflict of interest exists, may reasonably appear to exist, or where

the outside employment reflects adversely on the integrity of the the outside employment reflects adversely on the integrity of the Judiciary, the court personnel shall not accept the outside employment.Judiciary, the court personnel shall not accept the outside employment.

Rule 3.03- Where a partner accepts public office, he shall Rule 3.03- Where a partner accepts public office, he shall withdraw from the firm and his name shall be dropped from the withdraw from the firm and his name shall be dropped from the firm name unless the law allows him to practice law concurrently.firm name unless the law allows him to practice law concurrently.

If a partner in a law firm has accepted a public office, his name shall If a partner in a law firm has accepted a public office, his name shall be removed from the firm name.be removed from the firm name.

Exception:Exception:If the law allows him to practice law concurrently while holding the If the law allows him to practice law concurrently while holding the

position such as Sanggunian member who is allowed to practice law position such as Sanggunian member who is allowed to practice law subject to certain restrictions (See RA 7160, Section 90)subject to certain restrictions (See RA 7160, Section 90)

REASON:REASON:To prevent the law firm or partners from making use of the name of the To prevent the law firm or partners from making use of the name of the

public official to attract legal business and to avoid suspicion of public official to attract legal business and to avoid suspicion of undue influence.undue influence.