26
TATAD v SANDIGANBAYAN
Facts:
§
Oct. 1974 – Antonio de los Reyes,
former Head Executive Assistant of the Department of Public Information (DPI),
filed a report to the Legal Panel of the Presidential Security Command (PSC)
containing charges of violations of RA3019[1]
(Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Acts) against Sec. of DPI Francisco Tatad.
§
1979 – Tatad had a falling out with
then Pres. Marcos and the charges became widely known.
§
Dec. 12, 1979 – a formal complaint
was filed with the Tanodbayan
§
Apr. 1, 1980 – Tanodbayan referred
the complaint to the PSC for investigation and report.
§
June 16, 1980 – report by PSC was
submitted recommending the filing of charges for graft and corruption.
§
Oct. 25, 1982 – all affidavits and
counter-affidavits were in and the case was ready for disposition.
§
July 5, 1985 – Tanodbayan issued a
resolution calling for the filing of charges against Tatad in the Sandiganbayan. 5 informations were filed against Tatad in
1985.
§
Tatad now questions the propriety of
the filing of charges. He alleges that
his rights to due process and speedy disposition of cases have been violated.
Issue:
§
W/n Tatad’s rights to due process
and speedy disposition of cases have been violated.
Held:
§
SC says yes they were violated by
the long delay in the termination of the preliminary investigation by the
Tanodbayan. Substantial adherence to the
requirements of the law and substantial compliance with the time limitation
prescribed by law is part of procedural due process.
§
The case was ready for disposition
as early as 1982 but the informations were only filed in 1985. A delay of close to 3 years can not be deemed
reasonable or justifiable in the light of the circumstance obtaining in the
case at bar. The charges in the
complaint, specially his failure to file his Statement of Assets and
Liabilities, are not that complicated to require 3 years before formal complaints
are filed.
27
PNB v ATTY CEDO
Facts: PNB filed a complaint against Atty. Cedo for
violation of Rule 6.02 that states: A lawyer shall not, after leaving gov’t.
service, accept engagement or employment in connection with any matter which he
had intervened with in said service. Cedo was the former Asst.
Vice-President of the Asset management Group of PNB.
During
Cedo’s stint with PNB, he became involved in 2 transactions: 1.) sale of steel
sheets to Ms. Ong and 2.) intervened in the handling of a loan of spouses
Almeda. When a civil action arose because of #1, Cedo, after leaving the bank
appeared as one of the counsel of Ms. Ong. Also, when #2 was involved in a
civil action, the Almedas were represented by the law firm Cedo, Ferrer,
Maynigo & Associates of which Cedo was a Senior Partner.
Cedo
claims that he did not participate in the litigation of Ms. Ong’s case. He also
claims that even if it was his law firm handling the Almeda case, the case was
being handled by Atty. Ferrer.
Issue: W/N violated Rule 6.02.
Held: Cedo
violated Rule 6.02.
In the complexity of what is
said in the course of dealings between the atty. and the client, inquiry of the
nature suggested would lead to the revelation, in advance of the trial, of other matters that might only further
prejudice the complainant cause. Whatever may be said as to w/n the atty.
utilized against his former client information given to him in a professional
capacity, the mere fact that their previous relationship should have precluded
him from appearing as counsel for the other side.
It is unprofessional to
represent conflicting interests, except by express consent of all the parties
concerned after the disclosure of facts. A lawyer represents conflicting
interests when, in behalf of one client, it is his duty to contend for that
which duty to another client requires him to oppose.
28 DINSAY v CIOCO
Facts:
§ Planters Machinery Corporation (PLAMACO) mortgaged
to Traders Royal Bank (the Bank) certain properties as security for the payment
of its loan. PLAMACO defaulted in the payment
of the loan so the Bank extrajudicially foreclosed the mortgage. At a foreclosure sale conducted by the
sheriff, the property was sold to the bank, who was the sole bidder. A certificate of Sheriff’s sale was executed
by Atty. Cioco, then clerk of Court and Ex-officio Sheriff.
§ Records disclose that page four of the said
Certificate was surreptitiously substituted.
The new page lowered the bid price from the original amount of P3, 263,
182.67 to only P730,000. Cioco and the
sheriff who conducted the sale had previously been administratively charged and
dismissed from service.
§ Now, Atty.Cioco is sought to be disbarred. He argues that there was res adjudicata due
to the administrative case, and that disbarment was deemed adjudicated therein,
thus he may now longer be charged.
Issue: W/N Cioco may be charged with disbarment (W/N res
adjudicata appplies)
Held:
§ Cioco’s contention has no merit. Res adjudicata applies only to judicial or
quasi-judicial proceedings and not to the exercise of the Court’s
administrative powers, as in this case.
§ Disbarment has not been adjudicated in the previous
case. Therein, Cioco was administratively proceeded against as an erring Court
personnel under the supervisory authority of the court. Herein, Cioco is sought to be disciplined as
a lawyer under the court’s plenary authority over members of the legal
profession.
§ While Cioco is in effect being indicted twice for
the same misconduct, there is no double jeopardy as both proceedings are
administrative in nature.
§ The general rule is that a lawyer who holds a
government office may not be disciplined as a member of the bar for misconduct
in the discharge of his duties as a government official. The exception is , if that misconduct affects
his qualification as a lawyer or shows moral delinquency.
§ Cioco’s participation in changing the bid price in
the Certificate of Sheriff’s Sale affects his fitness as a member of the
bar. He knows it is patently illegal to
alter its contents after notarization, since it is already a public document.
§ Cioco is disbarred.
29 IGOY v SORIANO
FACTS:
§ Igoy
is one of the petitioners in the case of Heirs of Gavino Igoy, et al. vs.
Mactan Shangrila Hotel.
§ Eng.
William Redoblado introduced Atty. Soriano
to Igoy as a Justice of the CA.
§ According
to Igoy’s friend, Atty. Soriano will be able to help him in his case which is
pending in the CA
§ Atty.
Soriano demanded from Igoy P20,000 but the former reminded the latter the he
will only be able to help in the case as soon as the case was lifted to the SC
§ Igoy’s
case received an unfavorable decision in the CA and Atty. Soriano offered to
prepare the Petition for Review to be filed in the SC.
§ Atty.
Soriano asked for an additional P20,000
§ Igoy
send the amount by courier to the address of Atty. Soriano which was received
by his son.
§ SC
denied the petition for review of Igoy with finality
§ Igoy
later found out that Atty. Soriano is not a CA Justice and filed this complaint
against Igoy in the SC
§ Arguments
of Atty. Soriano:
o
It is unnatural for a person to give
money to someone whom he does not know well and whom he met only for the first
time
o
The money was offered gratuitously
by Igoy
o
it is impossible the Igoy handed the
money to him on the SC parking lot for many employees were passing in that
place
o
it is not Eng. Redoblado who
introduced him to Igoy but Mr. Taneo
o
if the SC finds that he is guilty, he will
retire from the service
§ Atty.
Soriano filed his letter of resignation/retirement under RA 1616
ISSUE:
§ W/N
Atty. Soriano violated Canon 6, Rule 6.02 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility
HELD:
§ Yes!
Atty. Soriano was dismissed from the service with forfeiture of all retirement
benefits and is suspended from the practice of law.
§ Atty.
Soriano’s offer to resign was obviously an attempt to evade whatever penalty
may be imposed on him. However,
resignation will not extricate him form the consequences of his acts
§ Resignation
should not be used either as an escape or an easy way out to evade
administrative liability by court personnel facing administrative sanctions
§ To
accept the claim of Soriano that the money was offered gratuitously will open
the floodgates to fraud or graft and corruption.
§ Government
lawyers who are public servants owe utmost fidelity to the public service for
public service is a public trust.
Government lawyers should be more sensitive to their professional
obligations as their reputable conduct is more likely to be magnified in the
public eye.
§ The
nature and responsibilities of public officers enshrined in the Constitution
are not mere rhetorical words to be taken lightly as idealistic sentiments but
as working standards and attainable goals that should e matched with actual
deeds.
30 PCGG v SANDIGANBAYAN
*kalokohan na kaso to, 140++ pages
(disclaimer) main decision – 28 pages lang
** merong history of Rule 6.03 and other
historical stuff sa case
Facts:
§
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 to recover.
§
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,
intervened with the liquidation of Genbank.
§
1986: after EDSA I, Cory established
the PCGG to recover the ill-gotten wealth of Marcos, his family and cronies.
§
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 by the respondents by taking advantage of their close relationship and
influence with Marcos. Sandiganbayan heard the case.
§
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 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
Responsibility.
§
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 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
Held:
§
No, it does not apply to Mendoza.
Sandiganbayan decision is affirmed.
§
The matter (see 3rd
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 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
PCGG case against the Lucio Tan group.
§
The intervention contemplated in
Rule 6.03 should be substantial and important. The role of 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 Mendoza. Apparently, PCGG
already lost a lot of cases against Mendoza. Kyle’s interpretation: PCGG
getting desperate
§
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
accepting cases in the future that were related to one’s work as a government
counsel.
Concurring
Opinions:
§
Panganiban & Carpio: the congruent
interest prong of Rule 6.03 should have a prescriptive period
§
Tinga: Rule 6.03 cannot apply
retroactively to Mendoza (when he was Solicitor General, no Rule 6.03 yet)
§
Bottom line, they are all
questioning the unfairness of the rule if applied without any prescriptive
period and if applied retroactively
Notes:
§
Adverse-interest conflicts – 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 with the
government and the interests of the current and former are adverse
§
Congruent-interest conflicts – 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
§
Matter – any discrete, isolatable
act as well as indentifiable transaction or conduct involving a particular
situation and specific party
§
Intervention – interference that may
affect the interests of others
[1] (a) Giving D’Group, a
private corporation owned by his brother –in-law unwarranted benefits; (b)
receiving a check from Roberto Vallar, Gen. Manager of Amity Trading Corp., as
consideration for the release of a check to the said corp. for printing
services rendered during the Constitutional Convention Referendum; and (c)
failure to file his Statement of Assets and Liabilities.
No comments:
Post a Comment