5. COJUANGCO, JR. VS.
PALMA WON respondent’s acts constitute
FACTS:
To practice law is a privilege one. It is
only for those who can pass the bar and pass
the standards sets- out which are indispensible.
One of the requirements to admit the bar is to
have a satisfactory testimonial of good
character. Such good moral character must be
maintained throughout his life as a lawyer.
In this case the complainant is a client
of Angara Concepcion Regala & Cruz Law Offices
(ACCRA), who assigned the case to Atty. Palma,
the respondent. The former hired the latter as
his personal counsel for his business. The same
becomes very close to the family, dine and goes
with them abroad. He even tutored,
complainant’s 22-year old daughter Maria Luisa
Cojuangco (Lisa).
On June 22, 1982, respondent married
Lisa in Hongkong without the knowledge of the
complainant despite the facts that the former is
already married and with three (3 ) children.
Complainant sends his two sons to persuade
Lisa to go home with them, which she did. In
the celebration of respondent’s marriage with
Lisa he misrepresented himself as a bachelor.
On August 24, 1982, complainant filed
with the Court of First Instance, a petition for
declaration of nullity of the marriage and which
was granted. Subsequently complainant filed a
disbarment complaint on the ground of grave
abuse and betrayal of the trust and confidence
reposed in him.
Respondent in his answer filed a motion
to dismiss for lack of cause of action. As he
contends that complaint fails to allege acts
constituting deceit, malpractice, gross
misconduct or violation of his lawyer’s oath.
ISSUE:
deceit, malpractice, gross misconduct in office,
grossly immoral conduct and violation of his
oath as a lawyer that would warrant his
disbarment.
RULING:
YES. There is no question that
respondent as a lawyer, is well versed in the law,
fully well that in marrying Maria Luisa he was
entering into a bigamous marriage defined and
penalized under Article 349 of the Revised Penal
Code. The respondent betrayed the trust
reposed in him by complainant. He was treated
as part of the family and was allowed to tutor
Maria Luisa.
For the foregoing reasons, it is
submitted that respondent committed grossly
immoral conduct and violation of his oath as a
lawyer, and it is recommended that respondent
be suspended from the practice of law for a
period of three (3) years and which later lessen
to one (1) year.
According to IBP:
“At the outset, it must be stressed that the law
profession does not prescribe a dichotomy of
standards among its members. There is no
distinction as to whether the transgression is
committed in the lawyers professional capacity
or in his private life. This is because a lawyer
may not divide his personality so as to be an
attorney at one time and a mere citizen at
another. Thus, not only his professional
activities but even his private life, insofar as the
latter may reflect unfavorably upon the good
name and prestige of the profession and the
courts, may at any time be the subject of inquiry
on the part of the proper authorities.”
Professional competency alone does
not make a lawyer a worthy member of the Bar.
Good moral character is always an
indispensable requirement.
 The interdict upon lawyers, as inscribed
in Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, is that they shall not engage in
unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
conduct. This is founded on the lawyer’s
primordial duty to society as spelled out in
Canon 1 which states:
CANON 1. A lawyer shall uphold the
Constitution, obey the laws of the land and
promote respect for law and legal processes.
And the suspension of 1 year which is
previously 3 years is not commensurate to the
gravity of his offense, thus he is disbarred from
the practice of law.
16. PCGG vs Sandiganbayan, et al
FACTS:
On February 1991, Former Solicitor General
Estelito Mendoz, who has currently resumed
the private practice of law, was sought to be
disqualified from representing the Lucio Tan
group, in the 1987 case involving General Bank
and Trust Company (GENBANK) as one of those
properties subject to a writ of sequestration by
PCGG being alleged to be ill –gotten wealth
acquired during the Marcos Regime. It was
averred by the PCGG that there exists an
adverse interest on Mendoza since he was the
one who filed a petition praying for assistance
and supervision of the court in the liquidation of
GENBANK when he was still a Solicitor General,
which bank was subsequently owned by the
Lucio Tan group when it submitted the winning
bid.
PCGG invokes Rule 6.03of 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 said service.”
Sandiganbayan rejects PCGG’s motion by
arguing that CGG 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 and that 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.
ISSUE:
WON Rule 6.03 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility applies to
respondent Mendoza
RULING:
NO, Rule 6.03 of the CPR is inapplicable
in the case. 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 motion for disqualification
should be dismissed for the following reasons:
1) After discussing the history of the
present Code of Professional
Responsibility which revealed that the
word “intervene” is applicable to both
adverse interest conflicts and congruent
interest conflicts, it has been found that
neither of these conflicts exists in the
liquidation case and the sequestration
case.
2) The legality of the liquidation of
GENBANK is not an issue in the
sequestration cases.
The “matter” where he got himself
involved was in informing Central Bank
on the procedure provided by law to
liquidate GENBANK through the courts
and in filing the necessary petition in
 the then Court of First Instance. The
subject “matter” of the special
proceeding, therefore, is not the same
nor is related to but is different from
the subject “matter” in the civil case.
The civil case 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. 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.
3) Mendoza’s intervention in the
liquidation of Genbank is not
substantial and significant to warrant
disqualification.
The petition in the special proceedings
is an initiatory pleading, hence, it has to
be signed by respondent Mendoza as
the then sitting Solicitor General. For
another, the record is arid as to
the actual participation of respondent
Mendoza in the subsequent
proceedings. Moreover, the petition
filed merely seeks the assistance of the
court in the liquidation of GENBANK.
The principal role of the court in this
type of proceedings is to assist the
Central Bank in determining claims of
creditors against the GENBANK.
It is worthy to note that in construing the words
of such rule in this case, the Court balanced the
two policy considerations of having a chilling
effect on government recruitment of able legal
talent and the use of former government
employment as a litigation tactic to harass
opposing counsel.
27. CAMACHO VS PAGULAYAN
FACTS:
Atty. Manuel N. Camacho filed a
complaint against the lawyers comprising the
Pangulayan and Associates Law Offices charged
that respondents, then counsel for the
defendants, procured and effected on separate
occasions, without his knowledge, compromise
agreements ("Re-Admission Agreements") with
four of his clients in the aforementioned civil
case which, in effect, required them to waive all
kinds of claims they might have had against
AMACC. Complainant averred that such an act
of respondents was unbecoming of any member
of the legal profession warranting either
disbarment or suspension from the practice of
law. Attorney Pangulayan acknowledged that
not one of his co-respondents had taken part in
the negotiation, discussion, formulation, or
execution of the various Re-Admission
Agreements complained of, the Re-Admission
Agreements, he claimed, had nothing to do with
the dismissal of Civil Case Q-97-30549 and were
executed for the sole purpose of effecting the
settlement of an administrative case. The denial
of the appeal made by the students to Dr.
Amable R. Aguiluz V, AMACC President, gave
rise to the commencement of Civil Case No. Q-
97-30549. While the civil case was still pending,
letters of apology and Re-Admission
Agreements were separately executed by
and/or in behalf of some of the expelled
students.
ISSUE:
WON respondent violates Canon 9 of
the CPE?
RULING:

Yes. It would appear that when the

individual letters of apology and Re-Admission
Agreements were formalized, complainant was
by then already the retained counsel for plaintiff
students in the civil case. Respondent
Pangulayan had full knowledge of this fact.
Although aware that the students were
represented by counsel, respondent attorney
proceeded, nonetheless, to negotiate with them
and their parents without at the very least
communicating the matter to their lawyer,
herein complainant, who was counsel of record
in Civil Case No. Q-97-30549. This failure of
respondent, whether by design or because of
oversight, is an inexcusable violation of the
canons of professional ethics and in utter
disregard of a duty owing to a colleague.
Respondent fell short of the demands required
of him as a lawyer and as a member of the Bar.

The allegation that the context of the

Re-Admission Agreements centers only on the
administrative aspect of the controversy is
belied by the Manifestation1 which, among
other things, explicitly contained the following
stipulation; viz:

1. Among the nine (9) signatories to the

complaint, four (4) of whom assisted by their
parents/guardian already executed a Re-
Admission Agreement with AMACC President,
AMABLE R. AGUILUZ V acknowledging guilt for
violating the AMA COMPUTER COLLEGE
MANUAL FOR DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS and
agreed among others to terminate all civil,
criminal and administrative proceedings which
they may have against the AMACC arising from
their previous dismissal.
xxx xxx xxx

3. Consequently, as soon as possible, an

Urgent Motion to Withdraw from Civil Case No.
Q-97-30549 will by filed them.1âwphi1