5. COJUANGCO, JR. VS.
PALMA RULING:
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:
WON respondent’s acts constitute
deceit, malpractice, gross misconduct in office,
grossly immoral conduct and violation of his
oath as a lawyer that would warrant his
disbarment.
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
should be dismissed for the following reasons:
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
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 RULING:
creditors against the GENBANK.
Yes. It would appear that when the
It is worthy to note that in construing the words individual letters of apology and Re-Admission
of such rule in this case, the Court balanced the Agreements were formalized, complainant was
two policy considerations of having a chilling by then already the retained counsel for
effect on government recruitment of able legal plaintiff students in the civil case. Respondent
talent and the use of former government Pangulayan had full knowledge of this fact.
employment as a litigation tactic to harass Although aware that the students were
opposing counsel. represented by counsel, respondent attorney
proceeded, nonetheless, to negotiate with
them and their parents without at the very least
27. CAMACHO VS PAGULAYAN
communicating the matter to their lawyer,
herein complainant, who was counsel of record
in Civil Case No. Q-97-30549. This failure of
FACTS:
respondent, whether by design or because of
oversight, is an inexcusable violation of the
Atty. Manuel N. Camacho filed a
canons of professional ethics and in utter
complaint against the lawyers comprising the
disregard of a duty owing to a colleague.
Pangulayan and Associates Law Offices charged
Respondent fell short of the demands required
that respondents, then counsel for the
of him as a lawyer and as a member of the Bar.
defendants, procured and effected on separate
occasions, without his knowledge, compromise
The allegation that the context of the
agreements ("Re-Admission Agreements") with
Re-Admission Agreements centers only on the
four of his clients in the aforementioned civil
administrative aspect of the controversy is
case which, in effect, required them to waive all
belied by the Manifestation1 which, among
kinds of claims they might have had against
other things, explicitly contained the following
AMACC. Complainant averred that such an act
stipulation; viz:
of respondents was unbecoming of any
member of the legal profession warranting
1. Among the nine (9) signatories to the
either disbarment or suspension from the
complaint, four (4) of whom assisted by their
practice of law. Attorney Pangulayan
parents/guardian already executed a Re-
acknowledged that not one of his co-
Admission Agreement with AMACC President,
respondents had taken part in the negotiation,
AMABLE R. AGUILUZ V acknowledging guilt for
discussion, formulation, or execution of the
violating the AMA COMPUTER COLLEGE
various Re-Admission Agreements complained
MANUAL FOR DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS and
of, the Re-Admission Agreements, he claimed,
agreed among others to terminate all civil,
had nothing to do with the dismissal of Civil
criminal and administrative proceedings which
Case Q-97-30549 and were executed for the
they may have against the AMACC arising from
sole purpose of effecting the settlement of an
their previous dismissal.
administrative case. The denial of the appeal
xxx xxx xxx
made by the students to Dr. Amable R. Aguiluz
V, AMACC President, gave rise to the
3. Consequently, as soon as possible, an
commencement of Civil Case No. Q-97-30549.
Urgent Motion to Withdraw from Civil Case No.
While the civil case was still pending, letters of
Q-97-30549 will by filed them.1âwphi1
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?