View full case

PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. ATTY. TELESFORO S. CEDO

FACTS:

In a verified letter-complaint, the Philippine National Bank charged Atty. Telesforo S. Cedo, a former Asst. Vice-President of the bank, with violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The complaint alleged that while Cedo was still employed with the bank, he participated in arranging the sale of steel sheets to Milagros Ong Siy. Subsequently, when a civil action arose out of the transaction, Cedo appeared as one of the counsels for Ong Siy, despite his prior involvement in the transaction while in the bank's employ. Similar circumstances occurred when Cedo intervened in the handling of a loan account of the Almeda spouses, and later appeared as counsel for them in a civil action. In Cedo's comment on the complaint, he admitted appearing as counsel for Ong Siy but stated that he only represented her in the execution pending appeal of the decision. Cedo also denied appearing as counsel for the Almeda spouses, stating that the law firm "Cedo, Ferrer, Maynigo & Associates" was designated as counsel of record but the case was actually handled by Atty. Pedro Ferrer. The case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation. During the investigation, it was discovered that Cedo was previously fined by the Court for forum shopping. The IBP found the charges against Cedo to be fully substantiated, noting that Cedo's averments regarding the law firm handling the Almeda spouses' case deserved scant consideration in light of the attestation of complainant's counsel that Cedo attended one of the hearings with his partner Atty. Ferrer and was practically dictating to him what to say and argue before the court.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether or not Atty. Telesforo S. Cedo violated Canon 6, Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility by appearing as counsel for individuals who had transactions with the Philippine National Bank (PNB) in which he had intervened while in the service of PNB.

  2. Whether or not the law firm "Cedo, Ferrer, Maynigo & Associates" is a partnership and whether or not respondent is a partner in said law firm.

RULING:

  1. Yes, Atty. Telesforo S. Cedo violated Canon 6, Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility by appearing as counsel for individuals who had transactions with PNB in which he had intervened while in PNB's service. The Court found that respondent participated in arranging the sale of steel sheets and intervened in the handling of a loan account while he was still employed by PNB. His subsequent appearance as counsel for the individuals involved in these transactions is a violation of the prohibition.

  2. No, the law firm "Cedo, Ferrer, Maynigo & Associates" is not a partnership and respondent is not a partner in said law firm. The Court gave little weight to respondent's contention that the law firm is not a partnership, considering an attestation from complainant's counsel that respondent attended court hearings with his partner, Atty. Ferrer, and was practically dictating instructions to him. Furthermore, respondent's implied admission of working in the same office as Atty. Ferrer during a hearing further supports the finding that they are partners.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Canon 6, Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility:

"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."

  • A lawyer's appearance as counsel in a matter in which he had intervened while in government service violates Canon 6, Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

  • The existence of a partnership in a law firm is determined by the intent of the parties, as manifested by their words, conduct, and the circumstances surrounding their relationship.