FACTS:

The disbarment complaint filed against Atty. Carlos B. Sagucio alleges that he violated Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and defied the prohibition against private practice of law while working as a government prosecutor. Ruthie Lim-Santiago, the complainant, is the daughter of Alfonso Lim and the Special Administratrix of his estate. Atty. Sagucio was the former Personnel Manager and Retained Counsel of Taggat Industries, Inc. Taggat, a domestic corporation engaged in timber concessions, was sequestered by the Presidential Commission on Good Government in 1986 and ceased operations in 1997.

In July 1997, Taggat employees filed a criminal complaint against Lim-Santiago, alleging that she withheld their salaries and wages from April 1996 to July 1997 without valid cause. Atty. Sagucio, as Assistant Provincial Prosecutor, conducted the preliminary investigation and recommended the filing of 651 Informations against Lim-Santiago.

The complaint against Atty. Sagucio includes allegations of representing conflicting interests and engaging in private practice of law while working as a government prosecutor. Atty. Sagucio denies the allegations and argues that he was merely performing his official duty and that no conflicting interests exist.

The Integrated Bar of the Philippines' Investigating Commissioner found Atty. Sagucio guilty of conflict of interests, failure to safeguard a former client's interest, and violating the prohibition against private practice of law while being a government prosecutor. The IBP recommended a three-year suspension from the practice of law.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not the respondent violated the duty to maintain confidences or refrain from doing anything that will injuriously affect a former client.

2. Whether or not the respondent violated the prohibition on the private practice of law while being a government prosecutor.

3. Whether or not the respondent represented conflicting interests.

4. Whether there is a conflict of interest in the respondent's handling of the preliminary investigation of the criminal complaint filed against Taggat employees.

5. Whether the respondent engaged in the private practice of law while working as a government prosecutor.

6. Whether the respondent violated Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

7. Whether the respondent violated Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

8. Whether or not the petitioner has standing to file the present petition.

9. Whether or not the petition is premature and violates the rule of hierarchy of courts.

RULING:

1. The Court found the respondent guilty of violating the duty to maintain confidences or refrain from doing anything that will injuriously affect a former client.

2. The Court found the respondent guilty of violating the prohibition on the private practice of law while being a government prosecutor.

3. The Court found the evidence insufficient to establish that the respondent represented conflicting interests.

4. There is no conflict of interest in the respondent's handling of the preliminary investigation of the criminal complaint filed against Taggat employees.

5. The respondent engaged in the private practice of law while working as a government prosecutor.

6. The respondent did not violate Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

7. The respondent violated Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

8. The petitioner does not have standing to file the present petition. The petitioner failed to show that he has a personal and substantial interest in the resolution of the issues raised since he failed to allege that he will be adversely affected by the assailed policies and issuances.

9. The petition is premature and violates the rule of hierarchy of courts. The petitioner should have first sought recourse from the lower courts before filing a petition directly before the Supreme Court.

PRINCIPLES:

• A lawyer owes a duty to a former client to maintain inviolate the client's confidence or to refrain from doing anything that will injuriously affect the client in any matter in which the lawyer previously represented him.

• Government prosecutors are prohibited from engaging in the private practice of law.

• The prohibition on representing conflicting interests does not apply when there is no true attorney-client relationship, no conflict of interest exists, or when written consent is given after full disclosure of the facts.

• Unlawful conduct includes violating the prohibition on the private practice of a profession as a government employee, unless authorized by the Constitution or law, provided that such practice will not conflict or tend to conflict with the official functions of the employee.

• A lawyer's duty to a former client only covers matters that the lawyer previously handled for the former client and not for matters that arose after the lawyer-client relationship has terminated.

• The practice of law includes any activity that requires the application of law, legal procedure, knowledge, training, and experience.

• The prohibition on engaging in the private practice of law while working as a government prosecutor applies regardless of whether the lawyer rendered consultancy services or entered into a retainer agreement.

• Violations of the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees (RA 6713) are not subject to disciplinary action under the Code of Professional Responsibility unless they also constitute infractions of specific provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

• Unlawful conduct, such as receiving fees for legal services while serving as a government prosecutor, constitutes a violation of Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

• The appropriate penalty for an errant lawyer depends on the exercise of sound judicial discretion based on the surrounding facts.

• Standing requires a personal and substantial interest in the case, and the petitioner must allege that he will be adversely affected by the assailed policies and issuances.

• The rule of hierarchy of courts requires that petitions should be filed first before the lower courts before it can be elevated to the higher courts.