A.C. No.

3701 March 28, 1995 During the investigation conducted by the IBP, it was discovered that
respondent was previously fined by this Court in the amount of
P1,000.00 in connection with G.R. No. 94456 entitled "Milagros Ong Siy
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, complainant,
vs. Hon. Salvador Tensuan, et al." for forum shopping, where
vs.
respondent appeared as counsel for petitioner Milagros Ong Siy
ATTY. TELESFORO S. CEDO, respondent.
"through the law firm of Cedo Ferrer Maynigo and Associates."

RESOLUTION
The IBP further found that the charges herein against respondent were
fully substantiated. Respondent's averment that the law firm handling
the case of the Almeda spouses is not a partnership deserves scant
consideration in the light of the attestation of complainant's counsel,
Atty. Pedro Singson, that in one of the hearings of the Almeda spouses'
BIDIN, J.:
case, respondent attended the same with his partner Atty. Ferrer, and
although he did not enter his appearance, he was practically dictating to
In a verified letter-complaint dated August 15, 1991, complainant Atty. Ferrer what to say and argue before the court. Furthermore, during
Philippine National Bank charged respondent Atty. Telesforo S. Cedo, the hearing of the application for a writ of injunction in the same case,
former Asst. Vice-President of the Asset Management Group of respondent impliedly admitted being the partner of Atty. Ferrer, when it
complainant bank with violation of Canon 6, Rule 6.03 of the Code of was made of record that respondent was working in the same office as
Professional Responsibility, thus: Atty. Ferrer.

A lawyer shall not, after leaving government Moreover, the IBP noted that assuming the alleged set-up of the firm is
service, accept engagement or employment in true, it is in itself a violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility
connection with any matter in which he had (Rule 15.02) since the client’s secrets and confidential records and
intervened while in said service. information are exposed to the other lawyers and staff members at all
times.
by appearing as counsel for individuals who had transactions with
complainant bank in which respondent during his employment with From the foregoing, the IBP found a deliberate intent on the part of
aforesaid bank, had intervened. respondent to devise ways and means to attract as clients former
borrowers of complainant bank since he was in the best position to see
the legal weaknesses of his former employer, a convincing factor for the
Complainant averred that while respondent was still in its employ, he said clients to seek his professional service. In sum, the IBP saw a
participated in arranging the sale of steel sheets (denominated as Lots deliberate sacrifice by respondent of his ethics in consideration of the
54-M and 55-M) in favor of Milagros Ong Siy for P200,000. He even money he expected to earn.
"noted" the gate passes issued by his subordinate, Mr. Emmanuel
Elefan, in favor of Mrs. Ong Siy authorizing the pull-out of the steel
sheets from the DMC Man Division Compound. When a civil action The IBP thus recommended the suspension of respondent from the
arose out of this transaction between Mrs. Ong Siy and complainant practice of law for 3 years.
bank before the Regional Trial Court of Makati, Branch 146, respondent
who had since left the employ of complainant bank, appeared as one of The records show that after the Board of Governors of the IBP had, on
the counsels of Mrs. Ong Siy. October 4, 1994, submitted to this Court its Report and recommendation
in this case, respondent filed a Motion for Reconsideration dated
Similarly, when the same transaction became the subject of an October 25, 1994 of the recommendation contained in the said Report
administrative case filed by complainant bank against his former with the IBP Board of Governors. On December 12, 1994, respondent
subordinate Emmanuel Elefan, for grave misconduct and dishonesty, also filed another "Motion to Set Hearing" before this Court, the
respondent appeared as counsel for Elefan only to be later disqualified aforesaid Motion for Reconsideration. In resolving this case, the Court
by the Civil Service Commission. took into consideration the aforesaid pleadings.

Moreover, while respondent was still the Asst. Vice President of In addition to the findings of the IBP, this Court finds this occasion
complainant’s Asset Management Group, he intervened in the handling appropriate to emphasize the paramount importance of avoiding the
of the loan account of the spouses Ponciano and Eufemia Almeda with representation of conflicting interests. In the similar case of Pasay Law
complainant bank by writing demand letters to the couple. When a civil and Conscience Union, Inc. vs. Paz, (95 SCRA 24 [1980]) where a
action ensued between complainant bank and the Almeda spouses as former Legal Officer and Legal Prosecutor of PARGO who participated
a result of this loan account, the latter were represented by the law firm in the investigation of the Anti-Graft case against Mayor Pablo Cuneta
"Cedo, Ferrer, Maynigo & Associates" of which respondent is one of the later on acted as counsel for the said Mayor in the same anti-graft case,
Senior Partners. this Court, citing Nombrado vs. Hernandez (26 SCRA 13 119681) ruled:

In his Comment on the complaint, respondent admitted that he appeared The Solicitor General is of the opinion, and we find
as counsel for Mrs. Ong Siy but only with respect to the execution no reason to disagree with him, that even if
pending appeal of the RTC decision. He alleged that he did not respondent did not use against his client any
participate in the litigation of the case before the trial court. With respect information or evidence acquired by him as counsel
to the case of the Almeda spouses, respondent alleged that he never it cannot be denied that he did become privy to
appeared as counsel for them. He contended that while the law firm information regarding the ownership of the parcel of
"Cedo Ferrer, Maynigo & Associates" is designated as counsel of land which was later litigated in the forcible entry
record, the case is actually handled only by Atty. Pedro Ferrer. case, for it was the dispute over the land that
Respondent averred that he did not enter into a general partnership with triggered the mauling incident which gave rise to
Atty. Pedro Ferrer nor with the other lawyers named therein. They are the criminal action for physical injuries. This Court's
only using the aforesaid name to designate a law firm maintained by remarks in Hilado vs. David, 84 Phil. 571, are
lawyers, who although not partners, maintain one office as well as one apropos:
clerical and supporting staff. Each one of them handles their own cases
independently and individually receives the revenues therefrom which "Communications between attorney and client are,
are not shared among them.
in a great number of litigations, a complicated affair,
consisting of entangled relevant and irrelevant,
In the resolution of this Court dated January 27, 1992, this case was secret and well-known facts. In the complexity of
referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), for investigation, what is said in the course of dealings between an
report and recommendation. attorney and 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's cause."

Whatever may be said as to whether or not

respondent utilized against his former client
information given to him in a professional capacity,
the mere fact of their previous relationship should
have precluded him from appearing as counsel for
the other side in the forcible entry case. In the case
of Hilado vs. David, supra, this Tribunal further said:

Hence the necessity of setting the existence of the

bare relationship of attorney and client as the
yardstick for testing incompatibility of interests. This
stern rule is designed not alone to prevent the
dishonest practitioner from fraudulent conduct, but
as well to protect the honest lawyer from unfounded
suspicion of unprofessional practice. . . . It is
founded on principles of public policy, of good taste.
As has been said in another case, the question is
not necessarily one of the rights of the parties, but
as to whether the attorney has adhered to proper
professional standard. With these thoughts in mind,
it behooves attorney, like Caesar's wife, not only to
keep inviolate the client's confidence, but also to
avoid the appearance of treachery and double
dealing. Only thus can litigants. be encouraged to
entrust their secrets to their attorneys which is of
paramount importance in the administration of
justice.

The foregoing disquisition on conflicting interest applies with equal force

and effect to respondent in the case at bar. Having been an executive
of complainant bank, respondent now seeks to litigate as counsel for the
opposite side, a case against his former employer involving a transaction
which he formerly handled while still an employee of complainant, in
violation of Canon 6 of the Canons of Professional Ethics on adverse
influence and conflicting interests, to wit:

It is unprofessional to represent conflicting

interests, except by express conflicting consent of
all concerned given after a full disclosure of the
facts. Within the meaning of this canon, a lawyer
represents conflicting interest when, in behalf on
one client, it is his duty to contend for that which
duty to another client requires him to oppose.

ACCORDINGLY, this Court resolves to SUSPEND respondent ATTY.

TELESFORO S. CEDO from the practice of law for THREE (3) YEARS,
effective immediately.

Let copies of this resolution be furnished the Integrated Bar of the

Philippines and all courts in Metro Manila.

SO ORDERED.