Limitations/ restrictions of government lawyers in practice of law

I. Canon 6: These canons shall apply to Lawyers in Government Services in the discharge of
their tasks.
Rule 6.01 the Primary duty of a lawyer engaged in the public prosecution is not to
convict but to see that justice is done. The suppression of facts or the concealment of
witnesses capable of establishing the innocence of the accused is highly reprehensible
and is cause for disciplinary action.

Rule 6.02 A lawyer in the government service shall not use his public position to
promote or advance his private interest, nor allow the latter to interfere with his public
duties.

Rule 6.03 A lawyer shall not, after leaving government service, accept engagement or
employment in connection with any matter which he had intervened while in said
service.

II. Rule 3.03 Where a partner accepts public office, he shall withdraw from the firm and his
name shall be dropped from the firm name unless the law allows him to practice law
currently.
III. Rule 15.06 A lawyer shall impress upon his client compliance with the laws and the
principles of fairness.
IV. RRC Rule 138 Sec. 35 No judge or other official or employee of the superior courts or of
the Office of the Solicitor General, shall engage in private practice as a member of the bar
or give professional advice to clients.
V. Jovito Olazo v. Justice Tinga A.M. No. 10-5-7-SC (2010)
Facts: Jovito Olazo was the complainant who filed for a sales application covering a parcel
of land in Taguig, which was previously declared open for disposition pursuant to
proclamation no. 172. While Ret. SC Assoc. Justice Tinga is a member of the Committee on
Awards to implement Proclamation no. 172, in his capacity as the Congressman of Taguig
and Pateros. Allege violations:

1. Rule 6.02 Respondents abuse of his official functions the complainants sales application
was denied and the rights to the subject land was instead conveyed to respondents
nephew Joseph Jeffrey Rodriguez.
2. Rule 6.03 Respondent met with complainants brother, Manuel to nullify the
conveyance of his rights over another parcel of land in favor of Rodriguez and to
instead transfer the same to one Rolando Olazo. Thereafter respondent executed an
Assurance stating that he was the lawyer of Ramon Lee and Joseph Jeffrey
Rodriguez.

Issue: Whether or not respondents actions constitute a breach of the standard ethical
conduct while he is still a member of the Committee on Awards and when he was no
longer a public official, but a private lawyer who represented a client before the office he
was previously connected with.

Held: NO. Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility prohibits lawyers after
leaving the government service, to accept engagement or employment in connection with
 any matter in which he had intervened while in the said service. The keyword in Rule 6.03
of the Code of Professional Responsibility is the term "intervene" which we previously
interpreted to include an act of a person who has the power to influence the proceedings.
However, no evidence exists showing that the respondent previously interfered with the
sales application covering Manuel's land when the former was still a member of the
Committee on Awards. At face value, the legal service rendered by the respondent was
limited only in the preparation of a single document. In Borja, Sr. v. Sulyap, Inc., 32 we
specifically described private practice of law as one that contemplates a succession of acts
of the same nature habitually or customarily holding one's self to the public as a lawyer.

VI. Diana Ramos v. Atty. Jose R. Imbang, A.C. no. 6788 (2007)
Facts: Complainant Ramos sought the assistance of Atty. Imbang in filing civil and criminal
actions against Sps. Jovellanos. Thus she gave him P8,500 as attorneys fees but was issued
a receipt for P5,000 only. However, Atty. Imbang prevented her from entering the court
room during scheduled hearings and would only inform her that the hearing was
rescheduled and charged her 350 per each appearance. After the consecutive
postponements, she personally inquired about the status of her case and found out that
Atty. Imbang never filed a case against Sps. Jovellnoses and in fact employed in PAO. The
Commission on Bar Discipline of the IBP noted that the receipt was issued when the
respondent was still with PAO, that he described the complainant as shrewd
businesswoman and himself as a seasoned trial lawyer. As such complainant would not
have accepted a spurious receipt nor would he have issued one. CBD then recommended
respondents suspension.

Issue: Whether or not the respondent is guilty of breach of standard ethical conduct.

Held: Yes. Government employees are expected to devote themselves completely to public
service. For this reason, the private practice of profession is prohibited. Respondent's
admission that he accepted money from the complainant and the receipt confirmed the
presence of an attorney-client relationship between him and the complainant. Moreover,
the receipt showed that he accepted the complainant's case while he was still a
government lawyer. Respondent clearly violated the prohibition on private practice of
profession. Respondent's conduct in office fell short of the integrity and good moral
character required of all lawyers, especially one occupying a public office. Lawyers in public
office are expected not only to refrain from any act or omission which tends to lessen the
trust and confidence of the citizenry in government but also uphold the dignity of the legal
profession at all times and observe a high standard of honesty and fair dealing. A
government lawyer is a keeper of public faith and is burdened with a high degree of social
responsibility, higher than his brethren in private practice.

VII. PCGG v. Sandiganbayan and Tan, G.R. nos. 151809-12 (April 12, 2005)
Facts: PCGG filed a sequestration case against Tan et. Al to recover the alleged ill-gotten
wealth of former President Marcos, his family and cronies. Representing as the counsel of
the respondents is the former Solicitor General Mendoza. PCGG then filed a motion to
disqualify Mendoza as counsel for the respondents invoking Rule 6.03 of CPR. Allegedly
Mendoza intervened in the acquisition of GenBank by respondents Tan, et.al when in his
capacity as then Solicitor General, he advised the Central Banks official on the procedure
 to bring about GenBanks liquidation and appeared as counsel for the Central Bank in
connection with its petition for assistance in the liquidation of GenBank filed with CFI of
Manila.

Issue: Whether or not Rule 6.03 of CPR applies to Mendoza.

Held: No. The evil sought to be remedied by the Code do not exist where the government
lawyer does not act which can be considered as innocuous such as drafting, enforcing, or
interpreting government or agency procedures, regulations or laws or briefing abstract
principles of law. The court rules that the intervention of Mendoza is not significant and
substantial. He merely petitions that the court gives assistance in the liquidation of
GENBANK. The role of court is not strictly as a court of justice but as an agent to assist the
Central Bank in determining the claims of creditors. In such a proceeding the role of the
SolGen is not that of the usual court litigator protecting the interest of government.

VIII. US v. Russell White BROTHERS, Jr., G. Thomas Nebel, and Thomas White
Brothers, 856 F. Supp. 370 (1992)
Facts: Peter J. Strianse was an Assistant United States Attorney in the Middle District of
Tennessee from January, 1987, to June, 1989. Since leaving the United States Attorney's
office, Mr. Strianse has been engaged in the private practice of law in Nashville, Tennessee.
The Government has moved to disqualify Mr. Strianse from representing the defendant, G.
Thomas Nebel, because of actions taken by Mr. Strianse in his capacity as an Assistant
United States Attorney. Apparently, Strianse in his capacity as Assistant United States
Attorney in 1988, prepared several affidavit and search warrant from written reports,
charts, and oral information given to him by the agents of DEA who are investigating the
alleged drug activities of Russel Brothers, although he contends that the name of
defendant Thomas Nebel was never mentioned nor any information regarding the latter
was given to him. The defendants of this case are being prosecuted for allegedky
laundering money received as a result of defendant Russell Brothers drug trafficking
activities.

Issue: Whether or not Strianses action is in violation of Canon 9 and Disciplinary Rule 9-101
(B) of the ABA Model Code of Professional Responsibility.

Held: Yes. Canon 9 states that "a lawyer should avoid even the appearance of professional
impropriety." Disciplinary Rule 9-101(B) requires that "a lawyer shall not accept private
employment in a matter in which he had substantial responsibility while he was a public
employee." There is no reason to believe that Mr. Nebel's name ever was brought to the
attention of Mr. Strianse while he was an Assistant United States Attorney. Nevertheless,
there is sufficient documentary and testimonial evidence linking Mr. Strianse to the
investigation of Russell Brothers to justify disqualifying him from representing Mr. Nebel in
this related matter. Because of the confidential information shared with Mr. Strianse, there
is a great chance that his continued representation of Mr. Nebel would be perceived by the
public as tainting the fairness of the judicial process. Therefore, since there is both "a
reasonable possibility that some specifically identifiable impropriety did in fact occur" and
"the likelihood of public suspicion ... outweighs the social interests which will be served by
[Mr. Strianse's] continued participation," Mr. Strianse must be disqualified.