PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, Complainant, v. ATTY. TELESFORO S.
CEDO, Respondent.
Facts:
In a verified letter-complaint dated August 15, 1991, complainant Philippine National Bank
charged respondent Atty. Telesforo S. Cedo, former Asst. Vice-President of the Asset
Management Group of complainant bank, with violation of Canon 6, Rule 6.03 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, thus:
"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."
by appearing as counsel for individuals who had transactions with complainant bank in which
respondent during his employment with aforesaid bank, had intervened.
In the resolution of this Court dated January 27, 1992, this case was referred to the Integrated
Bar of the Philippines (IBP), for investigation, report and recommendation
From the foregoing (investigation), the IBP found a deliberate intent on the part of 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 said clients to seek his professional services. In sum, the IBP saw a deliberate sacrifice by
respondent of his ethics in consideration of the money he expected to earn.
The IBP thus recommended the suspension of respondent from the practice of law for 3 years.
Issue:
Whether or not the IBP recommendation of Cedo’s suspension from the practice of law for 3
years be granted
Ruling:
Yes. In addition to the findings of the IBP, this Court finds this occasion appropriate to
emphasize the paramount importance of avoiding the representation of conflicting interests.
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 consent of all
concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts. Within the meaning of this canon, a lawyer
represents conflicting interests when, in behalf of one client, it is his duty to contend for that
which duty to another client requires him to oppose."