Rule 6.

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

If the law allows a public

official to practice law
concurrently, he must not
use his public position to
feather his law practice.
Neither should he accept
any private legal business
in which his duty to his
client will or may conflict
with his official duties, and
if some unforeseen
conflict with his official
duties arises he should
terminate his professional
relationship.
A public official should see
to it that his private
activity does not interfere
with the discharge of his
official functions. He
should avoid all
impropriety and the
appearance of impropriety.
Neither should he
inferentially create a
public image that he is
utilizing his public position
to advance his
professional success or
personal interest at the
expense of the public.

RA 6713 (Code of Conduct

and Ethical Standards for
Public Official and
Employees)

Sec. 7(b). In addition to acts

and omissions of public officials
and employees not prescribed in
the Constitution and existing
laws, the following shall
constitute prohibited acts and
transactions of any public
official and employee and are
hereby declared to be unlawful:
(b) Outside employment and
other activities related thereto.
Public officials and employees
during their incumbency shall
not:
1.) Own, control, manage or
accept employment as officer
employee, consultant, counsel,
broker, agent, trustee or
nominee/ in any private
enterprise regulated, supervised
or licensed by their office/
unless expressly allowed by law;
2.) Engage in the private
practice of their profession
unless unauthorized by the
Constitution or law, provided
that such practice will conflict or
tend to conflict with their official
functions; or
3.) Recommend any person to
any position in a private
enterprise which has a regular
or pending official transaction
with their office.
Former official may not
accept certain employment
Rule 6.03 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.

The restriction covers

engagement and
employment, which
means that he cannot
accept any work or
employment from anyone
that will involve or relate
to the matter in which he
intervened as a public
official, except on behalf
of the body or authority
which he served during his
public employment.
PCGG v.
Sandiganbayan, 455
SCRA 526 (2005):
PCGG seeks to disqualify Atty.
Estelito Mendoza as counsel for
the Lucio Group of Companies in
the suit involving the
sequestration of shares of stock
of the LGC as alleged ill-gotten
wealth, on the ground that as a
former Solicitor General, he
intervened in the matter of the
liquidation of Genbank, which
was subsequently purchased by
LGC.
The Court ruled that Atty.
Mendoza could not be
disqualified from representing
the LGC. The Court explained:
The key to unlock Rule
6.03 lies in
comprehending.
1. The meaning of
matter referred to in
the rules.
2. The metes and bounds
of the intervention
made by the former
government lawyer on
the matter.

The American Bar

Association, in its Formal
Opinion 342, defined
matter as:
Any discrete, isolatable
act as well as identifiable
transaction and not
merely an act of drafting,
enforcing or interpreting
government or agency
procedures, regulations or
laws, or briefing abstract
principles of law.

The matter or the act of

Atty. Mendoza as Solicitor
General is advising the
Central Bank on how to
proceed with Genbanks
liquidation is held not to
be the matter
contemplated by the Rule
6.03.
Clearly, ABA Formal
Opinion 342 stresses that
Atty. Mendozas acts did
not fall within the scope of
the term matter.
It is given that respondent
Mendoza had nothing to
do with the decision of the
Central Bank to liquidate
Genbank and did not even
participate in the sale of
Genbank to Allied Bank.
The matter which he got
himself involved was
informing the Central bank
on the procedure by law to
liquidate Genbank.
It is not the same as the
subject matter of the
civil case of sequestration
of stocks owned by Tan in
Allied Bank on the alleged

ground that they are illgotten. This case does not

involve liquidation of
Genbank.
Whether the shares of
stock of Allied Bank are illgotten is far removed from
the issue of the dissolution
and liquidation of
GenBank.
Intervention is
interference that may
affect the interest of and
influence others.
Intervention must not be
insubstantial and
insignificant.
Substantial
responsibility is required
by the prohibition.
In interpreting Rule 6.03,
the Court also cast a harsh
eye on its use as a
litigation tactic to harass
opposing counsel aswell
as deprive his client of
competent legal
representation.
In the case at bar, the new
attempt to disqualify
respondent Mendoza has
long been a dead issue,
resuscitated after the
lapse of many years and

only after PCGG has lost

many legal incidents in
the hands of the
respondent.
It is also submitted that
the Court should apply
Rule 6.03 in all its
strictness for it correctly
disfavors lawyers who
switch sides and
intended to avoid conflict
of loyalties. It is claimed
that switching sides
carries the danger that
former government
employee may
compromise confidential
official information in the
process.
The act of respondent
Mendoza in informing the
Central Bank on the
procedure how to liquidate
Genbank is a different
matter from the subject
matter of Civil Case No.
0005 which is about
sequestration of the
shares of respondents Tan
in Allied Bank. There is no
switching sides for no two
sides are involved.