QUERY OF ATTY SILVERIO

Facts:
Atty. Buffe previously worked as Clerk of Court VI of the Regional Trial Court (RTC),
Branch 81 of Romblon; she resigned from her position effective February 1, 2008. Thereafter,
within the one-year period of prohibition, she engaged in the private practice of law by
appearing as private counsel in several cases before RTC-Branch 81 of Romblon. Her query is
related to Section 7(b)(2) of R.A. No. 6713, which places a limitation on public officials and
employees during their incumbency, and those already separated from government employment
for a period of one (1) year after separation, in engaging in the private practice of their
profession. She says that it gives preferential treatment to an incumbent public employee, who
may engage in the private practice of his profession while contrast, a public official or employee
who has retired, resigned, or has been separated from government service like her, is prohibited
from engaging in private practice on any matter before the office where she used to work, for a
period of one (1) year from the date of her separation from government employment.
Issue:
Whether or not her contention is correct and whether or not she violated the said law.
Held:
No, this law avoids conflict of interest. A former public official has an advantage because
the limitation is only with respect to the office he or she used to work with and only for a period
of one year. The incumbent cannot practice at all, save only where specifically allowed by the
Constitution and the law and only in areas where no conflict of interests exists. Section 5,
Canon 3 of the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel governs for incumbent officials whose
outside employment may be allowed by the head of office provided it complies with all of the
requirements. Additionally, outside employment may be allowed where a conflict of interest does
not exist nor may reasonably appear to exist or where the outside employment does not reflect
adversely on the integrity of the Judiciary. Atty. Buffe admits that she immediately engaged in
private practice of law before her old office within the one-year period of prohibition stated in
Section 7(b)(2) of R.A. No. 6713. She is GUILTY of professional misconduct for violating Rule
1.01 of Canon 1 and Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. She is FINED in the
amount of P10,000.00, and STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of this violation and the
commission of other acts of professional misconduct shall be dealt with more severely

PNB V. CEDO
Facts:
Complainant charged 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. While still employed in PNB, Atty. Cedo participated in arranging the
sale of steel sheets in favor of Milagros Ong Siy for P200,000. When a civil action arose out of
this transaction between Mrs. Ong Siy and complainant bank before the Regional Trial Court of
Makati, Branch 146, respondent, after he resigning from the complainant bank, appeared as
one of the counsels of Mrs. Ong Siy. Also, in a case of the bank and Emmanuel Elefan,
respondents former subordinate, for grave misconduct and dishonesty, Atty. Cedo appeared as

counsel for Elefan only to be later disqualified by the Civil Service Commission. Moreover, while
respondent was still the Asst. Vice President of complainants Asset Management Group, he
intervened in the handling of the loan account of the spouses Ponciano and Eufemia Almeda
with complainant bank by writing demand letters to the couple. When a civil action ensued
between complainant bank and the Almeda spouses as a result of this loan account, the latter
were represented by the law firm "Cedo, Ferrer, Maynigo & Associates" of which respondent is
one of the Senior Partners.
Issue:
Whether or not the respondent violated Canon 6 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
Held:
Yes. 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. He violated Canon 6 provides: 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. The Court resolves to SUSPEND
respondent ATTY. TELESFORO S. CEDO from the practice of law for THREE (3) YEARS,
effective immediately.