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.
RESTRICTIONS AGAINS GOVERNMENT LAWYERS WHO LEFT THE SERVICE:

a government lawyer may leave the government service in various ways:

Retirement
Resignation
Expiration of the term of office
Dismissal or Abandonment

Note: Whichever way he leaves the service, he is prohibited by the Rule from
accepting engagement or employment in connection with any matter in which he
had intervened while in said service.

Section 7 of RA 6713, PROHIBITS PUBLIC OFFICIALS FROM DOING ANY OF THE

FOLLOWING ACTS:

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.

HOW LONG WILL THE PROHIBITION WILL APPLY FOR A RESIGNED, SEPARATED OR
RETIRED LAWYER EMPLOYEE FROM PUBLIC OFFICE?

One year

EXCEPTION:

LAWYERS IN GOVERNMENT ; WHEN ALLOWED TO PRACTICE?

Memorandum Circular No. 17 of the Executive Department allows government employees to

engage directly in the private practice of their profession provided there is a written permission
from the Department head. It provides:
The authority to grant permission to any official or employee shall be granted by the head of the
ministry or agency in accordance with Section 12, Rule XVIII of the Revised Civil Service

Rules, which provides:

Sec. 12. No officer or employee shall engage directly in any private business, vocation, or
profession or be connected with any commercial, credit, agricultural, or industrial undertaking
without a written permission from the head of Department; Provided, That this prohibition will
be absolute in the case of those officers and employees whose duties and responsibilities require
that their entire time be at the disposal of the Government: Provided, further, That if an employee
is granted permission to engage in outside activities, the time so devoted outside of office hours
should be fixed by the chief of the agency to the end that it will not impair in any way the
efficiency of the other officer or employee: And provided, finally, That no permission is
necessary in the case of investments, made by an officer or employee, which do not involve any
real or apparent conflict between his private interests and public duties, or in any way influence
him in the discharge of his duties, and he shall not take part in the management of the enterprise
or become an officer or member of the board of directors,
Subject to any additional conditions which the head of the office deems necessary in each
particular case in the interest of the service, as expressed in the various issuances of the Civil
Service Commission. (Boldfacing supplied)

UNIFORM RULES ON ADMINISTRATIVE CASES IN THE CIVIL SERVICE

Engaging in the private practice of profession , when unauthorized , is classified as a

light offense punishable by reprimand.

PCGG v SANDIGANBAYAN (Mendoza case)

Facts:

1976: General Bank & Trust Company (Genbank) encountered financial difficulties. Central Bank extended
loans to Genbank in the hope of rehabilitating it (P310M). Nonetheless, Genbank failed to recover.
1977: Genbank was declared insolvent. A public bidding of Genbanks assets was held with the Lucio Tan
Group winning the bid. Solicitor General Mendoza, representing the government, intervened with the
liquidation of Genbank.
1986: after EDSA I, Cory established the PCGG to recover the ill-gotten wealth of Marcos, his family and
cronies.
1987: PCGG filed a case against Lucio Tan and certain other people (basta marami sila). In relation to this
case, PCGG issued several writs of sequestration on properties allegedly acquired by the respondents by
taking advantage of their close relationship and influence with Marcos. Sandiganbayan heard the case.
Estelito Mendoza (Solicitor General during the time of Marcos) represented the respondents.
1991: PCGG filed a motion to disqualify Mendoza, because of his participation in the liquidation of
Genbank. Genbank (now Allied Bank) is one of the properties that PCGG is seeking to be sequestered from
the Lucion Tan group. PCGG invoked Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Sandiganbayan denied PCGGs motion. According to the Sandiganbayan, Mendoza did not take an adverse
position to that taken on behalf of the Central Bank. And Mendozas appearance as counsel was beyond
the 1 year prohibitory period since he retired in 1986.

Issue:

W/N Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility apllies to Estelito Mendoza

Held:

No, it does not apply to Mendoza. Sandiganbayan decision is affirmed.

The matter (see 3rd note), or the act of Mendoza as Solicitor General is advising the Central Bank on how to
proceed with the liquidation of Genbank. This is not the matter contemplated by Rule 6.03 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.
The matter involved in the liquidation of Genbank is entirely different from the matter involved in the PCGG
case against the Lucio Tan group.
The intervention contemplated in Rule 6.03 should be substantial and important. The role of Mendoza in
the liquidation of Genbank is considered insubstantial.
SC is even questioning why PCGG took such a long time to revive the motion to disqualify Mendoza.
Apparently, PCGG already lost a lot of cases against Mendoza. Kyles interpretation: PCGG getting
desperate
Something to think about: SC is somehow of the opinion that Rule 6.03 will make it harder for the
government to get good lawyers in the future to work for them because of the prohibition of accepting
cases in the future that were related to ones work as a government counsel.

Concurring Opinions:

Panganiban & Carpio: the congruent interest prong of Rule 6.03 should have a prescriptive period
Tinga: Rule 6.03 cannot apply retroactively to Mendoza (when he was Solicitor General, no Rule 6.03 yet)
Bottom line, they are all questioning the unfairness of the rule if applied without any prescriptive period
and if applied retroactively

Notes:

Adverse-interest conflicts where the matter in which the former government lawyer represents a client in
private practice is substantially related to a matter that the lawyer dealt with while employed with the
government and the interests of the current and former are adverse
Congruent-interest conflicts the use of the word conflict is a misnomer, it does not involve conflicts at
all, as it prohibits lawyers from representing a private person even if the interests of the former
government client and the new client are entirely parallel
Matter any discrete, isolatable act as well as indentifiable transaction or conduct involving a particular
situation and specific party
Intervention interference that may affect the interests of others