PNB v. Cedo, AC No.
3701, March 28, 1995
FACTS:
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:
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.
by appearing as counsel for individuals who had transactions with complainant bank in which respondent during
his employment with aforesaid bank, had intervened. The instances are as follows:
1. While respondent was still in its employ, he participated in arranging the sale of steel sheets
(denominated as Lots 54-M and 55-M) in favor of Milagros Ong Siy for P200,000. He even "noted" the
gate passes issued by his subordinate, Mr. Emmanuel Elefan, in favor of Mrs. Ong Siy authorizing the pull-
out of the steel sheets from the DMC Man Division Compound. 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 who had since left the employ of complainant bank, appeared as one of the counsels of
Mrs. Ong Siy.
2. When the complainant bank filed a case against his former subordinate Emmanuel Elefan, for grave
misconduct and dishonesty, respondent appeared as counsel for Elefan only to be later disqualified by the
Civil Service Commission.
3. While the respondent was still the Asst. Vice President of PNB, he intervened in the handling of the loan
account of the spouses Ponciano and Eufemia Almeda with the 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.
Respondent’s contention:
1. Respondent admitted that he appeared as counsel for Mrs. Ong Siy but only with respect to the execution
pending appeal of the RTC decision. He alleged that he did not participate in the litigation of the case
before the trial court.
2. Respondent alleged that he never appeared as counsel for them. He contended that while the law firm
"Cedo Ferrer, Maynigo & Associates" is designated as counsel of record, the case is actually handled only
by Atty. Pedro Ferrer. Each one of them handles their own cases independently and individually receives
the revenues therefrom which are not shared among them.
ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent violated Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
RULING:
Yes. The respondent violated Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
From the foregoing, 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 service. In sum,
the IBP saw a deliberate sacrifice by respondent of his ethics in consideration of the money he expected to earn.
Citing Hilado v David, 84 Phil. 571, the Court ruled:
"Communications between attorney and client are, in a great number of litigations, a complicated affair, consisting
of entangled relevant and irrelevant, secret and well-known facts. In the complexity of what is said in the course of
dealings between an attorney and client, inquiry of the nature suggested would lead to the revelation, in advance
of the trial, of other matters that might only further prejudice the complainant's cause."
FALLO:
ACCORDINGLY, this Court resolves to SUSPEND respondent ATTY. TELESFORO S. CEDO from the practice of law for
THREE (3) YEARS, effective immediately.
Let copies of this resolution be furnished to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and all courts in Metro Manila.
SO ORDERED.
