11. Pnb V. Cedo Case Digest Pale.docx

[Legal Profession] 2nd semester, A.Y. 2014-2015 PNB v Cedo

-

A.C. No. 3701 Ponente: J. Bidin Date: March 28, 1995 Complainant: PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK Respondent: ATTY. TELESFORO S. CEDO FACTS:





 



Atty. Telesforo Cedo is the former Assistant Vice President of the Asset Management G roup of PNB, who is now the counsel of Milagros Ong Siy in a case against PNB. Compl ainant-bank charged Atty Cedo with violation of Canon 5, rule 6.03 of the Code of Prof essional Responsibility, which states that: “A lawyer shall not, after leaving government service, accept engagement or employment in connection with any matter in which he had intervened while i n said service.”

Almeda case: Atty Pedro Singson of PNB attested that in one of the hearings, Att y. Cedo was present although he did not enter his appearance, and was dictating t o Atty. Ferrer what to say and argue before the court. He also admitted in one of th e hearings that he was the partner of Atty Ferrer.

IBP recommended suspension from the practice for 3 years. Cedo violated Rule 15.02 of the CP R, since the client’s secrets and confidential records and information are exposed to the other lawy ers and staff members at all times. There also was a deliberate intent to devise ways and means to attract as clients former borrowers of PNB since he was in the best position to see the legal weaknesses of PNB. He sacrificed ethics i n consideration of money. It is unprofessional to represent conflicting interests, except by express conflicting consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts. DISPOSITIVE: This Court resolves to suspend Atty Cedo from the practice of law for 3 years.

PNB stated that while Atty Cedo was still employed in their bank, he participated in arra nging sale of steel sheets in favor of Mrs. Ong Siy for P200,000. He even “noted” the ga te passes issued by his subordinate, Mr. Emmanuel Elefan, in favor of Mrs. Ong Siy aut horizing the pull-out of the steel sheets from the DMC Man Division Compound.

DOCTRINE:

Similarly, Atty. Cedo already appeared as a counsel for Mr. Elefan in an administrative c ase against PNB, but was disqualified by the Civil Service Commission.

NOTES: 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. (Hilado v David)

Atty. Cedo also became the counsel of Ponciano and Eufemia Almeda against PNB as t hey were represented by the law firm “Cedo, Ferrer, Maynigo & Associates” (of which C edo is one of the Senior Partners). PNB added that while Atty Cedo was still with them, he intervened in the handling of the loan account of the spouses.

DEFINITION:

ATTY CEDO’s DEFENSE: Ong Siy case: He appeared as counsel for Mrs. Ong Siy but only with respect to t he execution pending appeal of the RTC decision. He did not participate in the litig ation of the case before the trial court. Almeda case: He never appeared as counsel for them. Only Atty. Pedro Ferrer of the said law firm handled the case. He also added that the law firm was not of a ge neral partnership. They are only using the name to designate a law firm maintaine d by lawyers, who although not partners, maintain one office as well as one clerica l and supporting staff. They handle their cases independently and individually.

ISSUE1: Whether or not Atty. Cedo was guilty of violating Canon 6 – YES HELD/RATIO1: This case was referred to the IBP. Their findings are the ff: Ong Siy case: He was the counsel through the law firm and was fined by the cour t in the amount of P1,000 for forum shopping. Batac, Endaya, Lingat, Santos, Saturnino, Villafuerte, Yee

1