Santiago Vs Sagucio

JESSIE JAMES O.
YAPAO LEGAL TECHNIQUES & ETHICS

JD-IA
RUTHIE LIM-SANTIAGO vs. ATT Y. CARLOS B. SAGUCIO

A.C. No. 6705 March 31, 2006
FACTS:
Ruthie Lim-Santiago filed a disbarment complaint against Atty. Carlos B.

Sagucio for violating Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and for
defying the prohibition against private practice of law while working as government
prosecutor. The complainant is the daughter of one of the stockholder and former
President of Taggat Industries Inc where the respondent worked as a Personnel
Manager and Retained Counsel before his appointment as Assistant Provincial
Prosecutor. Sometime in July 1997, 21 employees of Taggat filed a criminal
complaint. They alleged that complainant, who took over the management and
control of Taggat after the death of her father, withheld payment of their salaries and
wages without valid cause from 1 April 1996 to 15 July 1997. Respondent, as
Assistant Provincial Prosecutor, was assigned to conduct the preliminary
investigation. He resolved the criminal complaint by recommending the filing of 651
information for violation of Article 288 in relation to Article 116 of the Labor Code of
the Philippines.
Complainant now charges respondent with the following violations:
1. Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility Complainant

contends that respondent is guilty of representing conflicting interests. Respondent,
being the former Personnel Manager and Retained Counsel of Taggat, knew the
operations of Taggat very well and should have inhibited himself from hearing,
investigating and deciding the case filed by Taggat employees.
2. Engaging in the private practice of law while working as a government

prosecutor. Complainant also contends that respondent is guilty of engaging in the
private practice of law while working as a government prosecutor. Complainant
presented evidence to prove that respondent received retainer's fee.
On the other hand, respondent claims that when the criminal complaint was
filed, he is no longer part of Taggat. He contends that complainant failed to establish
lack of impartiality when he performed his duty. He points out that complainant did
not file a motion to inhibit respondent from hearing the criminal complaint but instead
complainant voluntarily executed and filed her counter-affidavit without mental
reservation. Respondent asserts that no conflicting interests exist because he was
not representing Taggat employees or the complainant and he was merely
performing his official duty as Assistant Provincial Prosecutor.
The Integrated Bar of the Philippines, after their investigation found that
respondent is guilty of conflict of interests, failure to safeguard a former client’s
JESSIE JAMES O. YAPAO LEGAL TECHNIQUES & ETHICS
JD-IA
interest, and violating the prohibition against the private practice of law while being a
government prosecutor.
ISSUES:
1. Whether or not being a former lawyer of Taggat conflicts with his role as
Assistant Provincial Prosecutor in deciding the labor case filed against the
complainant.
2. Whether or not respondent engaged in the private practice of law while working
as a government prosecutor.
HELD:
1. The court found no conflict of interests when respondent handled the

preliminary investigation of the criminal complaint filed by Taggat employees in 1997.
The issue in the criminal complaint pertains to non-payment of wages. Clearly,
respondent was no longer connected with Taggat during that period since he
resigned sometime in 1992. In order to charge respondent for representing
conflicting interests, evidence must be presented to prove that respondent used
against Taggat, his former client, any confidential information acquired through his
previous employment. The only established participation respondent had with
respect to the criminal complaint is that he was the one who conducted the
preliminary investigation. The fact alone that respondent was the former Personnel
Manager and Retained Counsel of Taggat and the case he resolved as government
prosecutor was labor related is not a sufficient basis to charge respondent for
representing conflicting interests.
A lawyer’s immutable duty to a former client does not cover transactions that
occurred beyond the lawyer’s employment with the client. The intent of the law is to
impose upon the lawyer the duty to protect the client’s interests only on matters that
he previously handled for the former client and not for matters that arose after the
lawyer-client relationship has terminated. Further, complainant failed to present a
single iota of evidence to prove her allegations.
Thus, respondent is not guilty of violating Rule 15.03 of the Code.
2. The Court has defined the practice of law broadly as any activity, in or out of
court, which requires the application of law, legal procedure, knowledge, training and
experience. "To engage in the practice of law is to perform those acts which are
characteristics of the profession. Generally, to practice law is to give notice or render
any kind of service, which device or service requires the use in any degree of legal
knowledge or skill. Respondent argues that he only rendered consultancy services to
Taggat intermittently and he was not a retained counsel of Taggat from 1995 to 1996
as alleged. This argument is without merit because the law does not distinguish
between consultancy services and retainer agreement. For as long as respondent
performed acts that are usually rendered by lawyers with the use of their legal
knowledge, the same falls within the ambit of the term "practice of law."
Nonetheless, respondent admitted that he rendered his legal services to complainant
JESSIE JAMES O. YAPAO LEGAL TECHNIQUES & ETHICS
JD-IA
while working as a government prosecutor. Even the receipts he signed stated that
the payments by Taggat were for "Retainer’s fee." Thus, as correctly pointed out by
complainant, respondent clearly violated the prohibition in RA 6713.
Here, respondent’s violation of RA 6713 also constitutes a violation of Rule 1.01 of
Canon 1, which mandates that "[a] lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest,
immoral or deceitful conduct." Respondent’s admission that he received from Taggat
fees for legal services while serving as a government prosecutor is an unlawful
conduct, which constitutes a violation of Rule 1.01.
Under Civil Service Law and rules, the penalty for government employees engaging
in unauthorized private practice of profession is suspension for six months and one
day to one year. The court finds this penalty appropriate for respondent’s violation in
this case of Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
DECISION:
WHEREFORE, the court finds that respondent Atty. Carlos B. Sagucio

GUILTY of violation of Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. Accordingly, we SUSPEND respondent Atty. Carlos B. Sagucio from
the practice of law for SIX MONTHS effective upon finality of this Decision.

Santiago Vs Sagucio

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Santiago Vs Sagucio

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Santiago Vs Sagucio

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

JESSIE JAMES O.

YAPAO LEGAL TECHNIQUES & ETHICS

RUTHIE LIM-SANTIAGO vs. ATT Y. CARLOS B. SAGUCIO

Ruthie Lim-Santiago filed a disbarment complaint against Atty. Carlos B.

1. Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility Complainant

2. Engaging in the private practice of law while working as a government

1. The court found no conflict of interests when respondent handled the

Thus, respondent is not guilty of violating Rule 15.03 of the Code.

WHEREFORE, the court finds that respondent Atty. Carlos B. Sagucio

You might also like