A.C. NO. 6705 - RUTHIE LIM-SANTIAGO, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. CARLOS B. SAGUCIO

Ruling

Accordingly, Respondent should be found guilty of conflict of interest, failure to safeguard a former client's interest, and violating the prohibition against the private practice of law while being a government prosecutor. [40] The IBP Board of Governors forwarded the Report to the Court as provided under Section 12(b), Rule 139-B [41] of the Rules of Court. The Ruling of the Court The Court exonerates respondent from the charge of violation of Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility ("Code"). However, the Court finds respondent liable for violation of Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility against unlawful conduct. [42] Respondent committed unlawful conduct when he violated Section 7(b)(2) of the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees or Republic Act No. 6713 ("RA 6713"). Canon 6 provides that the Code "shall apply to lawyers in government service in the discharge of their official duties." [43] A government lawyer is thus bound by the prohibition "not [to] represent conflicting interests." [44] However, this rule is subject to certain limitations. The prohibition to represent conflicting interests does not apply when no conflict of interest exists, when a written consent of all concerned is given after a full disclosure of the facts or when no true attorney-client relationship exists. [45] Moreover, considering the serious consequence of the disbarment or suspension of a member of the Bar, clear preponderant evidence is necessary to justify the imposition of the administrative penalty. [46] Respondent is also mandated under Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 not to engage in "unlawful x x x conduct." Unlawful conduct includes violation of the statutory prohibition on a government employee to "engage in the private practice of [his] profession unless authorized by the Constitution or law, provided, that such practice will not conflict or tend to conflict with [his] official functions." [47] Complainant's evidence failed to substantiate the claim that respondent represented conflicting interests In Quiambao v. Bamba , [48] the Court enumerated various tests to determine conflict of interests. One test of inconsistency of interests is whether the lawyer will be asked to use against his former client any confidential information acquired through their connection or previous employment. [49] In essence, what a lawyer owes his former client is to maintain inviolate the client's confidence or to refrain from doing anything which will injuriously affect him in any matter in which he previously represented him. [50] In the present case, we find 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 that occurred from 1 April 1996 to 15 July 1997. Clearly, respondent was no longer connected with Taggat during that period since he resigned sometim