Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

This case has been cited 2 times or more.

	AM No. 10-5-7-SC 2010-12-07	JOVITO S. OLAZO v. JUSTICE DANTE O. TINGA BRION, J.
Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility echoes this restriction and prohibits lawyers, after leaving the government service, to accept engagement or employment in connection with any matter in which he had intervened while in the said service. The keyword in Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility is the term "intervene" which we previously interpreted to include an act of a person who has the power to influence the proceedings.[31] Otherwise stated, to fall within the ambit of Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, the respondent must have accepted engagement or employment in a matter which, by virtue of his public office, he had previously exercised power to influence the outcome of the proceedings.
	AC. No. 5738 2008-02-19	WILFREDO M. CATU v. ATTY. VICENTE G. RELLOSA CORONA, J.
Respondent cannot be found liable for violation of Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. As worded, that Rule applies only to a lawyer who has left government service and in connection "with any matter in which he intervened while in said service." In PCGG v. Sandiganbayan,[11] we ruled that Rule 6.03 prohibits former government lawyers from accepting "engagement or employment in connection with any matter in which [they] had intervened while in said service."