The Sandiganbayan has prohibited a Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) lawyer from serving as counsel of one of many accused within the malversation trial involving the P2.2-billion Makati City parking constructing undertaking.
The anti-graft court docket, in a six-page Resolution, stated permitting PCGG lawyer Jesus Christopher Belandres to symbolize accused and former Makati official Mario Badillo could be tantamount to his advocating towards the state, because the PCGG is a authorities instrumentality.
The PCGG was created by legislation in 1987 and is tasked to get better the ill-gotten wealth of the late president Ferdinand Marcos, his household and their associates.
“The PCGG is considered as an instrumentality or regulatory agency of the government. Being an instrumentality or regulatory agency of the government, PCGG is, therefore, part of the State. By representing accused Badillo in the subject cases where the plaintiff is the ‘People of the Philippines’ or the State, Atty. Belandres is now going against his client, the PCGG, which is an instrumentality of the State,” the Sandiganbayan stated.
“Thus, there is an apparent conflict of interest,” the anti-graft court docket added.
Belandres argued that there is no such thing as a battle of curiosity on this half as a result of he isn’t a daily worker of the PCGG however was employed as Special Legal Counsel by a Contract of Service.
Belandres stated that beneath his Contract of Service, he’s free to follow his career, settle for instances and seem in court docket besides if there’s a battle of curiosity.
Such battle of curiosity, Belandres stated, solely refers to a state of affairs the place the Special Legal Counsel can be a counsel of the events towards the PCGG.
“In this case, accused Mario V. Badillo is not an immediate family of former President Marcos, neither his relative, subordinate, or close associate. Thus, there is no conflict of interest,” Belandres stated.
The Sandiganbayan, nonetheless, was not satisfied and cited the Supreme Court choice in Hornilla v. Salunat, which states that “there is conflict of interest when a lawyer represents inconsistent interests of two or more opposing parties.”
The similar High Court choice states that the rule prohibiting battle of curiosity applies to conditions whereby a lawyer could be representing a shopper whose curiosity is immediately opposed to any of his current or former shoppers.
Ultimately, the Sandiganbayan invoked the Code of Professional Responsibility which offers that “a lawyer should observe candor, fairness and loyalty in all his dealings and transactions with his clients” and that “a lawyer should not represent conflicting interests except by written consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts.”
“The afore-cited rule evidently prohibits a lawyer from representing new clients whose interests oppose those of a former client in any manner, whether or not they are parties in the same action or on totally unrelated cases. The prohibition is founded on the principles of public policy and good taste,” the court docket stated.
“It behooves lawyers not only to keep inviolate the client’s confidence, but also to avoid the appearance of treachery and double-dealing for only then can litigants be encouraged to entrust their secrets to their lawyers, which is of paramount importance in the administration of justice. Wherefore, the Court hereby grants the prosecution’s Manifestation and Motion dated April 13, 2023. Thus, Atty. Belandres is hereby disqualified from appearing as collaborating counsel of accused Mario V. Badillo in the cases docketed as SB-16-CRM-0084, 0439, 0442, 0443, 0451 and 0453,” it added.
The fees accuse former mayors Jejomar and Junjun Binay and others of rigging public bidding to the drawback of the federal government. — BM, GMA Integrated News
Source: www.gmanetwork.com
