1.

Difference between Canon 6 and Sec 7(b) of RA6713 on Officials who may not accept
certain employment

Rule 6.03 of Canon 6 provides that A lawyer shall not, after leaving government service, accept
engagement or employment in connection with any matter in which he had intervened while in
said service. The lawyer in this case cannot accept any work or employment from anyone that will
involve or relate to the matter in which he intervened as a public official, except on behalf of the
body or authority which he served during his public employment.

Sec 7(b) of RA 6713, establishing a code of conduct and ethical standards for public officials,
prohibits any former public official or employee for a period of 1 year after retirement or separation
from office to “practice his profession in connection with any matter before the office he used to
be with.”

2. May a lawyer critize the courts.

Related provisions:
Rule 11.03 - A lawyer shall abstain from scandalous, offensive or menacing language or behavior
before the Courts.
Rule 11.04 - A lawyer shall not attribute to a Judge motives not supported by the record or have
no materiality to the case.
Rule 11.05 - A lawyer shall submit grievances against a Judge to the proper authorities only.

The fact that a person is a lawyer does not deprive him of the rights, enjoyed by every citizen, to
comment on and criticize the actuations of a judge subject to ethical standard.

The court, in a pending litigation; must be shielded from embarrassment or influence in its all-
important duty of deciding the case. Once litigation is concluded, the judge who decided it is
subject to the same criticisms as any other public official because his ruling becomes public
property and is thrown open to public consumption.

It is the cardinal condition of all such criticism that it shall be bona fide, and shall not spill over
the walls of decency and propriety (Zaldivar v. Gonzales, G.R. Nos. 79690-707, April 7, 1993).

The duty of the bar to support the judge against unjust criticism and clamor does not, however,
preclude a lawyer from filing administrative complaints against erring judges or from acting as
counsel for clients who have legitimate grievances against them. But the lawyer should file charges
against the judge before the proper authorities only and only after the proper circumspection and
without the use of disrespectful language and offensive personalities so as not to unduly burden
the court in the discharge of its function.

Note: Cardinal condition of criticism is that it shall be bona fide and shall not spillover the walls
of decency and propriety.

3. What is forum shopping and subjudice rule

Forum shopping is the improper practice of filing several actions or petitions in the same or
different tribunals arising from the same cause and seeking substantially identical reliefs in the
hope of winning in one of them. The omission to disclose pendency of appeal or prior dismissal
of his case by a court of concurrent jurisdiction with intent of seeking a favorable opinion.

The prohibition includes the filing of petitions for writs of certiorari, mandamus and prohibition
when there are similar petitions already filed or pending. (CPR Annotated, PhilJA)

Note: The mere filing of several cases based on the same incident does not necessarily constitute
forum shopping. The question is whether the several actions filed involve the same transactions,
essential facts and circumstances. If they involve essentially different facts, circumstances and
causes of action, there is no forum shopping. (Paredes v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 108251, Jan.
31, 1996)

The essence of forum shopping is the filing of multiple suits involving the same parties for the
same cause of action, either simultaneously or successively, for the purpose of obtaining a
favorable judgment. (Foronda v. Atty. Guerrero, A.C. No. 5469, Aug. 10, 2004)

The sub judice rule restricts comments and disclosures pertaining to the judicial proceedings in
order to avoid prejudging the issue, influencing the court, or obstructing the administration of
justice. A violation of this rule may render one liable for indirect contempt under Sec. 3(d), Rule
71 of the Rules of Court (Marantan vs Diokno G.R. No. 205956)

4. Rule on citation

Rule 10.02, Canon 10, CPR – A lawyer shall not knowingly misquote or misrepresent the contents
of the paper, the language or the argument of opposing counsel, or the text of a decision or
authority, or knowingly cite as law a provision already rendered inoperative by repeal or
amendment, or assert as a fact that which has not been proved.

A lawyer must quote word for word, punctuation mark for punctuation mark.

Note: A mere TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR in the citation of an authority is not contemptuous.