CATU v. RELLOSA
A.C. No. 5738, 546 SCRA 209, February 19, 2008

Administrative Case : Professional Misconduct for violating his Oath as a Lawyer and Canons 1 and 7 and Rule 1.01 of the Code of professional Responsibility.

FACTS: Complainant Wilfredo Catu is a co-owner of a lot and building erected at Malate, Manila. With his mother and brother, contested the possession of Elizabeth Catu and Antonio Pastor of one of the units in the building. The latter ignored demands to vacate the premises. Thus, a complaint was initiated against them in the Lupong Tagapamayapa in their barangay. 
                      Respondent Atty Vicente Rellosa, as Punong Barangay summoned the parties to conciliation meetings. But the parties failed to arrive at an amicable settlement, thus, respondent issued a certification for the filing of the appropriate action in court.
                      Thereafter, Catu's mother and brother filed a complaint for ejectment against Elizabeth and Pastor in the MTC. Respondent entered his appearance as counsel for the defendants in that case.  Because of this, complainant filed the instant administrative complaint. The complaint was referred to the IBP for investigation. IBP found sufficient ground to discipline respondent. According to IBP, Respondent admitted that as punong barangay he presided over the conciliation proceeding, however, he represented the defendants in the ejectment case filed against them, and by doing so he violated Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
                         Furthermore, as an elective official contravened the prohibition under Section 7 (b)(2) of R.A. 6713 ( The Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees). 
                         "Sec. 7 Prohibited Acts and Transactions- In addition to acts and omissions of public officials and employees now prescribed in the Constitution and existing laws, the following shall constitute prohibited acts and transactions of any public officials and employee and are hereby declared to be unlawful:
                            XXX                XXX                  XXX
(b) Outside employment and other activities related thereto.- Public officials and employees during their incumbency shall not: 
                            XXX                   XXX                      XXX
(2) Engage in the private practice of profession unless authorized by the Constitution or law, provided that such practice will not conflict or tend to conflict with their official functions; XXX"
                     According to IBP, respondent's violation of this prohibition constituted a breach of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
The IBP recommended the respondent's suspension from the practice of law for one month with stern warning that the commission of the same or similar act will be dealt with more severely. This was adopted by the IBP Board of Governors.

ISSUE: WON the respondent can represent the defendant in the ejectment case while he is an incumbent public official.

HOLDING: The SC ruled that 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". Respondent was an incumbent punong barangay at the time he committed the act complained of. Therefore, he was not covered by that provision.
                        The SC also ruled that Section 7(b)(2) of R.A 6713 is a general law which applies to all public officials and employees.Thus, not applicable to the case at bar. However, Section 90 of R.A. 7160 ( The Local Government Code of 1992) governs the practice of profession of elective local government officials. This is a special law with definite scope, it constitutes an exception to Section 7(b)(2) of R.A 6713. 
                         Accordingly, the respondent  as punong barangay was not forbidden to practice his profession. However, he should have procured prior permission or authorization from the head of his Department, as required by the civil service regulations as stated in Section 12, Rule XVIII of the Revised Civil Service Rules.
                          In the case at bar, the respondent as punong barangay should have therefore obtained the prior written permission of the Secretary of Interior and Local Government before he entered his appearance as counsel for said defendants.
                           In acting as counsel for a party without first securing a written permission, respondent not only engaged in the unauthorized practice of law but also violated civil service rules which is a breach of Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. And for not living up to his oath as well as for not complying with the exacting ethical standards of the legal profession, respondent failed to comply with Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
                          Atty. Vicente Rellosa is found guilty. He is therefore suspended from the practice of law for a period of 6 months and sternly warned that any repetition of similar acts shall be dealt with more severely.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

People vs. Sunico, et al [C.A., 50 o.g. 5880]

FACTS: The accused were election inspectors and poll clerks whose duty among others was to transfer the names of excess voters in other precincts to the list of a newly created precinct.Several voters were omitted in the list.Because their names were not in the list, some of them were not allowed to vote. The accused were prosecuted for violation of Secs. 101 and 103 of the Revised Election Code. The accused claimed that they made the omission in good faith.The trial court seemed to believe that notwithstanding the fact that the accused committed in good faith the serious offense charged, the latter are criminally responsible therefor, because such offense is malum prohibitum, and, consequently, the act constituting the same need not be committed with malice or criminal intent to be punishable. ISSUE: Is the act of the accused merely a mala prohibita? HELD: The acts of the accused cannot be merely mala prohibita - they are mala in se . The omission or failure to include a voter’s...
Read more

US v. Serapio [23 P 584]

FACTS: Defendant was charged with the crime of libel. Upon said complaint the defendant was duly arraigned. Upon arraignment the defendant, by his attorneys, presented the following demurrer:I. The facts alleged in the complaint do not constitute a crime. II. It appears from the allegation in the complaint that if there were a crime it has prescribed. With reference to the second ground, counsel for the defense maintains that the crime has prescribed under the provisions of the laws in force in the Islands and supports such conclusion by asserting that in the absence of a definite provision in Act No. 277 of the Philippine Commission, which fixes the time during which the penal action arising from the crime of libel may be exercised, the time which article 131 of the Penal Code fixes for the prescription of the crimes of calumny and insults is strictly applicable. Against this contention of the defense, the Attorney-General and the private prosecutor maint...
Read more

People v Macatanda [109 S 35]

FACTS: Charged with and convicted on a plea of guilty, in the Court of First Instance of Lanao del Norte, Branch IV in Iligan City, for the crime of cattle rustling, Saglala Macatanda. From the judgment of conviction, Saglala Macatanda (hereinafter referred to as appellant) appealed direct to this Court. The Solicitor General comes up with a reply that Article 64 of the Revised Penal Code does not apply to penalties prescribed by special laws. He considers P.D. 533, otherwise known as "Anti- Cattle Rustling Law of 1974" as a special law, and in accordance with existing rulings, 8 the penalty should not be governed by the Revised Penal Code. ISSUE: Whether the contention of the Solicitor-General is valid. RULING: The court do not agree with the Solicitor General that P.D. 533 is a special law, entirely distinct from and unrelated to the Revised Penal Code. From the nature of the penalty imposed which is in terms of the classification and duration of penalties as prescribe...
Read more