FACTS: Petitioner initiated a
complaint against Elizabeth Catu and Antonio Pastor who were occupying one of
the units in a building in Malate which was owned by the former. The said
complaint was filed in the Lupong
Tagapamayapa of Barangay 723, Zone 79 of the 5th District
of Manila where respondent was the punong barangay. The parties, having
been summoned for conciliation proceedings and failing to
arrive at an amicable settlement, were issued by the respondent a certification
for the filing of the appropriate action in court. Petitioner, thus, filed a
complaint for ejectment against Elizabeth and Pastor in the Metropolitan Trial
Court of Manila where respondent entered his appearance as counsel for the
defendants. Because of this, petitioner filed the instant administrative
complaint against the respondent on the ground that he committed an act of
impropriety as a lawyer and as a public officer when he stood as counsel for
the defendants despite the fact that he presided over the conciliation
proceedings between the litigants as punong barangay. In his defense, respondent claimed that as punong barangay, he
performed his task without bias and that he acceded to Elizabeth’s request to
handle the case for free as she was financially distressed. The complaint was
then referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) where after
evaluation, they found sufficient ground to discipline respondent. According to
them, respondent violated Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
and, as an elective official, the prohibition under Section 7(b) (2) of RA 6713.
Consequently, for the violation of the latter prohibition, respondent committed
a breach of Canon 1. Consequently, for the violation of the latter prohibition,
respondent was then recommended suspension from the practice of law for one
month with a stern warning that the commission of the same or similar act will
be dealt with more severely.
ISSUE: Whether or not the foregoing
findings regarding the transgression of respondent as well as the
recommendation on the imposable penalty of the respondent were proper.
HELD: No. First, respondent cannot
be found liable for violation of
Rule 6.03 the Code of Professional Responsibility as this applies only to a
lawyer who has left government service
and in connection to former government lawyers who are
prohibited from accepting employment in connection with any
matter in which [they] had intervened while in their service. In the case at
bar, respondent was an incumbent punong barangay. Apparently, he does not fall
within the purview of the said provision.
Second, it is not Section 90 of RA
7160 but Section 7(b) (2) of RA 6713 which governs the practice of profession
of elective local government officials. While
RA 6713 generally applies to all
public officials and employees, RA 7160, being a special law, constitutes an
exception to RA 6713 .Moreover,
while under RA 7160,certain local elective officials (like
governors, mayors, provincial board
members and councilors) are
expressly subjected to a total or
partial proscription to
practice their profession or
engage in any occupation, no such interdiction is made on the punong barangay
and the
members of the sangguniang barangay. Expressio unius est
exclusio alterius since they are excluded from any prohibition, the presumption
is that they are allowed to practice their profession. Respondent, therefore,
is not forbidden to practice his profession.
Third,
notwithstanding all of these, respondent still should have procured a prior
permission or authorization from the head of his Department, as required by
civil service regulations. The failure of respondent to comply with Section 12,
Rule XVIII of the Revised Civil Service Rules constitutes a violation of his
oath as a lawyer: to obey the laws. In acting as counsel for a party without
first securing the required written permission, respondent not only engaged in
the unauthorized practice of law but also violated a civil service rules which
is a breach of Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility:
- Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
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:
- CANON 7. A LAWYER SHALL AT ALL TIMES UPHOLD THE INTEGRITY AND THE DIGNITY OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION AND SUPPORT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE INTEGRATED BAR.
A lawyer who
disobeys the law disrespects it. In so doing, he disregards legal ethics and
disgraces the dignity of the legal profession. Every lawyer should act and
comport himself in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity of
the legal profession. A member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended from
his office as an attorney for violation of the lawyer's oath and/or
for breach of the ethics of the legal profession as embodied in the Code of
Professional Responsibility.
WHEREFORE,
respondent Atty. Vicente G. Rellosa is hereby found GUILTY of
professional misconduct for violating his oath as a lawyer and Canons 1 and 7
and Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He is therefore SUSPENDED
from the practice of law for a period of six months effective from his
receipt of this resolution. He is sternly WARNED that any repetition of
similar acts shall be dealt with more severely.
Respondent is strongly advised to look up and take to heart
the meaning of the word delicadeza.
