Catu v. Rellosa
NEW DOCTRINEFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Wilfredo M. Catu, a co-owner of a lot and building, was involved in a dispute with Elizabeth C. Diaz-Catu and Antonio Pastor regarding possession of a unit. The matter was brought before the Lupong Tagapamayapa of Barangay 723, where respondent Atty. Vicente G. Rellosa presided as punong barangay. No amicable settlement was reached, and a certification for court action was issued. Procedural History: Subsequently, Regina and Antonio Catu filed an ejectment case against Elizabeth and Pastor. Respondent entered his appearance as counsel for the defendants in this ejectment case. Complainant filed the instant administrative complaint, alleging impropriety by the respondent for acting as counsel after presiding over the conciliation proceedings as punong barangay. The Petition: The administrative complaint alleged that respondent violated Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Section 7(b)(2) of RA 6713. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) found sufficient grounds to discipline respondent, recommending suspension from the practice of law for one month.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent violated Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Whether respondent violated Section 7(b)(2) of RA 6713. Whether respondent, as an incumbent punong barangay, was prohibited from practicing his profession. Whether respondent violated civil service rules and the Code of Professional Responsibility by failing to secure prior authority to practice law.
Ruling
The Supreme Court found respondent Atty. Vicente G. Rellosa 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 was suspended from the practice of law for a period of six months.
Ratio Decidendi
On the alleged violation of Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility: The Court held that Rule 6.03 applies only to lawyers who have left government service and prohibits them from accepting engagements related to matters in which they intervened while in service. Since respondent was an incumbent punong barangay at the time of the alleged infraction, he was not covered by this rule. The Court cited PCGG v. Sandiganbayan to emphasize that this rule specifically targets former government lawyers. On the alleged violation of Section 7(b)(2) of RA 6713: The Court clarified that while Section 7(b)(2) of RA 6713 generally prohibits public officials from engaging in private practice without authorization and if it conflicts with official functions, Section 90 of RA 7160 governs the practice of profession by elective local government officials. RA 7160 provides specific rules for different elective local officials. The Court noted that governors, city mayors, and municipal mayors are prohibited from practicing their profession as they are required to render full-time service. However, members of the sangguniang panlalawigan, sangguniang panlungsod, or sangguniang bayan may practice outside session hours. Crucially, the Court observed that no such interdiction is made on the punong barangay and members of the sangguniang barangay, implying they are allowed to practice their profession as they are not mandated to serve full-time. On whether respondent was prohibited from practicing his profession as punong barangay: The Court concluded that under RA 7160, there is no express prohibition against a punong barangay practicing his profession. The expressio unius est exclusio alterius principle was invoked, meaning their exclusion from specific prohibitions implies they are allowed to practice. However, the Court stressed that this permission is not absolute and is subject to other regulations. On the failure to secure prior authority and violation of civil service rules and the Code of Professional Responsibility: Despite not being expressly prohibited by RA 7160, the Court found that as a civil service officer, the respondent should have secured prior written permission from the head of his department, the Secretary of the Interior and Local Government, as mandated by Section 12, Rule XVIII of the Revised Civil Service Rules. His failure to do so constituted unauthorized practice of law and a violation of his lawyer's oath to obey the laws. This breach also violated Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which prohibits unlawful conduct, and Canon 7, which requires lawyers to uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession. The Court emphasized that disobeying the law disrespects legal ethics and disgraces the profession.
Main Doctrine
A punong barangay, while not expressly prohibited from practicing his profession under RA 7160, must secure prior written permission from the head of his department (Secretary of the Interior and Local Government) as required by civil service regulations before engaging in the private practice of law. Failure to do so constitutes unauthorized practice and violates the lawyer's oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility.