CATU, Complainant vs.

RELLOSA, Respondent
February 19, 2008
Justice Corona

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 defendantsdespite 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 Elizabeths 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

WON the findings regarding the transgression of respondent as well as the recommendations 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 andemployees, 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. 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, the respondent is bound to comply with Section 12, Rule XVIII of the Revised Civil Service Rules. The
respondent should have secured 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, which states
that, 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 alos failed to comply with Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which speaks that, A
lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and the dignity of the legal profession and support the activities of the
integrated bar.

Hence, the respondent is guilty of professional misconduct and is therefore 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.