Ronaldo C Facturan vs. Prosecutor Alfredo L. Barcelona.

, JR

A lawyer in public office is expected not only to refrain from any act or omission
which might tend to lessen the trust and confidence of the citizenry in government, he must
also uphold the dignity of the legal profession at all times and observe a high standard of
honesty and fair dealing. Otherwise said, a lawyer in government service is a keeper of the
public faith and is burdened with high degree of social responsibility, perhaps higher than
her brethren in private practice.
Facts:
On June 04, 2004 a complaint was filed against six persons, before the provincial
prosecution office and was assigned for preliminary investigation to Prosecutor Amerkhan,
on October 26, 2004 the latter forwarded the records of the case together with the
resolution recommending the prosecution of the accused and the corresponding information
to respondent for his approval and signature. However, the respondent neither approved nor
signed the resolution, but instead removed the case records from the office of the Provincial
Prosecutor and brought them to his residence. It appears that the respondent was personally
known to the accused as one of them is his cousin. Aggrieved the complainant sought the
intervention of the Department of Justice. On June 20 2005, the complainant learned that the
case had been turned over to the Office but without Prosecutor Amerkhans resolution and
information. Neither did the respondent approve nor act upon the same prompting the
complainant to file this case for disbarment anchored on gross misconduct in office and
dishonesty and conduct unbecoming of a lawyer.
In his defense the respondent claims that the delay was not because of his alleged
malicious action as he had inhibited himself from the case and so it was assigned to
Prosecutor Amerkhan.
The IBP held that the respondent is administratively liable violating Canon 18 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility. Hence this petition.
Issue: Whether or Not the action of the prosecutor in delaying the progress of the complaint
constitue grave misconduct.
Held:
The court concur with the decision of the IBP but ruled that the respondent has
violated Rule 6.02 Canon 6 of the same code, A lawyer in the government service shall not
use his public position to promote advance his private interests, nor allow the latter to
interfere with his public duties. And not that of Canon 18.
Respondent's actions and omissions in this case, appear to have been committed for
the benefit of and to safeguard private interests. As a lawyer who is also a public officer,
respondent miserably failed to cope with the strict demands and high standards of the legal
profession. It bears stressing that a lawyer in public office is expected not only to refrain
from any act or omission which might tend to lessen the trust and confidence of the citizenry
in government, he must also uphold the dignity of the legal profession at all times and
observe a high standard of honesty and fair dealing. Otherwise said, a lawyer in government
service is a keeper of the public faith and is burdened with high degree of social
responsibility, perhaps higher than her brethren in private practice.
The Court ruled his suspension from the practice of law for a period of one year and
is sternly warned that a repetition of the act will be dealt more severely.