Vicente Q.

Ang III
1st Year

TOPIC: PARTIAL (RELATIVE) PROHIBITION OR DISQUALIFICATION:

PUNONG BARANGAY

Wilfredo M. Catu vs. Atty. Vicente G. Rellosa

A.C. No 5738, February 19, 2008

Facts:

1. Wilfredo, his mother and brother are co-owners of a lot located in San Andres, Malate
Manila. His mother and brother sent a demand letter to Elizabeth and Antonio, occupying
one of the units in the building for them to vacate the unit. However the two ignored the
demand. Hence, they filed a case against them at the barangay, where Atty. V. Rellosa
is the punong barangay.

2. Atty. V. Rellosa summoned them to a conciliation meeting, but no settlement was reached
between the parties, hence, a certificate to file action was issued by the barangay.

3. Regina and Antonio then filed a complaint for ejectment against Elizabeth and Pastor.
Appearing as counsel for the defendants Elizabeth and Pastor was Atty. V. Rellosa
himself, who filed his entry for appearance.

4. Wilfredo then filed an administrative complaint against him, accusing him of impropriety
as a lawyer and as a public officer when he acted as counsel for defendants when he
presided over the conciliation proceedings between the parties as barangay chairman.
The complaints was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for
investigation, report, and recommendation.

5. Whereby the IBP after conducting hearings on the case recommended that Atty. Vicente
be suspended from the practice of law for one month in violation of Rule 6.03 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility as well as Republic Act 6713 when he acted as lawyer for
the defendants in the case.
 Issues:

1. Whether or not the respondent can represent the defendant in the ejectment case while
he is an incumbent public official.
2. Whether or not he is guilty of professional misconduct.
Held:

1. The Supreme Course ruled that Atty. Vicente 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 n incumbent punong barangay at the
time he committed thee act complained of. Therefore, he was not covered by that
provision.

The Supreme Court also ruled that Section 7(b)(2) of RA 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 RA 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 RA 6713.

Accordingly, the respondent as punong barangay was not forbidden to practice his
profession. However, he should have secured 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.

2. In acting as counsel for a party without first securing a written permission, the respondent
did not only engage in the unauthorized practice of law but also violated the civil service
rules which is tantamount to 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, the respondent inherent to his acts also
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 was sternly warned that any repetition of similar acts shall
be dealt with more severely.