RONALDO FACTURAN v. PROSEC.
ALFREDO BARCELONA Canon 6 applies to lawyers in government service in the discharge of their
- Complaint for disbarment based on gross misconduct, dishonesty
and conduct unbecoming of a lawyer
FACTS
On June 4, 2004, complainant FACTURAN filed a complaint for qualified
theft against 5 persons before the Provincial Presecution Office of Alabel,
Sarangani. It was assigned to Prosec Amerkhan for PI.
Thereafter, Prosec Amerkhan forwarded the RECORDS of the case, together
with his RESOLUTION, and the corresponding INFORMATION, to the
respondent BARCELONA for his approval and signature. However, the
respondent neither approved nor signed the resolution. Instead, he
removed the case records from the office and brought them to his
residence. It appears that the respondents in the qualified theft case filed by
the FACTURAN were personally known to BARCELONA, as Elezar
Barcelona is his cousin, while the other 4 are his close friends.
Aggrieved, FACTURAN sought the intervention of the DOJ through the State
Prosecutor. Unfortunately, State Prosecutor could not take appropriate
action as the case records remain in the possession of BARCELONA who
failed to turn them over despite the directive to do so.
On July 20, 2005, the complainant learned that the cased record had been
turned over but without the corresponding resolution and information.
Neither did the respondent approve or act upon the same, prompting the
complainant to file the present complaint for disbarment against Barcelona.
ISSUE:
WON there are grounds to hold Prosecutor Barcelona administratively
liable when he failed to resolve the criminal case and turn over the case
records despite being directed to do so.
HELD: Yes.
Prosecutor Barcelona violated Rule 6.02 of Canon 6 of the CPR.
official tasks.
Rule 6.02 provides that: a lawyer in the government service shall not
use his public position to PROMOTE or ADVANCE his private interests,
nor ALLOW the latter to interfere with his public duties.
Generally, a lawyer who holds a government office may not be disciplined
as a member of the Bar for misconduct in the discharge of his duties as a
government official. He may be disciplined by this Court as a member of the
Bar only when his misconduct also constitutes a violation of his oath as a
lawyer.
Rule 6.02 enjoins lawyers from using one’s public position to: 1) promote
private interests; 2) advance private interests; or 3) allow private interest
to interfere with public duties.
Moreover, the Court recognized that such private interest is NOT limited to
direct interest, but extends to advancing the interests of relatives.
In the case at bar, Prosecutor Barcelona’s accountability in the Qualified
Theft complaint has been duly established when Prosec Amerkhan
forwarded to him the case records, together with the resolution
recommending the filing of the appropriate information.
The Court notes respondent’s defense that the complainant was already
aware beforehand that he was inclined to disapprove the resolution of
Prosec Amerkhan. However, if such was the case, then nothing should have
prevented him from proceeding to disapprove the resolution. Yet, the
records show that he absolutely took no action thereon.
Worse, the respondent removed the case the records from the office of the
Provincial Prosecutor and, when directed to turn them over, failed to do so
notwithstanding his assignment to the DOJ in Manila. His assignment to the
DOJ in Manila should have even prompted him to turn over the case record
for appropriate action, but still failed to do so, without any plausible reason.
Therefore, the Court held that absent any intelligent explanation, it can
only be inferred that the respondent not merely failed, but ostensibly
and deliberately refused to perform his duties as a prosecutor. Indeed,
his actions and omissions in this case appear to have been committed for
the benefit of and to safeguard private interests.

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 to the government, but also uphold the dignity of
the legal profession at all times.

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 that other lawyers in private practice.

Wherefore, the respondent is found guilty of violating Rule 6.02. he is

suspended for 1 year, and is sternly warned that repetition of similar acts
be dealt with more severely.