ethics cases on influence peddling, intemperate language, and lawyers in government service

7/26/2019 ethics cases on influence peddling, intemperate language, and lawyers in government service

1/32

Infuence Peddling

EN BANC

SPOUSES MANUEL C.RAFOLS, JR. and LOLITAB. RAFOLS, Complainants,-versus-

ATTY. RICARDO . BARRIOS,JR., Respondent.

A.C. N!. "#$%Promulgated:March 15, 2010

x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

D E C I S I O N

PER CURIAM&

The primary o!ecti"e o#administrati"e cases against la$yers is notonly to punish and discipline the erringindi"idual la$yers ut also to sa#eguard theadministration o# !ustice y protecting thecourts and the pulic #rom the misconducto# la$yers, and to remo"e #rom the legalpro#ession persons $hose utter disregard o#their la$yers oath has pro"en them un%t tocontinue discharging the trust reposed inthem as memers o# the ar& ' la$yer maye disarred or suspended #or misconduct,$hether in his pro#essional or pri"atecapacity, $hich sho$s him to e $anting inmoral character, honesty, proity and gooddemeanor or un$orthy to continue as ano(cer o# the court&

Rivera v. Corral, '&C& )o& *5+, uly +, 2002, *+

.CR' 1&

/y its /oard Resolution )o& 1 dated March , 1,

the .outh Cotaato-.arangani-eneral .antos City

3.4C.'R)6 Chapter o# the 7ntegrated /ar o# the Philippines

37/P6 resol"ed to re#er to the 7/P /oard o# o"ernors in Manila,

#or appropriate action and in"estigation, the purported

anomaly in"ol"ing udge Teodoro 8i9on r& and 'tty& Ricardo &

/arrios, r&1;Thus, on March 2+, 1,

'tty& oe o# Court

and /ar Con%dant, re#erred #or appropriate action a copy o#

the letter and a(da"its to then Court 'dministrator 'l#redo

=& /enipayo&

7n turn, then .enior 8eputy Court 'dministrator

Reynaldo =& .uare9 %led $ith the Court an 'dministrati"e

Matter #or 'genda, recommending in relation to 'tty& /arrios,

r&, as #ollo$s:

xxx5& The 4(ce o# the /ar

Con%dant e DR)7.@8 $ith a copy o# theletter-note and its attachments so that itmay conduct its o$n in"estigation in thematter $ith respect to the actuations o#'tty& Ricardo /arrios, r&;

xxx

7n the resolution dated 4ctoer 21, 1, the Court

appro"ed the recommendations,;and directed the 4(ce o#

the /ar Con%dant to in"estigate the actuations o# the

respondent, and to render its report and recommendation

thereon&

P)!ceeding( !* '+e OBC

4nly the respondent appeared during the hearing e#ore the

4/C& 8enying the charges against him, he sought the

dismissal o# the complaint and re-a(rmed the contents o# his

comment& 8espite notice, the complainants did not appear

e#ore the 4/C& @o$e"er, the complainants and the

respondent had testi%ed during the administrati"e hearing

in"ol"ing udge 8i9on, r& e#ore Court o# 'ppeals 'ssociate

ustice ose .aio r& as the 7n"estigating ustice& 'lso

testi#ying thereat $ere the complainants $itnesses, namely:

'llan Ra#ols, 8aisy Ra#ols and =arry .e"illa&
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/4973.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/4973.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/4973.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/4973.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/4973.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/4973.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/4973.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/4973.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/4973.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/4973.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/4973.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/4973.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/4973.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/4973.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/4973.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/4973.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/4973.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/4973.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/4973.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/4973.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/4973.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/4973.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/4973.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/4973.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/4973.htm#_ftn1


2/32

A. Eidenc

e *!) '+e

C!-lainan'(

The complainants $ere the plainti

#or 8itas Ra#ols, 'llans $i#e, $ho o accounts, and $ent ac> to the hotel $ith the cash&

There, they sa$ the !udge and his dri"er, $ho ec>oned to

them to go to$ards the !udges )issan pic>-up then par>ed

along the high$ay in #ront o# the hotel& Manuel alighted #rom

his car and approached the !udge& Manuel personally handed

the money to the !udge, $ho told Manuel a#ter as>ing aout

the amount that it $as not enough& Therea#ter, Manuel

entered the hotels co-

up until some$here inside the 8oa .oledad

state, spina, eneral .antos City& There, the !udge alighted

and approached the complainants and shoo> their hands& 't

that point, Manuel handed P*0,000&00 to the !udge& The !udge

then told Manuel that the RTC !udge in 7loilo City e#ore $hom

the perpetuation o# the testimony o# .oledad le"encionado-

Pro"ido $as made should still testi#y as a $itness during the

trial in his salain order #or the complainants to $in& The !udge

persuaded the complainants to gi"e money also to that !udgeA

other$ise, they should not lame him #or the outcome o# the

case&

The complainants $ere #orced to gi"e money to the

!udge, ecause they #eared that the !udge $ould e iased

against them unless they ga"e in to his demands& /ut $hen

they ultimately sensed that they $ere eing #ooled aout their

case, they consulted =arry .e"illa, their mediamen #riend, and

narrated to .e"illa all the #acts and circumstances surrounding

the case& They agreed that the details should e released to

the media& The expos$as pulished in the$e%s#a&er, a

local ne$spaper&

Therea#ter, the respondent and udge 8i9on, r& made

se"eral attempts to appease the complainants y sending

gi#ts and o


3/32

'ccording to the complainants, the respondent

demanded P25,000&00 as his expenses in securing the

testimony o# .oledad le"encionado-Pro"ido in 7loilo City to e

used as e"idence in their ci"il case& 7n addition, the

respondent reEuested the complainants to

orro$ P?0,000&00 #rom the an> ecause he $anted to

redeem his #oreclosed 7su9u l#, and ecause he needed to

gi"e P11,000&00 to his nephe$ $ho $as due to lea"e #or $or>

aroad&

B. Eidence *!)

'+e Re(!nden'

7n his "eri%ed comment dated March 22, 200?,10;the

respondent con%rmed that the complainants engaged him as

their counsel in Ci"il Case )o& ?20& @is "ersion #ollo$s&

4n 8ecemer 22, 1, the respondent introduced

Manuel to udge 8i9on, r& inside the ast Royal @otels coed $hat the money $as #or, Manuel replied

that it $as in appreciation o# the #ormers introducing the latter

to the !udge& The respondent stated that Manuel did notmention $hat transpired et$een the latter and the !udgeA

and that the !udge did not tell him 3respondent6 $hat

transpired in that con"ersation&

T$o days later, the respondent again "isited the

complainants at their house in eneral .antos City on oard

the !udges )issan pic>-up dri"en y the !udges dri"er, in order

to recei"e the P0,000&00 #rom the complainants& The amount

$as eing orro$ed y the !udge #or his s$imming pool& =ater

on, the !udge told the respondent to >eep P*0,000&00 as a

to>en o# their #riendship& '#ter Manuel handed theP0,000&00,

the respondent and the !udges dri"er headed

to$ards 8a"ao City, $here, according to the !udges

instruction, they redeemed the !udges $rist$atch

#or P15,000&00 #rom a pa$nshop& The dri"er rought the

remaining amount o# P*5,000&00 to the !udge in his home&

4n anuary 2, 1, udge 8i9on, r& "isited the

respondent at the latters house to as> him to execute an

a(da"it& 8eclining the reEuest at %rst, the respondent

relented only ecause the !udge ecame physically $ea> in

his presence and $as on the "erge o# collapsing& )onetheless,

the respondent re#used to notari9e the document&

7n that a(da"it dated anuary 2, 1,11;the

respondent denied that udge 8i9on, r& as>ed money #rom the

complainantsA and stated that he did not see the

complainants handing the money to the !udge& @e admitted

that he $as the one $ho had reEuested the !udge to

personally collect his unpaid attorneys #ees #rom the

complainants $ith respect to their pre"ious and terminated

caseA and that the !udge did not as> money #rom the

complainants in exchange #or a #a"orale decision in their

case&

4n anuary 2, 1, the respondent returned to the

complainants residence, ut $as surprised to %nd

complainant =olita crying aloud& .he in#ormed him that the

!udge $as again as>ing an additionalP*0,000&00 although

they had gi"en him P*0,000&00 only the $ee> e#ore& .he

di"ulged that the !udge had told her that their case $ould

surely lose ecause: 3a6 they had engaged a counsel $ho

$as #ahinang&laseA 36 the !udge hearing Ci"il Case )o& 5?+5

in 7loilo and the $oman $ho had testi%ed in Ci"il Case )o&

?02 had not een presentedA and 3c6 they $ould ha"e to

spend at least P10,000&00 #or said !udges accommodations in

eneral .antos City&12;

4n anuary *1, 1, udge 8i9on, r& $ent to the

house o# the respondent, ut the latter $as not home& The

!udge le#t a note addressed to the complainants, and

instructed the respondents secretary to deli"er the note to the

complainants along $ith a gi#t 3imported tale cloc>6&1*;'ccording to the respondent, the complainants consistently

re#used to accept the gi#t se"eral timesA it $as later stolen

#rom his house in Ceu City&

4n eruary 1, 1, the respondent deli"ered the note and

gi#t to the complainants, ut the latter re#used to recei"e it,

telling him that they $ere no longer interested to continue

$ith the case& 't the same time, the complainants assured

him that they ore no personal grudge against him, ecause

they had a prolem only $ith udge 8i9on, r&

4n eruary 2+, 1, the respondent $ent to the

)ational /ureau o# 7n"estigation Regional 4(ce, Region G7,

and the Philippine )ational Police Regional 4(ce, Region G7,

oth in 8a"ao City, to reEuest the in"estigation o# the matter&

1+;

4n March 2, 1, the respondent paid udge 8i9on,

r& a "isit upon the latters reEuest& 7n that meeting, the

respondent told the !udge aout the re#usal o# the

complainants to accept the !udges gi#t and aout their

decision not to continue $ith the case& 15;

4n the next day, udge 8i9on, r& sent a note to the

respondent to in#orm him that the !udge had raised the

amount that he had orro$ed #rom the complainants&1?;The

!udge reEuested the respondent to tell the complainants that
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/4973.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/4973.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/4973.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/4973.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/4973.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/4973.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/4973.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/4973.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/4973.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/4973.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/4973.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/4973.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/4973.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/4973.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/4973.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/4973.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/4973.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/4973.htm#_ftn16


4/32

he 3udge 8i9on, r&6 $as going to return $hate"er he had

orro$ed #rom them& @o$e"er, the complainants in#ormed the

respondent that he should tell the !udge that they $ere no

longer interested in getting ac> the money&

The respondent made a #ollo$-up at the )/7 and P)P

Regional 4(ces in 8a"ao City o# his reEuest #or assistance

a#ter Manuel mentioned to him that he 3Manuel6 >ne$ o#

many armed men ready at any time to help him in his

prolem $ith the !udge&

Re!)' and Rec!--enda'i!n !* '+e OBC

7n its Report and Recommendation dated May 15,

200,1;the 4/C opined that the administrati"e case against

the respondent could not e dismissed on the ground o#

#ailure to prosecute due to the complainants #ailure to appear

in the scheduled hearing despite due notice&

/ased on the #acts already estalished and identi%ed,

as rendered in the decision dated anuary 21,

200? in ManuelRafols and Lolita B. Rafols v.

Judge Teodoro '. Dizon,1;the 4/C re!ected the respondents

denial o# any >no$ledge o# the transaction et$een his clients

and the !udge&

The 4/C recommended:

F@R4R, in the light o# the#oregoing premises, it is respect#ullyrecommended that respondent 'TTH&R7C'R84 /'RR74., r& e .D.P)88 #romthe practice o# la$ #or three 3*6 years $ith astern $arning that a repetition o# similar actin the #uture $ill e dealt more se"erely&

Ruling !* '+e C!u)'

Fe appro"e and adopt the report and

recommendations o# the 4/C, $hich $e %nd to e #ully and

competently supported y the e"idence adduced y the

complainants and their $itnesses, ut $e impose the supreme

penalty o# disarment, $hich $e elie"e is the proper penalty&

I

.ection 2, Rule 1* o# the Rules of Court,$hich

go"erns the disarment and suspension o# attorneys,

pro"ides:

.ection 2& Dis(ar#ent and

sus"ension of attorneys (y theSu"re#eCourt) grounds therefor& 'memer o# the ar may e disarred orsuspended #rom his o(ce as attorney y the.upreme Court #or any deceit, malpractice,or other gross misconduct in such o(ce,grossly immoral conduct, or y reason o# hiscon"iction #or a crime in"ol"ing moralturpitude, or #or any "iolation o# the oath$hich he is reEuired to ta>e e#ore

admission to practice, or #or a $ill#uldisoedience o# any la$#ul order o# asuperior court, or #or corruptly or $ill#ullyappearing as an attorney #or a party to acase $ithout authority to do so& The practiceo# soliciting cases at la$ #or the purpose o#gain, either personally or through paidagents or ro>ers constitute malpractice&

The urden o# proo# in disarment and suspension

proceedings al$ays rests on the shoulders o# the complainant&

The Court exercises its disciplinary po$er only i# the

complainant estalishes the complaint y clearly

preponderant e"idence that $arrants the imposition o# the

harsh penalty&1;'s a rule, an attorney en!oys the legal

presumption that he is innocent o# the charges made against

him until the contrary is pro"ed& 'n attorney is #urther

presumed as an o(cer o# the Court to ha"e per#ormed his

duties in accordance $ith his oath&20;

@ere, the complainants success#ully o"ercame the

respondents presumed innocence and the presumed

regularity in the per#ormance o# his duties as an attorney o#

the complainants& The e"idence against him $as sustantial,

and $as not contradicted&

To egin $ith, the respondents denial o# >no$ledge

o# the transaction et$een the complainants and udge 8i9on,

r& $as not only implausile, ut also unsustantiated& 7t $as

the respondent himsel# $ho had introduced the complainants

to the !udge& @is act o# introducing the complainants to the

!udge strongly implied that the respondent $as a$are o# the

illegal purpose o# the !udge in $anting to tal> $ith the

respondents clients& Thus, $e unEuali%edly accept the

aptness o# the #ollo$ing e"aluation made in the 4/Cs Report

and Recommendation, viz*

xxx /eing the 4(cer o# the Court, he mustha"e >no$n that meeting litigants outside

the court is something eyond the oundso# the rule and that it can ne"er e !usti%edy any reason& @e must ha"e >no$n thepurpose o# udge 8i9on in reEuesting him tomeet the complainants-litigants outside thechamer o# udge 8i9on& /y his o"ert act inarranging the meeting et$een

udge 8i9on and complainants- litigants inthe Co


5/32

pro"ed that the respondent had >no$n all along o# the illegal

transaction et$een the !udge and the complainants, and

elied his #eigned lac> o# >no$ledge o# the deli"ery o# the

money to the !udge&

Thirdly, his attempt to explain that the complainants

had gi"en the money to the !udge as a loan, #ar #rom

so#tening our strong impression o# the respondents liaility,

con%rmed his a$areness o# the gross impropriety o# the

transaction& /eing the complainants attorney in the ci"il case

eing heard e#ore the !udge, the respondent could not ut

>no$ that #or the !udge to orro$ money #rom his clients $as

highly irregular and outrightly unethical& 7# he $as innocent o#

$rongdoing, as he claimed, he should ha"e desisted #rom

ha"ing anypart in the transaction& Het, he did not, $hich

rendered his explanation unelie"ale& Compounding the

un$orthiness o# his explanation $as his admission o# ha"ing

retained P*0,000&00 o# the orro$ed money upon the !udges

instruction&

'nd, lastly, the 4/C has pointed out that the

respondents act o# reEuesting the )/7 Regional 4(ce

in 8a"ao City to in"estigate $as an a#terthought on his part&

Fe agree $ith the 4/C, #or the respondent o"iously acted in

order to anticipate the complainants mo"es againsthim and

the !udge& To e sure, the respondent sensed that thecomplainants $ould not simply #orgi"e and #orget the

mulcting they had su their

money despite their eing "ery angry at the !udges greed&

4"erall, the respondent denials $ere $orthless and

una"ailing in the #ace o# the uncontradicted e"idence sho$ing

that he had not only personally arranged the meeting

et$een Manuel and udge 8i9on, r&, ut had also

communicated to the complainants the !udges illegal reason

#or the meeting& 7t is axiomatic that any denial, to e accepted

as a "iale de#ense in any proceeding, must e sustantiated

y clear and con"incing e"idence& This need deri"es #rom the

nature o# a denial as e"idence o# a negati"e and sel#-ser"ing

character, $eightless in la$ and insu(cient to o"ercome the

testimony o# credile $itnesses on a(rmati"e matters& 2*;

II

The practice o# la$ is a pri"ilege hea"ily urdened

$ith conditions&2+;The attorney is a "anguard o# our

legal system, and, as such, is expected to

maintain not only legal pro%ciency ut also a "ery high

standard o# morality, honesty, integrity, and #air dealing in

order that the peoples #aith and con%dence in the legal

system are ensured&25;Thus, he must conduct himsel#,

$hether in dealing $ith his clients or $ith the pulic at large,

as to e eyond reproach at all times& 2?;'ny "iolation o# the

high moral standards o# the legal pro#ession !usti%es the

imposition on the attorney o# the appropriate penalty,

including suspension and disarment&2;

.peci%cally, the Code of +rofessional

Res"onsi(ilityen!oins an attorney #rom engaging in unla$#ul,

dishonest, or deceit#ul conduct&2;Corollary to this in!unction

is the rule that an attorney shall at all times uphold the

integrity and dignity o# the =egal Pro#ession and support the

acti"ities o# the 7ntegrated /ar&2;

The respondent did not measure up to the exacting

standards o# the =a$ Pro#ession, $hich demanded o# him as

an attorney the asolute adication o# any personal

ad"antage that conIicted in any $ay, directly or indirectly,

$ith the interest o# his clients& or monetary gain, he

disregarded the "o$ to delay no man #or money or malice and

to conduct mysel# as a la$yer according to the est o# my

>no$ledge and discretion, $ith all good %delity as $ell to the

courts as to my clients that he made $hen he too> the

=a$yers 4ath&*0;@e also disoeyed the explicit command to

him as an attorney to accept nocompensation in connection

$ith his clients usiness

except #rom him or $ith his >no$ledge and appro"al&

*1;

@econ"eniently ignored that the relation et$een him and his

clients $as highly %duciary in nature and o# a "ery delicate,

exacting, and con%dential character&*2;

Berily, the respondent $as guilty o# gross

misconduct, $hich is improper or $rong conduct, the

transgression o# some estalished and de%nite rule o# action,

a #oridden act, a dereliction o# duty, $ill#ul in character, and

implies a $rong#ul intent and not mere error o# !udgment&

**;'ny gross misconduct o# an attorney in his pro#essional or

pri"ate capacity sho$s him un%t to manage the ae in this administrati"e case& 'nd, eing

conspirators, they oth deser"e the highest penalty& The

disarment o# the respondent is in order, ecause such

sanction is on par $ith the dismissal o# udge 8i9on, r&

/0EREFORE, 'tty& Ricardo & /arrios, r& is

disarred&
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/4973.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/4973.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/4973.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/4973.htm#_ftn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/4973.htm#_ftn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/4973.htm#_ftn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/4973.htm#_ftn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/4973.htm#_ftn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/4973.htm#_ftn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/4973.htm#_ftn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/4973.htm#_ftn29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/4973.htm#_ftn29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/4973.htm#_ftn30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/4973.htm#_ftn30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/4973.htm#_ftn31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/4973.htm#_ftn31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/4973.htm#_ftn32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/4973.htm#_ftn32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/4973.htm#_ftn33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/4973.htm#_ftn33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/4973.htm#_ftn34http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/4973.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/4973.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/4973.htm#_ftn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/4973.htm#_ftn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/4973.htm#_ftn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/4973.htm#_ftn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/4973.htm#_ftn29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/4973.htm#_ftn30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/4973.htm#_ftn31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/4973.htm#_ftn32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/4973.htm#_ftn33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/4973.htm#_ftn34


6/32

This decision shall e entered in the records o# 'tty&

/arrios, r& as a memer o# the Philippine /ar&

Copies o# the decision shall e #urnished to the /ar

Con%dant and the 7ntegrated /ar o# the Philippines #or record

purposesA and to the Court 'dministrator, #or circulation to all

courts nation$ide&

SO ORDERED.

In'e-e)a'e Language

Repulic o# the Philippines

SUPREME COURT

Manila

.C4)8 87B7.74)

A.C. N!. 1#2" N!e-3e) 4%, 564%

0ON. MARIBET0 RODRIUE78MANA0AN, P)e(iding

Judge, Municial T)ial C!u)', San Ma'e!,

Ri9al,Complainant,

"s&

ATTY. RODOLFO FLORES,Respondent&

R . 4 = D T 7 4 )

DEL CASTILLO,J.:

Respondent 'tty& Rodolto lores 3'tty& lores6 $as counsel #orthe de#endant in Ci"il Case )o& 1?* captioned as Marsha

'ranas plainti< "ersus 'rnold /almores de#endant a suit #or

damages %led e#ore the Municipal Trial Court o# .an Mateo,

Ri9al and presided y herein complainant udge Marieth

Rodrigue9-Manahan 3udge Manahan6& 8uring the proceedings

in Ci"il Case )o& 1?*, udge Manahan issued an 4rder 1dated

anuary 12, 2011, $herey she "oluntarily inhiited #rom

hearing Ci"il Case )o& 1?*& The said 4rder reads in part, "i9:

More than mere contempt do his 3'tty& lores6 unethical

actuations, his traits o# dishonesty and discourtesy not only to

his o$n rethren in the legal pro#ession, ut also to the ench

and !udges, $ould amount to gra"e misconduct, i# not a

malpractice o# la$, a serious ground #or disciplinary action o#a memer o# the ar pursuant to Rules 1* a J &

7) B7F F@R4, #urnish a copy o# this 4rder to the /ar

8iscipline Committee, 7ntegrated /ar o# the Philippines, to the

.upreme Court en anc, #or appropriate in"estigation and

sanction&2

Dpon receipt o# the copy o# the ao"e 4rder, the 4(ce o# the

/ar Con%dant 34/C6 deemed the pronouncements o# udge

Manahan as a #ormal administrati"e Complaint against 'tty&

lores& 8oc>eted as '&C& )o& 5+, the case $as re#erred to

the xecuti"e udge o# the Regional Trial Court o# Ri9al #or

in"estigation, report and recommendation&*

7n her 7n"estigation, Report and

Recommendation,+7n"estigating udge osephine Karate

ernande9 37n"estigating udge6 narrated the antecedents o#

the case as #ollo$s:

' complaint #or 8amages $as %led e#ore the Municipal Trial

Court 3MTC6 o# .an Mateo, Ri9al doc>eted as Ci"il Case )o&

1?*, entitled Marsha 'ranas "s& 'rnold /almores& The Pulic

'ttorneyLs 4(ce 3P'46 thru 'tty& erdinand P& Censon

represented the complainant $hile 'tty& Rodol#o lores

appeared as counsel #or the de#endant&

x x x 8uring the Preliminary Con#erence x x x, respondent

'tty& lores entered his appearance and $as gi"en time to %le

a Pre-Trial /rie#& x x x 4n May 2+, 2010, respondent 'tty&

lores %led his Pre-Trial /rie# ut $ithout proo# o# MC=

compliance hence it $as expunged #rom the records $ithout

pre!udice to the %ling o# another Pre-Trial /rie# containing the

reEuired MC= compliance& x x x 'tty& lores as>ed #or ten 3106

days to sumit proo#&

The preliminary con#erence $as reset se"eral times 3'ugust

11, .eptemer 6 #or #ailure o# respondent 'tty& lores toappear and sumit his Pre-Trial /rie# indicating thereon his

MC= compliance& The court a Euo li>e$ise issued 4rders

dated .eptemer 15 and 4ctoer 20, 2010 gi"ing respondent

'tty& lores a last chance to sumit his Pre-Trial /rie# $ith stern

$arning that #ailure to do so shall e considered a $ai"er on

his part&

Mean$hile, respondent 'tty& lores %led a Mani#estation in

Court dated .eptemer 1+, 2010 stating among others, the

#ollo$ing allegations:

x x x x

+& Fhen you too> your oath as memer o# the /ar,

you promised to ser"e truth, !ustice and #air play& 8o

you thin> you are eing truth#ul, !ust and #air y

ser"ing a cheater

5& 7gnorance o# the la$ excuses no one #or $hich

reason e"en rap $as con"icted y the

.andiganayan&-%"hi/ut e"en $orse is a la$yer

$ho "iolates the la$&

?& =ast ut not the least, od said Thou shall not lie&

'gain the Philippine Constitution commands: i"e

e"ery ilipino his due& The act o# re#usal y the

plainti< is "iolati"e o# the #oregoing di"ine andhuman la$s&

x x x x

Respondent 'tty& lores later %led his Pre-Trial /rie# earing an

MC= numer $hich $as merely superimposed $ithout

indicating the date and place o# compliance& 8uring the

preliminary con#erence on )o"emer 2+, 2010, respondent

'tty& lores mani#ested that he $ill sumit proo# o# compliance

o# his MC= on the #ollo$ing day& 4n 8ecemer 1, 2010,

respondent 'tty& lores again #ailed to appear and to sumit

the said promised proo# o# MC= compliance& 7n its stead,

respondent 'tty& lores %led a =etter o# e"en date stating as

#ollo$s:

7# only to gi"e your @onor another chance to pro"e your pro

plainti< sentiment, 7 am herey %ling the attached Motion

$hich you may once more assign to the $aste as>et o#

nonchalance&

Fith the small respect that still remains, 7 ha"e as>ed the

de#endant to loo> #or another la$yer to represent him #or 7 am

no longer interested in this case ecause 7 #eel 7 cannot do

anything right in your sala&5

The 7n"estigating udge #ound 'tty& lores to ha"e #ailed to

gi"e due respect to the court y #ailing to oey court orders,y #ailing to sumit proo# o# his compliance $ith the

Mandatory Continuing =egal ducation 3MC=6 reEuirement,

and #or using intemperate language in his pleadings& The

7n"estigating udge recommended that 'tty& lores e

suspended #rom the practice o# la$ #or one year& ?

The 4/C adopted the %ndings and recommendation o# the

7n"estigating udge&

4ur Ruling
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/ac_8954_2013.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/ac_8954_2013.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/ac_8954_2013.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/ac_8954_2013.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/ac_8954_2013.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/ac_8954_2013.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/ac_8954_2013.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/ac_8954_2013.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/ac_8954_2013.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/ac_8954_2013.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/ac_8954_2013.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/ac_8954_2013.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/ac_8954_2013.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/ac_8954_2013.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/ac_8954_2013.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/ac_8954_2013.html#fnt7


7/32

There is no dout that 'tty& lores #ailed to oey the trial

courtLs order to sumit proo# o# his MC= compliance

not$ithstanding the se"eral opportunities gi"en him& NCourt

orders are to e respected not ecause the !udges $ho issue

them should e respected, ut ecause o# the respect and

consideration that should e extended to the !udicial ranch

o# the o"ernment& This is asolutely essential i# our

o"ernment is to e a go"ernment o# la$s and not o# men&

Respect must e had not ecause o# the incuments to the

positions, ut ecause o# the authority that "ests in them&

8isrespect to !udicial incuments is disrespect to that ranc

the o"ernment to $hich they elong, as $ell as to the .tate

$hich has instituted the !udicial system&N

'tty& lores also employed intemperate language in his

pleadings& 's an o(cer o# the court, 'tty& lores is expected to

e circumspect in his language& Rule 11&0*, Canon 11 o# the

Code o# Pro#essional Responsiility en!oins all attorneys to

astain #rom scandalous, o


8/32

T+e C!u)'?( Ruling

The petition is partly meritorious&

The practice o# la$ is a pri"ilege esto$ed on la$yers $homeet high standards o# legal pro%ciency and morality&207t is aspecial pri"ilege urdened $ith conditions e#ore the legalpro#ession, the courts, their clients and the society such that ala$yer has the duty to comport himsel# in a manner as touphold integrity and promote the pulicOs #aith in thepro#ession&21ConseEuently, a la$yer mustat all ti#es, $hetherin pulic or pri"ate li#e, act in a manner eyond reproach

especially $hen dealing $ith #ello$la$yers&22ChanRolesBirtuala$lirary

7n this relation, Rule &0* o# Canon as $ell as Canon o# theCPR pro"ides:

Rule &0* ' la$yer shall not engage in conduct thatad"ersely reIects on his %tness to practice la$, nor shall he,$hether in pulic or pri"ate li#e, eha"e in a scandalousmanner to the discredit o# the legal pro#ession&

Canon ' la$yer shall conduct himsel# $ith courtesy,#airness and candor to$ard his pro#essional colleagues, andshall a"oid harassing tactics against opposing counsel&Rule &01 - ' la$yer shall not, in his pro#essional dealings, uselanguage $hich is ausi"e, oe it appear that he notari9ed it e#ore hisadmission to the /ar&

4n the alleged #alsi%cation o# his notarial entries, 'tty& Kaidecontended that he needed to simultaneously use se"eral


9/32

notarial registers in his separate satellite o(ces in order toetter cater to the needs o# his clients and accommodate theirgro$ing numer&1+This explains the irregular and non-seEuential entries in his notarial registers&

urther, 'tty& Kaide argued that imeno $as ne"er his clientsince she did not personally hire him as her counsel& imenoengaged the ser"ices o# KMK $here he pre"iously $or>ed asan associate& The real counsel o# imeno and her relati"es intheir annulment o# title case $as 'tty& =eo MontalanKarago9a, one o# KMKOs partners&154n this asis, therespondent should not e held liale #or representing

conIicting clientsO interests&

inally, he denied that he used any intemperate, oeep, maintain, protect and pro"ide#or la$#ul inspection as pro"ided in theseRules, a c+)!n!l!gical !@cial n!'a)ial )egi('e) !*n!'a)ial ac'(consisting o# a permanently ound oo> $ithnumered pages&N The same section #urther pro"ides that Nanotary pulic shall >eep !nl< !ne ac'ie n!'a)ial )egi('e)a' an< gien 'i-e&N24n this asis, 'tty& KaideOs act o#simultaneously >eeping se"eral acti"e notarial registers is alatant "iolation o# .ection 1, Rule B7&

The )otarial Practice Rules strictly reEuires a notary pulic to


10/32

maintain only one acti"e notarial register and ensure that theentries in it are chronologically arranged& The None acti"enotarial registerN rule is in place to deter a notary pulic #romassigning se"eral notarial registers to di spaces in the notarialregister to allo$ the antedating o# notari9ations&

7n these lights, $e cannot accept 'tty& KaideOs explanationthat he needed to maintain se"eral acti"e notarial registers inseparate o(ces so he could accommodate the increasingnumer o# his clients reEuiring his notarial ser"ices&

T+i( C!u)' (')e((e( '+a' a n!'a)< u3lic (+!uld n!'')iiali9e +i( *unc'i!n( a( +i( !e)( and du'ie( a)ei-)e((ed i'+ u3lic in'e)e('.*0' notary pulicOs o(ce isnot merely an income-generating "enture& 7t is a pulic dutythat each la$yer $ho has een pri"ileged to recei"e a notarialcommission must #aith#ully and conscientiously per#orm&

'tty& Kaide should ha"e een acutely a$are o# thereEuirements o# his notarial commission& @is Iagrant "iolationo# .ection 1, Rule B7 o# the )otarial Practice Rules is notmerely a simple and excusale negligence& 7t amounts to aclear "iolation o# Canon 1 o# the Code o# Pro#essionalResponsiility, $hich pro"ides that Na la$yer should; upholdthe constitution, !3e< '+e la( !* '+e land and )!-!'e)e(ec' *!) la and legal )!ce((e(&N

Representing conicting interests

The in"estigating commissioner properly noted that 'tty&Kaide should not e held liale #or representing conIictingclientsO interests&

Rule 15&0*, Canon 15 o# the Code o# Pro#essionalResponsiility pro"ides:chanroles"irtualla$liraryRule 15&0* - ' la$yer shall not represent conIicting interestsexcept y $ritten consent o# all concerned gi"en a#ter a #ulldisclosure o# the #acts&7n'ninon v. Sa(itsana,*1the Court laid do$n the tests todetermine i# a la$yer is guilty o# representing conIictinginterests et$een and among his clients&

4ne o# these tests is +e'+e) '+e acce'ance !* a ne)ela'i!n !uld )een' '+e *ull di(c+a)ge !* a la


11/32

D E C I S I O N

:ELASCO, JR.,J.&

7n his s$orn letterQcomplaint dated 8ecemer 22, 200?, $ith

enclosures, 'ntero & Pore in"ites the Courts attention to the

#ollo$ing excerpts o# .enator Miriam 8e#ensor-.antiagos

speech deli"ered on the .enate Ioor:

x x x 7 am not angry& 7 am irate& 7 am#oaming in the mouth& 7 am homicidal& 7 amsuicidal& 7 am humiliated, deased,degraded& 'nd 7 am not only that, 7 #eel li>ethro$ing up to e li"ing my middle years ina country o# this nature& 7 am nauseated& 7spit on the #ace o# Chie# ustice 'rtemioPanganian and his cohorts in the .upremeCourt, 7 am no longer interested in theposition o# Chie# ustice; i# 7 $as to esurrounded y idiots& 7 $ould rather e inanother en"ironment ut not in the.upreme Court o# idiots x x x&

To Pore, the #oregoing statements reIected a total disrespect

on the part o# the spea>er to$ards then Chie# ustice 'rtemio

Panganian and the other memers o# the Court and

constituted direct contempt o# court& 'ccordingly, Pore as>s

that disarment proceedings or other disciplinary actions e

ta>en against the lady senator&

7n her comment on the complaint dated 'pril 25,

200, .enator .antiago, through counsel, does not deny

ma>ing the a#oreEuoted statements& .he, ho$e"er, explained

that those statements $ere co"ered y the constitutional

pro"ision on parliamentary immunity, eing part o# a speech

she deli"ered in the discharge o# her duty as memer o#

Congress or its committee& The purpose o# her speech,

according to her, $as to ring out in the open contro"ersial

anomalies in go"ernance $ith a "ie$ to #uture remedial

legislation& .he a"erred that she $anted to expose $hat she

elie"ed to e an un!ust act o# the udicial /ar Council /C;,

$hich, a#ter sending out pulic in"itations #or nomination to

the soon to-e "acated position o# Chie# ustice, $ould

e"entually in#orm applicants that only incument !ustices o#

the .upreme Court $ould Euali#y #or nomination& .he #elt that

the /C should ha"e at least gi"en an ad"anced ad"isory that

non-sitting memers o# the Court, li>e her, $ould not e

considered #or the position o# Chie# ustice&

The immunity .enator .antiago claims is rooted

primarily on the pro"ision o# 'rticle B7, .ection 11 o# the

Constitution, $hich pro"ides: ' .enator or Memer o# the

@ouse o# Representati"e shall, in all o


12/32

the Court, the lady senator has undoutedly crossed the limits

o# decency and good pro#essional conduct& 7t is at once

apparent that her statements in Euestion $ere intemperate

and highly improper in sustance& To reiterate, she $as

Euoted as stating that she $anted to spit on the #ace o# Chie#

ustice 'rtemio Panganian and his cohorts in the .upreme

Court, and calling the Court a .upreme Court o# idiots&

The lady senator alluded to /n Re* 3icente Sotto&?;Fe

dra$ her attention to the ensuing passage in Sottothat she

should ha"e ta>en to heart in the %rst place:

x x x 7;# the people lose their

con%dence in the honesty and integrity o#this Court and elie"e that they cannotexpect !ustice there#rom, they might edri"en to ta>e the la$ into their o$n hands,and disorder and perhaps chaos $ould ethe result&

)o la$yer $ho has ta>en an oath to maintain the

respect due to the courts should e allo$ed to erode the

peoples #aith in the !udiciary& 7n this case, the lady senator

clearly "iolated Canon , Rule &01 and Canon 11 o# the Code

o# Pro#essional Responsiility, $hich respecti"ely pro"ide:

Canon , Rule &01&' la$yer shallnot, in his pro#essional dealings, uselanguage $hich is ausi"e, oes the Court as an a#terthought

in light o# the insulting tenor o# $hat she said& Fe Euote the

passage once more:

x x x Iam not angry& I am

irate& I am #oaming in the mouth& Iamhomicidal& I am suicidal& Iam humiliated,deased, degraded& 'nd Iam not only that,

7 #eel li>e thro$ing up to e li"ing my middleyears in a country o# this nature& I amnauseated& Ispit on the #ace o# Chie#

ustice 'rtemio Panganian and his cohortsin the .upreme Court, Iam no longerinterested in the position o# Chie# ustice; i#7 $as to e surrounded y idiots& I $ouldrather e in another en"ironment ut not inthe .upreme Court o# idiots x x x& 3mphasisours&6

' care#ul re-reading o# her utterances $ould readily

sho$ that her statements $ere expressions o# personal anger

and #rustration at not eing considered #or the post o# Chie#

ustice& 7n a sense, there#ore, her remar>s $ere outside the

pale o# her o(cial parliamentary #unctions& "en

parliamentary immunity must not e allo$ed to e used as a

"ehicle to ridicule, demean, and destroy the reputation o# the

Court and its magistrates, nor as armor #or personal $rath

and disgust& 'uthorities are agreed that parliamentary

immunity is not an indi"idual pri"ilege accorded the indi"idual

memers o# the Parliament or Congress #or their personal

ene%t, ut rather a pri"ilege #or the ene%t o# the people and

the institution that represents them&

To e sure, .enator .antiago could ha"e gi"en "ent

to her anger $ithout indulging in insulting rhetoric and

oed, .enator .antiagos outurst

$as directly traceale to $hat she considered as an un!ust act

the /C had ta>en in connection $ith her application #or the

position o# Chie# ustice& /ut $hile the /C #unctions under the

Courts super"ision, its indi"idual memers, sa"e perhaps #or

the Chie# ustice $ho sits as the /Cs e4o5ciochairperson,

;ha"e no o(cial duty to nominate candidates #or

appointment to the position o# Chie# ustice& The Court is,

thus, at a loss to understand .enator .antiagos $holesale and

indiscriminate assault on the memers o# the Court and her

choice o# critical and de#amatory $ords against all o# them&

't any e"ent, eEually important as the speech and

deate clause o# 'rt& B7, .ec& 11 o# the Constitution is .ec&

5356 o# 'rt& B777 o# the Constitution that pro"ides:

.ection 5& The .upreme Court shall ha"e the#ollo$ing po$ers:

x x x x

356 Promulgate rules concerning theprotection and en#orcement o# constitutional

rights, pleading, practice, and procedure inall courts, the admission to the practice o#the la$, '+e In'eg)a'ed Ba), and legalassistance to the underpri"ileged&3mphasis ours&6

The Court, esides eing authori9ed to promulgate

rules concerning pleading, practice, and procedure in all

courts, exercises speci%c authority to promulgate rules

go"erning the 7ntegrated /ar $ith the end in "ie$ that the

integration o# the /ar $ill, among other things:
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/august2009/7399.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/august2009/7399.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/august2009/7399.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/august2009/7399.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/august2009/7399.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/august2009/7399.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/august2009/7399.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/august2009/7399.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/august2009/7399.htm#_ftn9


13/32

3+6 .hield the !udiciary, $hich

traditionally cannot de#end itsel# except$ithin its o$n #orum, #rom the assaults thatpolitics and sel# interest may le"el at it, andassist it to maintain its integrity, impartialityand independenceA

x x x x3116 n#orce rigid ethical standards

x x x&;

7n Re* Letter Dated 6 7e(ruary 6889 of 'tty. $oel S.

Sorreda,10;$e reiterated our pronouncement in Rhee# of the

+hili""ines v. 7errer11;that the duty o# attorneys to the courts

can only e maintained y rendering no ser"ice in"ol"ing any

disrespect to the !udicial o(ce $hich they are ound to

uphold& The Court $rote in Rhee# of the +hili""ines:

x x x 's explicit is the %rst canon o#legal ethics $hich pronounces that i;t is theduty o# a la$yer to maintain to$ards the

Courts a respect#ul attitude, not #or the sa>eo# the temporary incument o# the !udicialo(ce, ut #or the maintenance o# itssupreme importance& That same canon, as acorollary, ma>es it peculiarly incumentupon la$yers to support the courts againstun!ust criticism and clamor& 'nd more& Theattorneys oath solemnly inds him to aconduct that should e $ith all good %delityx x x to the courts&

'lso, in Sorreda, the Court re"isited its holding

in Surigao Mineral Reservation Board v. Clori(el12;that:

' la$yer is an o(cer o# the courtsA

he is, li>e the court itsel#, an instrument oragency to ad"ance the ends o# !ustice& @isduty is to uphold the dignity and authorityo# the courts to $hich he o$es %delity, notto promote distrust in the administration o#

!ustice& aith in the courts, a la$yer shouldsee> to preser"e& or, to undermine the

!udicial edi%ce is disastrous to the continuityo# go"ernment and to the attainment o# thelierties o# the people& Thus has it een saido# a la$yer that a;s an o(cer o# the court,it is his s$orn and moral duty to help uildand not destroy unnecessarily that highesteem and regard to$ards the courts soessential to the proper administration o#

!ustice&1*;

The lady senator elongs to the legal pro#ession

ound y the exacting in!unction o# a strict Code& .ociety has

entrusted that pro#ession $ith the administration o# the la$

and dispensation o# !ustice& enerally spea>ing, a la$yer

holding a go"ernment o(ce may not e disciplined as a

memer o# the /ar #or misconduct committed $hile in the

discharge o# o(cial duties, unless said misconduct also

constitutes a "iolation o# hisQher oath as a la$yer&1+;

=a$yers may e disciplined e"en #or any conduct

committed in their pri"ate capacity, as long as their

misconduct reIects their $ant o# proity or good demeanor,

15;a good character eing an essential Euali%cation #or the

admission to the practice o# la$ and #or continuance o# such

pri"ilege& Fhen the Code o# Pro#essional Responsiility or the

Rules o# Court spea>s o# conduct or misconduct, the re#erence

is not con%ned to ones eha"ior exhiited in connection $ith

the per#ormance o# la$yers pro#essional duties, ut also

co"ers any misconduct, $hichaleit unrelated to the actual

practice o# their pro#ession$ould sho$ them to e un%t #or the

o(ce and un$orthy o# the pri"ileges $hich their license and

the la$ in"est in them&1?;

This Court, in its unceasing Euest to promote the

peoples #aith in courts and trust in the rule o# la$, has

consistently exercised its disciplinary authority on la$yers

$ho, #or male"olent purpose or personal malice, attempt to

ostruct the orderly administration o# !ustice, triIe $ith the

integrity o# courts, and emarrass or, $orse, malign the men

and $omen $ho compose them& Fe ha"e done it in the case

o# #ormer .enator Bicente .otto in Sotto, in the case o#'tty&

)oel .orreda inSorreda, and in the case o# 'tty& rancisco /&

Cru9inTacordan v. 'ng1;$ho repeatedly insulted and

threatened the Court in a most insolent manner&

The Court is not hesitant to impose some #orm o#

disciplinary sanctions on .enatorQ'tty& .antiago #or $hat

other$ise $ould ha"e constituted an act o# utter disrespect on

her part to$ards the Court and its memers& The #actual and

legal circumstances o# this case, ho$e"er, deter the Court

#rom doing so, e"en $ithout any sign o# remorse #rom her&

/asic constitutional consideration dictates this >ind o#

disposition&

Fe, ho$e"er, $ould e remiss in our duty i# $e let

the .enators o


14/32

her peers ent ac>$ards and a"oided imposing their o$n

rules on her&

inally, the lady senator Euestions Pores moti"es in

%ling his complaint, stating that disciplinary proceedings must

e underta>en solely #or the pulic $el#are& Fe cannot agree

$ith her more& Fe cannot o"erstress that the senators use o#

intemperate language to demean and denigrate the highest

court o# the land is a clear "iolation o# the duty o# respect

la$yers o$e to the courts&21;

inally, the .enator asserts that complainant Pore

has #ailed to pro"e that she in #act made the statements in

Euestion& .u(ce it to say in this regard that, although she has

not categorically denied ma>ing such statements, she has

uneEui"ocally said ma>ing them as part o# her pri"ilege

speech& @er implied admission is good enough #or the Court&

/0EREFORE, the letter-complaint o# 'ntero & Pore

against .enatorQ'tty& Miriam 8e#ensor-.antiago

is, con#ormaly to 'rt& B7, .ec& 11 o# the

Constitution, DISMISSED&

SO ORDERED.

La


15/32

their respecti"e motions to li#t order o# suspension $ith

certi%cations #rom the 7ntegrated /ar o# the Philippines and

the xecuti"e udge o# the court $here they might appear as

counsel and state that they desisted #rom practicing la$

during the period o# suspension&

4n the claim that the Commission on @uman Rights allo$ed

'tty& /aliga to per#orm his #unctions as Regional 8irector

during the period o# suspension, the 4(ce o# the /ar

Con%dant said that the Commission Ndelierately;

disregarded;N21

this courtOs order o# suspension& 'ccording tothe 4(ce o# the /ar Con%dant, the Commission on @uman

Rights had no po$er to Nalter, modi#y, or set aside any o# this

courtOs resolutions; $hich ha"e; ecome %nal and executory&

N22

Thus, $ith respect to 'tty& /aliga, the 4(ce o# the /ar

Con%dant recommended that this court reEuire him to sumit

a certi%cation #rom the Commission on @uman Rights stating

that he desisted #rom per#orming his #unctions as Regional

8irector $hile he $as suspended #rom the practice o# la$&2*

The 4(ce o# the /ar Con%dant #urther recommended that

'tty& /aliga and the Commission &on @uman Rights e

reEuired to comment on complainant =inganOs allegation that'tty& /aliga continued to per#orm his #unctions as Regional

8irector $hile he $as suspended #rom the practice o# la$&

4n uly 1, 200, 'tty& /aliga %led a mani#estation,2+arguing

that his suspension #rom the practice o# la$ did not include his

suspension #rom pulic o(ce& 'tty& /aliga said, Nt;o stretch

the co"erage o# his suspension #rom the practice o# la$; to

his; pulic o(ce $ould e tantamount to "iolating; his

constitutional rights sic; to due process and to the statutory

principle in la$ that $hat is not included is deemed

excluded&N25

7n the resolution

2?

dated .eptemer 2*, 200, this courtreEuired respondents to %le their respecti"e motions to li#t

order o# suspension considering the lapse o# the period o#

suspension& This court #urther ordered 'tty& /aliga and the

Commission on @uman Rights to comment on complainant

=ingariOs allegation that 'tty& /aliga continued per#orming his

#unctions as Regional 8irector $hile he $as suspended #rom

the practice o# la$& The resolution dated .eptemer 2*, 200

pro"ides:

Considering that the period o# suspension #rom the practice o#

la$ and disEuali%cation #rom eing commissioned as notary

pulic imposed on respondents ha"e sic; already elapsed,

this Court resol"es:

316 to reEuire oth respondents, $ithin ten 3106 days

#rom notice, to 7= their respecti"e motions to li#t

relati"e to their suspension and disEuali%cation #rom

eing commissioned as notary pulic and .D/M7T

certi%cations #rom the 7ntegrated /ar o# the

Philippines and xecuti"e udge o# the Court $here

they may appear as counsel, stating that

respondents ha"e actually ceased and desisted #rom

the practice o# la$ during the entire period o# their

suspension and disEuali%cation, unless already

complied $ith in the meantimeA

326 to reEuire 'tty& immy P& /aliga to .D/M7T a

certi%cation #rom the Commission on @uman RightsC@R; stating that he has een suspended #rom o(ce

and has stopped #rom the per#ormance o# his

#unctions #or the period stated in the order o#

suspension and disEuali%cation, $ithin ten 3106 days

#rom notice hereo#A

3*6 to reEuire respondent 'tty& /aliga and the C@R to

C4MM)T on the allegations o# complainant against

them, oth $ithin ten 3106 days #rom receipt o# notice

hereo#A &&&23mphasis in the original6

7n compliance $ith this courtOs order, 'ttys& CaluaEui and

/aliga %led their respecti"e motions to li#t order o#

suspension&2'tty& /aliga also %led his comment on

complainant =inganOs allegation that he continued per#orming

his #unctions as Regional 8irector during his suspension #rom

the practice o# la$&

7n his comment2dated )o"emer 1*, 200, 'tty& /aliga

alleged that as Regional 8irector, he Nper#ormed;, generally,

managerial #unctions,N*0$hich did not reEuire the practice o#

la$& These managerial #unctions allegedlyincluded &Nsuper"ising; &&& the day to day operations o# the

regional o(ce and its personnelNA*1Nmonitoring progress o#

in"estigations conducted y the Commission on @uman

Rights; 7n"estigation DnitNA*2Nmonitoring the implementation

o# all other ser"ices and assistance programs o# the

Commission on @uman Rights; y the di


16/32

4n eruary 1, 2010, this court li#ted the order o# suspension

o# 'tty& CaluaEui&+@e $as allo$ed to resume his practice o#

la$ and per#orm notarial acts su!ect to compliance $ith the

reEuirements #or issuance o# a notarial commission&

4n the other hand, this court re#erred to the 4(ce o# the /ar

Con%dant #or e"aluation, report, and recommendation 'tty&

/aligaOs motion to li#t one-year suspension and the respecti"e

comments o# 'tty& /aliga and the Commission on @uman

Rights&+

7n its report and recommendation50dated 4ctoer 1, 2010,

the 4(ce o# the /ar Con%dant stated that 'tty& /aliga Nshould

not ha"e een; allo$ed to per#orm his #unctions, duties, and

responsiilities as Regional 8irector; $hich reEuired acts

constituting; practice &o# la$&N51Considering that 'tty& /aliga

claimed that he did not per#orm his #unctions as Regional

8irector $hich reEuired the practice o# la$, the 4(ce o# the

/ar Con%dant recommended that the Commission on @uman

Rights e reEuired to comment on this claim& The 4(ce o# the

/ar Con%dant also recommended holding in aeyance the

resolution o# 'tty& /aligaOs motion to li#t suspension Npending

the Commission on @uman RightOs %ling o# comment;&N52

7n the resolution5*dated anuary 12, 2011, this court held inaeyance the resolution o# 'tty& /aligaOs motion to li#t one-

year suspension& The Commission on @uman Rights $as

ordered to comment on 'tty& /aligaOs claim that he did not

practice la$ $hile he held his position as Regional 8irector&

7n its comment5+dated 'pril ?, 2011, the Commission on

@uman Rights reiterated that the penalty imposed on 'tty&

/aliga as a memer o# the ar is separate #rom the penalty

that might e imposed on him as Regional 8irector& The

Commission added that it is No# honest elie# that the position

o# Regional 8irector; is managerial and does not reEuire the

practice o# la$;&N557t again mani#ested that it $ill Naide y

$hate"er ruling or decision this court; arri"es on the;

matter&N5?

The issue #or our resolution is $hether 'tty& /aligaOs motion to

li#t order o# suspension should e granted&

Fe %nd that 'tty& /aliga "iolated this courtOs order o#

suspension& Fe, there#ore, suspend him #urther #rom the

practice o# la$ #or six months&

Practice o# la$ is Nany acti"ity, in or out o# court, $hich

reEuires the application o# la$, legal procedure, >no$ledge,

training and experience&N57t includes Nper#orming; acts

$hich are characteristics o# the legal; pro#essionN5or

Nrendering any >ind o#; ser"ice $hich; reEuires the use inany degree o# legal >no$ledge or s>ill&N5

For> in go"ernment that reEuires the use o# legal >no$ledge

is considered practice& o# la$& 7n Cayetano "& Monsod,?0this

court cited the delierations o# the 1? Constitutional

Commission and agreed that $or> rendered y la$yers in the

Commission on 'udit reEuiring Nthe use o#; legal >no$ledge

or legal talentN?1is practice o# la$&

The Commission on @uman Rights is an independent o(ce

created under the Constitution $ith po$er to in"estigate Nall

#orms o# human rights "iolations in"ol"ing ci"il and political

rights&;N?27t is di"ided into regional o(ces $ith each o(ce

ha"ing primary responsiility to in"estigate human rights

"iolations in its territorial !urisdiction&?*ach regional o(ce is

headed y the Regional 8irector $ho is gi"en the position o#

'ttorney B7&

Dnder the uidelines and Procedures in the 7n"estigation and

Monitoring o# @uman Rights Biolations and 'uses, and the

Pro"ision o# C@R 'ssistance,?+the Regional 8irector has the

#ollo$ing po$ers and #unctions:

a& To administer oaths or a(rmations $ith respect to

NCommission on @uman Rights; mattersAN?5

& To issue mission orders in their respecti"e regional

o(cesA??

c& To conduct preliminary e"aluation or initial

in"estigation o# human rights complaints in the

asence o# the legal o(cer or in"estigatorA?

d& To conduct dialogues or preliminary con#erences

among parties and discuss Nimmediate courses o#

action and protection remedies andQor possile

sumission o# the matter to an alternati"e disputeresolutionNA?

e& To issue Commission on @uman Rights processes,

including notices, letter-in"itations, orders, or

supoenas $ithin the territorial !urisdiction o# the

regional o(ceA?and

#& To re"ie$ and appro"e dra#t resolutions o# human

rights cases prepared y the legal o(cer&0

These po$ers and #unctions are characteristics o# the legal

pro#ession& 4aths and a(rmations are usually per#ormed y

memers o# the !udiciary and notaries pulic1

- o(cers $hoare necessarily memers o# the ar&27n"estigating human

rights complaints are per#ormed primarily y the

CommissionOs legal o(cer&*8iscussing immediate courses o#

action and protection remedies and re"ie$ing and appro"ing

dra#t resolutions o# human rights cases prepared y the legal

o(cer reEuire the use o# extensi"e legal >no$ledge&

The exercise o# the po$ers and #unctions o# a Commission on

@uman Rights Regional 8irector constitutes practice o# la$&

Thus, the Regional 8irector must e an attorney - a memer

o# the ar in good standing and authori9ed to practice

la$&+Fhen the Regional 8irector loses this authority, such as

$hen he or she is disarred or suspended #rom the practice o#

la$, the Regional 8irector loses a necessary Euali%cation tothe position he or she is holding& The disarred or suspended

la$yer must desist #rom holding the position o# Regional

8irector&

This court suspended 'tty& /aliga #rom the practice o# la$ #or

one year on une 15, 200?, Need a necessary Euali%cation to his position as

Commission on @uman Rights Regional 8irectorQ 'ttorney B7&

's the Commission on @uman Rights correctly resol"ed in its

resolution dated anuary 1?, 200:

F@R'., this suspension under ethical standards, in e


17/32

'tty& /aligaOs per#ormance o# generally managerial #unctions

$as not supported y the record& 7t $as also

immaterial&-%"hi@e held the position o# Commission on

@uman Rights Regional 8irector ecause o# his authority to

practice la$& Fithout this authority, 'tty& /aliga $as

disEuali%ed to hold that position&

'll told, per#orming the #unctions o# a Commission on @uman

Rights Regional 8irector constituted practice o# la$& 'tty&

/aliga should ha"e desisted #rom holding his position as

Regional 8irector&

Dnder .ection 2, Rule 1* o# the Rules o# Court, $ill#ul

disoedience to any la$#ul order o# a superior court is a

ground #or disarment or suspension #rom the practice o# la$:

.C& 2& 8isarment or suspension o# attorneys y .upreme

CourtA grounds there#or& - ' memer o# the ar may e

disarred or suspended #rom his o(ce as attorney y the

.upreme Court #or any deceit, malpractice, or other gross

misconduct in such o(ce, grossly immoral conduct, or y

reason o# his con"iction o# a crime in"ol"ing moral turpitude,

or #or any "iolation o# the oath $hich he is reEuired to ta>e

e#ore admission to practice, or #or a $ill#ul disoedience o#

any la$#ul order o# a superior court, or #or corruptly or $ill#ullyappearing as an attorney #or a party to a case $ithout

authority so to do& The practice o# soliciting cases at la$ #or

the purpose o# gain, either personally or through paid agents

or ro>ers, constitutes malpractice&

7n Molina "& 'tty& Magat,this court suspended #urther 'tty&

Ce#erino R& Magat #rom the practice o# la$ #or six months #or

practicing his pro#ession despite this courtOs pre"ious order o#

suspension&

Fe impose the same penalty on 'tty& /aliga #or holding his

position as Regional 8irector despite lac>&o# authority to

practice la$&

Fe note that the Commission on @uman Rights n /anc

issued the resolution dated 'pril 1*, 200, reconsidering its

%rst resolution suspending 'tty& /aliga as Regional 8irectorQ

'ttorney B7& 7nstead, the Commission admonished 'tty& /aliga

and sternly $arned him that repeating the same o


18/32

Conduct and thical .tandards #or Pulic 4(cials and

mployees against 'tty& 'steria & Cru9ara 3respondent6& 7n

his a(da"it-complaint2dated May 2002, complainant

charged respondent $ith engaging in pri"ate practice $hile

employed in the go"ernment ser"ice&

Complainant alleged that respondent $as admitted to the

Philippine /ar on *0 May 1? and $as appointed as 8eputy

Register o# 8eeds o# eneral .antos City on 11 'ugust

1&*Complainant asserted that as 8eputy Register o#

8eeds, respondent %led a petition #or commission as a notarypulic and $as commissioned on 2 eruary 1 $ithout

otaining prior authority #rom the .ecretary o# the

8epartment o# ustice 3846&+Complainant claimed that

respondent has notari9ed some *,000

documents&5Complainant pointed out that respondent only

stopped notari9ing documents $hen she $as reprimanded y

the Chie# o# the 7n"estigation 8i"ision o# the =and Registration

'uthority&?

Complainant contended that respondent could not !usti#y her

act y pretending to e in good #aith ecause e"en non-

la$yers are not excused #rom ignorance o# the la$&

Complainant randed as incredile respondentLs claim that

she $as merely moti"ated y pulic ser"ice in notari9ing*,000 documents& Complainant pointed out that respondent

spent money to uy the )otarial Register /oo>s and spent

hours going o"er the documents suscried e#ore her,

therey pre!udicing her e(ciency and per#ormance as 8eputy

Register o# 8eeds& Complainant elie"ed that e"en i#

respondent had otained authority #rom the 84, respondent

$ould still e guilty o# "iolating .ection 36326 o# R' ?1*

ecause her practice as a notary pulic conIicts $ith her

o(cial #unctions&

7n her Comment, respondent admitted that she $as a notary

pulic #rom 2 eruary 1 to *1 8ecemer

1&Respondent stated that she $as authori9ed y her

superior, the Register o# 8eeds, to act as a notary pulic&Respondent pointed out that the Register o# 8eeds, 'tty&

Pelagio T& Tolosa, also suscried petitions and documents

that $ere reEuired to e registered&Respondent explained

that the Register o# 8eeds imposed the #ollo$ing conditions

#or her application as a notary pulic:

x x x

+& That the application #or commission $as on the condition

that respondent cannot charge #ees #or documents reEuired

y the 4(ce to e presented and under oath&10

Respondent contended that $hen she %led her petition #orcommission as a notary pulic, the reEuirement o# appro"al

#rom the 84 .ecretary $as still the su!ect o# a pending

Euery y one o# the Registrars and this #act $as not >no$n to

respondent&11Respondent maintained that she had no

intention to "iolate any rule o# la$& Respondent, as a ne$

la$yer relying on the competence o# her superior, admitted

that an honest mista>e may ha"e een committed ut such

mista>e $as committed $ithout $ill#ulness, malice or

corruption&12

Respondent argued that she $as not engaged in illegal

practice as a notary pulic ecause she $as duly

commissioned y the court&1*Respondent denied that she

"iolated .ection 36326 o# R' ?1* ecause she $asauthori9ed y her superior to act as a notary pulic&

Respondent reasoned that her eing a notary pulic

complemented her #unctions as 8eputy Register o# 8eeds

ecause respondent could immediately ha"e documents

notari9ed instead o# the registrants going out o# the o(ce to

loo> #or a notary pulic& Respondent added that she did not

charge #ees #or the documents reEuired y the o(ce to e

presented under oath&1+la%"hi

Respondent insisted that contrary to complainantLs claims,

she only notari9ed 1*5 documents as certi%ed y the Cler> o#

Court o# the 11th udicial Region, eneral .antos City& 15

7n her Report and Recommendation 3Report6 dated 25 anuary

2005, 7n"estigating Commissioner =ydia '& )a"arro

recommended to the 7/P /oard o# o"ernors the dismissal o#

the complaint against respondent #or lac> o# merit& The Report

reads in part:

@o$e"er, the #act that she applied #or commission as )otary

Pulic $ithout securing the appro"al o# the proper authority

although she $as allo$ed to do so y her superior o(cer, $as

not her o$n undoing #or ha"ing relied on the ample authority

o# her superior o(cer, respondent eing a neophyte in the la$pro#ession #or ha"ing ne$ly passed the ar a year a#ter at that

time&

Records #urther sho$ed that a#ter ha"ing een reprimanded

y 'tty& lestado #or said mista>e $hich $as done in good

#aith respondent ceased and desisted to per#orm notarial $or>

since then up to the present as could e gleaned #rom the

Certi%cation issued y Cler> o# Court B7 'tty& lmer 8&

=astimosa o# the 11th udicial Region eneral .antos CityA

dated 8ecemer 2*, 200+ that 1*5 documents ha"e een

notari9ed y the respondent #rom eruary 2, 1 to

8ecemer *1 1 and there $as no record o# any notari9ed

documents #rom anuary 1, 10 to 8ecemer 21, 11&1?

7n a Resolution dated 12 March 2005, the 7/P /oard o#

o"ernors, in adopting and appro"ing the Report, dismissed

the case #or lac> o# merit&

Complainant claims that in dismissing the complaint #or Nlac>

o# meritN despite respondentLs admission that she acted as a

notary pulic #or t$o years, the 7/P /oard o# o"ernors

committed a serious error amounting to lac> o# !urisdiction or

authority&1

.ection 36326 o# R' ?1* pro"ides:

.ection & Prohiited 'cts and Transactions& - 7n addition toacts and omissions o# pulic o(cials and employees no$

prescried in the Constitution and existing la$s, the #ollo$ing

shall constitute prohiited acts and transactions o# any pulic

o(cial and employee and are herey declared to e unla$#ul:

x x x

36 4utside employment and other acti"ities related thereto& -

Pulic o(cials and employees during their incumency shall

not:

x x x

326 ngage in the pri"ate practice o# their pro#ession unless

authori9ed y the Constitution or la$, pro"ided, that such

practice $ill not conIict or tend to conIict $ith their o(cial

#unctionsA or

x x x

Memorandum Circular )o& 11o# the xecuti"e 8epartment

allo$s go"ernment employees to engage directly in the

pri"ate practice o# their pro#ession pro"ided there is a $ritten

permission #rom the 8epartment head& 7t pro"ides:

The authority to grant permission to any o(cial or employeeshall e granted y the head o# the ministry or agency in

accordance $ith .ection 12, Rule GB777 o# the Re"ised Ci"il

.er"ice Rules, $hich pro"ides:

N.ec& 12& )o o(cer or employee shall engage directly in any

pri"ate usiness, "ocation, or pro#ession or e connected $ith

any commercial, credit, agricultural, or industrial underta>ing

$ithout a )i''en e)-i((i!n *)!- '+e +ead !*

Dea)'-en'A Pro"ided, That this prohiition $ill e asolute

in the case o# those o(cers and employees $hose duties and

responsiilities reEuire that their entire time e at the disposal

o# the o"ernment: Pro"ided, #urther, That i# an employee is
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/ac_5688_2009.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/ac_5688_2009.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/ac_5688_2009.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/ac_5688_2009.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/ac_5688_2009.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/ac_5688_2009.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/ac_5688_2009.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/ac_5688_2009.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/ac_5688_2009.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/ac_5688_2009.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/ac_5688_2009.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/ac_5688_2009.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/ac_5688_2009.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/ac_5688_2009.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/ac_5688_2009.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/ac_5688_2009.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/ac_5688_2009.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/ac_5688_2009.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/ac_5688_2009.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/ac_5688_2009.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/ac_5688_2009.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/ac_5688_2009.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/ac_5688_2009.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/ac_5688_2009.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/ac_5688_2009.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/ac_5688_2009.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/ac_5688_2009.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/ac_5688_2009.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/ac_5688_2009.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/ac_5688_2009.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/ac_5688_2009.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/ac_5688_2009.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/ac_5688_2009.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/ac_5688_2009.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/ac_5688_2009.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/ac_5688_2009.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/ac_5688_2009.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/ac_5688_2009.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/ac_5688_2009.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/ac_5688_2009.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/ac_5688_2009.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/ac_5688_2009.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/ac_5688_2009.html#fnt18


19/32

granted permission to engage in outside acti"ities, the time so

de"oted outside o# o(ce hours should e %xed y the chie# o#

the agency to the end that it $ill not impair in any $ay the

e(ciency o# the other o(cer or employee: 'nd pro"ided,

%nally, That no permission is necessary in the case o#

in"estments, made y an o(cer or employee, $hich do not

in"ol"e any real or apparent conIict et$een his pri"ate

interests and pulic duties, or in any $ay inIuence him in the

discharge o# his duties, and he shall not ta>e part in the

management o# the enterprise or ecome an o(cer or

memer o# the oard o# directorsN,

.u!ect to any additional conditions $hich the head o# the

o(ce deems necessary in each particular case in the interest

o# the ser"ice, as expressed in the "arious issuances o# the

Ci"il .er"ice Commission& 3/old#acing supplied6

7t is clear that $hen respondent %led her petition #or

commission as a notary pulic, she did not otain a $ritten

permission #rom the .ecretary o# the 84& RespondentLs

superior, the Register o# 8eeds, cannot issue any

authori9ation ecause he is not the head o# the 8epartment&

'nd e"en assuming that the Register o# 8eeds authori9ed her,

respondent #ailed to present any proo# o# that $ritten

permission& Respondent cannot #eign ignorance or good #aithecause respondent %led her petition #or commission as a

notary pulic a#ter Memorandum Circular )o& 1 $as issued in

1?&avv"hi

7n ;u#ol, Jr. v. 7errer Sr.,1$e suspended a la$yer employed

in the Commission on @uman Rights 3C@R6 #or #ailing to otain

a $ritten authority and appro"al $ith a duly appro"ed lea"e o#

asence #rom the C@R& Fe explained:

Crystal clear #rom the #oregoing is the #act that pri"ate

practice o# la$ y C@R la$yers is not a matter o# right&

'lthough the Commission allo$s C@R la$yers to engage in

pri"ate practice, a $ritten reEuest and appro"al thereo#, $ith

a duly appro"ed lea"e o# asence #or that matter are

indispensale& 7n the case at ar, the record is ere#t o# any

such $ritten reEuest or duly appro"ed lea"e o# asence& )o

$ritten authority nor appro"al o# the practice and appro"ed

lea"e o# asence y the C@R $as e"er presented y

respondent& Thus, he cannot engage in pri"ate practice&

's to respondentLs act o# notari9ing documents, records sho$

that he applied #or commission as notary pulic on 1+

)o"emer 2000, e#ore the Regional Trial Court 3RTC6 o# .an

ernando, Pampanga, /ranch +2& This $as granted y RTC

xecuti"e udge Pedro M& .unga, r&, on 01 8ecemer 2000&

@o$e"er, the C@R authori9ed respondent to act as notary

pulic only on 2 4ctoer 2001& Considering the acts o#

notari9ation are $ithin the amit o# the term Npractice o# la$,N

#or $hich a prior $ritten reEuest and appro"al y the C@R to

engage into it are reEuired, the crucial period to e

considered is the appro"al o# the C@R on 2 4ctoer 2001 and

not the appro"al o# the RTC on 0+ 8ecemer 2000&20

7n Muring, Jr. v. Gatcho,21$e suspended a la$yer #or ha"ing

%led petitions #or commission as a notary pulic $hile

employed as a court attorney& Fe held:

'tty& atcho should ha"e >no$n that as a go"ernment la$yer,

he $as prohiited #rom engaging in notarial practice, or in any

#orm o# pri"ate legal practice #or that matter& 'tty& atcho

cannot no$ #eign ignorance or good #aith, as he did not see>to exculpate himsel# y pro"iding an explanation #or his error&

'tty& atchoLs %ling o# the petition #or commission, $hile not

an actual engagement in the practice o# la$, appears as a

#urti"e attempt to e"ade the prohiition&22

Dnder the Dni#orm Rules on 'dministrati"e Cases in the Ci"il

.er"ice, engaging in the pri"ate practice o# pro#ession, $hen

unauthori9ed, is classi%ed as a light o


20/32

pulic o(ce, except in the case o#suparagraph 36 326 ao"e, ut thepro#essional concerned cannot practice hispro#ession in connection $ith any mattere#ore the o(ce he used to e $ith, in$hich case the one-year prohiition shallli>e$ise apply&

7n her letter-Euery, 'tty& /u(?>6?, assu#ing the sa#e does not con@ict or tend to

con@ict %ith his o5cial duties, (ut a non4incu#(ent li&e

#yself cannot, as is a""arently "rohi(ited (y the last

"aragra"h of Sec. !A =hy is the for#er allo%ed, %ho is still

occu"ying the very "u(lic "osition that he is lia(le to e"loit,

(ut a non4incu#(ent li&e #yself %ho is no longer in a "osition

of "ossi(le a(usee"loitation cannotA%&'

The Euery arose ecause 'tty& /u, #or a period o# one 316 year #rom the date o# her

separation #rom go"ernment employment&

'tty& /u o# Court

o# that /ranch&

Then 8eputy Court 'dministrator 3no$ Court

'dministrator6 ose P& Pere9 made the #ollo$ing oser"ations

$hen the matter $as re#erred to him:

The general intent o# the la$, asde%ned in its title is to uphold the time-honored principle o# pulic o(ce eing apulic trust& .ection + thereo# pro"ides #or

the norms o# conduct o# pulic o(cials andemployees, among others: 3a6 commitmentto pulic interestA 36 pro#essionalismA and3c6 !ustness and sincerity& 4# particularsigni%cance is the statement underpro#essionalism that t;hey pulic o(cialsand employees; shall endea"or todiscourage $rong perceptions o# their rolesas dispensers or peddlers o# unduepatronage&

Thus, it may e $ell to say that the

prohiition $as intended to a"oid anyimpropriety or the appearance o#impropriety $hich may occur in anytransaction et$een the retired go"ernmentemployee and his #ormer colleagues,suordinates or superiors rought aout y#amiliarity, moral ascendancy or undueinIuence, as the case may e&2;

.useEuently, in a MinuteResolution dated uly 15,

200, $e resol"ed to re#er this case to the 4(ce o# the Chie#

'ttorney 31C'T6 #or e"aluation, report and recommendation&

*;

The 4C'T too> the "ie$ that:

The premise o# the Euery is erroneous& .heinterprets .ection 36 326 as a lan>etauthority #or an incument cler> o# court topractice la$& Clearly, there is a misreadingo# that pro"ision o# la$& +;

and #urther oser"ed:The con#usion apparently lies in the use o#the term such practice a#ter the phrasepro"ided that& 7t may indeed emisinterpreted as modi#ying the phraseengage in the pri"ate practice o# theirpro#ession should e pre#atory sentencethat pulic o(cials during their incumencyshall not e disregarded& @o$e"er, read in

its entirety, such practice may only re#er topractice authori9ed y the Constitution orla$ or the exception to the prohiitionagainst the practice o# pro#ession& The termla$ $as intended y the legislature toinclude a memorandum or a circular or anadministrati"e order issued pursuant to theauthority o# la$&x x x

The interpretation that .ection 36 326 generally prohiits incument pulico(cials and employees #rom engaging inthe practice o# la$, $hich is declared thereina prohiited and unla$#ul act, accords $ith

the constitutional policy on accountaility o#pulic o(cers stated in 'rticle G7 o# theConstitutionx x x

The policy thus reEuires pulic o(cials andemployees to de"ote #ull time pulic ser"iceso that in case o# conIict et$een personaland pulic interest, the latter should ta>eprecedence o"er the #ormer&5;ootnotesomitted;

Fith respect to la$yers in the !udiciary, the 4C'T pointed to

.ection 5, Canon * o# the Code o# Conduct #or Court Personnel

the rule that deals $ith outside employment y an incument

!udicial employee and $hich limits such outside employment

to one that does not reEuire the practice o# la$& ?;The

prohiition to practice la$ $ith respect to any matter $here

they ha"e inter"ened $hile in the go"ernment ser"ice is

reiterated in Rule ?&0*, Canon ? o# the Code o# Pro#essional
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/august2009/08-6-352-RTC.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/august2009/08-6-352-RTC.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/august2009/08-6-352-RTC.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/august2009/08-6-352-RTC.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/august2009/08-6-352-RTC.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/august2009/08-6-352-RTC.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/august2009/08-6-352-RTC.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/august2009/08-6-352-RTC.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/august2009/08-6-352-RTC.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/august2009/08-6-352-RTC.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/august2009/08-6-352-RTC.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/august2009/08-6-352-RTC.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/august2009/08-6-352-RTC.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/august2009/08-6-352-RTC.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/august2009/08-6-352-RTC.htm#_ftn8


21/32

Responsiility, $hich go"erns the conduct o# la$yers in the

go"ernment ser"ice&;

7n "ie$ o# the 4C'T %ndings and recommendations,

$e issued an nBanc Resolution dated )o"emer 11,

200 directing the Court 'dministrator to dra#t and sumit to

the Court a circular on the practice o# pro#ession during

employment and $ithin one year #rom res

Documents

ethics cases on influence peddling, intemperate language, and lawyers in government service