A.M. No. P-88-269 - Abeto vs. Garcesa

Complainant: Oscar Abeto, who brought the verified complaint on October 19, 1988.
Respondent: Manuel Garcesa, a stenographic reporter and court employee of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 45, Bacolod City.
Other parties:

Arturo Ronquillo – Vice President of the Workers Amalgamated Union of the Philippines (WAUP), whose assistance was sought in the labor cases.
Various complainants in the labor cases filed with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), Regional Arbitration Branch VI.

Allegation that the respondent misrepresented himself as a lawyer.
Charge that he acted as an “authorized representative” of the complainants in labor cases despite being a court employee.
The complaint implied that his actions could be in violation of established administrative and civil service rules.

Admitted to assisting the complainants in the labor cases but denied posing as a lawyer.
Stated that he informed complainant Abeto at the first meeting (December 1986) that he was merely a court employee assisting Mr. Arturo Ronquillo.
Asserted that no lawyer was available at that time willing to assist them, thus his aid was intended solely to help the poor and downtrodden workers/employees of BISCOM Central.
Claimed that the complaint stemmed from ill-feelings and was aimed at tarnishing his reputation.
Noted that in the event his good intentions were considered contrary to Administrative directives, he would submit to the Court’s discretion.

The complaint was initially referred to the respondent via a memorandum from Deputy Court Administrator Meynardo A. Tiro.
On August 28, 1989, Deputy Court Administrator Juanito Bernad recommended the dismissal of the complaint regarding misrepresentation but advised the respondent to adhere to the Civil Service Rules and related administrative policies.
The respondent filed a Letter-Petition on July 11, 1995, for an early resolution, contending that the case was baseless and a result of a petty misunderstanding, and submitted the complainant’s affidavit of desistance and letter requesting case dismissal.
On September 18, 1995, the Court directed a reevaluation, resulting in a memorandum submitted on October 13, 1995, by Deputy Court Administrator Zenaida N. Elepano.

Cited rule: Section 12, Rule XVIII of the Revised Civil Service Rules, which prohibits any officer or employee from engaging in private business, vocation, or profession without written permission from the head of the department.
Cited policy: Administrative Circular No. 5 (October 4, 1988) declaring that judiciary officials and employees must devote their entire time to government service for the efficient administration of justice.
Evidence: Annex “A” of the complaint showed that the respondent, along with Arturo Ronquillo, signed an Ex-Parte Formal Manifestation as “Authorized Representatives” in several labor cases.
The respondent’s “casual assistance” in the labor cases, although not amounting to unauthorized practice of law, constituted a violation of the administrative and civil service provisions due to his dual role.

Whether the actions of Manuel Garcesa amounted to misrepresentation as a lawyer or unauthorized practice of law.

Does his conduct in assisting the complainants imply that he falsely represented himself as a full-fledged lawyer?
Whether his role as an “authorized representative” could legally be performed by a non-lawyer under the existing rules.

Whether the respondent’s engagement in limited law practice violated Section 12, Rule XVIII of the Revised Civil Service Rules and the directives of Administrative Circular No. 5.

Analysis of the prohibition against engaging in private business, vocation, or practice without proper permission as mandated by the Civil Service Rules.
Consideration of the Court’s prior rulings and reference cases (Valdez and Rabanal).

Whether the act of rendering “casual assistance” in legal matters by someone not primarily designated as a legal practitioner constitutes malfeasance in office.

Evaluation of the respondent’s intent versus the statutory duty as a court employee.
The legal implications of moonlighting or engaging in auxiliary legal activities while in public service.