Facts:

In the case of Marciano P. Brion, Jr. vs. Francisco F. Brillantes, Jr., A.C. No. 5305, decided on March 17, 2003, the petitioner, Marciano P. Brion, Jr., filed a petition for disbarment against the respondent, Atty. Francisco F. Brillantes, Jr. The case arose from a previous ruling by the Supreme Court in A.M. No. MTJ-92-706, where Brillantes was dismissed from his position as a presiding judge of the Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 20, Manila, due to findings of gross immorality and appearance of impropriety. The Court's decision included a decree of perpetual disqualification from holding any government position, including roles in government-owned and controlled corporations. Despite this, Brillantes accepted a legal consultancy position at the Local Water Utilities Administration (LWUA) from 1998 to 2000, which included being appointed as the 6th member of the Board of Directors of the Urdaneta Water District. Brion alleged that this acceptance violated the Court&#...

Facts:

Background and Disbarment Complaint

• Petitioner Marciano P. Brion, Jr. filed a petition for disbarment against respondent Atty. Francisco F. Brillantes, Jr.
• The disbarment complaint centers on the respondent’s alleged willful violation of a lawful court order issued in A.M. No. MTJ-92-706 (the Atienza case), which imposed perpetual disqualification from serving in any government service position, including appointments in government-owned and controlled corporations.

Court Order in the Atienza Case

• In A.M. No. MTJ-92-706, the Court ordered the dismissal of the respondent from service with forfeiture of all leave and retirement benefits.
• The order was rendered as an immediate and executory decree, underlining that respondent was permanently disqualified from any appointment in government or its instrumentalities.
• This decision was grounded on findings of Gross Immorality and Appearance of Impropriety during his tenure as Presiding Judge of Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 20, Manila.

Facts Surrounding the Consultancy Engagement

• Despite the disqualification, respondent entered into a legal consultancy arrangement with the Local Water Utilities Administration (LWUA) from 1998 to 2000.
• Under the consultancy, respondent was designated as the 6th Member of the Board of Directors of the Urdaneta (Pangasinan) Water District.
• Although the consultancy agreements contained a proviso stating there was no employer-employee relationship, the factual matrix suggested otherwise as respondent:
• Received LWUA properties (e.g., a cellular phone with accessories evidenced by Property Issue Slips).
• Undertook official travel to various parts of the country, corroborated by Reports of Authorized Travel and his own Report of Travel.
• Exercised supervisory control over other LWUA employees by issuing written instructions.
• Attended water district conventions and meetings across several provinces.
• Participated in several sensitive LWUA committees such as the Prequalification, Bids, and Awards Committee (PBAC) and the Build-Operate-Transfer (BOT) Committee, for which he received corresponding honoraria as validated by Disbursement Vouchers.
• Sat at meetings of the LWUA Board of Trustees as evidenced by official meeting minutes.
• Received a Productivity Incentive Bonus (PIB) in 1999, an entitlement reserved for official and employee roles under the LWUA Office Order implementing National Compensation Circular No. 75-95.

Respondent’s Defense and Contentions

• The respondent admitted to the existence of both the Legal Consultancy Contract and the Special Consultancy Contract.
• He asserted that, under Civil Service Commission Memorandum Circular No. 27, Series of 1993, consultancy services are not considered “government service” and thus fall outside the prohibitions of the court order.
• He maintained that his designation as the 6th Member of the Board was not an appointment to a LWUA plantilla position but merely an additional, temporary designation in conjunction with his consultancy role.
• Furthermore, respondent argued that his engagement was terminated when the Special Consultancy Contract was pre-terminated on April 30, 2000, thereby nullifying any ongoing violation.

Investigative Findings and Additional Context

• The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Commission on Bar Discipline, to which the case was referred, found ample evidence that the respondent willfully violated the court’s order.
• The evidence demonstrated that his activities at LWUA went beyond merely advisory functions and involved actions typical of a contractual employee, including supervisory and participatory roles in official committees and board meetings.
• The respondent’s conduct was widely seen as a deliberate circumvention of the court’s decree, undermining both judicial authority and public confidence in the rule of law.

Issue:

Violation of the Court Order

• Whether respondent’s acceptance of a consultancy position with LWUA, and his subsequent designation as a member of the Urdaneta Water District Board, constituted a violation of the perpetual disqualification order imposed by the court.

Nature of the Consultancy Engagement

• Whether the activities performed under the guise of consultancy truly amounted to non-government service as defended by respondent, or if, by fact and function, they resembled the responsibilities and privileges of a contractual employee in a government-owned and controlled corporation.

Applicability of Civil Service Rules

• Whether Civil Service Commission Memorandum Circular No. 27, Series of 1993, which respondent cited in his defense, could effectively justify his engagement with LWUA given the evidence of him performing non-advisory, employee-like functions.

Ethical and Professional Implications

• Whether the respondent’s conduct, in defying a lawful court order while engaging in government-related activities, violates the ethical obligations and the oath incumbent upon members of the legal profession.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)