Case Digest (A.C. No. 5738)
Facts:
Wilfredo M. Catu v. Atty. Vicente G. Rellosa, A.C. No. 5738, February 19, 2008, Supreme Court First Division, Corona, J., writing for the Court.Complainant Wilfredo M. Catu is a co-owner of a lot and building at 959 San Andres Street, Malate, Manila. His mother and brother, Regina Catu and Antonio Catu, sought to recover possession of one unit occupied by Elizabeth C. Diaz‑Catu and Antonio Pastor. When demands to vacate were ignored, Regina and Antonio brought the dispute to the Lupong Tagapamayapa of Barangay 723 where respondent Atty. Vicente G. Rellosa, then the punong barangay, presided over conciliation meetings called on March 15, March 26 and April 3, 2001.
After conciliation failed, respondent issued the required certification to file appropriate court action. Regina and Antonio subsequently filed an ejectment complaint in the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila, Branch 11; Atty. Rellosa entered his appearance as counsel for Elizabeth and Pastor and prepared pleadings including an answer with counterclaim, pre‑trial brief, position paper and notice of appeal. Aggrieved, Catu filed an administrative complaint dated July 5, 2002, accusing Rellosa of impropriety for acting as counsel after having presided over the barangay conciliation.
The complaint was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD). The IBP‑CBD, after receiving position papers, found respondent culpable for violating Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Section 7(b)(2) ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Does Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility prohibit respondent, an incumbent punong barangay, from representing parties in a matter he had intervened in while in public service?
- Does Section 7(b)(2), RA 6713 prohibit a punong barangay from engaging in the private practice of law, or is Section 90, RA 7160 the controlling provision?
- Did respondent violate the Revised Civil Service Rules by appearing as counsel without securing prior written permission, and did that conduct const...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)