G.R. No. 27761 - Philippine Sugar Centrals Agency vs. Insular Collector of Customs

On August 31, 1998, Atty. Misael M. Ladaga, Branch Clerk of Court, RTC Branch 133, Makati City, wrote to the Court Administrator requesting authority to appear as pro bono counsel for his cousin, Narcisa Naldoza Ladaga, in Criminal Case No. 84885 (People vs. Narcisa Naldoza Ladaga for Falsification of Public Document) pending before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 40.
On September 2, 1998, private complainant Lisa Payoyo Andres sent a letter to the Court Administrator requesting certification as to whether Atty. Ladaga had authority to appear in the said case.

On September 7, 1998, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) referred the matter back to Atty. Ladaga for comment.
In his comment dated September 14, 1998, he admitted appearing without prior authorization, justified on humanitarian grounds (his cousin’s lack of funds and alleged persecution by a powerful family), and asserted no conflict or prejudice to his office since he took leave approved by the presiding judge.
On December 8, 1998, the Supreme Court denied his request for retroactive authorization and directed the OCA to file formal administrative charges.
On January 25, 1999, the OCA filed a complaint charging violation of Section 7(b)(2) of Republic Act No. 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees), prohibiting private practice of profession without authorization.
After respondent’s further comment (emphasizing his seven years of unblemished service, pro bono nature of appearances, and leave approvals), the Court referred the case on June 22, 1999 to Executive Judge Josefina Guevarra-Salonga of RTC Makati for investigation.
In her September 29, 1999 Report, Judge Salonga found that respondent appeared on May 4–15, June 18, July 13, and August 5, 1998; that these were isolated pro bono acts with the knowledge of the presiding judge; and recommended a reprimand with stern warning, noting it was respondent’s first contravention and not for fee.

Whether Atty. Ladaga’s isolated appearances as pro bono counsel constitute the private practice of law prohibited under Section 7(b)(2) of RA 6713 and Section 35, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court.
Whether respondent’s failure to secure prior written permission from the head of the Department violates Section 12, Rule XVIII of the Revised Civil Service Rules.
What disciplinary measure is appropriate for the identified transgression.