Case Digest (A.M. No. P-99-1287)
Facts:
Office of the Court Administrator v. Atty. Misael M. Ladaga, A.M. No. P-99-1287, October 7, 2002, Supreme Court First Division, Kapunan, J., writing for the Court.The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) filed an administrative complaint against Atty. Misael M. Ladaga, Branch Clerk of Court, Regional Trial Court, Branch 133, Makati City, for appearing as counsel for his cousin, Narcisa Naldoza Ladaga, in Criminal Case No. 84-885 (People v. Narcisa Naldoza Ladaga) pending before the Metropolitan Trial Court (METC) of Quezon City. The private complainant in the criminal case was Lisa Payoyo Andres. Respondent initially wrote the Court Administrator on August 31, 1998 requesting authorization to appear pro bono for his cousin. While that request was pending, Ms. Andres sought a certification regarding respondent’s authority. The OCA referred the matter to respondent for comment.
Respondent admitted appearing without prior authorization and explained he acted pro bono for a close relative who lacked funds and that his appearances did not prejudice his office because they occurred in Quezon City and were covered by leave applications approved by his presiding judge. By resolution dated December 8, 1998, the Court denied respondent’s authorization request and directed the OCA to file formal charges. The OCA filed the administrative complaint on January 25, 1999 charging respondent with violation of Section 7(b)(2) of Republic Act No. 6713 (the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees).
The Court required respondent’s comment and later referred the matter to the Executive Judge of the RTC of Makati, Judge Josefina Guevarra-Salonga, for investigation, report and recommendation. Judge Salonga’s September 29, 1999 report found that respondent had appeared as counsel on several dates, that he was on official leave during those appearances, that he rendered his services pro bono and that his presiding judge was aware of his appearances; she recommended a reprimand. The Court considered the relevant rules — notably Section 35, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court (on who may not practice) and Section 12, Rule XVIII of the Revised Civil Service Rules (requiring written permission from the head of the department to engage in private business, vocation or profession) — and the precedent People v. Villanueva, 121 Phil. 894 (1965). App...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did respondent’s appearances as pro bono counsel for his cousin constitute the “private practice” of law prohibited to certain court officials under Section 35, Rule 138 and Section 7(b)(2) of RA 6713?
- Did respondent’s failure to secure prior written permission from the head of department violate Section 12, Rule XVIII of the Revised Civil Service Rules, warranting administrative discipline, and ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)