G.R. No. 206310-11 - Dichaves vs. Office of the Ombudsman

Case Summary (G.R. No. 206310-11)

Key Dates and Procedural Milestones

Barangay conciliation meetings scheduled March 15, 2001; March 26, 2001; April 3, 2001. Administrative complaint filed on July 5, 2002. IBP-CBD Report and Recommendation dated October 15, 2004 (recommended one-month suspension). IBP Board of Governors adopted IBP-CBD recommendation. (The Supreme Court later rendered its resolution modifying the findings and penalty.)

Factual Background

Regina and Antonio Catu filed a barangay complaint for possession against Elizabeth C. Diaz-Catu and Antonio Pastor. Respondent, as Punong Barangay, presided over the Lupong Tagapamayapa conciliation proceedings and ultimately issued a certification that permitted the filing of an ejectment action in court when no amicable settlement was reached. Regina and Antonio thereafter filed an ejectment complaint in the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila, Branch 11. Respondent subsequently entered his appearance and acted as counsel for Elizabeth and Pastor in that ejectment case, preparing and signing pleadings including an answer with counterclaim, pre-trial brief, position paper and notice of appeal.

Administrative Complaint and IBP Proceedings

Complainant Wilfredo M. Catu filed an administrative complaint alleging impropriety by respondent both as a lawyer and as a public officer for presiding over barangay conciliation and later representing the parties he had previously received in conciliation. The complaint was investigated by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines’ Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD), which, finding no material factual disputes, required position papers and issued a report recommending discipline. The IBP-CBD concluded there were sufficient grounds to discipline respondent and recommended suspension from the practice of law for one month; this recommendation was adopted by the IBP Board of Governors.

IBP-CBD’s Legal Characterizations

The IBP-CBD characterized respondent’s conduct as violating Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (prohibiting a lawyer, after leaving government service, from accepting employment in a matter in which he intervened while in government service) and Section 7(b)(2) of RA 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees) which generally prohibits public officials during incumbency from engaging in private practice of their profession unless authorized. The IBP-CBD further concluded that respondent’s conduct breached Canon 1 (uphold the Constitution, obey laws, promote respect for law) and Canon 7 (uphold integrity and dignity of the profession) of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Supreme Court’s Analysis — Inapplicability of Rule 6.03

The Court held that Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility is inapplicable to respondent because that rule, by its terms, governs former government lawyers who, after leaving government service, accept employment in matters in which they intervened while in government service. Respondent was an incumbent punong barangay at the time he represented the defendants; he had not “left government service.” Accordingly, the Court followed the principle applied in PCGG v. Sandiganbayan that Rule 6.03 restricts former government lawyers, not incumbent officials, and therefore could not be the basis of liability for respondent.

Supreme Court’s Analysis — Applicable Statute for Elective Local Officials: RA 7160, Section 90

The Court determined that Section 90 of RA 7160 (Local Government Code of 1992) is the specific statute governing the practice of profession by elective local officials and thus is the lex specialis that displaces the more general prohibition in Section 7(b)(2) of RA 6713. Section 90 differentiates between full-time local executives (governors, city and municipal mayors — who are prohibited from practicing professions or engaging in other occupations) and sanggunian members (who may practice professions or engage in occupations outside session hours). The Court noted that punong barangay and sangguniang barangay members are not expressly proscribed by Section 90; the express exception of certain officers implies by expressio unius that others (including punong barangay) are not subjected to the same total interdiction and thus presumptively may practice their profession.

Requirement of Prior Written Permission under Civil Service Rules

Although Section 90 permits certain elective local officials to practice professions, the Court emphasized that a civil service rule requires prior written permission from the head of the department before engaging in private business or profession. Specifically, Section 12, Rule XVIII of the Revised Civil Service Rules provides that an officer or employee shall not engage in private business or profession without written permission from the head of the Department, except where duties require full-time availability (in which case the prohibition is absolute). Because the punong barangay is not mandated to render full-time service, the Court held that respondent should have secured prior written permission from the Secretary of the Interior and Local Government before entering his appearance as counsel for the defendants.

Ethical and Legal Violations Found by the Court

The Court found that respondent’s failure to obtain the required written permission constituted noncompliance with civil service regulations and a

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 206310-11)

Procedural Background

Case reported at 569 Phil. 539, First Division, A.C. No. 5738, dated February 19, 2008.
Complainant Wilfredo M. Catu filed an administrative complaint dated July 5, 2002, against respondent Atty. Vicente G. Rellosa.
The complaint was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and recommendation; the IBP-Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD) rendered a Report and Recommendation dated October 15, 2004 (Commissioner Doroteo B. Aguila).
The IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the IBP-CBD recommendation (CBD Resolution No. XVI-2004-476 dated November 4, 2004).
The Supreme Court received and resolved the matter, modifying certain findings and imposing discipline.

Factual Background

Complainant Wilfredo M. Catu is a co-owner of lot no. 19, block no. 3, Pas-14849, and the building erected thereon located at 959 San Andres Street, Malate, Manila.
Regina Catu (mother of complainant) and Antonio Catu (brother of complainant) contested the possession of one of the units in the building occupied by Elizabeth C. Diaz-Catu (hereafter “Elizabeth”; footnote: complainant’s sister-in-law) and Antonio Pastor (hereafter “Pastor”).
Elizabeth and Pastor ignored demands to vacate the premises.
A complaint was initiated before the Lupong Tagapamayapa of Barangay 723, Zone 79, 5th District of Manila (hereafter “Barangay 723”) where the parties reside.
Respondent, as punong barangay of Barangay 723, summoned the parties to conciliation meetings scheduled on March 15, 2001, March 26, 2001 and April 3, 2001.
Conciliation did not result in an amicable settlement; respondent issued a certification for the filing of the appropriate action in court.
Regina and Antonio thereafter filed a complaint for ejectment against Elizabeth and Pastor in the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila, Branch 11.
Respondent entered his appearance as counsel for the defendants (Elizabeth and Pastor) in that ejectment case and prepared and signed pleadings including: the answer with counterclaim, pre-trial brief, position paper and notice of appeal.

Complainant’s Allegations

Complainant alleged that respondent committed acts of impropriety both as a lawyer and as a public officer by representing Elizabeth and Pastor in the ejectment case despite presiding over the conciliation proceedings between the same litigants as punong barangay.
The core allegation is that respondent’s dual role (presiding officer of the Lupon and subsequent counsel for one party) was improper and violated applicable ethical and statutory rules.

Respondent’s Defense

Respondent asserted that one of his duties as punong barangay was to hear complaints referred to the Lupon Tagapamayapa, which he performed in the instant matter.
He maintained that, as head of the Lupon, he acted with “utmost objectivity, without bias or partiality.”
After failure of conciliation and the filing of the ejectment case, Elizabeth sought his legal assistance; respondent accepted her request and rendered legal service for free because she was financially distressed and to “prevent the commission of a patent injustice” against her.
Respondent did not contend he was a former government lawyer; he acted as an incumbent punong barangay at the time of the events.

IBP-CBD Findings and Recommendation

The IBP-CBD found sufficient ground to discipline respondent.
The IBP-CBD noted respondent’s admission that he presided over conciliation proceedings and later represented Elizabeth and Pastor in the ejectment case.
The IBP-CBD concluded respondent violated:
- Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (quoted): “A lawyer shall not, after leaving government service, accept engagement or employment in connection with any matter in which he intervened while in said service.”
- Section 7(b)(2) of RA 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees): prohibiting public officials and employees during incumbency from engaging in the private practice of profession “unless authorized by the Constitution or law, provided that such practice will not conflict or tend to conflict with their official functions.”
- Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility: “A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF THE LAND, PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW AND LEGAL PROCESSES.”
Based on these findings, the IBP-CBD recommended respondent be suspended from the practice of law for one month with a stern warning; this recommendation was adopted by the IBP Board of Governors.

Supreme Court: Modification of IBP Findings (Overview)

The Supreme Court modified the IBP-CBD’s findings as to certain transgressions and the imposable penalty.
The Court analyzed the applicability of Rule 6.03, the relevance of Section 7(b)(2) of RA 6713 vis-à-vis Section 90 of RA 7160 (Local Government Code of 1992), and the Revised Civil Service Rules (Section 12, Rule XVIII).

Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility: Inapplicability

The Court held that Rule 6.03 applies only to former government lawyers and therefore could not be the basis of respondent’s liability because respondent was an incumbent punong barangay when he acted.
The Court cited PCGG v. Sandiganbayan (G.R. Nos. 151809-12, April 12, 2005, 455 SCRA 526) as authority that Rule 6.03 “prohibits former government lawyers from accepting engagement or employment in connection with any matter in which [they] had intervened while in said service.”
Conclusion: respondent cannot be found liable under Rule 6.03 because he had not “left government service.”

Governing Statutory Provision for Elective Local Officials: Section 90, RA 7160

The Court explained that Section 7(b)(2) of RA 6713 is a general prohibition on