A.C. No. 5738 - Catu vs. Rellosa

Case Summary (A.C. No. 5738)

Factual Background

Wilfredo M. Catu was a co-owner of a lot and the building at 959 San Andres Street, Malate, Manila, and his mother and brother, Regina Catu and Antonio Catu, disputed the possession by Elizabeth C. Diaz‑Catu and Antonio Pastor of one unit in the building. Regina and Antonio demanded that Elizabeth and Pastor vacate the premises, but the demands were ignored.

Barangay Conciliation and Subsequent Court Case

The dispute was brought to the Lupong Tagapamayapa of Barangay 723, where Atty. Vicente G. Rellosa, as punong barangay, summoned the parties and presided over conciliation meetings. When no amicable settlement was reached, respondent issued a certification for the filing of the appropriate action in court. Regina and Antonio thereafter filed an ejectment complaint in the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila, Branch 11. Respondent entered his appearance as counsel for Elizabeth and Pastor and prepared and signed pleadings including an answer with counterclaim, pre‑trial brief, position paper and notice of appeal.

Administrative Complaint and IBP Proceedings

Complainant filed an administrative complaint dated July 5, 2002, alleging that respondent committed acts of impropriety as a lawyer and as a public officer by representing parties in a matter over which he had presided as punong barangay. The complaint was referred to the IBP for investigation, report and recommendation. The IBP‑CBD required position papers instead of protracted factual inquiry because no factual issues remained to be threshed out.

IBP‑CBD Findings and Recommendation

The IBP‑CBD found sufficient ground to discipline respondent. The commission noted respondent’s admission that he had presided over the barangay conciliation and later represented the same parties in the ejectment case. The IBP‑CBD concluded that respondent violated Rule 6.03, Code of Professional Responsibility, which bars a lawyer, after leaving government service, from accepting employment in any matter in which he intervened while in such service. The IBP‑CBD further held that respondent contravened Sec. 7(b)(2), RA 6713 and thus breached Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The IBP‑CBD recommended suspension from the practice of law for one month with a stern warning. The IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved that recommendation.

Supreme Court Review of Rule 6.03 Application

The Court modified the IBP‑CBD’s finding concerning Rule 6.03. The Court held that the literal language of Rule 6.03 applied only to former government lawyers who accept engagement in a matter in which they had intervened while in government service. Citing PCGG v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 151809‑12, 12 April 2005, 455 SCRA 526, the Court reiterated that Rule 6.03 prohibits former government lawyers from such post‑service engagements. Because respondent was an incumbent punong barangay at the time he represented Elizabeth and Pastor, he was not covered by Rule 6.03, and therefore could not be held liable under that specific provision.

Supreme Court Analysis of Statutory Scheme Governing Elective Local Officials

The Court analyzed the relation between Sec. 7(b)(2), RA 6713 and Sec. 90, RA 7160. It held that Sec. 90, RA 7160 is a special law governing the practice of profession by elective local government officials and thus operates as an exception to the general prohibition in Sec. 7(b)(2), RA 6713 under the principle lex specialibus derogat legi generali. The Court explained that Section 90 expressly prescribes which elective local officials are prohibited from practicing their profession and which may do so, and that the punong barangay and members of the sangguniang barangay are not among those expressly prohibited. From that statutory framework, the Court concluded that a punong barangay is presumptively allowed to practice a profession because no interdiction was expressly made against him.

Requirement of Prior Written Permission Under Civil Service Rules

The Court emphasized that permissibility under RA 7160 did not obviate the need to secure prior written permission under civil service regulations. The Court cited Sec. 12, Rule XVIII, Revised Civil Service Rules, which forbids officers or employees from engaging in private business, vocation, or profession without written permission from the head of the department, except where duties require full‑time service. The Court held that respondent, as punong barangay, should have obtained the prior written permission of the Secretary of the Interior and Local Government before he entered his appearance as counsel for Elizabeth and Pastor. Respondent failed to secure such authorization.

Ethical Violations Found by the Supreme Court

The Court reasoned that respondent’s failure to obtain the required written permission constituted a violation of his oath as a lawyer to obey the laws and thus a breach of Rule 1.01, Code of Professional Responsibility, which proscribes unlawful conduct. The Court further held that this failure implicated Canon 1 and Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility because a la

Case Syllabus (A.C. No. 5738)

Parties and Procedural Posture

Wilfredo M. Catu filed an administrative complaint dated July 5, 2002 against Atty. Vicente G. Rellosa for alleged impropriety as a lawyer and as a public officer.
Atty. Vicente G. Rellosa was the punong barangay of Barangay 723 and later entered his appearance as counsel for the defendants in an ejectment action in the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila, Branch 11.
The complaint was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report, and recommendation and was subsequently acted upon by the IBP-CBD and the IBP Board of Governors.
The case reached the Court on review of the IBP-CBD findings and recommendations concerning professional and administrative misconduct.

Key Factual Allegations

Wilfredo M. Catu was co-owner of a lot and building at 959 San Andres Street, Malate, Manila described as lot no. 19, block no. 3, Pas-14849.
Regina Catu and Antonio Catu initiated a barangay conciliation proceeding before Barangay 723 seeking to eject Elizabeth C. Diaz-Catu and Antonio Pastor from one unit in the building.
The conciliation meetings presided over by Atty. Vicente G. Rellosa as punong barangay were scheduled on March 15, 2001, March 26, 2001 and April 3, 2001 and failed to result in settlement.
After conciliation failed, Regina and Antonio Catu filed an ejectment case in the Metropolitan Trial Court and Atty. Vicente G. Rellosa appeared as counsel for Elizabeth and Pastor, preparing pleadings including an answer with counterclaim, pre-trial brief, position paper, and notice of appeal.
Atty. Vicente G. Rellosa asserted that he assisted Elizabeth and Pastor free of charge because they were financially distressed and to prevent a patent injustice.

Procedural History

The administrative complaint was referred to the IBP-CBD, which required position papers and conducted a disciplinary inquiry culminating in a Report and Recommendation dated October 15, 2004.
The IBP-CBD found sufficient ground to discipline Atty. Vicente G. Rellosa and recommended suspension for one month.
The IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the IBP-CBD recommendation by CBD Resolution No. XVI-2004-476 dated November 4, 2004.
The matter was reviewed by the Court, which modified the IBP findings and the recommended penalty.

Issues Presented

Whether Atty. Vicente G. Rellosa violated Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility by appearing in a matter in which he intervened while in government service.
Whether Atty. Vicente G. Rellosa engaged in prohibited outside employment in violation of Section 7(b)(2), RA 6713 or governing provisions of RA 7160.
Whether Atty. Vicente G. Rellosa breached civil service regulations by failing to secure written permission before engaging in private practice.
What disciplinary penalty, if any, should be imposed for the respondent's conduct.

Contentions of Parties

Complainant contended that Atty. Vicente G. Rellosa committed impropriety by presiding over the barangay conciliation and thereafter representing the defendants in court.
Atty. Vicente G. Rellosa contended that he performed his duties as punong barangay with objectivity, that the parties failed to settle, and that he later assisted Elizabeth and Pastor as counsel pro bono due to their financial distress.
The IBP-CBD contended that respondent admitted intervening as punong barangay and later representing the same parties, thereby contravening Rule 6.03 and Section 7(b)(2), RA 6713, and breaching Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

IBP Findings and Recommendation

The IBP-CBD found that Atty. Vicente G. Rello