Case Summary (G.R. No. 97319)
Factual Background
Respondent requested authorization to appear as pro bono counsel for his cousin in a falsification case pending before the METC of Quezon City. While that administrative request was pending, the private complainant sought certification regarding respondent’s authority to appear. Respondent admitted appearing in the criminal proceedings without prior authorization but explained that he did so pro bono for a close relative who could not afford counsel. He stated that his appearances were covered by leave applications approved by his presiding judge and that he did not exploit his official position or cause prejudice to his office or the public.
Procedural History
After respondent’s admission, the Court denied the authorization request and directed the Office of the Court Administrator to file formal administrative charges. An administrative complaint was filed charging respondent with violation of Section 7(b)(2) of R.A. No. 6713 for engaging in the private practice of his profession while in government service. The matter was referred to the Executive Judge of the RTC Makati for investigation, and Judge Josefina Guevarra‑Salonga submitted a report and recommendation following her inquiry.
Respondent’s Explanation and Mitigating Contentions
Respondent emphasized his familial relationship with the accused (close blood cousin akin to a sister), the alleged impecunious status of his cousin, and the humanitarian motive for rendering free legal assistance. He asserted that his involvement was a one‑time occurrence in his seven years of unblemished government service, that he did not receive any compensation, that his presiding judge was aware of his appearances, and that he filed leave applications for the dates he attended court in Quezon City.
Investigating Judge’s Findings and Recommendation
The investigating judge found that respondent did appear as counsel for his cousin before the METC and that the appearances were pro bono. She also found that the presiding judge was aware of respondent’s appearance and that this was the first instance of such representation by respondent. Given these considerations, she recommended a reprimand with a stern warning that repetition would be dealt with more severely.
Legal Issues Presented
Two principal legal issues were considered: (1) whether respondent’s isolated appearances constituted the “private practice” of law prohibited by Section 7(b)(2) of R.A. No. 6713 and Section 35, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court; and (2) whether respondent violated Section 12, Rule XVIII of the Revised Civil Service Rules by engaging in outside professional activity without obtaining a written permission from the head of the department.
Legal Analysis and Rationale
The Court applied the standard that “private practice” in this context contemplates more than isolated or occasional appearances; it denotes a habitual, customary, or continuous holding out to the public as a practitioner and generally involves rendition of professional services for compensation. Citing People v. Villanueva, the Court reiterated that an isolated appearance does not, by itself, constitute private practice. Applying that standard, the Court concluded that respondent’s isolated pro bono appearances did not amount to engaging in the private practice of law as prohibited by the cited provisions.
However, the Court distinguished the private‑practice inquiry from the separate and independent requirement under the Revised Civil Service Rules that no officer or employee shall engage in any private vocation or profession without written permission from the head of the department. The Court found that respondent failed to secure such written permission prior to appearing in court for his cousin, despite filing leave applications for the dates of his appearances. The Court held that the presiding judge of the court to which respondent was assigned is not the “head of the department” for purposes of Section 12, Rule XVIII; accordingly, the presiding judge’s awareness did not substi
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 97319)
Case Citation and Procedural Title
- 403 Phil. 228, First Division, A.M. No. P-99-1287, January 26, 2001.
- Parties: Office of the Court Administrator (complainant) vs. Atty. Misael M. Ladaga, Branch Clerk of Court, Regional Trial Court, Branch 133, Makati City (respondent).
- Nature of the proceeding: Administrative complaint filed by the Office of the Court Administrator for violation of provisions of the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees (Republic Act No. 6713) and related Civil Service and court rules.
Factual Background
- Respondent Atty. Misael M. Ladaga was Branch Clerk of Court, Regional Trial Court, Branch 133, Makati City.
- Respondent is a lawyer and the only lawyer in his family, with seven years of government service previously at the Commission on Human Rights and then in the judiciary.
- Narcisa Naldoza Ladaga is respondent’s cousin and alleged client in Criminal Case No. 84885, entitled "People vs. Narcisa Naldoza Ladaga" for Falsification of Public Document, pending before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Quezon City, Branch 40.
- The private complainant in Criminal Case No. 84885 is Lisa Payoyo Andres; the dispute arose from an alleged falsification of the birth certificate of the eldest child born of an illicit relationship between Narcisa Ladaga and SPO4 Pedro Andres, husband of Ms. Andres.
- Respondent appeared in Criminal Case No. 84885 as pro bono counsel for his cousin on multiple occasions and admitted appearing without prior written authorization from the head of his Department (this Court).
Chronology of Key Events
- May 4–15, 1998; June 18, 1998; July 13, 1998; August 5, 1998: Specific dates respondent attended court proceedings in MeTC as counsel (dates admitted by respondent).
- August 31, 1998: Respondent submitted a letter to the Court Administrator (Justice Alfredo L. Benipayo) requesting authority to appear as pro bono counsel for his cousin in Criminal Case No. 84885.
- September 2, 1998: Private complainant Lisa Payoyo Andres wrote to the Court Administrator requesting certification regarding respondent’s authority to appear as counsel.
- September 7, 1998: Office of the Court Administrator referred the matter to respondent for comment.
- September 14, 1998: Respondent filed his Comment admitting appearance without prior authorization and explaining factual circumstances and rationale.
- December 8, 1998: The Court issued a resolution denying respondent’s request for authorization and directed the Office of the Court Administrator to file formal charges for appearing in court without required authorization.
- January 25, 1999: The Office of the Court Administrator filed the administrative complaint against respondent under Sec. 7(b)(2) of RA No. 6713.
- February 9, 1999: The Court required respondent to comment on the administrative complaint.
- June 22, 1999: The Court referred the administrative matter to the Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Makati, Judge Josefina Guevarra-Salonga, for investigation, report and recommendation.
- September 29, 1999: Judge Salonga submitted her Report and Recommendation.
- January 26, 2001: Final resolution of the Court (403 Phil. 228) was rendered reprimanding respondent with a stern warning.
Complaint Allegation and Statutory Provision Invoked
- Allegation: Respondent engaged in the private practice of his profession while in government service by appearing as counsel for a private party without authorization.
- Statute invoked: Section 7(b)(2) of Republic Act No. 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees), which, as quoted in the source, provides that public officials and employees shall not “Engage in the private practice of their profession unless authorized by the Constitution or law, Provided, that such practice will not conflict or tend to conflict with their official functions.”
- Related provisions considered: Section 35, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court (SEC. 35. Certain attorneys not to practice) and Section 12, Rule XVIII of the Revised Civil Service Rules (No officer or employee shall engage directly in any private business, vocation, or profession without a written permission from the head of the Department).
Respondent’s Admissions and Defenses
- Admission: Respondent admitted he appeared in Criminal Case No. 84885 without prior authorization from the head of the Department.
- Primary factual defenses and explanations:
- Familial relationship: He and Narcisa Ladaga are “close blood cousins” and she had supported and guided him from childhood; she is described as like a “big sister” and a mentor.
- Humanitarian motive: He appeared pro bono because his cousin lacked funds to hire counsel, and he felt it was his duty to assist the only lawyer in the family.
- No personal or official advantage: He maintained he did not take advantage of his position nor receive any fee (client Narcisa Ladaga declared respondent did not receive any centavo).
- Lack of prejudice: Respondent reasoned h