FIRSTDIVISION

WILFREDOM.CATU,A.C.No.5738
Complainant,
Present:

PUNO,C.J.,Chairperson,
SANDOVALGUTIERREZ,
versusCORONA,
AZCUNAand
LEONARDODECASTRO,JJ.

ATTY.VICENTEG.RELLOSA,
Respondent.Promulgated:
February19,2008

xx

RESOLUTION
CORONA,J.:

[1]
ComplainantWilfredoM.Catuisacoownerofalot andthebuildingerectedthereonlocatedat
959 San Andres Street, Malate, Manila. His mother and brother, Regina Catu and Antonio Catu,
[2]
[3]
contestedthepossessionofElizabethC.DiazCatu andAntonioPastor ofoneoftheunitsinthe
building.Thelatterignoreddemandsforthemtovacatethepremises.Thus,acomplaintwasinitiated
[4]
againstthemintheLupongTagapamayapaofBarangay723,Zone79ofthe5thDistrictofManila
wherethepartiesreside.

Respondent, as punong barangay of Barangay 723, summoned the parties to conciliation

[5]
meetings. When the parties failed to arrive at an amicable settlement, respondent issued a
certificationforthefilingoftheappropriateactionincourt.

Thereafter, Regina and Antonio filed a complaint for ejectment against Elizabeth and Pastor in the
MetropolitanTrialCourtofManila,Branch11.Respondententeredhisappearanceascounselforthe

MetropolitanTrialCourtofManila,Branch11.Respondententeredhisappearanceascounselforthe
[6]
defendants in that case. Because of this, complainant filed the instant administrative complaint,
claimingthatrespondentcommittedanactofimproprietyasalawyerandasapublicofficerwhenhe
stoodascounselforthedefendantsdespitethefactthathepresidedovertheconciliationproceedings
betweenthelitigantsaspunongbarangay.

Inhisdefense,respondentclaimedthatoneofhisdutiesaspunongbarangaywastohearcomplaints
referred to the barangays Lupong Tagapamayapa. As such, he heard the complaint of Regina and
Antonio against Elizabeth and Pastor. As head of the Lupon, he performed his task with utmost
objectivity,withoutbiasorpartialitytowardsanyoftheparties.Theparties,however,werenotable
to amicably settle their dispute and Regina and Antonio filed the ejectment case. It was then that
Elizabethsoughthislegalassistance.Heaccededtoherrequest.Hehandledhercaseforfreebecause
shewasfinanciallydistressedandhewantedtopreventthecommissionofapatentinjusticeagainst
her.

ThecomplaintwasreferredtotheIntegratedBarofthePhilippines(IBP)forinvestigation,reportand
recommendation.Astherewasnofactualissuetothreshout,theIBPsCommissiononBarDiscipline
(CBD)requiredthepartiestosubmittheirrespectivepositionpapers.Afterevaluatingthecontentions
[7]
oftheparties,theIBPCBDfoundsufficientgroundtodisciplinerespondent.

According to the IBPCBD, respondent admitted that, aspunong barangay, he presided over
the conciliation proceedings and heard the complaint of Regina and Antonio against Elizabeth and
Pastor.Subsequently,however,herepresentedElizabethandPastorintheejectmentcasefiledagainst
thembyReginaandAntonio.Inthecoursethereof,hepreparedandsignedpleadingsincludingthe
answer with counterclaim, pretrial brief, position paper and notice of appeal. By so doing,
respondentviolatedRule6.03oftheCodeofProfessionalResponsibility:

Rule 6.03 A lawyer shall not, after leaving government service, accept engagement or
employmentinconnectionwithanymatterinwhichheintervenedwhileinsaidservice.

Furthermore,asanelectiveofficial,respondentcontravenedtheprohibitionunderSection7(b)

[8]
(2)ofRA6713:

SEC.7.ProhibitedActsandTransactions.Inadditiontoactsandomissionsofpublicofficials
and employees now prescribed in the Constitution and existing laws, the following shall constitute
prohibited acts and transactions of any public official ands employee and are hereby declared to be
unlawful:

xxxxxxxxx

(b) Outside employment and other activities related thereto. Public officials and employees during
theirincumbencyshallnot:

xxxxxxxxx
(2)EngageintheprivatepracticeofprofessionunlessauthorizedbytheConstitutionor
law,providedthatsuchpracticewillnotconflictortendtoconflictwiththeirofficialfunctions
xxx(emphasissupplied)

According to the IBPCBD, respondents violation of this prohibition constituted a breach of

Canon1oftheCodeofProfessionalResponsibility:

CANON1.ALAWYERSHALLUPHOLDTHECONSTITUTION,OBEYTHELAWSOFTHE
LAND,PROMOTERESPECTFORLAWANDLEGALPROCESSES.(emphasissupplied)

Fortheseinfractions,theIBPCBDrecommendedtherespondentssuspensionfromthepractice
oflawforonemonthwithasternwarningthatthecommissionofthesameorsimilaractwillbedealt
[9]
[10]
withmoreseverely. ThiswasadoptedandapprovedbytheIBPBoardofGovernors.

We modify the foregoing findings regarding the transgression of respondent as well as the
recommendationontheimposablepenalty.

RULE6.03OFTHECODE
OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY APPLIES ONLY TO
FORMERGOVERNMENTLAWYERS

Respondent cannot be found liable for violation of Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.Asworded,thatRuleappliesonlytoalawyerwhohasleftgovernmentserviceandin
connectionwithanymatterinwhichheintervenedwhileinsaidservice.InPCGGv.Sandiganbayan,
[11]
weruledthatRule6.03prohibitsformergovernmentlawyersfromacceptingengagementor

employmentinconnectionwithanymatterinwhich[they]hadintervenedwhileinsaidservice.

Respondentwasanincumbentpunongbarangayatthetimehecommittedtheactcomplained
of.Therefore,hewasnotcoveredbythatprovision.

SECTION 90 OF RA 7160, NOT SECTION 7(B)(2) OF RA 6713,

GOVERNS THE PRACTICE OF PROFESSION OF ELECTIVE
LOCALGOVERNMENTOFFICIALS

Section7(b)(2)ofRA6713prohibitspublicofficialsandemployees,duringtheirincumbency,
fromengagingintheprivatepracticeoftheirprofessionunlessauthorizedbytheConstitutionorlaw,
providedthatsuchpracticewillnotconflictortendtoconflictwiththeirofficialfunctions.Thisisthe
generallawwhichappliestoallpublicofficialsandemployees.
[12]
Forelectivelocalgovernmentofficials,Section90ofRA7160
governs:
SEC.90.PracticeofProfession.(a) All governors, city and municipal mayors are prohibited
from practicing their profession or engaging in any occupation other than the exercise of their
functionsaslocalchiefexecutives.
(b)Sanggunianmembersmaypracticetheirprofessions,engageinanyoccupation,orteachin
schoolsexceptduringsessionhours:Provided,Thatsanggunianmemberswhoaremembersof
theBarshallnot:
(1)Appearascounselbeforeanycourtinanycivilcasewhereinalocalgovernmentunit
oranyoffice,agency,orinstrumentalityofthegovernmentistheadverseparty
(2) Appear as counsel in any criminal case wherein an officer or employee of the
nationalorlocalgovernmentisaccusedofanoffensecommittedinrelationtohisoffice
(3) Collect any fee for their appearance in administrative proceedings involving the
localgovernmentunitofwhichheisanofficialand
(4)UsepropertyandpersonneloftheGovernmentexceptwhenthesanggunianmember
concernedisdefendingtheinterestoftheGovernment.
(c)Doctorsofmedicinemaypracticetheirprofessionevenduringofficialhoursofworkonly
on occasions of emergency: Provided, That the officials concerned do not derive monetary
compensationtherefrom.

This is a special provision that applies specifically to the practice of profession by elective
localofficials.Asaspeciallawwithadefinitescope(thatis,thepracticeofprofessionbyelective
localofficials),itconstitutesanexceptiontoSection7(b)(2)ofRA6713,thegenerallawonengaging
in the private practice of profession by public officials and employees. Lex specialibus derogat
[13]

[13]
generalibus.

UnderRA7160,electivelocalofficialsofprovinces,cities,municipalitiesandbarangaysare
the following: the governor, the vice governor and members of the sangguniang panlalawigan for
provincesthecitymayor,thecityvicemayorandthemembersofthesangguniangpanlungsod for
citiesthemunicipalmayor,themunicipalvicemayorandthemembersofthesangguniangbayanfor
municipalities and the punong barangay, the members of the sangguniang barangay and the
membersofthesangguniangkabataanforbarangays.

Oftheseelectivelocalofficials,governors,city mayors and municipal mayors are prohibited

from practicing their profession or engaging in any occupation other than the exercise of their
functionsaslocalchiefexecutives.Thisisbecausetheyarerequiredtorenderfulltimeservice.They
shouldthereforedevotealltheirtimeandattentiontotheperformanceoftheirofficialduties.

On the other hand, members of the sangguniang panlalawigan, sangguniang panlungsod or

sangguniang bayan may practice their professions, engage in any occupation, or teach in schools
except during session hours. In other words, they may practice their professions, engage in any
occupation, or teach in schools outside their session hours. Unlike governors, city mayors and
municipal mayors, members of the sangguniang panlalawigan, sangguniang panlungsod or
[14]
sangguniangbayanarerequiredtoholdregularsessionsonlyatleastonceaweek.
Sincethelaw
itself grants them the authority to practice their professions, engage in any occupation or teach in
schools outside session hours, there is no longer any need for them to secure prior permission or
authorizationfromanyotherpersonorofficeforanyofthesepurposes.

While,asalreadydiscussed,certainlocalelectiveofficials(likegovernors,mayors,provincial
board members and councilors) are expressly subjected to a total or partial proscription to practice
theirprofessionorengageinanyoccupation,nosuchinterdictionismadeonthepunong barangay
[15]
andthemembersofthesangguniangbarangay.Expressiouniusestexclusioalterius.
Sincethey
are excluded from any prohibition, the presumption is that they are allowed to practice their
profession. And this stands to reason because they are not mandated to serve full time. In fact, the

[16]
sangguniangbarangayissupposedtoholdregularsessionsonlytwiceamonth.

Accordingly, as punong barangay, respondent was not forbidden to practice his profession.
However, he should have procured prior permission or authorization from the head of his
Department,asrequiredbycivilserviceregulations.

A LAWYER IN GOVERNMENT SERVICE WHO IS NOT

PROHIBITED TO PRACTICE LAW MUST SECURE PRIOR
AUTHORITYFROMTHEHEADOFHISDEPARTMENT

A civil service officer or employee whose responsibilities do not require his time to be fully at the
disposalofthegovernmentcanengageintheprivatepracticeoflawonlywiththewrittenpermission
[17]
of the head of the department concerned.
Section 12, Rule XVIII of the Revised Civil Service
Rulesprovides:

Sec.12.Noofficeroremployeeshallengagedirectlyinanyprivatebusiness,vocation,or
profession or be connected with any commercial, credit, agricultural, or industrial undertaking
without a written permission from the head of the Department: Provided, That this prohibition
willbeabsoluteinthecaseofthoseofficersandemployeeswhosedutiesandresponsibilitiesrequire
thattheirentiretimebeatthedisposaloftheGovernmentProvided,further,Thatifanemployeeis
grantedpermissiontoengageinoutsideactivities,timesodevotedoutsideofofficehoursshouldbe
fixed by the agency to the end that it will not impair in any way the efficiency of the officer or
employee:Andprovided,finally,thatnopermissionisnecessaryinthecaseofinvestments,madeby
anofficeroremployee,whichdonotinvolverealorapparentconflictbetweenhisprivateinterestsand
publicduties,orinanywayinfluencehiminthedischargeofhisduties,andheshallnottakepartin
themanagementoftheenterpriseorbecomeanofficeroftheboardofdirectors.(emphasissupplied)

Aspunongbarangay,respondentshouldhavethereforeobtainedthepriorwrittenpermission
oftheSecretaryofInteriorandLocalGovernmentbeforeheenteredhisappearanceascounselfor
ElizabethandPastor.Thishefailedtodo.

ThefailureofrespondenttocomplywithSection12,RuleXVIIIoftheRevisedCivilServiceRules
constitutesaviolationofhisoathasalawyer:toobeythelaws.Lawyersareservantsofthelaw,vires
legis,menofthelaw.Theirparamountdutytosocietyistoobeythelawandpromoterespectforit.
Tounderscoretheprimacyandimportanceofthisduty,itisenshrinedasthefirstcanonoftheCode
ofProfessionalResponsibility.


Inactingascounselforapartywithoutfirstsecuringtherequiredwrittenpermission,respondentnot
only engaged in the unauthorized practice of law but also violated civil service rules which is a
breachofRule1.01oftheCodeofProfessionalResponsibility:
Rule1.01Alawyershallnotengageinunlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
(emphasissupplied)

Fornotlivinguptohisoathaswellasfornotcomplyingwiththeexactingethicalstandardsofthe
legal profession, respondent failed to comply with Canon 7 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility:

CANON 7. A LAWYER SHALL AT ALL TIMES UPHOLD THE INTEGRITY AND THE
DIGNITY OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION AND SUPPORT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE
INTEGRATEDBAR.(emphasissupplied)

Indeed,alawyerwhodisobeysthelawdisrespectsit.Insodoing,hedisregardslegalethicsand
disgracesthedignityofthelegalprofession.

Publicconfidenceinthelawandinlawyersmaybeerodedbytheirresponsibleandimproper
[18]
conductofamemberofthebar.
Everylawyershouldactandcomporthimselfinamannerthat
[19]
promotespublicconfidenceintheintegrityofthelegalprofession.

Amemberofthebarmaybedisbarredorsuspendedfromhisofficeasanattorneyforviolation
[20]
ofthelawyersoath
and/orforbreachoftheethicsofthelegalprofessionasembodiedintheCode
ofProfessionalResponsibility.

WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Vicente G. Rellosa is hereby found GUILTY of professional

misconduct for violating his oath as a lawyer and Canons 1 and 7 and Rule 1.01 of the Code of
ProfessionalResponsibility.HeisthereforeSUSPENDEDfromthepracticeoflawforaperiodof
sixmonthseffectivefromhisreceiptofthisresolution.HeissternlyWARNEDthatanyrepetitionof
similaractsshallbedealtwithmoreseverely.

Respondentisstronglyadvisedtolookupandtaketoheartthemeaningoftheworddelicadeza.

Respondentisstronglyadvisedtolookupandtaketoheartthemeaningoftheworddelicadeza.

LetacopyofthisresolutionbefurnishedtheOfficeoftheBarConfidantandenteredintotherecords
ofrespondentAtty.VicenteG.Rellosa.TheOfficeoftheCourtAdministratorshallfurnishcopiesto
allthecourtsofthelandfortheirinformationandguidance.

SOORDERED.

RENATOC.CORONA
AssociateJustice

WECONCUR:

REYNATOS.PUNO
ChiefJustice
Chairperson

ANGELINASANDOVALGUTIERREZADOLFOS.AZCUNA
AssociateJusticeAssociateJustice

TERESITAJ.LEONARDODECASTRO
AssociateJustice
[1]
Particularlydescribedaslotno.19,blockno.3,Pas14849.
[2]
Complainantssisterinlaw.
[3]
Hereafter,ElizabethandPastor.
[4]
Hereafter,Barangay723.
[5]
ThesewerescheduledonMarch15,2001,March26,2001andApril3,2001.
[6]
DatedJuly5,2002.Rollo,pp.223.
[7]
ReportandRecommendationdatedOctober15,2004ofCommissionerDoroteoB.AguilaoftheIBPCBD.Id.,pp.103106.
[8]
TheCodeofConductandEthicalStandardsforPublicOfficialsandEmployees.
[9]
Supranote7.
[10]
CBDResolutionNo.XVI2004476datedNovember4,2004.Rollo,p.102.
[11]
G.R.Nos.15180912,12April2005,455SCRA526.(emphasisintheoriginal)
[12]
TheLocalGovernmentCodeof1992.

[12]
TheLocalGovernmentCodeof1992.
[13]
Thisruleofstatutoryconstructionmeansthataspeciallawrepealsagenerallawonthesamematter.
[14]
Section52(a),RA7160.Theymayalsoholdspecialsessionsuponthecallofthelocalchiefexecutiveoramajorityofthemembersof
thesanggunianwhenpublicinterestsodemands.(Section52[b],id.)
[15]
Thisruleofstatutoryconstructionmeansthattheexpressmentionofonethingexcludesotherthingsnotmentioned.
[16]
Id.
[17]
SeeRamosv.Rada,A.M.No.P202,22July1975,65SCRA179Zetav.Malinao,A.M.No.P220,20December1978,87SCRA303.
[18]
Ducatv.Villalon,392Phil.394(2000).
[19]
Id.
[20]
SeeSection27,Rule138,RULESOFCOURT.