Legal Ethics – Sanctions for practice or appearance without authority and Public officials and practice of law

Cases
G.R. No. 176530               June 16, 2009 possessors in good faith, and that the action had records of the case is (sic) hereby remanded to the RTC for
prescribed. further proceedings.1avvphi1
SPOUSES CONSTANTE AGBULOS AND ZENAIDA
PADILLA AGBULOS, Petitioners,  On the day set for the presentation of the respondents’ SO ORDERED.8
vs. (plaintiffs’) evidence, petitioners filed a Motion to Dismiss,
NICASIO GUTIERREZ, JOSEFA GUTIERREZ and assailing the jurisdiction of the RTC over the subject matter
The CA concluded that the dispute between the parties was
ELENA G. GARCIA, Respondents. of the case. Petitioners contended that the Department of
purely civil, not agrarian, in nature. According to the CA, the
Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB), not the
allegations in the complaint revealed that the principal relief
RTC, had jurisdiction since the subject land was covered by
RESOLUTION sought was the nullification of the purported deed of sale
the CARP, and CLOAs had been awarded to tenants.
and reconveyance of the subject property. It also noted that
Respondents opposed the motion, arguing that the motion
there was no tenurial, leasehold, or any other agrarian
NACHURA, J.: had been filed beyond the period for filing an Answer, that
relations between the parties.
the RTC had jurisdiction over the case based on the
allegations in the complaint, and that the DARAB had no
This petition for review on certiorari seeks the review of the jurisdiction since the parties had no tenancy relationship. Thus, this petition, raising the following issues for the
Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) dated February 6,
resolution of this Court:
2007 in CA–G.R. CV No. 83994 which set aside the
dismissal of a complaint for declaration of nullity of contract, In an Order2 dated October 24, 2002, the RTC granted the
cancellation of title, reconveyance and damages. petitioners’ motion and dismissed the complaint for lack of 1. Whether or not the CA erred in not dismissing
jurisdiction. The RTC held that the DARAB had jurisdiction, the appeal despite the undisputed fact that Atty.
since the subject property was under the CARP, some Magbitang filed the notice of appeal without
The case stems from the following antecedents: portions of it were covered by registered CLOAs, and there respondents’ knowledge and consent;
was prima facie showing of tenancy. 3
On October 16, 1997, respondents, Dr. Nicasio G.
2. Whether or not the CA erred in giving due
Gutierrez, Josefa Gutierrez de Mendoza and Elena G. Respondents filed a motion for reconsideration. On course to the appeal despite the fact that Atty.
Garcia, through their counsel, Atty. Adriano B. Magbitang, November 13, 2003, the RTC denied the motion.4 Magbitang’s appellants’ brief failed to comply with
filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Gapan, Nueva
the mandatory requirements of Section 13, Rule
Ecija, a complaint against petitioners, spouses Constante
44 of the Rules of Court regarding the contents of
Agbulos and Zenaida Padilla Agbulos, for declaration of Atty. Magbitang filed a Notice of Appeal 5 with the RTC,
an appellants’ brief; and
nullity of contract, cancellation of title, reconveyance and which gave due course to the same.6 The records reveal
damages. The complaint alleged that respondents inherited that on December 15, 2003, respondent Elena G. Garcia
from their father, Maximo Gutierrez, an eight-hectare parcel wrote a letter to Judge Arturo M. Bernardo, Acting Judge of 3. Whether or not the CA erred in ruling that the
of land located in Callos, Penaranda, Nueva Ecija, covered RTC Gapan, Branch 87, stating that they were surprised to RTC (Regional Trial Court), not the DARAB
by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. NT-123790 in the receive a communication from the court informing them that (Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication
name of Maximo Gutierrez. Through fraud and deceit, their notice of appeal was ready for disposition. She also Board) or the PARAD/RARAD
petitioners succeeded in making it appear that Maximo stated in the letter that there was no formal agreement with (Provincial/Regional Agrarian Provincial Agrarian
Gutierrez executed a Deed of Sale on July 21, 1978 when, Atty. Magbitang as to whether they would pursue an appeal Reform Adjudicator), has jurisdiction over
in truth, he died on April 25, 1977. As a result, TCT No. NT- with the CA, because one of the plaintiffs was still in respondents’ complaint.9
123790 was cancelled and a new one, TCT No. NT- America.7
188664, was issued in the name of petitioners. Based on
The CA did not err in giving due course to the appeal, on
the notation at the back of the certificate of title, portions of
On February 6, 2007, the CA rendered a Decision in favor both procedural and substantive grounds.
the property were brought under the Comprehensive
of respondents. The dispositive portion of the decision
Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) and awarded to Lorna
reads:
Padilla, Elenita Nuega and Suzette Nuega who were issued A lawyer who represents a client before the trial court is
Certificates of Land Ownership Award (CLOAs). presumed to represent such client before the appellate
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is hereby court. Section 22 of Rule 138 creates this presumption,
GRANTED and the assailed Order dated October 24, 2002 thus:
In their defense, petitioners averred that respondents were
issued by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Gapan, Nueva
not the real parties in interest, that the Deed of Sale was
Ecija, Branch 87, is REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
regularly executed before a notary public, that they were
Accordingly, the subject complaint is reinstated and the

Averell B. Abrasaldo – I-Estrellado

Legal Ethics – Sanctions for practice or appearance without authority and Public officials and practice of law
Cases
SEC. 22. Attorney who appears in lower court presumed to Basic is the rule that jurisdiction is determined by the WILFREDO M. CATU, complainant, 
represent client on appeal. — An attorney who appears de allegations in the complaint.15 Respondents’ complaint did vs.
parte in a case before a lower court shall be presumed to not contain any allegation that would, even in the slightest, ATTY. VICENTE G. RELLOSA, respondent.
continue representing his client on appeal, unless he files a imply that there was a tenancy relation between them and
formal petition withdrawing his appearance in the appellate the petitioners. We are in full agreement with the following
RESOLUTION
court. findings of the CA on this point:

CORONA, J.:
A reading of respondent Elena Garcia’s letter to the RTC x x x A reading of the material averments of the complaint
would show that she did not actually withdraw Atty. reveals that the principal relief sought by plaintiffs-
Magbitang’s authority to represent respondents in the case. appellants is for the nullification of the supposedly forged Complainant Wilfredo M. Catu is a co-owner of a lot 1 and
The letter merely stated that there was, as yet, no deed of sale which resulted in the issuance of TCT No. NT- the building erected thereon located at 959 San Andres
agreement that they would pursue an appeal.  188664 covering their 8-hectare property as well as its Street, Malate, Manila. His mother and brother, Regina
reconveyance, and not for the cancellation of CLOAs as Catu and Antonio Catu, contested the possession of
claimed by defendants-appellees. Moreover, the parties Elizabeth C. Diaz-Catu2 and Antonio Pastor 3 of one of the
In any case, an unauthorized appearance of an attorney
herein have no tenurial, leasehold, or any other agrarian units in the building. The latter ignored demands for them to
may be ratified by the client either expressly or impliedly.
relations whatsoever that could have brought this vacate the premises. Thus, a complaint was initiated
Ratification retroacts to the date of the lawyer’s first
controversy under the ambit of the agrarian reform laws. against them in the Lupong Tagapamayapa of Barangay
appearance and validates the action taken by him.10 Implied
Neither were the CLOA awardees impleaded as parties in 723, Zone 79 of the 5th District of Manila4 where the parties
ratification may take various forms, such as by silence or
this case nor the latter’s entitlement thereto questioned. reside.
acquiescence, or by acceptance and retention of benefits
Hence, contrary to the findings of the RTC, the herein
flowing therefrom.11 Respondents’ silence or lack of
dispute is purely civil and not agrarian in nature falling
remonstration when the case was finally elevated to the CA Respondent, as punong barangay of Barangay 723,
within the exclusive jurisdiction of the trial courts.
means that they have acquiesced to the filing of the appeal. summoned the parties to conciliation meetings.5 When the
parties failed to arrive at an amicable settlement,
On the alleged deficiency of the appellants’ brief filed respondent issued a certification for the filing of the
Moreover, a lawyer is mandated to "serve his client with
before the CA by the respondents, suffice it to state that the appropriate action in court.
competence and diligence."12 Consequently, a lawyer is
requirements in Section 13, Rule 44 are intended to aid the
entreated not to neglect a legal matter entrusted to him;
appellate court in arriving at a just and proper resolution of
otherwise, his negligence in connection therewith shall Thereafter, Regina and Antonio filed a complaint for
the case. Obviously, the CA found the appellants’ brief
render him liable.13 In light of such mandate, Atty. ejectment against Elizabeth and Pastor in the Metropolitan
sufficient in form and substance as the appellate court was
Magbitang’s act of filing the notice of appeal without waiting Trial Court of Manila, Branch 11. Respondent entered his
able to arrive at a just decision. We have repeatedly held
for her clients to direct him to do so was understandable, if appearance as counsel for the defendants in that case.
that technical and procedural rules are intended to help
not commendable.  Because of this, complainant filed the instant administrative
secure, not to suppress, substantial justice. A deviation
complaint,6 claiming that respondent committed an act of
from a rigid enforcement of the rules may, thus, be allowed
impropriety as a lawyer and as a public officer when he
The CA was likewise correct in holding that the case is in order to attain this prime objective for, after all, the
stood as counsel for the defendants despite the fact that he
within the jurisdiction of the RTC, not the DARAB. dispensation of justice is the core reason for the existence
presided over the conciliation proceedings between the
of courts.16
litigants as punong barangay.
For the DARAB to have jurisdiction over a case, there must
be a tenancy relationship between the parties. It is, WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is
In his defense, respondent claimed that one of his duties
therefore, essential to establish all the indispensable DENIED. The Court of Appeals’ Decision dated February 6,
as punong barangay was to hear complaints referred to the
elements of a tenancy relationship, to wit: (1) that the 2007 is AFFIRMED.
barangay's Lupong Tagapamayapa. As such, he heard the
parties are the landowner and the tenant or agricultural
complaint of Regina and Antonio against Elizabeth and
lessee; (2) that the subject matter of the relationship is an
SO ORDERED. Pastor. As head of the Lupon, he performed his task with
agricultural land; (3) that there is consent between the
utmost objectivity, without bias or partiality towards any of
parties to the relationship; (4) that the purpose of the
the parties. The parties, however, were not able to amicably
relationship is to bring about agricultural production; (5) that A.C. No. 5738             February 19, 2008
settle their dispute and Regina and Antonio filed the
there is personal cultivation on the part of the tenant or
ejectment case. It was then that Elizabeth sought his legal
agricultural lessee; and (6) that the harvest is shared
assistance. He acceded to her request. He handled her
between the landowner and the tenant or agricultural
case for free because she was financially distressed and he
lessee.14

Averell B. Abrasaldo – I-Estrellado

Legal Ethics – Sanctions for practice or appearance without authority and Public officials and practice of law
Cases
wanted to prevent the commission of a patent injustice xxx       xxx       xxx Section 90 of RA 7160, Not Section 7(b)(2) of RA 6713,
against her. Governs The Practice of Profession of Elective Local
Government Officials
(2) Engage in the private practice of
The complaint was referred to the Integrated Bar of the profession unless authorized by the
Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and Constitution or law, provided that Section 7(b)(2) of RA 6713 prohibits public officials and
recommendation. As there was no factual issue to thresh such practice will not conflict or tend to employees, during their incumbency, from engaging in the
out, the IBP's Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) required conflict with their official functions; xxx private practice of their profession "unless authorized by the
the parties to submit their respective position papers. After (emphasis supplied) Constitution or law, provided that such practice will not
evaluating the contentions of the parties, the IBP-CBD conflict or tend to conflict with their official functions." This is
found sufficient ground to discipline respondent.7 the general law which applies to all public officials and
According to the IBP-CBD, respondent's violation of this
employees.
prohibition constituted a breach of Canon 1 of the Code of
According to the IBP-CBD, respondent admitted that, Professional Responsibility:
as punong barangay, he presided over the conciliation For elective local government officials, Section 90 of RA
proceedings and heard the complaint of Regina and 716012 governs:
CANON 1. A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE
Antonio against Elizabeth and Pastor. Subsequently,
CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF THE
however, he represented Elizabeth and Pastor in the
LAND,PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW AND SEC. 90. Practice of Profession. - (a) All
ejectment case filed against them by Regina and Antonio.
LEGAL PROCESSES. (emphasis supplied) governors, city and municipal mayors are
In the course thereof, he prepared and signed pleadings
prohibited from practicing their profession or
including the answer with counterclaim, pre-trial brief,
engaging in any occupation other than the
position paper and notice of appeal. By so doing, For these infractions, the IBP-CBD recommended the
exercise of their functions as local chief
respondent violated Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional respondent's suspension from the practice of law for one
executives.
Responsibility: month with a stern warning that the commission of the
same or similar act will be dealt with more severely. 9 This
was adopted and approved by the IBP Board of (b) Sanggunian members may practice their
Rule 6.03 - A lawyer shall not, after leaving
Governors.10 professions, engage in any occupation, or teach
government service, accept engagement or
in schools except during session hours: Provided,
employment in connection with any matter in
That sanggunian members who are members of
which he intervened while in said service. We modify the foregoing findings regarding the
the Bar shall not:
transgression of respondent as well as the recommendation
on the imposable penalty.
Furthermore, as an elective official, respondent
(1) Appear as counsel before any court
contravened the prohibition under Section 7(b)(2) of RA
in any civil case wherein a local
6713:8 Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
government unit or any office, agency,
Applies Only to Former Government Lawyers
or instrumentality of the government is
SEC. 7. Prohibited Acts and Transactions. - In the adverse party;
addition to acts and omissions of public officials Respondent cannot be found liable for violation of Rule
and employees now prescribed in the 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. As worded,
(2) Appear as counsel in any criminal
Constitution and existing laws, the following shall that Rule applies only to a lawyer who has left government
case wherein an officer or employee of
constitute prohibited acts and transactions of any service and in connection "with any matter in which he
the national or local government is
public official ands employee and are hereby intervened while in said service." In PCGG v.
accused of an offense committed in
declared to be unlawful: Sandiganbayan,11 we ruled that Rule 6.03 prohibits former
relation to his office;
government lawyers from accepting "engagement or
employment in connection with any matter in which [they]
xxx       xxx       xxx
had intervened while in said service." (3) Collect any fee for their appearance
in administrative proceedings involving
(b) Outside employment and other activities the local government unit of which he
Respondent was an incumbent punong barangay at the
related thereto. - Public officials and employees is an official; and
time he committed the act complained of. Therefore, he
during their incumbency shall not:
was not covered by that provision.

Averell B. Abrasaldo – I-Estrellado

Legal Ethics – Sanctions for practice or appearance without authority and Public officials and practice of law
Cases
(4) Use property and personnel of the bayan are required to hold regular sessions only at least further, That if an employee is granted
Government except when once a week.14Since the law itself grants them the authority permission to engage in outside activities, time
the sanggunian member concerned is to practice their professions, engage in any occupation or so devoted outside of office hours should be fixed
defending the interest of the teach in schools outside session hours, there is no longer by the agency to the end that it will not impair in
Government. any need for them to secure prior permission or any way the efficiency of the officer or employee:
authorization from any other person or office for any of And provided, finally, that no permission is
these purposes. necessary in the case of investments, made by
(c) Doctors of medicine may practice their
an officer or employee, which do not involve real
profession even during official hours of work only
or apparent conflict between his private interests
on occasions of emergency: Provided, That the While, as already discussed, certain local elective officials
and public duties, or in any way influence him in
officials concerned do not derive monetary (like governors, mayors, provincial board members and
the discharge of his duties, and he shall not take
compensation therefrom. councilors) are expressly subjected to a total or partial
part in the management of the enterprise or
proscription to practice their profession or engage in any
become an officer of the board of directors.
occupation, no such interdiction is made on the punong
This is a special provision that applies specifically to the (emphasis supplied)
barangay and the members of the sangguniang
practice of profession by elective local officials. As a special
barangay. Expressio unius est exclusio alterius.15 Since
law with a definite scope (that is, the practice of profession
they are excluded from any prohibition, the presumption is As punong barangay, respondent should have therefore
by elective local officials), it constitutes an exception to
that they are allowed to practice their profession. And this obtained the prior written permission of the Secretary of
Section 7(b)(2) of RA 6713, the general law on engaging in
stands to reason because they are not mandated to serve Interior and Local Government before he entered his
the private practice of profession by public officials and
full time. In fact, the sangguniang barangay is supposed to appearance as counsel for Elizabeth and Pastor. This he
employees. Lex specialibus derogat generalibus.13
hold regular sessions only twice a month.16 failed to do.

Under RA 7160, elective local officials of provinces, cities,

Accordingly, as punong barangay, respondent was not The failure of respondent to comply with Section 12, Rule
municipalities and barangays are the following: the
forbidden to practice his profession. However, he should XVIII of the Revised Civil Service Rules constitutes a
governor, the vice governor and members of
have procured prior permission or authorization from the violation of his oath as a lawyer: to obey the laws. Lawyers
the sangguniang panlalawigan for provinces; the city
head of his Department, as required by civil service are servants of the law, vires legis, men of the law. Their
mayor, the city vice mayor and the members of
regulations. paramount duty to society is to obey the law and promote
the sangguniang panlungsod for cities; the municipal
respect for it. To underscore the primacy and importance of
mayor, the municipal vice mayor and the members of
this duty, it is enshrined as the first canon of the Code of
the sangguniang bayan for municipalities and the punong A Lawyer In Government Service Who Is Not Prohibited
Professional Responsibility.
barangay, the members of the sangguniang barangay and To Practice Law Must Secure Prior Authority From The
the members of the sangguniang kabataan for barangays. Head Of His Department
In acting as counsel for a party without first securing the
required written permission, respondent not only engaged
Of these elective local officials, governors, city mayors and A civil service officer or employee whose responsibilities do
in the unauthorized practice of law but also violated civil
municipal mayors are prohibited from practicing their not require his time to be fully at the disposal of the
service rules which is a breach of Rule 1.01 of the Code of
profession or engaging in any occupation other than the government can engage in the private practice of law only
Professional Responsibility:
exercise of their functions as local chief executives. This is with the written permission of the head of the department
because they are required to render full time service. They concerned.17 Section 12, Rule XVIII of the Revised Civil
should therefore devote all their time and attention to the Service Rules provides: Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in
performance of their official duties. unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
deceitful conduct. (emphasis supplied)
Sec. 12. No officer or employee shall engage
On the other hand, members of the sangguniang directly in any private business, vocation,
panlalawigan, sangguniang panlungsod or sangguniang or profession or be connected with any For not living up to his oath as well as for not complying
bayanmay practice their professions, engage in any commercial, credit, agricultural, or industrial with the exacting ethical standards of the legal profession,
occupation, or teach in schools except during session undertaking without a written permission from respondent failed to comply with Canon 7 of the Code of
hours. In other words, they may practice their professions, the head of the Department: Provided, That this Professional Responsibility:
engage in any occupation, or teach in schools outside their prohibition will be absolute in the case of those
session hours. Unlike governors, city mayors and municipal officers and employees whose duties and
CANON 7. A LAWYER SHALL AT ALL TIMES
mayors, members of the sangguniang responsibilities require that their entire time be at
UPHOLD THE INTEGRITY AND THE DIGNITY
panlalawigan, sangguniang panlungsod or sangguniang the disposal of the Government; Provided,

Averell B. Abrasaldo – I-Estrellado

Legal Ethics – Sanctions for practice or appearance without authority and Public officials and practice of law
Cases
OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION AND SUPPORT
THE ACTIVITIES OF THE INTEGRATED BAR.
(emphasis supplied)

Indeed, a lawyer who disobeys the law disrespects it. In so

doing, he disregards legal ethics and disgraces the dignity
of the legal profession.

Public confidence in the law and in lawyers may be eroded

by the irresponsible and improper conduct of a member of
the bar.18 Every lawyer should act and comport himself in a
manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity of
the legal profession.19

A member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended from

his office as an attorney for violation of the lawyer's
oath20 and/or for breach of the ethics of the legal profession
as embodied in the Code of Professional Responsibility.

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 Professional Responsibility. He is
therefore SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a
period of six months effective from his receipt of this
resolution. He is sternly WARNED that any repetition of
similar acts shall be dealt with more severely.

Respondent is strongly advised to look up and take to heart

the meaning of the word delicadeza.

Averell B. Abrasaldo – I-Estrellado