Samonte v.

Gatdula
A.C. No. P-99-1292 – February 26, 1999
THIRD DIVISION

SUMMARY
Samonte filed a complaint against Atty. Gatdula, a Clerk of the Court for engaging in the private practice of law. In
connection with a TRO and writ of preliminary injunction in her sister’s ejectment suit with the MTC, she alleges that
Gatdula provided her with his calling card and told her to switch counsels and engage his law firm in order to obtain a
favorable outcome. Gatdula alleges that she was the one who approached him with the calling card, asked to engage
his services, and threatened to file an admin case if the writ of preliminary injunction was not recalled. Despite
multiple notices for the hearing of the case, Samonte never showed up and substantiated her claims. The Court held
that Atty. Gatdula is guilty of a minor infraction for engaging in the private practice of law. Even if he is not
connected with the firm, the inclusion/retention of his name in the card (which he does not deny) is an act of
solicitation.

GONZAGA-REYES, J:
FACTS OF THE CASE
● Samonte (Complainant) filed a complaint with the RTC Branch 220, QC charging Atty. Gatdula with grave
misconduct for engaging in the private practice of law which is in conflict with his official functions as the
Branch Clerk of the Court.
o Samonte is the authorized rep. of her sister, the plaintiff, in an ejectment case filed with Branch 37,
MTC QC where a decision was rendered in favor of plaintiff who subsequently filed a motion for
execution.
o A TRO signed by Judge Castillo of Branch 220, RTC QC where Atty. Gatdula works, enjoined the
execution of the decision of the MTC.
o She alleges that the TRO was hasty and irregular as she was never notified of the application for
preliminary injunction.
o Samonte alleges that when she went to Branch 220 to inquire about the TRO, Atty. Gatdula tried to
convince her to change her lawyer, retain his law office, and proceeded to give her his calling card
with the name "Baligod, Gatdula, Tacardon, Dimailig and Celera Law Offices'' with address at 220
Mariwasa Bldg., 717 Aurora Blvd., Cubao, Quezon City otherwise, she would not be able to eject the
defendant in the case.
● RTC Branch 220 issued an order granting the preliminary injunction despite MTC Branch 37 issuing an Order
directing the execution of the Decision.
● Atty. Gatdula, in his comment, claims that Samonte was “fuming mad” because of the court’s issuances of the
TRO and subsequent grant of the writ of preliminary injunction.
o Samonte then went to his office and informed him that she wanted to change counsel and that a friend
recommended the Law Firm "Baligod, Gatdula, Tacardon, Dimailig and Celera Law Offices'' and
showing a calling card asking if he could handle her case.
o He refused because he was not connected with the law firm though he was invited to join them.
o Samonte returned and told him that if he cannot convince the judge to recall the writ of prelim
injunction, she will file an AC against respondent and the judge.
o While the threat was repeated, Samonte’s Motion to Dissolve the Writ of Preliminary Injunction was
denied.
● The case was set for hearing 3 times (Sept 7/17/24 1997) but neither complainant nor her counsel showed up
despite due notice; the return of service of the Order setting the last hearing indicated that Samonte was still
abroad and she nor her counsel showed up for the case’s last hearing on Oct 22 1997 despite notice.
● Atty. Gatdula testified on his own behalf to affirm the statements in his Comment and submitted doc evidence
relating to the pleadings in the MTC and RTC Civil Cases to show the orders were not improperly issued.
 ● The investigating judge recommended that Atty. Gatdula be admonished and censured for a minor
infraction.
o Complainant failed to appear and cannot be established with certainty that he gave her his card and
convinced her to change lawyers.
o Complainant was duly notified of all proceedings leading to the issuance of the TRO and the writ as
per the records.
o Inclusion/retention of his name in the calling card gives the impression that he is connected with the
firm and may constitute an act of solicitation and private practice unlawful under RA 6713.

ISSUE/S & RATIO/S

(1) W/N Atty. Gatdula violated canon 3.03 for engaging in the private practice of law while holding public
office? - YES
● While the respondent vehemently denies the complainant's allegations that he gave her a calling card, he does
not deny that his name appears on the calling card.
● Respondent does not claim that the calling card was printed w/o his knowledge or consent.
● The inclusion/retention of his name in the professional card constitutes an act of solicitation which violates
Sec. 7 sub-par.(b)(2) of RA 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and
Employees)
● The conduct and behavior of every one connected with an office charged with the dispensation of justice,
should be circumscribed with the heavy burden of responsibility.
● His conduct, at all times must not only be characterized by propriety and decorum but above all else must be
above suspicion.

RULING

WHEREFORE, respondent Rolando R. Gatdula, Branch Clerk of Court, RTC, Branch 220, Quezon City is hereby
reprimanded for engaging in the private practice of law with the warning that a repetition of the same offense will be
dealt with more severely. He is further ordered to cause the exclusion of his name in the firm name of any office
engaged in the private practice of law.

SO ORDERED.

Romero, Vitug, Panganiban and Purisima, JJ., concur.