Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Catu Vs Rellosa

    Uploaded by

    Phie Cueto
    1K views2 pages
    1. The petitioner filed a complaint against tenants occupying a building he owned. The respondent, who was the punong barangay, presided over conciliation proceedings but later became the counsel for the tenants in court. 2. The respondent claimed he performed his duties as punong barangay without bias and took the case pro bono. However, the IBP found he violated ethical rules by switching sides. 3. The Supreme Court ruled the respondent did not violate the cited rules but did fail to obtain required permission before practicing law, constituting a breach of his oath and ethical duties. He was found to have failed in upholding the integrity and dignity of the legal profession.

    Original Description:

    pubcor cases

    Original Title

    Catu vs Rellosa

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    1. The petitioner filed a complaint against tenants occupying a building he owned. The respondent, who was the punong barangay, presided over conciliation proceedings but later became the counsel for the tenants in court. 2. The respondent claimed he performed his duties as punong barangay without bias and took the case pro bono. However, the IBP found he violated ethical rules by switching sides. 3. The Supreme Court ruled the respondent did not violate the cited rules but did fail to obtain required permission before practicing law, constituting a breach of his oath and ethical duties. He was found to have failed in upholding the integrity and dignity of the legal profession.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    1K views2 pages

    Catu Vs Rellosa

    Uploaded by

    Phie Cueto
    1. The petitioner filed a complaint against tenants occupying a building he owned. The respondent, who was the punong barangay, presided over conciliation proceedings but later became the counsel for the tenants in court. 2. The respondent claimed he performed his duties as punong barangay without bias and took the case pro bono. However, the IBP found he violated ethical rules by switching sides. 3. The Supreme Court ruled the respondent did not violate the cited rules but did fail to obtain required permission before practicing law, constituting a breach of his oath and ethical duties. He was found to have failed in upholding the integrity and dignity of the legal profession.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    WILFREDO M. CATU VS. ATTY. VICENTE G.

    RELLOSA
    A.C. No. 5738 February 19, 2008
    CORONA, J.:

    FACTS:
    Petitioner initiated a complaint against Elizabeth Catu and Antonio Pastor who were occupying
    one of the units in a building in Malate which was owned by the former. The said complaint was
    filed in the Lupong Tagapamayapa of Barangay 723, Zone 79 of the 5thDistrict of Manila where
    respondent was the punong barangay. The parties, having been summoned for conciliation
    proceedings and failing to arrive at an amicable settlement, were issued by the respondent a
    certification for the filing of the appropriate action in court. Petitioner, thus, filed a complaint for
    ejectment against Elizabeth and Pastor in the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila where respondent
    entered his appearance as counsel for the defendants. Because of this, petitioner filed the instant
    administrative complaint against the respondent on the ground that he committed an act of
    impropriety as a lawyer and as a public officer when he stood as counsel for the defendants
    despite the fact that he presided over the conciliation proceedings between the litigants as punong
    barangay. In his defense, respondent claimed that as punong barangay, he performed his task
    without bias and that he acceded to Elizabeth’s request to handle the case for free as she was
    financially distressed. The complaint was then referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
    (IBP) where after evaluation, they found sufficient ground to discipline respondent. According to
    them, respondent violated Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and, as an elective
    official, the prohibition under Section 7(b) (2) of RA 6713. Consequently, for the violation of the
    latter prohibition, respondent committed a breach of Canon 1. Consequently, for the violation of
    the latter prohibition, respondent was then recommended suspension from the practice of law for
    one month with a stern warning that the commission of the same or similar act will be dealt with
    more severely.

    ISSUE:
    Whether or not the foregoing findings regarding the transgression of respondent as well as the
    recommendation on the imposable penalty of the respondent were proper.

    RULING:
    No. First, respondent cannot be found liable for violation of Rule 6.03 the Code of Professional
    Responsibility as this applies only to a lawyer who has left government service and in connection
    to former government lawyers who are prohibited from accepting employment in connection
    with any matter in which [they] had intervened while in their service. In the case at bar, respondent
    was an incumbent punong barangay. Apparently, he does not fall within the purview of the said
    provision.
    Second, it is not Section 90 of RA 7160 but Section 7(b) (2) of RA 6713 which governs the practice
    of profession of elective local government officials. While RA 6713 generally applies to all public
    officials and employees, RA 7160, being a special law, constitutes an exception to RA 6713
    .Moreover, while under RA 7160,certain local elective officials (like governors,
    mayors, provincial board members and councilors) are expressly subjected to a total
    or partial proscription to practice their profession or engage in any occupation, no such
    interdiction is made on the punong barangay and the members of the sangguniang barangay.
    Expressio unius est exclusio alterius since they are excluded from any prohibition, the
    presumption is that they are allowed to practice their profession. Respondent, therefore, is not
    forbidden to practice his profession.
    Third, notwithstanding all of these, respondent still should have procured a prior permission or
    authorization from the head of his Department, as required by civil service regulations. The failure
    of respondent to comply with Section 12, Rule XVIII of the Revised Civil Service Rules constitutes
    a violation of his oath as a lawyer: to obey the laws. In acting as counsel for a party without first
    securing the required written permission, respondent not only engaged in the unauthorized
    practice of law but also violated a civil service rules which is a breach of Rule 1.01 of the Code of
    Professional Responsibility:
     Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
    deceitful conduct.

    For not living up to his oath as well as for not complying with the exacting ethical standards of the
    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
    INTEGRATED BAR.
    A lawyer who disobeys the law disrespects it. In so doing, he disregards legal ethics and disgraces
    the dignity of the legal profession. Every lawyer should act and comport himself in a manner that
    promotes public confidence in the integrity of the legal profession. A member of the bar may be
    disbarred or suspended from his office as an attorney for violation of the lawyer's oath and/or for
    breach of the ethics of the legal profession as embodied in the Code of Professional Responsibility

    You might also like