Monares vs. Muñoz

9/4/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 815

A.C. No. 5582. January 24, 2017.*

ARTHUR O. MONARES, complainant, vs. ATTY. LEVI P.
MUÑOZ, respondent.

A.C. No. 5604. January 24, 2017.*

ALBAY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC., complainant,
vs. ATTY. LEVI P. MUÑOZ, respondent.

A.C. No. 5652. January 24, 2017.*

BENJILIEH M. CONSTANTE,1 complainant, vs. ATTY.
LEVI P. MUÑOZ, respondent.
Attorneys; Illegal Practice of Law; The sheer volume of cases

handled by Muñoz clearly indicates that government time was
necessarily utilized in pursuit of his private practice, in clear
violation of the Department of the Interior and Local Government
(DILG) authorization and Rule 6.02 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility (CPR).—Muñoz’s DILG authorization prohibited
him from utilizing government time for his private practice. As
correctly observed by Commissioner Aguila, Rule XVII of the
Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order No. 292
and Other Pertinent Civil Service Laws (Omnibus Rules),
requires government officers and employees of all departments
and agencies, except those covered by special laws, to render not
less than eight (8) hours of work a day for five (5) days a week, or
a total of forty (40) hours a week. The number of required weekly
working hours may not be reduced, even in cases where the
department or agency adopts a flexible work schedule. Notably,
Muñoz did not deny Monares’ allegation that he made at least
eighty-six (86) court appearances in connection with at least
thirty (30) cases from April 11, 1996 to August 1, 2001. He merely
alleged that his private practice did not prejudice the functions of
his office. Court appearances are necessarily made within regular
gov-
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017454bee4adc9e50f3b003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/15
_______________
* EN BANC.
1 Also referred to as “Benjilieh M. Constante-Reyes” elsewhere in the
records.

238
238 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Monares vs. Muñoz
ernment working hours, from 8:00 in the morning to 12:00

noon, and 1:00 to 5:00 in the afternoon. Additional time is
likewise required to study each case, draft pleadings and prepare
for trial. The sheer volume of cases handled by Muñoz clearly
indicates that government time was necessarily utilized in
pursuit of his private practice, in clear violation of the DILG
authorization and Rule 6.02 of the CPR.
Same; Practice of Law; The power to grant authority to engage
in the practice of one’s profession to officers and employees in the
public service lies with the head of the department, in accordance
with Section 12, Rule XVIII of the Revised Civil Service Rules.—
Memorandum No. 17 dated September 4, 1986 (Memorandum 17),
which Muñoz himself cites in his Joint Petition, is clear and
leaves no room for interpretation. The power to grant authority to
engage in the practice of one’s profession to officers and employees
in the public service lies with the head of the department, in
accordance with Section 12, Rule XVIII of the Revised Civil
Service Rules which provides, in part: Sec. 12. No officer or
employee shall engage directly in any private business, vocation,
or profession or be connected with any commercial, credit,
agricultural, or industrial undertaking without a written
permission from the head of Department: Provided, That
this prohibition will be absolute in the case of those officers and
employees whose duties and responsibilities require that their
entire time be at the disposal of the Government: Provided,
further, That if an employee is granted permission to engage in
outside activities, the time so devoted outside of office hours
should be fixed by the chief of the agency to the end that it will
not impair in any way the efficiency of the officer or employee
x x x. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied) Memorandum 17
was issued more than nine (9) years prior to Muñoz’s appointment
as Provincial Legal Officer, hence, he cannot feign ignorance

thereof. As a local public official, it was incumbent upon Muñoz to
secure the proper authority from the Secretary of the DILG not
only for his first term, but also his second and third. His failure to
do so rendered him liable for unauthorized practice of his
profession and violation of Rule 1.01 of the CPR.
Same; Conflict of Interests; By representing conflicting
interests without the permission of all parties involved, Muñoz
violated Rules 15.01 and 15.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility (CPR).—As Muñoz himself detailed in his Joint
Petition, he acted as counsel for ALECO under the management
of the old BOD in the following

239
VOL. 815, JANUARY 24, 2017 239

Monares vs. Muñoz
cases: A. Civil Case No. 10007 — ALECO (Petitioner) v.

Eleuterio Adonay, NEA Project Supervisor and his team John
Catral et. al., a case filed by Oliver O. Olaybal and his group.
For: Injunction, Accounting with Prayer for Writs of Preliminary
Injunction and/or Temporary Restraining Order, seeking to stop
the election of the new set of member (sic) of the Board of
Directors x x x. B. Civil Case [N]o. 10066 entitled ALBAY
ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC. as Petitioner, also filed by
Oliver O. Olaybal, a case for Prohibition, Mandamus and
Receivership, with Preliminary Prohibition and Mandatory
Injunction and/or Temporary Restraining and Mandatory Orders.
Among others, this Petition was filed to stop the second
scheduled election of the ALECO Board of Directors
scheduled for February 23, and 24, 2002. (Underscoring
omitted; additional emphasis supplied) Muñoz thereafter served
as retained counsel of ALECO under the direction of the NEA
management team. Muñoz could have easily anticipated that his
advice would be sought with respect to the prosecution of the
members of the old BOD, considering that the latter was
deactivated due to alleged mismanagement. The conflict of
interest between Olaybal’s board on one hand, and NEA and its
management team on the other, is apparent. By representing
conflicting interests without the permission of all parties
involved, Muñoz violated Rules 15.01 and 15.03 of the CPR.
ADMINISTRATIVE CASES in the Supreme Court. Gross

Misconduct and Violation of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
CAGUIOA, J.:

For resolution is the Joint Petition for Review with
Prayer for Absolution and/or Clemency2 (Joint Petition)
dated May 14, 2009 filed by respondent Atty. Levi P.
Muñoz (Muñoz), in connection with the complaints for
disbarment filed by Arthur O. Monares (Monares), Atty.
Oliver O. Olaybal (Olaybal) purportedly representing Albay
Electric Cooperative, Inc.
_______________
2 Rollo (A.C. No. 5582), Vol. II, pp. 614-642.

240

Monares vs. Muñoz
(ALECO), and Benjilieh M. Constante (Constante), dated

January 17, 2002, February 4, 2002 and March 21, 2002,
respectively.
Monares is the plaintiff in Civil Case No. 9923 filed
against Ludolfo Muñoz (Ludolfo) before the Regional Trial
Court (RTC) of Legazpi City. In his complaint, Monares
alleged that Muñoz represented his brother Ludolfo in the
said case during regular government hours while employed
as Provincial Legal Officer of Albay City.3
Under the chairmanship of Olaybal, ALECO’s old board
of directors (BOD) engaged Muñoz as retained counsel
sometime in June 1998. Olaybal averred that Muñoz did
not inform ALECO’s old BOD that he was employed as
Provincial Legal Officer at such time. Olaybal raised that
after its administrator, the National Electrification
Administration (NEA), deactivated the old BOD on the
ground of mismanagement, Muñoz served as retained
counsel of the NEA-appointed team which took over the
management of ALECO. Moreover, Olaybal alleged that
Muñoz illegally collected payments in the form of notarial

and professional fees in excess of what was agreed upon in
their retainer agreement.4
Constante is the Executive Assistant for Legal Affairs of
Sunwest Construction and Development Corporation
(Sunwest). Constante claimed that Muñoz filed ten (10)
cases against Sunwest on Ludolfo’s behalf before the Office
of the Ombudsman (Ombudsman) while he was serving as
Provincial Legal Officer.5
All three (3) complaints prayed that Muñoz be disbarred
for unlawfully engaging in private practice. In addition,
Olaybal sought Muñoz’s disbarment for acts of disloyalty,
particularly, for violating the rule against conflict of
interest.6
_______________
3 Id., at pp. 544-545.

4 Id., at p. 545.
5 Id.
6 Id.

241
VOL. 815, JANUARY 24, 2017 241

Monares vs. Muñoz
To support their position, the complainants raised that

Muñoz had been previously disciplined by the Ombudsman
for two (2) counts of unauthorized practice of profession in
OMB-ADM-101-0462, and was meted the penalty of
removal and dismissal from service. The complainants
further manifested that Muñoz had been convicted by the
Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) of Legazpi City in
Criminal Case Nos. 25568 and 25569 for violation of
Section 7(b)(2) in relation to Section 11 of Republic Act No.
6713.7 Muñoz’s conviction has since become final pursuant
to the Court’s Resolution dated June 14, 2004 in G.R. No.
160668.8
In his respective comments to the complaints,9 Muñoz
claimed that he had requested Governor Al Francis C.
Bichara (Governor Bichara) for authority to continue his
private practice shortly after his appointment. This request
was granted on July 18, 1995.10 Thereafter, Muñoz

submitted the same request to Rafael C. Alunan III, then
Secretary of the Department of the Interior and Local
Government (DILG).11 On September 8, 1995, Acting
Secretary Alexander P. Aguirre granted Muñoz’s request,
under the following conditions:
1. That no government time, personnel, funds or supplies shall

be utilized in connection (sic) and that no conflict of interest
with your present position as Provincial Legal Officer shall
arise thereby;
2. That the time so devoted outside of office hours, the place(s)
and under what circumstances you can engage in private
employment shall be fixed by the Governor of Albay to the end
that it will not impair in any way your efficiency; and
_______________
7 Id., at pp. 546, 692-700. OMB-ADM-1-01-0462 is also referred to as

OMB-ADM-1-01-0462-1 in some parts of the records.
8 Id., at p. 754.
9 Id., at p. 543.
10 Id., Vol. I, pp. 270, 273.
11 Id., at pp. 270, 274.

242

Monares vs. Muñoz
3. That any violation of the above restrictions will be a ground for

the cancellation and/or revocation of this authority.12
(Emphasis supplied)

Pursuant to the DILG’s authorization, Governor Bichara
imposed the following conditions upon Muñoz:
a. [Y]ou cannot handle cases against the Province of Albay;

b. [Y]ou will be on call and you will have no fix (sic) working hours
provided that the efficiency of the Provincial Legal Office shall
not be prejudiced;
c. [Y]ou are exempted in (sic) accomplishing your Daily Time

Record considering the limitation already mentioned above;
[and]
d. In addition to the above enumeration[,] you are to perform
functions subject to limitations in Sec. 481 of RA 7160.13

Muñoz emphasized that his authority to engage in
private practice was renewed by Governor Bichara on July
3, 1998 for his second term ending in July 2001, and again
on July 5, 2001 for his third term ending in July 2004.14
The complaints were separately referred by the Court to
the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for
investigation, report and recommendation.15 The
complaints were then consolidated through the Order dated
January 16, 2003 issued by Commissioner Milagros V. San
Juan.16 Subsequently, the complaints underwent a series of
reassignments, until finally assigned to Commissioner
Dorotea B. Aguila.17
_______________
12 Id., at p. 276.
13 Id., at p. 277.
14 Id., Vol. II, p. 547.
15 Id., Vol. I, p. 289; id., Vol. II, p. 543.
16 Id., Vol. II, p. 544.
17 Id.

243
VOL. 815, JANUARY 24, 2017 243

Monares vs. Muñoz
In his Report dated March 11, 200518 (IBP Report),

Commissioner Aguila recommended that Muñoz be found
guilty of gross misconduct and violation of Rules 1.01, 6.02,
15.01 and 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
(CPR). The penalty of suspension from the practice of law
for an aggregate period of four (4) years19 was
recommended. On automatic review, the IBP Board of
Governors (IBP-BOG) approved and adopted Commissioner
Aguila’s recommendation in a Resolution dated October 22,

2005.20
On December 22, 2005, Muñoz filed an Ex-Parte Appeal
for Mercy, Clemency and Compassion before the IBP-BOG,
praying that the recommended penalty be reduced to one
(1) year.21 This appeal was denied on January 28, 2006.22
Muñoz filed before this Court an Ex-Parte Appeal for
Mercy, Clemency, Forgiveness and Compassion23 (Appeal)
dated April 8, 2006 praying for the reduction of the
recommended penalty of suspension for four (4) years to
one (1) year or less, and the dismissal of the complaints for
disbarment filed against him. As an alternative prayer,
Muñoz requested that he be granted special limited
authority to practice law until all his pending cases are
terminated.24
In his Appeal, Muñoz, insisted that when he served as
Provincial Legal Officer from June 1995 to May 2002, he
engaged in private practice pursuant to the three (3)
written authorities issued by Governor Bichara, and the
written authority of the DILG issued during his first term,
which he claims had never been revoked. Muñoz also
argued that no conflict of interest existed between
ALECO’s old BOD and the NEA
_______________
18 Id., at pp. 543-553.

19 Id., at p. 553. Three (3) years for unauthorized practice of law, plus
one (1) year for acts of disloyalty.
20 Id., at pp. 541-542.
21 Id., at pp. 555-557 and 559.
22 Id., at p. 559.
23 Id., at pp. 558-562.
24 Id., at p. 561.

244

Monares vs. Muñoz
management team, since he was engaged as retained

counsel of ALECO as an institution, not its management
teams.25
On August 28, 2006, the Court resolved to remand

Muñoz’s Appeal to the IBP for disposition.26
Acting on Muñoz’s Appeal, the IBP-BOG issued a
Resolution reducing the recommended period of suspension
from four (4) to three (3) years.27 Unsatisfied, Muñoz filed a
Motion for Reconsideration, which the IBP-BOG denied on
December 11, 2008.28
Aggrieved, Muñoz elevated his case anew to this Court
through this Joint Petition. In fine, Muñoz reiterates the
allegations in his Appeal, with the additional assertion that
the fees he collected from ALECO were contemplated under
their retainer agreement.29
The Court agrees with the IBP-BOG’s findings and
recommendations.

Muñoz violated the
conditions of his DILG
authorization.

Munoz’s DILG authorization prohibited him from
utilizing government time for his private practice. As
correctly observed by Commissioner Aguila, Rule XVII of
the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of Executive
Order No. 292 and Other Pertinent Civil Service Laws
(Omnibus Rules), requires government officers and
employees of all departments and agencies, except those
covered by special laws, to render not less than eight (8)
hours of work a day for five (5) days a
_______________
25 Id., at pp. 559-560.

26 Id., at pp. 570-571.
27 Id., at pp. 597-598.
28 Id., at pp. 595-596.
29 Id., at p. 618.

245
VOL. 815, JANUARY 24, 2017 245

Monares vs. Muñoz
week, or a total of forty (40) hours a week.30 The number of

required weekly working hours may not be reduced, even in
cases where the department or agency adopts a flexible
work schedule.31
Notably, Muñoz did not deny Monares’ allegation that
he made at least eighty-six (86) court appearances in
connection with at least thirty (30) cases from April 11,
1996 to August 1, 2001.32 He merely alleged that his
private practice did not prejudice the functions of his office.
Court appearances are necessarily made within regular
government working hours, from 8:00 in the morning to
12:00 noon, and 1:00 to 5:00 in the afternoon.33 Additional
time is likewise required to study each case, draft
pleadings and prepare for trial. The sheer volume of cases
handled by Muñoz clearly indicates that government time
was necessarily utilized in pursuit of his private practice,
in clear violation of the DILG authorization and Rule 6.0234
of the CPR.

Muñoz should have requested
for authority to engage in
private practice from the
Secretary of DILG for his sec-
ond and third terms.

Acting Secretary Aguirre’s grant of authority cannot be
unreasonably construed to have been perpetual. Moreover,
Mu-
_______________
30 OMNIBUS RULES IMPLEMENTING BOOK V OF EXECUTIVE ORDER No. 292

AND OTHER PERTINENT CIVIL SERVICE LAWS, Rule XVII, Section 5.
31 Id., Section 6.
32 Rollo (A.C. No. 5582), Vol. I, pp. 5-12.
33 Id., Vol. II, pp. 608-609.
34 Rule 6.02 of Canon 6 provides:
Rule 6.02 – A lawyer in the government service shall not use his public
position to promote or advance his private interests, nor allow the latter to
interfere with his public duties.

246

Monares vs. Muñoz
ñoz cannot claim that he believed in good faith that the

authority granted by Governor Bichara for his second and
third terms sufficed.
Memorandum No. 17 dated September 4, 1986
(Memorandum 17), which Muñoz himself cites in his Joint
Petition, is clear and leaves no room for interpretation. The
power to grant authority to engage in the practice of one’s
profession to officers and employees in the public service
lies with the head of the department, in accordance with
Section 12, Rule XVIII of the Revised Civil Service Rules
which provides, in part:
Sec. 12. No officer or employee shall engage directly in any

private business, vocation, or profession or be connected with any
commercial, credit, agricultural, or industrial undertaking
without a written permission from the head of Department:
Provided, That this prohibition will be absolute in the case of
those officers and employees whose duties and responsibilities
require that their entire time be at the disposal of the
Government: Provided, further, That if an employee is granted
permission to engage in outside activities, the time so devoted
outside of office hours should be fixed by the chief of the agency to
the end that it will not impair in any way the efficiency of the
officer or employee x x x. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)

Memorandum 17 was issued more than nine (9) years
prior to Muñoz’s appointment as Provincial Legal Officer,
hence, he cannot feign ignorance thereof. As a local public
official, it was incumbent upon Muñoz to secure the proper
authority from the Secretary of the DILG not only for his
first term, but also his second and third. His failure to do so
rendered him liable for unauthorized practice of his
profession and violation of Rule 1.0135 of the CPR.
_______________
35 Rule 1.01, Canon 1 provides:

Rule 1.01 – A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral
or deceitful conduct.

247
VOL. 815, JANUARY 24, 2017 247

Monares vs. Muñoz
Muñoz represented
conflicting interests.

Muñoz cannot elude Olaybal’s allegations of disloyalty.
In Mabini Colleges, Inc. v. Pajarillo,36 the Court explained
the tests to determine the existence of conflict of interest,
thus:
There is conflict of interest when a lawyer represents

inconsistent interests of two or more opposing parties. The test is
“whether or not in behalf of one client, it is the lawyer’s
duty to fight for an issue or claim, but it is his duty to
oppose it for the other client. In brief, if he argues for one
client, this argument will be opposed by him when he
argues for the other client.” This rule covers not only cases in
which confidential communications have been confided, but also
those in which no confidence has been bestowed or will be used.
Also, there is conflict of interest if the acceptance of the
new retainer will require the attorney to perform an act
which will injuriously affect his first client in any matter
in which he represents him and also whether he will be
called upon in his new relation to use against his first
client any knowledge acquired through their connection.
Another test of the inconsistency of interests is whether the
acceptance of a new relation will prevent an attorney from the full
discharge of his duty of undivided fidelity and loyalty to his client
or invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or double dealing in the
performance thereof. (Emphasis supplied)

As Muñoz himself detailed in his Joint Petition, he acted
as counsel for ALECO under the management of the old
BOD in the following cases:
_______________
36 A.C. No. 10687, July 22, 2015, 763 SCRA 288, 294-295, citing
Hornilla v. Salunat, 453 Phil. 108, 111-112; 405 SCRA 220, 223 (2003).

248

Monares vs. Muñoz
A. Civil Case No. 10007 — ALECO (Petitioner) v. Eleuterio

Adonay, NEA Project Supervisor and his team John Catral et. al.,
a case filed by Oliver O. Olaybal and his group. For:
Injunction, Accounting with Prayer for Writs of Preliminary
Injunction and/or Temporary Restraining Order, seeking to stop
the election of the new set of member (sic) of the Board of
Directors x x x.
B. Civil Case [N]o. 10066 entitled ALBAY ELECTRIC
COOPERATIVE, INC. as Petitioner, also filed by Oliver O.
Olaybal, a case for Prohibition, Mandamus and Receivership,
with Preliminary Prohibition and Mandatory Injunction and/or
Temporary Restraining and Mandatory Orders. Among others,
this Petition was filed to stop the second scheduled
election of the ALECO Board of Directors scheduled for
February 23, and 24, 2002.37 (Underscoring omitted; additional
emphasis supplied)

Muñoz thereafter served as retained counsel of ALECO
under the direction of the NEA management team. Muñoz
could have easily anticipated that his advice would be
sought with respect to the prosecution of the members of
the old BOD, considering that the latter was deactivated
due to alleged mismanagement. The conflict of interest
between Olaybal’s board on one hand, and NEA and its
management team on the other, is apparent. By
representing conflicting interests without the permission of
all parties involved, Muñoz violated Rules 15.01 and 15.03
of the CPR.38
_______________
37 Rollo (A.C. 5582), Vol. II, pp. 629-630.

38 Rules 15.01 and 15.03 of Canon 15 provide:
Rule 15.01 – A lawyer, in conferring with a prospective client, shall
ascertain as soon as practicable whether the matter would involve a
conflict with another client or his own interest, and if so, shall forthwith
inform the prospective client.
x x x x

249
VOL. 815, JANUARY 24, 2017 249

Monares vs. Muñoz
In Catu v. Rellosa,39 the Court imposed the penalty of

suspension for six (6) months upon a punong barangay who
acted as counsel for respondents in an ejectment case
without securing the authority of the Secretary of DILG. In
Aniñon v. Sabitsana, Jr.,40 the Court imposed the penalty
of one (1) year suspension upon a lawyer who accepted a
new engagement that required him to oppose the interests
of a party whom he previously represented. In view of
Muñoz’s multiple infractions, the Court finds the
recommended penalty of suspension for an aggregate
period of three (3) years proper.
WHEREFORE, Atty. Levi P. Muñoz is found GUILTY
of gross misconduct and violation of Rules 1.01, 6.02, 15.01
and 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He is
hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period
of three (3) years effective upon receipt of this Decision,
with a STERN WARNING that a repetition of any
violation hereunder shall be dealt with more severely.
SO ORDERED.
Sereno (CJ.), Carpio, Velasco, Jr., Leonardo-De Castro,

Peralta, Bersamin, Del Castillo, Mendoza, Reyes, Perlas-
Bernabe, Leonen and Jardeleza, JJ., concur.
Atty. Levi P. Muñoz suspended from practice of law for

three (3) years for gross misconduct and violation of Rules
1.01, 6.02, 15.01 and 15.03 of Code of Professional
Responsibility, with stern warning against repetition of any
violation hereunder.
Notes.—The prohibition against conflict of interest is

founded on principles of public policy, good taste and, more
_______________
Rule 15.03 – A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by

written consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts.
39 569 Phil. 539; 546 SCRA 209 (2008).
40 685 Phil. 322; 669 SCRA 76 (2012).

250

Monares vs. Muñoz
importantly, upon necessity; In the course of a lawyer-

client relationship, the lawyer learns all the facts
connected with the client’s case, including its weak and
strong points, which knowledge must be considered sacred
and guarded with care. (Pacana, Jr. vs. Pascual-Lopez, 594
SCRA 1 [2009])
Lawyers when they teach law are considered engaged in
the practice of law—their actions as law professors must be
measured against the same canons of professional
responsibility applicable to acts of members of the Bar as
the fact of their being law professors is inextricably
entwined with the fact that they are lawyers. (Re: Letter of
the UP Law Faculty Entitled “Restoring Integrity: A
Statement by the Faculty of the University of the
Philippines College of Law on the Allegations of Plagiarism
and Misrepresentation in the Supreme Court,” 644 SCRA
543 [2011])

——o0o——
© Copyright 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

Monares vs. Muñoz

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Monares vs. Muñoz

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

9/4/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 815

A.C. No. 5582. January 24, 2017.*

Attorneys; Illegal Practice of Law; The sheer volume of cases

238 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

ernment working hours, from 8:00 in the morning to 12:00

as Provincial Legal Officer, hence, he cannot feign ignorance

VOL. 815, JANUARY 24, 2017 239

cases: A. Civil Case No. 10007 — ALECO (Petitioner) v.

ADMINISTRATIVE CASES in the Supreme Court. Gross

2 Rollo (A.C. No. 5582), Vol. II, pp. 614-642.

240 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

(ALECO), and Benjilieh M. Constante (Constante), dated

Muñoz illegally collected payments in the form of notarial

3 Id., at pp. 544-545.

VOL. 815, JANUARY 24, 2017 241

To support their position, the complainants raised that

was granted on July 18, 1995.10 Thereafter, Muñoz

1. That no government time, personnel, funds or supplies shall

7 Id., at pp. 546, 692-700. OMB-ADM-1-01-0462 is also referred to as

242 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

3. That any violation of the above restrictions will be a ground for

a. [Y]ou cannot handle cases against the Province of Albay;

c. [Y]ou are exempted in (sic) accomplishing your Daily Time

VOL. 815, JANUARY 24, 2017 243

In his Report dated March 11, 200518 (IBP Report),

Aguila’s recommendation in a Resolution dated October 22,

18 Id., at pp. 543-553.

244 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

management team, since he was engaged as retained

On August 28, 2006, the Court resolved to remand

25 Id., at pp. 559-560.

VOL. 815, JANUARY 24, 2017 245

week, or a total of forty (40) hours a week.30 The number of

30 OMNIBUS RULES IMPLEMENTING BOOK V OF EXECUTIVE ORDER No. 292

246 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

ñoz cannot claim that he believed in good faith that the

Sec. 12. No officer or employee shall engage directly in any

35 Rule 1.01, Canon 1 provides:

VOL. 815, JANUARY 24, 2017 247

There is conflict of interest when a lawyer represents

248 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

A. Civil Case No. 10007 — ALECO (Petitioner) v. Eleuterio

37 Rollo (A.C. 5582), Vol. II, pp. 629-630.

VOL. 815, JANUARY 24, 2017 249

In Catu v. Rellosa,39 the Court imposed the penalty of

Sereno (CJ.), Carpio, Velasco, Jr., Leonardo-De Castro,

Atty. Levi P. Muñoz suspended from practice of law for

Notes.—The prohibition against conflict of interest is

Rule 15.03 – A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by

250 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

importantly, upon necessity; In the course of a lawyer-

© Copyright 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

You might also like