Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Samonte V Atty Gatdula, AM. No. P-99-1292

    Uploaded by

    Nelson Clyde
    617 views2 pages
    (a) Samonte v Atty. Gatdula, AM N.P 99 1292 This case involved a complaint filed against Atty. Gatdula for allegedly engaging in the private practice of law, which is prohibited for public officials under the Code of Conduct for Public Officials. While Atty. Gatdula denied the allegations, the court found that the inclusion of his name on the calling card of a private law firm constituted an act of solicitation in violation of the law. The court reprimanded Atty. Gatdula and ordered him to remove his name from the private law firm.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    Samonte v Atty Gatdula, AM. No. P-99-1292

    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
    (a) Samonte v Atty. Gatdula, AM N.P 99 1292 This case involved a complaint filed against Atty. Gatdula for allegedly engaging in the private practice of law, which is prohibited for public officials under the Code of Conduct for Public Officials. While Atty. Gatdula denied the allegations, the court found that the inclusion of his name on the calling card of a private law firm constituted an act of solicitation in violation of the law. The court reprimanded Atty. Gatdula and ordered him to remove his name from the private law firm.

    Copyright:

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

    Samonte V Atty Gatdula, AM. No. P-99-1292

    Uploaded by

    Nelson Clyde
    (a) Samonte v Atty. Gatdula, AM N.P 99 1292 This case involved a complaint filed against Atty. Gatdula for allegedly engaging in the private practice of law, which is prohibited for public officials under the Code of Conduct for Public Officials. While Atty. Gatdula denied the allegations, the court found that the inclusion of his name on the calling card of a private law firm constituted an act of solicitation in violation of the law. The court reprimanded Atty. Gatdula and ordered him to remove his name from the private law firm.

    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

    (a) Samonte v Atty. Gatdula, AM N.

    P 99 1292

    What did we A public official is prohibited from engaging private practice which is in conlict
    learn or tend to conflict with his/her official functions
    Provisions Republic Act (RA) No. 6713, Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public
    covered Officials and Employees, which declares it unlawful for a publilc official or
    employee to engage in the private practice of their profession unless authorized
    by the Constitution or law, provided that such practice will not conflict or tend
    to conflict with official fiunctions.

    What the case The inclusion/retention of his name in the professional card constitutes an act
    taught us of solicitation which violates Section 7, sub-par (b)(2) of Republic Act No. 6713,
    otherwise known as “Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials
    and Employees.

    Here, despite of the dential of the Repondent that he has no with the law firm,
    The Name

    ((a) Samonte v Atty. Gatdula, AM N.P 99 1292

    ISSUE: Whether or not Atty Gatdula committed an act of solicitation.

    FACTS: Complaint filed by Julieta Borromeo Samonte chages Rolando Gatdula, RTC, Branch 220,
    Quezon City with grave misconduct consisting in the alleged engaging in the private
    practice of law which is in conflict with his official function as Branch Clerk of Court.
    Complainant alleged that she is the authorized representative of her sister. However, a
    typographical error was committed in the complaint which stated that the address is No.
    63-C instead 63-B, P. Tuazon Blvd, Cubao, Quezon City. This was later corrected by filing
    an amendment which was admitted by the court. A decision was rendered in favor of the
    complainant who subsequently filed a motion for execution. However, they received a
    temporary restraining order signed by Judge Prudencio Castillo of Branch 220, RTC,
    Quezon City, where Atty. Rolando Gatdula is the Branch of Clerk,enjoining the execution
    of the Decision of the Metropolitan Trial Court. Upon inquiry of such issuance of
    restraining order, respondent Atty. Gatdula, blamed her lawyer for writing the wrong
    address in the complaint for ejectment, and told her that if she wanted the execution to
    proceed , she could change her lawyer and retain the law office of respondent at the
    same time giving his calling card with the name “Baligod, Gatdula, Tacardon, Dimailig
    and Celera,with office at Rm. 220 Mariwasa Bldg., 717 Aurora Blvd., Quezon Cuty,
    otherwise she will not beable to eject the defendant Dave Knope. RTC Branch 220 issued
    an order granting the preliminary injunction as threatened by respondent despite the
    fact the MTC, Branch 37, had issued an Order directing the execution of the decision.
    Respondent Gatdula claimed that complainant went to her office and informed him that
    she wanted to change counsel and that a friend of hers recommended the Law Fim of
    “Baligod, Gatdula, Tacardon, Dimailig and Celera, at the same time, showed a calling
    card and asked If shue count handle her case but respondent refused as he was not
    connected with the law firm and committed to the judiciary. On the other hand, the
    Complainant failed to appear at the several hearings despite notice, and eventually
    failed to substantiate her allegations in the complaint
    RULING: Yes, Atty. Gatdula committed an act of solicitation.

    Under Republic Act (RA) No. 6713, Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public
    Officials and Employees, which declares it unlawful for a publilc official or employee to
    engage in the private practice of their profession unless authorized by the Constitution or
    law, provided that such practice will not conflict or tend to conflict with official
    fiunctions.

    Here, Atty. Gatdula was guilty of infraction. The Complainant failed to appear at the
    hearings and substantiate her allegations that it was the respondent Atty. Who gave her
    calling card of “Baligod, Gatdula, Tacardon, Dimailig and Celera Law Offices” and tried
    to convince her to change counsels. Despite of the denial of the Respondent of the
    complaint, he admitted that his name appears on the calling card attached to the
    complaint

    Therefore,the fact remains that his name is included in the calling card which may
    therefore tend to show thathe had dealings with said office which showed an act of
    solicitation.

    Court Wherefore, respondent Rolando Gatdula, Branch Clerk of Court, RTC, Branch 220, Quezon
    Decision 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 severly. He is further
    ordered to cause the exclusion of his name in the firm in the private practice of law.

    You might also like