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