The respondent Miguel A. San Juan, a captain in the Metro Manila Police Force and member of the bar, was charged with coercing an employee named Jose Misamin to drop charges against Misamin's employer for violating minimum wage laws. San Juan denied the charges. The matter was referred to the Office of the Solicitor General for investigation. The Solicitor General was unable to get to the bottom of things due to Misamin's lawyer failing to appear at hearings. As a result, there was not enough evidence to find San Juan guilty of malpractice. However, San Juan's practice of law while a police officer may violate civil service rules, which is a separate matter that should be investigated
The respondent Miguel A. San Juan, a captain in the Metro Manila Police Force and member of the bar, was charged with coercing an employee named Jose Misamin to drop charges against Misamin's employer for violating minimum wage laws. San Juan denied the charges. The matter was referred to the Office of the Solicitor General for investigation. The Solicitor General was unable to get to the bottom of things due to Misamin's lawyer failing to appear at hearings. As a result, there was not enough evidence to find San Juan guilty of malpractice. However, San Juan's practice of law while a police officer may violate civil service rules, which is a separate matter that should be investigated
The respondent Miguel A. San Juan, a captain in the Metro Manila Police Force and member of the bar, was charged with coercing an employee named Jose Misamin to drop charges against Misamin's employer for violating minimum wage laws. San Juan denied the charges. The matter was referred to the Office of the Solicitor General for investigation. The Solicitor General was unable to get to the bottom of things due to Misamin's lawyer failing to appear at hearings. As a result, there was not enough evidence to find San Juan guilty of malpractice. However, San Juan's practice of law while a police officer may violate civil service rules, which is a separate matter that should be investigated
Facts: It certainly fails to reflect credit on a captain in the Metro Manila Police Force and a member of the bar, respondent Miguel A. San Juan, to be charged with being the legal representative of certain establishments allegedly owned by Filipinos of Chinese descent and, what is worse, with coercing an employee, complainant Jose Misamin, to agree to drop the charges filed by him against his employer Tan Hua, owner of New Cesar's Bakery, for the violation of the Minimum Wage Law. There was a denial on the part of respondent. The matter was referred to the Office of the Solicitor-General for investigation, report and recommendation. Thereafter, it would seem there was a change of heart on the part of complainant. That could very well be the explanation for the non- appearance of the lawyer employed by him at the scheduled hearings. The efforts of the Solicitor General to get at the bottom of things were thus set at naught. Under the circumstances, the outcome of such referral was to be expected. For the law is rather exacting in its requirement that there be competent and adequate proof to make out a case for malpractice. Necessarily, the recommendation was one of the complaints being dismissed, This is one of those instances then where this Court is left with hardly any choice. Respondent cannot be found guilty of malpractice. Issue: 1.Whether or not Misamin should be disbarred or suspended from practice of law. Ruling: The Report of the Solicitor-General did not take into account respondent's practice of his profession notwithstanding his being a police official, as "this is not embraced in Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court which provides the grounds for the suspension or removal of an attorney. The respondent's appearance at the labor proceeding notwithstanding that he was an incumbent police officer of the City of Manila may appropriately be referred to the National Police Commission and the Civil Service Commission." As a matter of fact, separate complaints on this ground have been filed and are under investigation by the Office of the Mayor of Manila and the National Police Commission." As for the charges that respondent conspired with complainant's counsel to mislead complainant to admitting having' received his separation pay and for giving illegal protection to aliens, it is understandable why the Report of the Solicitor-General recommended that they be dismissed for lack of This resolution does not in any wise take into consideration whatever violations there might have been of the Civil Service Law in view of respondent practicing his profession while holding his position of Captain in the Metro Manila police force. That is a matter to be decided in the administrative proceeding as noted in the recommendation of the Solicitor-General. Nonetheless, while the charges have to be dismissed, still it would not be inappropriate for respondent member of the bar to avoid all appearances of impropriety