Catu vs. Rellosa

A lawyer in government service who is not absolutely prohibited from practicing law must secure prior written permission from the head of the department concerned before engaging in private practice, failure of which constitutes unauthorized practice of law and professional misconduct.

Complainant Wilfredo Catu's mother and brother, Regina and Antonio Catu, contested the possession of Elizabeth Diaz-Catu and Antonio Pastor over a unit in their building. Demands to vacate were ignored, prompting Regina and Antonio to initiate a complaint at the Lupong Tagapamayapa of Barangay 723.

• Property Dispute: Complainant Wilfredo Catu is a co-owner of a lot and building where his mother, Regina, and brother, Antonio, contested the possession of a unit occupied by Elizabeth Diaz-Catu and Antonio Pastor.
• Barangay Conciliation: Demands for Elizabeth and Pastor to vacate having been ignored, Regina and Antonio filed a complaint with the Lupong Tagapamayapa of Barangay 723. Respondent, as punong barangay, summoned the parties to conciliation meetings.
• Failure of Conciliation: The parties failed to settle, prompting respondent to issue a certification allowing the filing of an appropriate action in court.
• Ejectment Case: Regina and Antonio subsequently filed an ejectment case against Elizabeth and Pastor in the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila, Branch 11. Respondent entered his appearance as counsel for the defendants, preparing and signing pleadings such as the answer with counterclaim, pre-trial brief, position paper, and notice of appeal.
• Administrative Complaint: Complainant filed the instant administrative complaint, alleging that respondent committed impropriety by acting as counsel for the defendants after presiding over their conciliation proceedings as punong barangay.

• Impropriety as Lawyer and Public Officer: Petitioner argued that respondent committed an act of impropriety by appearing as counsel for the defendants in the ejectment case despite having presided over the conciliation proceedings between the same litigants as punong barangay.

• Performance of Official Duty: Respondent maintained that presiding over the conciliation was an official duty performed with utmost objectivity and without bias or partiality toward any party.
• Justification for Representation: Respondent argued that he acceded to Elizabeth's request for legal assistance to prevent a patent injustice, handling the case pro bono due to her financial distress.

• Applicability of Rule 6.03, CPR: Whether respondent violated Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility by representing parties he previously dealt with in an official capacity.
• Applicability of Section 7(b)(2), RA 6713: Whether respondent violated Section 7(b)(2) of RA 6713 by engaging in the private practice of law during his incumbency as an elective local official.
• Requirement of Prior Authority: Whether a punong barangay who is not prohibited from practicing law must secure prior written permission from the head of his department before engaging in private practice.

• Applicability of Rule 6.03, CPR: Rule 6.03 was found inapplicable because it applies exclusively to lawyers who have left government service; respondent was an incumbent punong barangay at the time he represented the defendants.
• Applicability of Section 7(b)(2), RA 6713: Section 90 of RA 7160, as a special law governing the practice of profession by elective local officials, prevails over Section 7(b)(2) of RA 6713 under the principle of lex specialibus derogat generalibus. Under Section 90 of RA 7160, the punong barangay is not expressly prohibited from practicing law, applying expressio unius est exclusio alterius, unlike governors, city mayors, and municipal mayors who are expressly barred.
• Requirement of Prior Authority: Although not absolutely prohibited from practicing law, a punong barangay must comply with Section 12, Rule XVIII of the Revised Civil Service Rules by securing prior written permission from the head of the department. Respondent's failure to do so constituted unauthorized practice of law, violating Rule 1.01 and Canons 1 and 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, as well as his lawyer's oath.

• Lex specialibus derogat generalibus — A special law repeals a general law on the same matter. Applied to hold that Section 90 of RA 7160, which specifically governs the practice of profession by elective local officials, prevails over Section 7(b)(2) of RA 6713, the general law on the practice of profession by public officials and employees.
• Expressio unius est exclusio alterius — The express mention of one thing excludes other things not mentioned. Applied to hold that because RA 7160 expressly prohibits governors, city mayors, and municipal mayors from practicing their profession but excludes the punong barangay from such prohibition, the punong barangay is presumed allowed to practice.
• Unauthorized Practice of Law by Government Employees — A civil service officer or employee whose responsibilities do not require full-time service can engage in the private practice of law only with the written permission of the head of the department concerned. Failure to secure such permission constitutes unauthorized practice of law and professional misconduct.

• "Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility Applies Only to Former Government Lawyers. Respondent cannot be found liable for violation of Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. As worded, that Rule applies only to a lawyer who has left government service and in connection 'with any matter in which he intervened while in said service.'"
• "While, as already discussed, 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."
• "A lawyer who disobeys the law disrespects it. In so doing, he disregards legal ethics and disgraces the dignity of the legal profession."

• PCGG v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 151809-12, 12 April 2005, 455 SCRA 526 — Cited as controlling precedent establishing that Rule 6.03 of the CPR prohibits former government lawyers from accepting engagement in matters they intervened in while in service.
• Ramos v. Rada, A.M. No. P-202, 22 July 1975, 65 SCRA 179 — Followed for the rule that a government officer not required to serve full time can engage in private practice only with written permission from the department head.
• Zeta v. Malinao, A.M. No. P-220, 20 December 1978, 87 SCRA 303 — Followed alongside Ramos v. Rada regarding the requirement of prior written permission for government employees to practice law.
• Ducat v. Villalon, 392 Phil. 394 (2000) — Cited to emphasize that public confidence in the law and lawyers may be eroded by the irresponsible and improper conduct of a member of the bar.

• Rule 6.03, Code of Professional Responsibility — Found inapplicable; prohibits lawyers who have left government service from accepting engagement in matters they intervened in while in said service.
• Section 7(b)(2), Republic Act No. 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees) — General law prohibiting public officials from engaging in private practice of profession unless authorized, provided it does not conflict with official functions; subordinated to RA 7160.
• Section 90, Republic Act No. 7160 (Local Government Code of 1992) — Special law governing the practice of profession by elective local officials; found not to prohibit the punong barangay from practicing law.
• Section 12, Rule XVIII, Revised Civil Service Rules — Requires written permission from the head of the department for government officers or employees to engage in private business, vocation, or profession; violation of this rule constituted unauthorized practice of law.
• Canon 1, Rule 1.01, and Canon 7, Code of Professional Responsibility — Violated by respondent's unauthorized practice of law and failure to obey the laws of the land.

Reynato S. Puno, Angelina Sandoval-Gutierrez, Adolfo S. Azcuna, Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro