Ziga vs. Judge Arejola

A judge who habitually appears as counsel and files pleadings on behalf of relatives in a pending case without securing written permission from the Supreme Court engages in prohibited private practice of law.

Nelia Arejola-Ziga and Judge Ramon Arejola are co-heirs of Fabiana Arejola, owning a 19,664 sq. m. land in Naga City. In 1995, while respondent was a Public Attorney's Office (PAO) lawyer, he filed a land registration application on behalf of the heirs, which the RTC granted in 1996. A substantial portion of the lot was subsequently subject to a conditional sale to the City of Naga, while the remaining portion was disputed with a third party. Respondent was appointed MTC Judge of Daet, Camarines Norte on June 9, 1997, and assumed office on August 1, 1997.

• Pre-Appointment Representation: In 1995, while a PAO lawyer, respondent filed a land registration application on behalf of his co-heirs. The RTC granted the petition in October 1996.
• Appointment to the Bench: Respondent was appointed MTC Judge of Daet, Camarines Norte on June 9, 1997, and took his oath on August 1, 1997.
• Post-Appointment Legal Work: Despite his judicial appointment, respondent continued to act as counsel for the heirs. Between October 1997 and July 1999, he signed an answer to a petition for relief from judgment, appeared in court hearings, filed a motion for reconsideration, wrote the City Mayor demanding attorney's fees equivalent to 30% of the gross selling price, and signed a partial compromise agreement as counsel.
• Refusal to Seek Permission: The RTC judge presiding over the land registration case twice ordered respondent to secure written authority from the Supreme Court to appear as counsel (October 31, 1997, and May 20, 1999). Respondent failed to comply with both orders.
• Belated Request for Authority: On July 1, 1998, respondent requested permission from the Court Administrator to appear as counsel. The Court Administrator required him to furnish copies of pleadings and state the background of the case, but respondent failed to comply.
• Disqualification: On October 19, 1999, the RTC disqualified respondent from appearing in the case due to his failure to submit a permit to appear as counsel, and refused to act on his pleadings.

• Unauthorized Practice of Law: Petitioner argued that respondent should be disciplined for appearing before a court as counsel without securing permission from the Supreme Court.
• Improper Demand for Fees: Petitioner contended that respondent improperly asked for contingent attorney's fees and agent's commission amounting to 30% of the gross selling price of the property subject of the land registration case.

• Representation as Co-Heir: Respondent argued that he appeared in the land registration case as a party-litigant and representative of the heirs, not as counsel, and therefore did not need permission from the Supreme Court or the PAO.
• Right to Contribution: Respondent maintained that because he actively participated in the case, he had a right to demand contribution from the other heirs who benefited from his work, to be taken from the proceeds of the sale.
• Harassment: Respondent claimed the complaint was filed to harass him due to a misspelled name in the RTC decision and alleged that complainant suffered from a disturbed mind.

• Unauthorized Practice of Law: Whether respondent judge engaged in prohibited private practice of law by representing his co-heirs without Supreme Court permission.
• Proper Penalty: Whether the penalty of suspension recommended by the OCA is appropriate.

• Unauthorized Practice of Law: Respondent's actions constituted prohibited private practice of law. His claim of merely representing co-heirs as a party-litigant was belied by his filing of a Notice of Attorney's Lien identifying himself as the "attorney of the applicants," his signing of pleadings as counsel, and his demand for attorney's fees. Private practice of law consists of frequent or customary action, habitually holding oneself out as a lawyer, rather than an isolated appearance; respondent's numerous appearances and filings over two years demonstrated such customary action. By engaging in these acts after his appointment without written permission from the Supreme Court, he violated Rule 138, Section 35 of the Rules of Court, Canon 5, Rule 5.07 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, and Section 7(b)(2) of R.A. No. 6713. His belated request for authority in July 1998, and subsequent failure to comply with the Court Administrator's requirements, operated as an admission that he knew Supreme Court permission was necessary.
• Proper Penalty: Under the amended Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, unauthorized practice of law by a judge constitutes a less serious charge, punishable by suspension or a fine. Considering that this was respondent's first offense, a fine of P10,000.00 was imposed in lieu of suspension.

• Prohibition on Private Practice of Law by Judges — Judges are absolutely prohibited from engaging in the private practice of law. This prohibition is based on public policy, as the functions of an attorney are inherently incompatible with the official functions of a judge. It ensures that judges give their full time and attention to their judicial duties, prevents them from extending special favors to their private interests, and assures the public of their impartiality.
• Definition of Practice of Law — The practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases in court or participation in court proceedings. It also includes the preparation of pleadings or papers in anticipation of litigation, giving advice to clients, and the preparation of legal instruments and contracts by which legal rights are secured.
• Prohibited Private Practice — Prohibited "private practice" of a profession consists of more than an isolated court appearance; it consists in frequent or customary action, a succession of acts of the same nature habitually or customarily holding one’s self to the public as a lawyer.
• Due Process in Administrative Proceedings — Due process in administrative proceedings does not necessarily require a trial-type hearing; it simply requires the opportunity or right to be heard. A party may be heard through pleadings as long as the element of fairness is not ignored.

• "The term 'practice of law' is not limited to the conduct of cases in court or participation in court proceedings but also includes preparation of pleadings or papers in anticipation of a litigation, giving advice to clients or persons needing the same, the preparation of legal instruments and contracts by which legal rights are secured, and the preparation of papers incident to actions and special proceedings."
• "It should be clarified that prohibited 'private practice' of a profession is more than an isolated court appearance, for it consists in frequent or customary action, a succession of acts of the same nature habitually or customarily holding one’s self to the public as a lawyer."

• Office of the Court Administrator vs. Ladaga, 350 SCRA 326 (2001) — Cited for the definition of prohibited "private practice" as frequent or customary action rather than an isolated appearance, and for the requirement that civil servants must obtain written permission from the head of the department to engage in private practice.
• Carual vs. Brusola, 317 SCRA 54 (1999) — Cited for the expanded definition of the practice of law and the principle that the rights and functions of an attorney are inherently incompatible with the official functions of a judge.

• Rule 138, Section 35, Revised Rules of Court — Prohibits judges from engaging in private practice as a member of the bar or giving professional advice to clients. Applied directly to hold respondent's actions as prohibited.
• Canon 5, Rule 5.07, Code of Judicial Conduct — Enjoins judges not to engage in the private practice of law. Applied to emphasize that extra-judicial activities must minimize the risk of conflict with judicial duties.
• Rule XVIII, Section 12, Revised Civil Service Rules — Prohibits officers or employees from engaging directly in any private profession without written permission from the head of the department. Applied to show respondent lacked the required written permission from the Supreme Court.
• Section 7(b)(2), Republic Act No. 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees) — Prohibits public officials from engaging in the private practice of their profession unless authorized by the Constitution or law. Applied to reinforce the prohibition against respondent's private practice.
• Section 9(3) and Section 11, Amended Rule 140, Rules of Court — Classifies unauthorized practice of law by a judge as a less serious charge and prescribes the penalty of suspension or a fine. Applied to determine the proper penalty for respondent's offense.

Bellosillo, Quisumbing, Callejo, Sr.