WILFREDO M. CATU vs. ATTY. VICENTE G. RELLOSA A.C. No. 5738, February 19, 2008 Facts.

Petitioner initiated a complaint against Elizabeth Catu and Antonio Pastor who were occupying one of the units in a building in Malate which was owned by the former. The said complaint was filed in the Lupong Tagapamayapa of Barangay 723, Zone 79 of the 5 th District of Manila where Respondent was the punong barangay. The parties, having been summoned for conciliation proceedings and failing to arrive at an amicable settlement, were issued by the respondent a certification for the filing of the appropriate action in court. Petitioner, thus, filed a complaint for ejectment against Elizabeth and Pastor in the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila where respondent entered his appearance as counsel for the defendants. Because of this, petitioner filed the instant administrative complaint against the respondent on the ground that he committed an act of impropriety as a lawyer and as a public officer when he stood as counsel for the defendants despite the fact that he presided over the conciliation proceedings between the litigants as punong barangay. In his defense, respondent claimed that as punong barangay, he performed his task without bias and that he acceded to Elizabeths request to handle the case for free as she was financially distressed. The complaint was then referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) where after evaluation, they found sufficient ground to discipline respondent. According to them, respondent violated Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and, as an elective official, the prohibition under Section 7(b) (2) of RA6713. Consequently, for the violation of the latter prohibition, respondent committed a breach of Canon 1. Respondent was then recommended for suspension from the practice of law. Issue. Whether or not Atty. Rellosa violated the Code of Professional Responsibility. Ruling. Yes. A civil service officer or employee whose responsibilities do not require his time to be fully at the disposal of the government can engage in the private practice of law only with the written permission of the head of the department concerned in accordance with Section 12, Rule XVIII of the Revised Civil Service Rules. Notwithstanding all of these, respondent still should have procured a prior permission or authorization from the head of his Department, as required by civil service regulations. For this failure, responded violated his oath as a lawyer, that is, to obey the laws, Rule 1.01, CPR and, for not complying with the ethical standards of the legal profession, Canon 7, CPR.

Respondent was found GUILTY of professional misconduct, SUSPENDED from the practice of law and was strongly advised to look up and take to heart the meaning of the word delicadeza.