CANON 6 - THESE CANONS SHALL APPLY TO LAWYERS IN GOVERNMENT

SERVICES IN THE DISCHARGE OF THEIR TASKS.

Rule 6.02 - A lawyer in the government service shall not use his
public position to promote or advance his private interests, nor
allow the latter to interfere with his public duties.

Eduardo A. Abella vs Ricardo G. Barrios, Jr., A.C. No. 7332, June 18,
2013

Facts:

Complainant obtained a favorable judgment from the Court of Appeals involving a

Labor Case. Complainant then filed a Motion for Issuance of a Writ of Execution
before the Regional Arbitration Branch which the respondent was the Labor Arbiter.
After the lapse of five (5) months, complainants motion remained unacted,
prompting him to file a Second Motion for Execution. However, still, there was no
action until the complainant agreed to give respondent a portion of the monetary
award thereof after the latter asked from the former how much would be his share.
Thereafter, respondent issued a writ of execution but the employer of the
complainant moved to quash the said writ. Eventually, issued a new writ of
execution wherein complainants monetary awards were reduced to the effect that
it modifies the DECISION of the CA. Complainant now filed the instant disbarment
complaint before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), averring that
respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibility for (a) soliciting money
from complainant in exchange for a favorable resolution; and (b) issuing a wrong
decision to give benefit and advantage to PT&T, complainants employer.

ISSUE:

Whether or not respondent is guilty of gross immorality for his violation of

Rules 1.01 and 1.03, Canon 1, and Rule 6.02, Canon 6 of the Code.

HELD:

YES. The above-cited rules, which are contained under Chapter 1 of the
Code, delineate the lawyers responsibility to society: Rule 1.01 engraves the
overriding prohibition against lawyers from engaging in any unlawful, dishonest,
immoral and deceitful conduct; Rule 1.03 proscribes lawyers from encouraging any
suit or proceeding or delaying any mans cause for any corrupt motive or interest;
meanwhile, Rule 6.02 is particularly directed to lawyers in government service,
enjoining them from using ones public position to: (1) promote private interests; (2)
advance private interests; or (3) allow private interests to interfere with public
duties. It is well to note that a lawyer who holds a government office may be
disciplined as a member of the Bar only when his misconduct also constitutes a
violation of his oath as a lawyer.

The infractions of the respondent constitute gross misconduct. Jurisprudence

illumines that immoral conduct involves acts that are willful, flagrant, or shameless,
and that show a moral indifference to the opinion of the upright and respectable
members of the community. It treads the line of grossness when it is so corrupt as
to constitute a criminal act, or so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high
degree, or when committed under such scandalous or revolting circumstances as to
shock the communitys sense of decency. On the other hand, gross misconduct
constitutes "improper or wrong conduct, the transgression of some established and
definite rule of action, a forbidden act, a dereliction of duty, willful in character, and
implies a wrongful intent and not mere error of judgment."

In this relation, Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court states that when
a lawyer is found guilty of gross immoral conduct or gross misconduct, he may be
suspended or disbarred.However, the Court takes judicial notice of the fact that he
had already been disbarred in a previous administrative case, entitled Sps. Rafols, Jr.
v. Ricardo G. Barrios, Jr., which therefore precludes the Court from duplicitously
decreeing the same. In view of the foregoing, the Court deems it proper to, instead,
impose a fine in the amount of P40,000.00 in order to penalize respondents
transgressions as discussed herein and to equally deter the commission of the same
or similar acts in the future.
CANON 6 - THESE CANONS SHALL APPLY TO LAWYERS IN GOVERNMENT
SERVICES IN THE DISCHARGE OF THEIR TASKS

Rule 6.02 - A lawyer in the government service shall not use his
public position to promote or advance his private interests, nor
allow the latter to interfere with his public duties.

[A.C. No. 4984. April 1, 2003]

ATTY. JULITO D. VITRIOLO, PRECILLANA J. HONORICA, ARLEEN J. RAMOS, DR. ROGER
PEREZ, DR. IMELDA DARAUG, DR. REMIGIA NATHANIELZ, CELEDONIA CORONACION,
and JOSE RABALO, complainants, vs. ATTY. FELINA DASIG, respondent.

Facts:

Resondent Atty. Felina Dasig is an OIC of Legal Affairs Services in CHED. Several
Complaints were filed against her during her tenure as an OIC of Legal Affairs
Services:

- That Sometime in August 1998 she demanded from Betty a teacher in

Novaliches the amount of P20,000.00 and later reduced it to 5,000.00 for the
facilitation of her application for correction of name then pending before the
office of the Legal Affairs Services
- That likewise in July to August of 1998 she demanded from Rosalie a student
the amount of 18,000.00 to 20,000.00 for the facilitation of her application
for the correction of her name.
- That likewise on September 1998 she demanded from Rechelle a student
5,000.00 for the facilitation of her application to correct her name and even
suggested to her to register her birth even though she had full knowledge of
a prior registration.
- That likewise in August to September she demanded from Jacqueline a
student a substantial amount of 15,000.00 her application to correct her
name and in addition suggested to her to hire a lawyer who shall be chosen
by her to facilitate the application.
- likewise aver that respondent violated her oath as attorney-at-law by filing
eleven (11) baseless, groundless, and unfounded suits before the Office of
the City Prosecutor of Quezon City, which were subsequently dismissed.
- Further, complainants charge respondent of transgressing subparagraph b
(22), Section 36[5] of Presidential Decree No. 807, for her willful failure to pay
 just debts owing to Borela Tire Supply and Novas Lining Brake & Clutch as
evidenced by the dishonored checks she issued, [6] the complaint sheet, and
the subpoena issued to respondent
- Complainants also allege that respondent instigated the commission of a
crime against complainant Celedonia R. Coronacion and Rodrigo Coronacion,
Jr., when she encouraged and ordered her son, Jonathan Dasig, a guard of the
Bureau of Jail Management and Penology, to draw his gun and shoot the
Coronacions on the evening of May 14, 1997. As a result of this incident, a
complaint for grave threats against the respondent and her son, docketed as
Criminal Case No. 86052, was lodged with the Metropolitan Trial Court of
Quezon City, Branch 36.
- Finally, complainants allege that respondent authored and sent to then
President Joseph Estrada a libelous and unfair report, which maligned the
good names and reputation of no less than eleven (11) CHED Directors
calculated to justify her ill motive of preventing their re-appointment and with
the end view of securing an appointment for herself

Issue:

Whether a lawyer who holds public office may not be disciplined as a member of the
Bar for misconduct in the discharge of his duties as a government official

Ruling:

If said misconduct as a government official also constitutes a violation of his oath as

a lawyer, then he may be disciplined by this Court as a member of the Bar

A member of the Bar who assumes public office does not shed his professional
obligations. Hence, the Code of Professional Responsibility, promulgated on June 21,
1988, was not meant to govern the conduct of private practitioners alone, but of all
lawyers including those in government service. This is clear from Canon 6 [17] of said
Code. Lawyers in government are public servants who owe the utmost fidelity to the
public service. Thus, they should be more sensitive in the performance of their
professional obligations, as their conduct is subject to the ever-constant scrutiny of
the public.

Respondents attempts to extort money from persons with applications or

requests pending before her office are violative of Rule 1.01 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, which prohibits members of the Bar from engaging or
participating in any unlawful, dishonest, or deceitful acts. Moreover, said acts
constitute a breach of Rule 6.02 of the Code which bars lawyers in government
service from promoting their private interests. Promotion of private interests
includes soliciting gifts or anything of monetary value in any transaction requiring
the approval of his office or which may be affected by the functions of his office.
Respondents conduct in office falls short of the integrity and good moral character
required from all lawyers, specially from one occupying a high public office. For a
lawyer in public office is expected not only to refrain from any act or omission which
might tend to lessen the trust and confidence of the citizenry in government, she
must also uphold the dignity of the legal profession at all times and observe a high
standard of honesty and fair dealing. Otherwise said, a lawyer in government
service is a keeper of the public faith and is burdened with high degree of social
responsibility, perhaps higher than her brethren in private practice.

For her violation of the Attorneys Oath as well as of Rule 1.01 and Rule 1.03 of
Canon 1[20] and Rule 6.02 of Canon 6 of the Code of Professional Responsibility,
particularly for acts of dishonesty as well as gross misconduct as OIC, Legal
Services, CHED, we find that respondent deserves not just the penalty of three
years suspension from membership in the Bar as well as the practice of law, as
recommended by the IBP Board of Governors, but outright disbarment. Her name
shall be stricken off the list of attorneys upon finality of this decision.

CANON 6 - THESE CANONS SHALL APPLY TO LAWYERS IN GOVERNMENT

SERVICES IN THE DISCHARGE OF THEIR TASKS

A.C. No. 5119 April 17, 2013

ROSARIO BERENGUER-LANDERS and PABLO BERENGUER, Complainants,
vs.
ATTY. ISABEL E. FLORIN, ATTY. MARCELINO JORNALES and ATTY. PEDRO
VEGA, Respondents.

FACTS:

Respondent Atty. Isabel E. Florin is a Regional Adjudicator of DARAB. Petitioners

Remedios Berenguer-Lintag, Carlo Berenguer and Belinda Berenguer-Aguirre,
Rosario Berenguer-Landers and Pablo Berenguer (Berenguers) are the registered
owners of a 58.0649-hectare land in Bibingcahan, Sorsogon, Sorsogon. Sometime in
April 1998, a notice of coverage was issued by the Department of Agrarian Reform
(DAR) regarding the acquisition of their landholding pursuant to Republic Act No.
6657 or the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP). The Berenguers
protested and applied for the exclusion of their land with the DAR and for a notice to
lift coverage based on the ground that their landholdings have been used
exclusively for livestock pursuant to DAR Administrative Order No. 09
On October and November 1998, the DAR Secretary, without acting on the application
for exclusion, cancelled the Berenguers certificates of title on the land and issued
Certificates of Land Ownership Award3 (CLOAs) in favor of the members of the Baribag
Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries Development Cooperative (BARIBAG).
Eventually, DAR Regional Director Percival Dalugdug (Dalugdug) denied their application
for exclusion from the CARPs coverage in the Order4 dated February 15, 1999 based on
the Investigation Report dated February 9, 1999 submitted by the DAR Region V
Investigation that said area sought to be excluded is principally devoted to coconuts
and not the raising of livestock.5
Aggrieved, the Berenguers filed a notice of appeal6 with the Secretary of DAR.
While the case was pending appeal, BARIBAG filed a petition 7 for the implementation of
the Order dated February 15, 1999 before the Regional Agrarian Reform Adjudicator
(RARAD). This was granted by Florin, as RARAD, in an Order8 dated March 15, 1999.
Accordingly, Florin directed the issuance and implementation of the Writ of Possession. 9
On March 19, 1999, the Berenguers filed a motion for reconsideration,10 claiming that
they were denied due process as they were not furnished with a copy of BARIBAGs
petition for implementation. Florin denied the motion for reconsideration for lack of
merit in an Order11 dated March 22, 1999.
On March 25, 1999, the Berenguers appealed12 to the DAR Adjudication Board (DARAB).
BARIBAG, on other hand, filed a Motion for the Issuance of a Writ of Possession.13 The
Berenguers opposed14 the motion saying that the execution would be premature in view
of their pending appeal before the DARAB. Nevertheless, BARIBAG still filed a Motion for
the Appointment of a Special Sheriff.15
In his Order16 dated April 6, 1999, DAR Acting Secretary Conrado S. Navarro denied the
Berenguers appeal.
On April 8, 1999, Florin issued a Resolution,17 which granted BARIBAGs Motion for the
Appointment of a Special Sheriff and ordered the issuance of the writ of possession
prayed for.
On April 13, 1999, the Berenguers filed a motion to set aside 18 the Resolution dated April
8, 1999, arguing that: the DARAB already acquired jurisdiction over case when they
seasonably filed an appeal before it; and that Florin should have waited until the DARAB
has decided the appeal. In an Order19 dated April 21, 1999, Florin denied the said motion
prompting the Berenguers to move for her inhibition20 on ground of partiality.
The Berenguers elevated the matter via petition for certiorari to the Court of Appeals
(CA), docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 51858, which was denied outright on procedural
grounds, to wit: (1) copy of the assailed order bears the words "certified true copy" but
the name and authority of the person certifying is not indicated as required in SC
Circular No. 3-96, and the signature therein is illegible; (2) only one of the petitioners
signed the certification on non-forum shopping which is an insufficient compliance of
Section 1, Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Court; and (3) there is non-exhaustion of
administrative remedies as the assailed order of the Regional Director is not directly
reviewable by the CA.21
Undaunted, the Berenguers filed a second petition for certiorari with the CA, docketed
as CA-G.R. SP No. 53174, which questioned the Orders dated March 15, 1999 and March
22, 1999 issued by Florin. The petition was also denied on grounds of lack of jurisdiction
and wrong mode of appeal.22
Thus, Florin issued on April 21, 1999 a Writ of Possession23 in favor of BARIBAG.
Florin subsequently directed the full implementation of the writ of possession pursuant
to Rule 71 of the Rules of Court in spite of the Berenguers protestations. 24
On June 3, 1999, the Berenguers moved to quash25 the Writ of Possession, to no avail
Issue:

Whether a lawyer who holds public office may not be disciplined as a member of the
Bar for misconduct in the discharge of his duties as a government official

Ruling:

Generally speaking, a lawyer who holds a government office may not be disciplined
as a member of the Bar for misconduct in the discharge of his duties as a
government official. However, if said misconduct as a government official also
constitutes a violation of his oath as a lawyer, then he may be disciplined by this
Court as a member of the Bar.

A member of the Bar who assumes public office does not shed his professional
obligations. Hence, the Code of Professional Responsibility, promulgated on June 21,
1988, was not meant to govern the conduct of private practitioners alone, but of all
lawyers including those in government service. This is clear from Canon 6 44 of said
Code. Lawyers in government are public servants who owe the utmost fidelity to the
public service. Thus, they should be more sensitive in the performance of their
professional obligations, as their conduct is subject to the ever-constant scrutiny of
the public.

For a lawyer in public office is expected not only to refrain from any act or omission
which might tend to lessen the trust and confidence of the citizenry in government,
she must also uphold the dignity of the legal profession at all times and observe a
high standard of honesty and fair dealing. Otherwise said, a lawyer in government
service is a keeper of the public faith and is burdened with high degree of social
responsibility, perhaps higher than her brethren in private practice

Section 29 of DAR Administrative Order No. 06-00 provides:

SEC. 29. Effect of Appeal.Appeal to the Secretary, the Office of the President, or the Court of
Appeals shall have the following effects:

(a) Appeal from the Regional Director or Undersecretary to the Secretary.The appeal shall stay the
order appealed from unless the Secretary directs execution pending appeal, as he may deem just,
considering the nature and circumstances of the case (Executive Order No. 292 [1987], Book VII,
Chapter 4, Sec. 21).
Based on the foregoing provision, the appeal of the Berenguers to the DAR Secretary clearly stayed
the implementation of Regional Director Dalugdugs Order dated February 15, 1999. Moreover, it is
the DAR Secretary who has jurisdiction to order execution pending appeal. Records reveal that
there was no order by the DAR Secretary directing execution of the Order dated February 15, 1999
during the pendency of the Berenguers appeal

Corollarily, Rule 39 of the 1997 Rules of Court provides for the instances when execution may be
had, namely: (1) after a decision or order has become final and executory; 48 (2) pending appeal, only
upon good reasons to be stated in a special order after due hearing; 49 and (3) execution of several,
separate or partial judgments

While a judge may not be disciplined for error of judgment absent proof that such error was made
with a conscious and deliberate intent to cause an injustice, 51 the facts on hand prove otherwise.
Florins issuance of the writ of execution and writ of possession in order to fully implement Regional
Director Dalugdugs Order dated February 15, 1999 clearly constitutes ignorance of the law for as a
rule, a writ of execution is issued only after the subject judgment or order has already become final
and executory.52 As aptly stated by IBP Commissioner San Juan, Florin ordered the issuance of such
writs despite the pendency of the appeal with the DARAB.53Consequently, the Court finds merit in
the recommendation of suspension