OCA vs. Ladaga A.M. No.

P-99-1287
January 26, 2001
FACTS:
• On August 31, 1998, respondent Atty. Misael Ladaga Branch Clerk of Court of the RTC of Makati,
Branch 133, requested the Court Administrator, Justice Alfredo L. Benipayo, for authority to
appear as pro bono counsel of his cousin, Narcisa Naldoza Ladaga, in a Criminal Case for
Falsification of Public Document before the MTC of Quezon City, Branch 40.
• Pending his request, Lisa Payoyo Andres, the private complainant of the criminal case sent a letter
to the Court Administrator requesting for a certification with regards to Atty. Ladaga’s authority
to appear as counsel for the accused.
• On September 14, 1998, Atty. Ladaga admitted before the OCA that he had appeared in said
criminal case without prior authorization. He reasoned out that his appearance in the criminal
case did not prejudice his office nor the interest of the public since he did not take advantage of
his position and that his appearances in court were covered by leave application approved by the
presiding judge.
• On January 25, 1999, the Court Administrator filed the instant administrative complaint against
respondent for violating Sec. 7(b)(2) of Republic Act No. 6713, otherwise known as the Code of
Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees, which provides:

(b) Outside employment and other activities related thereto – Public officials and employees
during their incumbency shall not:

(2) Engage in the private practice of their profession unless authorized by the Constitution or law,
provided that such practice will not conflict or tend to conflict with their official functions.

ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Ladaga’s appearance as a pro bono counsel for his relative constitutes private
practice of law as prohibited by the rules.

RULING: No, Atty. Ladaga’s appearance as private counsel for his cousin does not constitute private
practice of law.

It should be noted that the private practice of a profession, specifically the law profession, does not
pertain to an isolated court appearance; rather, it contemplates a succession of acts of the same nature
habitually or customarily holding ones self to the public as a lawyer.

Essentially, the word private practice of law implies that one must have presented himself to be in the
active and continued practice of the legal profession and that his professional services are available to the
public for a compensation, as a source of his livelihood or in consideration of his said services.

Furthermore, Sec. 12, Rule XVIII of the Revised Civil Service Rules: No officer or employee shall engage
directly in any private business, vocation, or profession or be connected with any commercial, credit,
agricultural, or industrial undertaking without a written permission from the head of the
Department: Provided, That this prohibition will be absolute in the case of those officers and employees
whose duties and responsibilities require that their entire time be at the disposal of the
Government; Provided, further, That if an employee is granted permission to engage in outside activities,
time so devoted outside of office hours should be fixed by the agency to the end that it will not impair in
any way the efficiency of the officer or employee:

While it is true that respondent filed leave applications corresponding to the dates he appeared in court,
he, however, failed to obtain a prior permission from the head of the Department (CJ of the Supreme
Court). The presiding judge of the court to which respondent is assigned is not the head of the Department
contemplated by law.

Wherefore, respondent Atty. Misael Ladaga was REPRIMANDED for appearing without prior authorization
from the head of the Department with a stern warning that any repetition of such act would be dealt with
more severely.