NAPOLES, Shanelle T.

TOPIC: Duty of a Lawyer Employed in the Government

CITATION: A.C. No. 11069

FACTURAN vs. BARCELONA
TITLE: DATE: June 08, 2016

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, he must also uphold the dignity
DOCTRINE: 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.

FACTS:

On June 04, 2004 a complaint was filed against six persons, before the provincial prosecution office and was
assigned for preliminary investigation to Prosecutor Amerkhan, on October 26, 2004 the latter forwarded the
records of the case together with the resolution recommending the prosecution of the accused and the
corresponding information to respondent for his approval and signature. However, the respondent neither
approved nor signed the resolution, but instead removed the case records from the office of the Provincial
Prosecutor and brought them to his residence. It appears that the respondent was personally known to the
accused as one of them is his cousin. Aggrieved the complainant sought the intervention of the Department of
Justice. On June 20 2005, the complainant learned that the case had been turned over to the Office but without
Prosecutor Amerkhan’s resolution and information. Neither did the respondent approve nor act upon the same
prompting the complainant to file this case for disbarment anchored on gross misconduct in office and
dishonesty and conduct unbecoming of a lawyer.

In his defense the respondent claims that the delay was not because of his alleged malicious action as he had
inhibited himself from the case and so it was assigned to Prosecutor Amerkhan.

The IBP held that the respondent is administratively liable violating Canon 18 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. Hence this petition.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the action of the prosecutor in delaying the progress of the complaint by neither approving
nor signing the resolution and bringing the case records to his home constitute grave misconduct.

HELD:

Affirmative. However, the court ruled that the respondent has violated Rule 6.02 Canon 6 of the same code,
“A lawyer in the government service shall not use his public position to promote advance his private
interests, nor allow the latter to interfere with his public duties.” And not that of Canon 18.

Respondent's actions and omissions in this case, appear to have been committed for the benefit of and to
safeguard private interests. As a lawyer who is also a public officer, respondent miserably failed to cope with
the strict demands and high standards of the legal profession. It bears stressing that 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, he 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.

The Court ruled his suspension from the practice of law for a period of one year and is sternly warned that a
repetition of the act will be dealt more severely.