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, v. ATTY. FELINA DASIG, respondent.

Facts: respondent Atty. Felina Dasig, on various occasions, during her tenure as OIC, Legal Services,
CHED, attempted to extort from Betty C. Mangohon, Rosalie B. Dela Torre, Rocella G. Eje, and Jacqueline
N. Ng sums of money as consideration for her favorable action on their pending applications or requests
before her office. The evidence remains unrefuted, given the respondents failure, despite the
opportunities afforded her by this Court and the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline to comment on the
charges.

The IBP Commission on Bar Discipline recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice
of law for the maximum period allowable of three (3) years with a further warning that similar action in
the future will be a ground for disbarment of respondent.

On August 3, 2002, the IBP Board of Governors passed Resolution suspending respondent from the
practice of law for three (3) years.

Issue: whether respondent attorney-at-law, as Officer-in-Charge (OIC) of Legal Services, CHED, may be
disciplined by this Court for her malfeasance, considering that her position, at the time of filing of the
complaint, was Chief Education Program Specialist, Standards Development Division, Office of Programs
and Standards, CHED?

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.

Respondents misconduct as a lawyer of the CHED is of such a character as to affect her qualification as a
member of the Bar, for as a lawyer, she ought to have known that it was patently unethical and illegal for
her to demand sums of money as consideration for the approval of applications and requests awaiting
action by her office.

The Attorneys Oath imposes upon every member of the bar the duty to delay no man for money or
malice. Said duty is further stressed in Rule 1.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Respondents
demands for sums of money to facilitate the processing of pending applications or requests before her
office violates such duty, and runs afoul of the oath she took when admitted to the Bar. Such actions
likewise run contrary to Rule 1.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

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 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.

For her violation of the Attorneys Oath as well as of Rule 1.01 and Rule 1.03 of Canon 1 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.

A.M. No. P-99-1287 January 26, 2001

OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, complainant, vs. ATTY. MISAEL M. LADAGA, Branch Clerk of
Court, Regional Trial Court, Branch 133, Makati City, respondent.

Facts: respondent appeared as counsel for his cousin without first securing permission from the Court.
It was his first time to do it and that said appearance was not for a fee.

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:

Sec. 7. Prohibited Acts and Transactions. – In addition to acts and omissions of public officials and
employees now prescribed in the Constitution and existing laws, the following shall constitute prohibited
acts and transactions of any public official and employee and are hereby declared to be unlawful:

x x x

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

x x x

(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;

Respondent admitted that he had appeared in Criminal Case No. 84885 without prior authorization. He
rationalized 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. In any case, his appearances in court were covered
by leave applications approved by the presiding judge.

Regional Trial Court of Makati, Judge Josefina Guevarra-Salonga recommended that he be

REPRIMANDED with a stern warning that any repetition of such act would be dealt with more severely.

Issue: Whether Atty. Ladaga’s appearances as a pro bono counsel for his cousin constitutes practice of
law as prohibited by the Administrative Code.

Ruling: No.

"Private practice" of a profession, specifically the law profession in this case, which is prohibited, does
not pertain to an isolated court appearance; rather, it contemplates a succession of acts of the same
nature habitually or customarily holding one's 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."
Based on the foregoing, it is evident that the isolated instances when respondent appeared as pro bono
counsel of his cousin in Criminal Case No. 84885 does not constitute the "private practice" of the law
profession contemplated by law.

Nonetheless, while respondent's isolated court appearances did not amount to a private practice of law,
he failed to obtain a written permission therefor from the head of the Department, which is this Court as
required by Section 12, Rule XVIII of the Revised Civil Service Rules. The presiding judge of the court to
which respondent is assigned is not the head of the Department contemplated by law.

Respondent Atty. Misael M. Ladaga is hereby REPRIMANDED with a stern warning that any repetition of
such act would be dealt with more severely.