REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

~anoiBanha~an
Quezon City

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, SB-14-CRM-0011

Plaintiff, For: Violation of Section 7(b)
par. 2 of R.A. 6713

CABOTAJE-TANG, P.J.,
Chairperson
FERNANDEZ, SJ, J. and
BERNIE FONDEVILLA Y TRESPESES,* J.
GANAN

Promulgated:

~.s,~)-~).
x--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
r,

Accused Bernie G. Fondevilla stands charged for violation of

Section 7(b )(2) of Republic Act No, 6713 (R.A. No. 6713),1 for
engaging in the private practice of law by becoming a founding partner
of Fondevilla Jasarino Fondevilla Young Rondario and Librojo Law
Offices, without authority to do so, during his incumbency in the
position of President of the Food Terminal, Incorporated (FTI).

That on June 19, 2003 or sometime prior or subsequent

thereto, in the City of Manila, Metro Manila, Philippines, and within
the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the abovenamed accused
BERNIE G. FONDEVILLA Y GANAN, a high ranking public officer,

*As per Administrative Order No. 0227-2016 dated July 26, 2016; Rule XII, Sec. 3 of the Revised Internal
Rules of the Sandiganbayan
1 Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees
DECISION
People. vs. Fondevilla
Criminal Case No. SB-14-CRM-0011

being then the President of Food Terminal (FTI), Incorporated, a

government-owned and controlled corporation, dig then and there,
willfully, unlawfully and criminally engage in the private practice of
his profession as a lawyer, by becoming a founding partner of
Fondevilla, Jasarino, Fondevilla, Yong [sic], Rondario and Librojo
Law Offices, a law firm engaged in the private practice of law, despite
no authority to do so and while simultaneously holding the position
as President of FTI, to the damage and prejudice of the government
and of the public interest.

When arraigned, accused, assisted by counsel, entered a plea

of "Not Guilty" to the offense charged.2

During the pre-trial, the parties stipulated as follows:3

1. Accused Fondevilla is the same person named· in the Information

docketed as SB-14-CRM-0011.

2. Abcused Fondevilla was appointed as President of the Food

Terminal Incorporated, a government-owned and controlled
corporation, effective 01 December 2002 and served as such up
to October 2005.

3. Accused Fondevilla is a lawyer and a founding partner of th~

Fondevilla, Jasarino, Young, Rondario & Librojo Law Offices.

The parties agreed that the issue to be resolved is as follows:4

Whether accused Fondevilla, while holding public office as

President of Food Terminal Incorporated, enga~ed in the private
practice of law as a partner of the Fondevilla Jasarino Fondevilla
Young Rondario & Librojo Law Offices without auth rity to do so in
violation of Sec. 7(b)(2) of Republic Act No. 6713 '

, );,
/7
'Y'~.

2 pp. 104-105, Record

3 p. 183, Record (p. 3, Pre-Trial Order dated June 16, 2015)
4/bid.
DECISION
People. vs. Fondevilla
Criminal Case No. SB-14-CRM-0011

The prosecution presented two (2) witnesses, namely, Atty.

Sheara Lupangco-Tamayo5 and Atty. Ryan Martinez.6

Atty. Sheara Lupangco-Tamayo's testimony was dispensed

with after the parties stipulated as follows: 7

a. Atty. Tamayo is the authorized representative of the Company

Registration and Monitoring Department of the Securities and
Exchange Commission (SEC-CRMD).

b. The SEC-CRMD has custody of the original Articles of

Partriership of Fondevilla, Jasarino, Fondevilla, Young, Rondario
and Librojo Law Offices (Exhibit "C").

c. Said Articles of Partnership was submitted to the SEC on 7 July

2000 and duly recorded in Folio 1386, Leaf No. 69101, Inscription
No. 20 in the Book of Partnership of the SEC. Said Articles of
Partnership was signed and the seal of the Commission was
affixed on December 6,2000.

d. The Articles of Partnership was amended on June 19,2003 and

the Amended Articles of Partnership was submitted to the SEC
on June 20, 2003 (Exhibit "B").

e. The original Amended Articles of Partnership of Fondevilla,

Jasarjno, Young, Rondario and Librojo Law Offices was duly
recorded in Folio 78, Leaf No. 69101, Inscription No.3, Volume
No. 1386 in the Book of Partnership of the SEC. The amended
Articles of Partnership was signed and the seal of the
Commission was affixed thereto on June 26, 2003.

f. Both (aforementioned) Articles of Partnership, identified six (6)

founding partners, one of whom is accused Bernie G. Fondevilla,
whose initial cash contribution amounted to P30·,000.00.

g. The stated purpose in both Articles of Partnership is to engage in

the practice of law through a general professional partnership .

. ~.'",Atty. Ryan Martinez's te timony was dispensed with after the

parties stipulated as follows:8

5 TSN, September 16, 2015.

6 TSN, September 17, 2015.
7 pp. 6-9, TSN, September 16, 2015; pp. 199-200 (Order dated September 16, 2015)

8 pp. 4-7, TSN, September 17,2015; pp. 201-202, Record (Order dated September 17, 2015)
DECISION
People. vs. Fondevilla
Criminal Case No. SB-14-CRM-0011

a. Atty. Martinez is the Vice President for Corporate Affairs of Food

Terminal, Inc. (FTI), a GOCC without original charter, and a
subsidiary of the National Food Authority. He was appointed in
August 2007.

b. FTI filed with the SEC an Amended Articles of Incorporation on

February 27,1985 (Exhibits "0-1" to "0-11").

c. The Office of the Vice President for Corporate Affairs has custody
of the following documents:

1. Employment records of accused Bernie G. Fondevilla

(Exhibits "A," "A-1" to "A-11")
2. Articles of Incorporation and By-Laws of the Food
Terminal, Inc. (Exhibits "0," "0-1" to "0-22")

d. Accused Bernie G. Fondevilla was appointed as President of FTI

on November 29,2002.

e. Accused Bernie G. Fondevilla accomplished a Personnel

Information Sheet (Exhibit "A-10"), specifying his personal
circumstances such as educational attainment and work
experience, among others.

f. Accused Bernie G. Fondevilla served as FTI President from

December 1, 2002 up to November 1, 2005 evidenced by the
following documents:

1. Service Record (Exhibits "A-4" and "A-5")

2. FTI Board Resolutions No. 10-20-05 (Exhibits "A-6" and
"A-7") and 10-21-05
3. Secretary's Certificate

g. The Job Description Form (Exhibits "A-2" and "A-3") states that
the responsibilities of accused Fondevilla as President of FTI
include the provision of overall direction and management of the
operation of FTI to ensure its survival and growth.

h. Under the Amended By-Laws, the corporate officers of FTI are

the President, Executive Vice President, Vice Presidents and
Department Managers (Exhibits "0-14" to "0-22").

I. In Lumanta v. NLRC,9 the Supreme Court ruled that the terms

and conditions of FTI employees are governed by the Labor Code
and not by the Civil Service Commission Rules and Regulations.

j.
d' /?
Also in Lumanta, it was held that FTI emPIOye~a~iCers
covered by the SSS Law and not by the GSIS~
are

9 G.R. No. 82819, February 8, 1989

DECISION
Peopffi. vs. Fondevilla
Criminal Case No. SB-14-CRM-0011

This Court resolved to admit all exhibits offered by the

prosecution.10

Exhibit Document
A Letter dated March 3, 2014 of Atty. Ryan A. Martinez
A-1 Letter of Appointment dated November 29, 2002 of Bernie
G. Fondevilla
A-2 and A-3 Job Description of the President and Chief Executive Officer
of FTI
A-4 and A-5 Employee Service Records of Bernie G. Fondevilla
A-6 and A-7 FTI Board Resolution NO.1 0-20-05
A-10 FTI Personnel Information Sheet of Bernie G. Fondevilla
A-11 Sworn Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth
(SALN) of Bernie G. Fondevilla as of December 31,2002
B and B-1 Certificate dated June 26, 2003 issued by the SEC and
Cover Sheet
B-2 to B-12 and Amended Articles of Partnership of the Fondevilla Jasarino
its sub-marking Young Rondario & Librojo Law Offices dated 19 June 2003
(B-11-A)
B-13 and B-14 SEC-iRegister and Verification/Reservation Request
B-15 Letter dated June 17, 2003 of Atty. William L. Jasarino,
addressed to SEC
B-17 Affidavit of Undertaking to Change Firm Name dated June
19, 2003 of Atty. William L. Jasarino
C Certificate dated December 6, 2000 and the corresponding
Amended Articles of Partnership of Fondevilla Jasarino
Fondevilla Young Rondario & Librojo Law Offices dated
June 26, 2000
0, 0-1 to 0-22 Amended Articles of Incorporation and Amended By-Laws
of FTI

The accused filed his Motion for Leave to File Demurrer to

Evidence.11 However, the Court resolved to deny said Motion.12

EVIDENCE FOR THE DEFENSE

The defense presented two (2) witnes:~ameIY, Atty. Zeus

Librojo13 and accused Bernie G. FondeVill:f:~' ~

. i'
10 p. 288, Record (Resolution dated October 28,2015)
11 Dated November 11,2015; pp. 297-304, Record
12 p. 311 Record (Resolution dated November 25,2015)
13 TSN, February 11, 2016.
14 Tl5N, April 5, 2016.
DECISION
Peopk. vs. Fondevilla
Criminal Case No. SB-14-CRM~0011

a. He was a founding partner of Fondevilla, Jasarino, Young,

Rondario and Librojo Law Offices.15

b. Initially, only Atty. William Jasarino and Atty. Eugeryl T. Rondario

(Exhibit "2") were the official partners in the law firm because the
others were still completing their obligations with the previous law
firms they were connected with.16

c. Sometime in 2000, the Articles of Partnership was amended

(Exhibit "3") to include Attys. Jim Fondevilla, Bernie Fondevilla,
Frederick Young and himself. 17

e. Department of Agriculture (DA) Secretary Arthur Yap convinced

accused Bernie Fondevilla to enter government service.
Thereafter, the accused advised the law firm that he was entering
government service.19

f. The accused advised the law firm sometime in 2001 or 2002.

They were moving offices to 1701 East Tower at the time.2o

g. The Accused was not allotted a room or working space in the new
office because he already resigned from the firm.21

h. The accused' withdrawal from the firm was formalized by the filing
of the Amended Articles of Partnership dated June 19, 2003 with
th'e SEC on June 20, 2003 (Exhibit "4").22

i. The Amended Articles of Partnership dated June 19, 2003

identified accused Fondevilla as one of the founding partners. He
also signed the said document.23

J. At the time of accused Fondevilla's resignation, the firm was

moving offices. Consequently, the paralegal assigned to submit
the papers before the SEC failed to process the said papers
immediat~

" p. 6, TSN,Feb""y 11, 2016

16 pp. 6, 8, TSN, February

17 p. 8, TS'N, February
11, 2016
11, 2016
/l '/'
/V
18 p. 9, TSN, February 11, 2016
19 pp. 9-10, TSN, February 11, 2016
20 p. 10, TSN, F~bruary 11, 2016
21 pp. 10-11, TSN, February 11, 2016
22 pp. 11-12, TSN, February 11, 2016
23 p. 14, TSN, February 11, 2016
24 p. 12, TSN, February 11, 2016
DECISION
People. vs. Fondevilla
Criminal Case No. SB-14-CRM-0011

k. Atty. Bernie Fondevilla did not practice his profession in their law
firm when he was already FTI President. As far as he is aware,
the a<?cuseddoes not want to practice law anymore.25

a. He was one of the original members of Fondevilla, Jasarino,

Young, Rondario and Librojo Law Offices.26

b. He and his brother Atty. Jim G. Fondevilla, and their friends,

Attys. Eugeryl T. Rondario, Zeus B. Librojo, Frederick Young and
Willy Jasarino agreed to form a law firm. But since most of them
were still members of other law firms, they agreed that Atty.
Rondario and Atty. Jasarino would form the initial firm.27

c. The entry of the other partners was formalized by the amendment

of the Articles of Partnership (Exhibit "3"), thus forming
Fondevilla, Jasarino, Rondario, Young, FondevilJ'a and Librojo
Law Offices in 2000, the same year he became a named
partner.28

d. He left the firm on November 18,2002 because he was appointed

as President of the FTI. He was appointed to the position on
November 29,2002. He assumed office on December 1,2002.29

e. After he left the firm, the remaining partners moved their office.
The partnership was dissolved sometime thereafter.3o

f. He entrusted the processing of the documentation of his

withdrawal from the firm to his partners. He was surprised when
he learned that the documents were not filed until much later, in
June 2003.31

g. He signed the Amended Articles of Partnership dated June 19,

2003.32

h. As far as he was concerned, he met with his partners and they

agreed that he would no longer be part ;rOfthe firm prior to his
assumption of office on December 1, 2002.33

--
2S p. 13, TSN, February 11, 2016
'/?
.-.I .
26 p. 8, TSN, April 5, 2016 I
27 p. 8, TSN, April 5, 2016

28 pp. 8-9, TSN, April 5, 2016

29 p. 11, TSN, April 5, 2016

30 p. 22, TSN, April 5, 2016

31 p. 13, TSN, April 5, 2016

32 p. 20, TSN, April 5, 2016

33 p. 13, TSN, April 5, 2016

DECISION
People. vs. Fondevilla
Criminal Case No. SB-14-CRM-0011

I. He served as President of FTI until 2005. Thereafter, he was

appointed Executive Director of National Agriculture and Fishery
Council in the same year.34

j. After withdrawing from the firm, he did not sig~ any pleading or
appear for and in behalf of the firm's clients in any proceeding.
He devoted all of his time to FTI, which had many troubles at the
time.35

k. The time record of FTI shows that he regularly reported for work.
When he left FTI, the Board and shareholders of FTI gave him a
commendation for his part in FTI's financial recovery (Exhibits "1-
H" and "1_1").36

I. He did not rejoin the law firm after leaving FTI in 2005 because
he was appointed as Executive Director' of the National
Agriculture and Fishery Council, and assumed office as such.37

m. He requested from the law firm a copy of the minutes of the

meeting to prove that he withdrew from the firm. He was informed
that the firm could not secure a copy of the minutes.38

The Court admitted all the exhibits offered by the defense.39

Exhibit Document
1 Letter dated March 3, 2014 of Atty. Ryan A. Martinez
1-A Letter of Appointment dated November 29, 2002 of Bernie
G. Fondevilla
1-B and 1-C Job Description of the President and Chief Executive Officer
of FTI
1-0 and 1-E Employee Service Records of Bernie G. Fondevilla
1-F and 1-G FTI Board Resolution NO.1 0-20-05
1-H and 1-1 FTI Board Resolution No. 10-21-05
1-J FTI Personnel Information Sheet of Bernie G. Fondevilla
2 and series Articles of Partnership of Jasarino and Rondario Law Offices
dated May 12, 1999 .
3 and series Amended Articles of Partnership' of Fondevilla Jasarino
Fondevilla Young Rondario and Librojo Law Offices dated
June 2000
4 and series Amended Articles of Partnership of Fondevilla Jasarino
, Young R~rio and Librojo Law Offices dated June 19,

_\~.7t
34
.

p. 14, TSN, AprilS, 2016

2003

\.~ /
/Z",i
-----

_
35 pp. 14-15, TSN, AprilS, 2016 . <)' •
36 p. 16, TSN, April 5, 2016 fI'"

37 p. 18, TSN, AprilS, 2016

38 p_ 22, TSN, AprilS, 2016
39 p. 464, Record (Resolution dated June 1, 2016)
DECISION
People. vs. Fondevilla
Criminal Case No. SB-14-CRM-0011

___ 5__ -.:==J Letter dated June 17, 2003 of Atty. Willian L. Jasarino

The prosecution did not present rebuttal evidence.4o

On May 18, 1999, the Articles of Partnership41 of Jasarino and

Rondario Law Offices was submitted to the Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC). The Articles of Partnership was amended42
sometime in 2000 to include Attys. Jim Fondevilla, Bernie Fondevilla
(the accused), Frederick Young and Zeus Librojo in the partnership.
The six (6) of them were identified as the founding partners.

On November 29, 2002, the accused was appointed43 as

President of Food Terminal, Inc. (FTI), a government-owned and
controlled corporation (GOCC). He assumed office on December 1,
2002 and held the position until November 1, 2005.

On June 20, 2003 - more than six (6) months from the time the
accused assumed his position as President of FTI - the Amended
Articles of Partnership was, again, amended.44 The name of the
accused was removed from the partnership name. However, he was
still indicated as one of the founding partners, with a handwritten note
stating liON LEAVE: See attached letter." The accused also signed the
said Amended Articles of Partnership. Attached to the Amended
Articles of Partnership was Atty. William L. Jasarino's letter45 dated
June 17, 2003, a portion of which reads:

This has reference to the partnership's application for a change of

firm name.

Due to the appointment in the government of Atty. Bernie G.

Fondevilla, one of the name partners, the partnership had decided to
change its firm name from "FONDEVILLA JASARINO
FONDEVILLA YOUNG RONDARIO AND L1BROJO LAW
OFFICES" to "FONDEVIL~~SARINO
(J
YOUNG RONDARIO AND
L1BROJO LAW OFFICES~ ~ r ,

40 p. 24, TSN, April 5, 2016 •.•••.•.

/
41 Exhibit 2 ' 1
42 Exhibits C/3
43 Exhibits A-l/1-A
44 Exhibits B to B-12/4
4S Exhibits B-15/5
DECISION
People. vs. Fondevilla
Criminal Case No. SB-14-CRM-0011

On February 7, 2008, the Field Investigation Office (FIO) of the

Office of the Ombudsman filed a complaint against the accused for not
withdrawing from the Fondevilla Jasarino Fondevilla Young Rondario
and Librojo Law Offices and not divesting himself of his interest therein
after he assumed office as President of FTI.46

In the Joint Resolution dated November 28, 2011, the Office of

the Ombudsman found probable cause to charge the accused with
violation of Section 7(b)(2) of R.A. No. 6713.47 The Information in the
present case was filed before the Court on January 14, 2014.

Accused is charged with violation of Sec. 7(b), par. 2 of R.A. No.

6713, by b~coming a founding partner of Fondevilla, Jasarino, Young,
Rondario and Librojo Law Offices, a law firm engaged in the private
practice of law, despite having no authority to do so and while
simultaneously holding th~ position as President of FTI.

Section 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:

(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.

These prohibitions are predicated on the principle that public

office is a public trust and serve to remove any impropriety, re~

46
47
p. 11, Record
pp. 4-10, Record
/?
,
,f'
DECISION
People. vs. Fondevilla
Criminal Case No. SB-14-CRM-0011

imagined, which may occur in government transactions. These also

promote the observance and the efficient use of every moment of the
prescribed office hours to serve the public.48

To determine whether the accused is guilty of violation of Sec.

7(b )(2) of R.A. No. 6713, the prosecution must show that the following
elements are present:

1. The accused is a public official or employee. .

2. The ac~used was engaged in the private practice of his or her
profession during his or her incumbency.
3. Such private practice of profession is not authorized by the
Constitution or law, or tends to conflict with the official functions
of the public official or employee.

Under R.A. No. 6713, a public official "includes elective or

appointive officials and employees, permanent or temporary, whether
in the career or non-career service"49serving in Government, including
GoCCs, and their subsidiaries. 50

As defined, a GoCC is either a "parent" corporation, i.e., one

created by special law or a "subsidiary" corporation, i.e., one created
pursuant to faw where at least a majority of the outstanding voting
capital stock of which is owned by a parent government corporation
and/or other government-owned subsidiaries. 51

Accused was President of FTI, a GoCC and a major subsidiary

of the National Food Authority.52 Letter of Instruction NO.1 013, which
created FTI, expressly provides that "the FTI be included in the
category of government owned/controlled corporations."53 Further, in
Navarra v. Ombudsman,54 the Supreme Court tangentially ruled that
the Ombudsman has jurisdiction over officials and employees of the
FTI when it ordered the Ombudsman to file an Information for Grave
Coercion against FTI officials, namely, Samuel Namanama (head of

49 See. 3(b)
50 Sec. 3(a) ,
51 Carandang v. Desierto, G.R. Nos. 148076 and 153161, January 12, 2011 ' •
52

53
p. 4, TSN, September 17, 2015
fn Lumanta v. NLRC (G.R. No. 82819 February 8,1989), the Supreme Court clarified that FTI is a
government-owned and controlled corporation without original charter.
7
54 G.R. No. 176291, December 4,2009,
DECISION
People. vs. Fondevilla
Criminal Case No. SB-14-CRM-OO 11

FTl's legal department), Danilo Medina (FTl's senior manager) and

Felixberto Lazaro (FTl's legal assistant).

The aforecited rulings make it clear that accused was a public

official covered by the prohibition against engaging in the private
practice of profession without authority under Sec. 7(b)(2) of R.A. No.
6713. Hence, the first element is present.

As a public official, the accused was bound by the prohibition in

Sec. 7(b )(2) of R.A. No. 6713 from the til11e he accepted his
.appointment to the position of President of FTI. He was mandated to
dedicate his time and efforts towards the management of FTI and not
to engage in the simultaneous private practice of his profession.

"Practice of law" is broadly defined as any activity, in and out of

court, which requires the application of law, legal procedure,
knowledge, training and experience.55 The term implies customarily or
habitually holding oneself out to the public as a lawyer for
compensation as a source of livelihood or in consideration of his
services. Holding oneself out as a lawyer may be shown by acts
indicative of that purpose such as identifying oneself as an attorney,
appearing in court in representation of a client, or associating oneself
as a partner of a law office for the general practice of law. 56

In Binalay v. Lelina,57 the Supreme Court s·~spended a judge for

engaging <.in the private practice of law during his preventive
suspension on account of an administrative case against him, and for
allowing a law firm to continue carrying his name. It was held:

Additionally, a judge should not permit a law firm, of which he

was formerly an active member, to continue to carry his name in the
firm name as that might create the impression that the firm
possesses an improper influence with the judge which consequently
is likely to impel those in need of legal services in connection with
matters before him to engage the services of the firm. x x x

By allowing his name to be included in the firm name

"Bartolome Lelina Calimag Densing & Associates "Law Offices" ~

-55-ca-y-et-an-o-v.-M-o-ns-Od-,-G-.R-. N-o-.1-00113, Septemb" 3, 1991 . , ~

56 Cambaliza v. Crista/-Tenorio, Adm. Case No. 6290, July 14, 2004 ",) '"
57 A.M. No. RTJ-08-2132, July 31,2009 /
DECISION
People. vs. Fondevilla
Criminal Case No. SB-14-CRM-0011

holding a judicial office, he held himself to the public as a practicing

lawyer, x x ~.

The circumstances in the aforecited case are markedly different

from those in the present case. There, the respondent actually
performed other ~cts that constituted "engaging in the private practice
of law." Here, nothing in the evidence on record would show that the
accused, during his incumbency, actually performed acts constituting
private practice of law, such as signing pleadings or representing
clients in any proceeding, or participating in the activities of the law
firm.

Nevertheless, this Court finds basis for concluding that the

accused was engaged in the private practice of law during his
incumbency as President of FTI.

In SamC?nte v. Gatdula,58 the name of therein respondent, Atty.

Gatdula, Branch Clerk of Court, appeared on a calling card with the
name "Baligod, Gatdula, Tacardo, Dimailig and Celera." The Supreme
Court held that the inclusion or retention of his name in the card
constitutes an act of solicitation, and reprimanded Atty. Gatdula for
engaging in the private practice of law. It ruled:

The above explanation tendered by the Respondent is an admission

that it is his name which appears on the calling card, a permissible
form of advertising or solicitation of legal services. Respondent does
not claim that the calling card was printed without his knowledge or
consent and the calling card carries his name primarily and the name
of Baligod, Gatdula, Tacardon, Dimailig and Celera with address at
220 Mariwasa Bldg., 717 Aurora Blvd., Cubao, Quezon City" in the
left corner. The card clearly gives the impression that tle is
connected with the said law firm. The inclusion/retention of his name
in the professional card constitutes an act of solicitation which
violates Section 7 sub-par. (b)(2) of Republic Act No. 6713, otherwise
known as "Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials
and Employees" which declares it unlawful for a public official or
employee to, among others:

"(2) Engage in private practice of their profession unless authorized by the

Constitution or law, provided that such practice will not conflict or tend to conflict
with official functions."

There, the High Court noted that the respondent did not claim
that the calling card was printed without his knowledge or consen/ll~
/\)\l
58 A.M. No. P-99-1292, February 26, 1999 ./2
LJECISION
People. vs. Fondevilla
Criminal Case No. SB-14-CRM-0011

especially considering that the calling card carried his name primarily,
and the names of the law firm indicated in the corner.

The Code of Professional Responsibility requires a partner who

accepts public office to withdraw from the firm. Rule 3.03 provides:

Rule 3.03 - Where a partner accepts public office, he shall

withdraw from the firm and his name shall be dropped from the firm
name unless the law allows him to practice law concurrently.

In the case at bar, the Amended Articles of Partnership dated

June 19, 200359 was amended solely for the purpose of removing the
name of the accused in the partnership name. This is supported by
the attached letter dated June 17, 2003,60 stating that the name of the
accused was being removed from the partnership name because of his
appointment to a government position. There is no doubt that the
name of the accused was dropped from the firm name, but it was not
shown that he actually withdrew from the firm.

The accused' and Atty. Librojo's averment that the accused

withdrew from the partnership is belied by the fact that he was still
indicated as a founding partner, albeit "on leave," in the Amended
Articles of Partnership dated June 19, 2003. Being "on leave" falls
short of the requirement in Rule 3.03 that the partner withdraws from
the firm. This Court notes that the accused signed said Amended
Articles,61 and thus, he cannot now claim that he has no knowledge of
the inclusion of his name therein.

Although it was not shown that he actually performed other acts

constituting "engaging in the private practice of law," he allowed
himself to be associated as a partner of the law firm, and thus, held
himself out to the public as a lawyer. Nonetheless, he cannot be
convicted on such basis because the facts proved by the prosecution
are different from those alleged in the Informatjon.
,
In People v. Macagaling,62 it was held that the prosecution has
the burden of proving beyond reasonable doubt all the elements of the
offense as alleged in the Information. Viz.>y·

59 Exhibits C/3
/tC'/J
60 Exhibits B-15/5
61 p. 20, TSN, April 5, 2016
6J G.R. Nos. 109131-33, October 3, 1994
DECISION
People. vs. Fondevilla
Criminal Case No. SB-14-CRM-0011

x x x. We cannot see how the rule can be otherwise since i!

is the inescapable duty of the prosecution to prove all the ingredients
of the offense as alleged against the accused in ao information,
which allegations must perforce include any negative element
provided- by the law to integrate that offense. We have reiterated
quite recently the fundamental mandate that since the prosecution
must allege all the elements of the offense charged, then it must
prove by the requisite quantum of evidence all the elements it has
thus alleged.

Here, the Information charges the accused of becoming a

founding partner of the Fondevilla Jasarino Young Rondario & Librojo
Law Offices during his incumbency as President of FTI. To wit:

x x x on June 19, 2003 or sometime prior or subsequent

thereto x x x the above named accused x x x willfully, unlawfully and
criminally engage in the private practice of his profession as a lawyer,
by becoming a founding partner of Fondevilla, Jasarino, Fondevilla,
Yong [sic], Rondario and Librojo Law Offices, a law firm engaged in
the private practice of law, despite no authority to do so and while
I

simultaneously holding the position as President of FTI x x x

.

On the other hand, the prosecution proved that he was a

founding partner of the law firm long before he was appointed to the
position of President of FTI, but he did not withdraw from the law firm
upon his appointment to the position. Convicting the accused on such
basis would violate his right to be informed of the nature and cause of
the accusation against him, such right being granted by no less than
the Constitution.

The prosecl,Jtion proved that the accused was engaged in the

private" practiGe of his profession during his incumbency as President
of FTI by failing to withdraw from the law firm with which he was
connected prior to his acceptance of a public office. However, he
cannot be convicted therefor because that was not the charge against
him. As previously discussed, he was charged for criminally engaging
in the private practice of his profession as a lawyer by becoming a
founding partner of Fondevilla Jasarino Fondevilla Young Rond~~~
and Librojo Law Offices. Hence, the Court will not determine whet~~.

. X,
DECISION
Peopk. vs. Fondevilla
Criminal Case No. SB-14-CRM-0011

or not the third element, i. e., such private practice of profession is not
authorized by the Constitution or law, or tends to conflict with the official
functions of the accused, is present.

The prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that

the accused was engaged in the private practice of law by becoming a
founding partner of Fondevilla Jasarino Young Rondario & Librojo Law
Offices during his incumbency as President of FTI.

WHEREFORE, accused BERNIE G. FONDEVILLA is hereby

ACQUITTED for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond
reasonable doubt.

Let the hold departure order against the a.ccused be lifted and
set aside, and his bond released, subject to the usual accounting and
auditing procedure.
DECISION
People. vs. FondeviJIa
Criminal Case No. SB-14-CRM-OO 11

I attest that the conclusions in the above decision were reached

in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion
of the Court's Division.

Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13, of the Constitution, and the

Division Chairperson's Attestation, it is hereby certified that the
conclusions in the above decision were reached in consultation before
the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's
Division.

~O~JE-T
/ Presiding Justice
Chairperson