Wilfredo Catu vs Atty. Vicente Rellosa

A.C. No. 5738 – 569 Phil. 539 – 546 SCRA 209 – Legal Ethics – Conflict of Interest; A Punongbarangay must obtain written authority to practice law from the DILG Secretary

Atty. Vicente Rellosa was the Punongbarangay of Barangay 723, City of Manila. He presided over a conciliation proceeding under the Katarungang Pambarangay Law where the parties were Wilfredo Catu’s parents and Elizabeth Catu. No settlement was reached and a certificate to file action was thereafter issued in favor of Wilfredo’s parents. Wilfredo’s parents then sued Elizabeth for ejectment. Elizabeth sought the legal services of Atty. Rellosa which the latter accepted.

ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Rellosa acted improperly in accepting the case.

HELD: Yes. The SC delved not on the fact that Rellosa presided over the conciliation proceedings and thereafter represented one of the parties in court. The SC delved more on the fact that Rellosa, as punongbarangay, did not first seek authority to practice from his head of agency. It is true that local chief executives like governors, mayors, and members of the sanggunians are prohibited from practicing law but no such absolute prohibition is imposed upon lawyer-punongbarangays. Nevertheless, since they are in the government service, they are covered by the following:

Section 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: And provided, finally, that no permission is necessary in the case of investments, made by an officer or employee, which do not involve real or apparent conflict between his private interests and public duties, or in any way influence him in the discharge of his duties, and he shall not take part in the management of the enterprise or become an officer of the board of directors.

As such, before Rellosa, a barangay captain, may be allowed to practice law, he must first obtain the written authority of the DILG Secretary. Without a written authority, as in this case, Rellosa engaged in unauthorized practice of law which is a violation of his oath and an ethical transgression. Rellosa was suspended for six months from the practice of law.

Read full text.