Catu vs. Rellosa

WILFREDO M.
CATU
VS.
ATTY. VICENTE G. RELLOSA
A.C. No. 5738
February 19, 2008
CORONA, J.:
DOCTRINE: Lawyers are servants of the law, vires legis, men of the law. Their paramount duty
to society is to obey the law and promote respect for it. To underscore the primacy and
importance of this duty, it is enshrined as the first canon of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
FACTS:
Complainant Wilfredo M. Catu is a co-owner of a lot1 and the building erected thereon located at
959 San Andres Street, Malate, Manila. His mother and brother, Regina Catu and Antonio Catu,
contested the possession of Elizabeth C. Diaz-Catu and Antonio Pastor of one of the units in the
building. The latter ignored demands for them to vacate the premises. Thus, a complaint was
initiated against them in the Lupong Tagapamayapa of Barangay 723, Zone 79 of the 5th District
of Manila where the parties reside.
Respondent, as punong barangay of Barangay 723, summoned the parties to conciliation
meetings. When the parties failed to arrive at an amicable settlement, respondent issued a
certification for the filing of the appropriate action in court.
Thereafter, Regina and Antonio filed a complaint for ejectment against Elizabeth and Pastor in
the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila, Branch 11. Respondent entered his appearance as
counsel for the defendants in that case. Because of this, complainant filed the instant
administrative complaint, claiming that respondent committed an act of impropriety as a lawyer
and as a public officer when he stood as counsel for the defendants despite the fact that he
presided over the conciliation proceedings between the litigants as punong barangay.
In his defense, respondent claimed that as punong barangay, he performed his task without bias
and that he acceded to Elizabeth’s request to handle the case for free as she was financially
distressed.
The complaint was then referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) whereafter
evaluation, they found sufficient ground to discipline respondent. According to them, respondent
violated Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and, as an elective official, the
prohibition under Section 7(b) (2) of RA6713.Consequently, for the violation of the latter
prohibition, respondent committed a breach of Canon 1. Respondent was then recommended for
suspension from the practice of law.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Vicente G. Rellosa violate the Code of Professional Responsibility.
RULING/RATIO DECIDENDI:
Yes. According to the IBP-CBD, respondent's violation of this prohibition constituted a breach of
Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility:
CANON 1. A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF
THE LAND, PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW AND LEGAL PROCESSES. (emphasis
supplied)
In acting as counsel for a party without first securing the required written permission, respondent
not only engaged in the unauthorized practice of law but also violated civil service rules which is
a breach of Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility:
Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
(emphasis supplied)
For not living up to his oath as well as for not complying with the exacting ethical standards of
the legal profession, respondent failed to comply with Canon 7 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility:
CANON 7. A LAWYER SHALL AT ALL TIMES UPHOLD THE INTEGRITY AND THE
DIGNITY OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION AND SUPPORT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE
INTEGRATED BAR. (emphasis supplied)
Indeed, a lawyer who disobeys the law disrespects it. In so doing, he disregards legal ethics and
disgraces the dignity of the legal profession.
For these infractions, the IBP-CBD recommended the respondent's suspension from the practice
of law for one month with a stern warning that the commission of the same or similar act will be
dealt with more severely.
FALLO/DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Vicente G. Rellosa is hereby found GUILTY of professional
misconduct for violating his oath as a lawyer and Canons 1 and 7 and Rule 1.01 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. He is therefore SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period
of six months effective from his receipt of this resolution. He is sternly WARNED that any
repetition of similar acts shall be dealt with more severely.
Digest/AMRicalde

Catu vs. Rellosa

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Catu vs. Rellosa

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Catu vs. Rellosa

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

WILFREDO M.

You might also like