DS ISSN 0115-0421 Official Gazette REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES EDITED AT THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, UNDER COMMONWEALTH ACT NO. 638 To highlight the Centennial Anniversary of the National Printing Office, a new and improved Official Gazette is launched with innovations on its cover design and enhanced print quality. This was made possible under the able leadership of MELANIO S. TORIO, CESO III, Director IV with the guidance of the Office of the Press Secretary and thru the untiring efforts and support of the following officials involved in this project, namely: Official Gazette REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES EDITED AT THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, UNDER COMMONWEALTH ACT NO. 638 GRAD EXCH1901 03/21/2003 OCTOBER 7, 2002 OFFICIAL GAZETTE MGA HATOL NG KATAAS-TAASANG HUKUMAN MA. PIEDAD B. FERRER-CAMPAÑA 5679 [A.M. No. P-99-1287. January 26, 2001] FIRST DIVISION OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, Complainant, vs. ATTY. MISAEL M. LADAGA, Branch Clerk of Court, Regional Trial Court, Branch 133, Makati City, Respondent. SYLLABUS of the Ruling of the Court 1. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW; CODE OF CONDUCT AND ETHICAL STANDARDS FOR PUBLIC OFFICIALS AND EMPLOYEES; PROHIBITED PRIVATE PRACTICE OF LAW PROFESSION; ELUCIDATED.— Respondent is charged under Sec. 7(b)(2) of the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees which prohibits civil servants from engaging in the private practice of their profession. A similar prohibition is found under Sec. 35, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court which disallows certain attorneys from engaging in the private practice of their profession... However, it should be clarified that "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...[T]he 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. OPINION OF THE COURT KAPUNAN J.: In a Letter, dated August 31, 1998, Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court of respondent Atty. Misael M. Ladaga, Branch Makati, Branch 133, requested the Court Administrator, Justice Alfredo L. Benipayo, for authority to appear as pro bono counsel of his cousin, Narcisa Naldoza Ladaga, in Criminal case No. 84885, entitled "People vs. Narcisa Naldoza Ladaga" for Falsification of Public Document pending before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 40.' While respondent's letter-request was pending action, Lisa Payoyo Andres, the private complainant in Criminal Case No. 84885, sent a letter to the Court Administrator, dated September 2, 1998, requesting for a certification with regard to respondent's authority to appear as counsel for the accused in the said criminal case.2 On September 7 1998, the Office of the Court Administrator referred the matter to respondent for comment.3 In his Comment dated September 14, 1998, respondent admitted that he had appeared in Criminal Case No. 84885 without prior authorization. He reasoned out that the factual circumstances surrounding the criminal case 2. ID., REVISED CIVIL SERVICE RULES; WRITTEN compelled him to handle the defense of his PERMISSION TO PRACTICE PROFESSION FROM HEAD OF DEPARTMENT, REQUIRED.— [W]hile 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... Wherefore,... respondent is... REPRIMANDED with a stern warning that any repetition of such act would be dealt with more severely. |