OCA v. Ladaga, AC P-99-1287, January 26, 2001
OCA v. Ladaga,
AC P-99-1287, January 26, 2001
FACTS On August 31, 1998, respondent Atty. Misael Ladaga Branch Clerk of Court of the RTC of 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 a Criminal Case for Falsification of Public Document before the MTC of Quezon City, Branch 40. Pending his request, Lisa Payoyo Andres, the private complainant of the criminal case sent a letter to the Court Administrator requesting for a certification with regards to Atty. Ladaga's authority to appear as counsel for the accused. On September 14, 1998, Atty. Ladaga admitted before the OCA that he had appeared in said criminal case without prior authorization. He reasoned out 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 and that his appearances in court were covered by leave application approved by the presiding judge. 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:
(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.
Whether or not Atty. Ladaga's appearance as a pro bono counsel for his relative constitutes private practice of law as prohibited by the rules.
RULING No, Atty. Ladaga's appearance as private counsel for his cousin does not constitute private practice of law because g, 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.
The law provides that that the private practice of a profession, specifically the law profession, does not pertain to an isolated court appearance; rather, it contemplates a succession of acts of the same nature habitually or customarily holding ones 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.