FIRST DIVISION

[A.M. No. P-99-1287. January 26, 2001.]

OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR , complainant, vs . ATTY.

MISAEL M. LADAGA, Branch Clerk of Court, Regional Trial Court,
Branch 133, Makati City , respondent.

SYNOPSIS

Respondent is an RTC Branch Clerk of Court who appeared as pro bono counsel for
his cousin in a criminal case without prior permission from the Court. Hence, he was
charged under Sec. 7(b)(2) of the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public
O cials and Employees which prohibits civil servants from engaging in the private
practice of their profession.
Sec. 35 of Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court also prohibits certain attorneys
from engaging in the private practice of their profession. However, it should be clari ed
that the "private practice" of the law profession that is prohibited does not pertain to an
isolated court appearance. It contemplates succession of acts of the same nature
habitually or customarily holding one's self to the public as a lawyer. Here, the isolated
instances when respondent appeared as pro bono counsel of his cousin does not
constitute the "private practice" of the law profession contemplated by law. Nonetheless,
respondent failed to obtain a written permission therefore from the head of the
Department, which is this Court as required by Section 12, Rule XVIII of the Revised Civil
Service Rules, and not the Presiding Judge of the court to which respondent is assigned,
as the Judge is not the head of the department contemplated by law. And despite the fact
that respondent led leave applications corresponding to the dates he appeared in court.
Respondent was reprimanded with stern warning that any repetition of the act would be
dealt with more severely.

SYLLABUS

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 O cials 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 clari ed that "private practice" of a profession, speci cally 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.
2. ID., REVISED CIVIL SERVICE RULES; WRITTEN PERMISSION TO PRACTICE
PROFESSION FROM HEAD OF DEPARTMENT, REQUIRED. — [W]hile respondent's isolated
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 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.

RESOLUTION

KAPUNAN , J : p

In a Letter, dated August 31, 1998, respondent Atty. Misael M. Ladaga, Branch Clerk
of Court of the Regional Trial Court 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 Criminal Case No. 84885, entitled "People vs.
Narcisa Naldoza Ladaga" for Falsi cation of Public Document pending before the
Metropolitan Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 40. 1 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
certi cation with regard to respondent's authority to appear as counsel for the accused in
the said criminal case. 2 On September 7, 1998, the O ce of the Court Administrator
referred the matter to respondent for comment. 3
In his Comment, 4 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 compelled him to handle the defense
of his cousin who did not have enough resources to hire the services of a counsel de parte;
while, on the other hand, private complainant was a member of a powerful family who was
out to get even with his cousin. Furthermore, he rationalized that his appearance in the
criminal case did not prejudice his o ce nor the interest of the public since he did not take
advantage of his position. In any case, his appearances in court were covered by leave
applications approved by the presiding judge.
On December 8, 1998, the Court issued a Resolution denying respondent's request
for authorization to appear as counsel and directing the O ce of the Court Administrator
to le formal charges against him for appearing in court without the required authorization
from the Court. 5 On January 25, 1999, the Court Administrator led 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 O cials
and Employees," which provides:
SECTION 7. Prohibited Acts and Transactions . — In addition to acts and
omissions of public o cials 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:

xxx xxx xxx

(b) Outside employment and other activities related thereto. — Public o cials and
employees during their incumbency shall not:

xxx xxx xxx

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 (2) Engage in the private practice of their profession unless authorized by
the Constitution or law, Provided, that such practice will not con ict
or tend to conflict with their official functions;

In our Resolution, dated February 9, 1999, we required respondent to comment on

the administrative complaint.
In his Comment, respondent explained that he and Ms. Ladaga are "close blood
cousins" who belong to a "powerless family" from the impoverished town of Bacauag,
Surigao del Norte. From childhood until he nished his law degree, Ms. Ladaga had always
supported and guided him while he looked up to her as a mentor and an adviser. Because
of their close relationship, Ms. Ladaga sought respondent's help and advice when she was
charged in Criminal Case No. 84885 for falsi cation by the private complainant, Lisa
Payoyo Andres, whose only purpose in ling the said criminal case was to "seek
vengeance" on her cousin. He explained that his cousin's discord with Ms. Andres started
when the latter's husband, SPO4 Pedro Andres, left the conjugal home to cohabit with Ms.
Ladaga. During the course of their illicit affair, SPO4 Andres and Ms. Ladaga begot three
(3) children. The birth certi cate of their eldest child is the subject of the falsi cation
charge against Ms. Ladaga. Respondent stated that since he is the only lawyer in their
family, he felt it to be his duty to accept Ms. Ladaga's plea to be her counsel since she did
not have enough funds to pay for the services of a lawyer. Respondent also pointed out
that in his seven (7) years of untainted government service, initially with the Commission
on Human Rights and now with the judiciary, he had performed his duties with honesty and
integrity and that it was only in this particular case that he had been administratively
charged for extending a helping hand to a close relative by giving a free legal assistance
for "humanitarian purpose." He never took advantage of his position as branch clerk of
court since the questioned appearances were made in the Metropolitan Trial Court of
Quezon City and not in Makati where he is holding o ce. He stressed that during the
hearings of the criminal case, he was on leave as shown by his approved leave applications
attached to his comment. cTIESa

In our Resolution, dated June 22, 1999, we noted respondent's comment and
referred the administrative matter to the Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court of
Makati, Judge Josefina Guevarra-Salonga, for investigation, report and recommendation.
In her Report, dated September 29, 1999, Judge Salonga made the following
findings and recommendation:
There is no question that Atty. Misael Ladaga appeared as counsel for and
in behalf of his cousin, Narcisa Naldoza Ladaga, an accused in Criminal Case No.
84-885 for "Falsi cation of Public Documents" before the METC of Quezon City. It
is also denied that the appearance of said respondent in said case was without
the previous permission of the Court.
An examination of the records shows that during the occasions that the
respondent appeared as such counsel before the METC of Quezon City, he was on
o cial leave of absence. Moreover, his Presiding Judge, Judge Napoleon
Inoturan was aware of the case he was handling. That the respondent appeared
as pro bono counsel likewise cannot be denied. His cousin-client Narcisa Ladaga
herself positively declared that the respondent did not receive a single centavo
from her. Helpless as she was and respondent being the only lawyer in the family,
he agreed to represent her out of his compassion and high regard for her.

It may not be amiss to point out, this is the rst time that respondent ever
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 handled a case for a member of his family who is like a big sister to him. He
appeared for free and for the purpose of settling the case amicably. Furthermore,
his Presiding Judge was aware of his appearance as counsel for his cousin. On
top of this, during all the years that he has been in government service, he has
maintained his integrity and independence.
RECOMMENDATION

In the light of the foregoing, it appearing that the respondent appeared as

counsel for his cousin without rst securing permission from the Court, and
considering that this is his rst time to do it coupled with the fact that said
appearance was not for a fee and was with the knowledge of his Presiding Judge,
it is hereby respectfully recommended that he be REPRIMANDED with a stern
warning that any repetition of such act would be dealt with more severely. 6

We agree with the recommendation of the investigating judge.

Respondent is charged under Sec. 7(b)(2) of the Code of Conduct and Ethical
Standards for Public O cials 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. The said section reads:
SECTION 35. Certain attorneys not to practice. — No judge or other o cial
or employee of the superior courts or of the O ce of the Solicitor General, shall
engage in private practice as a member of the bar or give professional advise to
clients.

However, it should be clari ed that "private practice" of a profession, speci cally 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.
In the case of People vs. Villanueva, 7 we explained the meaning of the term "private
practice" prohibited by the said section, to wit:
We believe that the isolated appearance of City Attorney Fule did not
constitute private practice, within the meaning and contemplation of the Rules.
Practice is more than an isolated appearance, for it consists in frequent or
customary action, a succession of acts of the same kind. In other words, it is
frequent habitual exercise (State vs. Cotner, 127, p. 1, 87 Kan. 864, 42 LRA, N.S.
768). Practice of law to fall within the prohibition of statute has been interpreted
as customarily or habitually holding one's self out to the public, as a lawyer and
demanding payment for such services (State vs. Bryan, 4 S. E. 522, 98 N. C. 644,
647). The appearance as counsel on one occasion, is not conclusive as
determinative of engagement in the private practice of law. The following
observation of the Solicitor General is noteworthy:
"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."
For one thing, it has never been refuted that City Attorney Fule had been
given permission by his immediate superior, the Secretary of Justice, to represent
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 the complainant in the case at bar, who is a relative. 8

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.
Nonetheless, while 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, thus:
SECTION 12. No o cer 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 o cers 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 o ce hours should be xed by the agency to the end that it will not
impair in any way the e ciency of the o cer or employee: And provided, nally ,
That no permission is necessary in the case of investments, made by an o cer or
employee, which do not involve real or apparent con ict between his private
interests and public duties, or in any way in uence 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. 9

Respondent entered his appearance and attended court proceedings on numerous

occasions, i.e., May 4-15, 1998, June 18, 1998, July 13, 1998 and August 5, 1998, as borne
out by his own admission. It is true that he led leave applications corresponding to the
dates he appeared in court. However, he failed to obtain a prior permission from the head
of the Department. The presiding judge of the court to which respondent is assigned is not
the head of the Department contemplated by law.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, respondent Atty. Misael M. Ladaga is hereby
REPRIMANDED with a stern warning that any repetition of such act would be dealt with
more severely.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C.J., Puno, Pardo and Ynares-Santiago, JJ., concur.

Footnotes

1. Rollo, p. 16.
2. Id., p. 10.

3. Id., p. 9.
4. Id., pp. 6-7.

5. Id., at 20.
6. Id., at 57-58.
7. 121 Phil. 894 (1965).
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 8. Id., at 897.

9. Emphasis supplied.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com