A.C. No. 11069. June 8, 2016.

RONALDO C. FACTURAN, complainant, vs.

PROSECUTOR ALFREDO L. BARCELONA, JR.,
respondent.

Attorneys; Generally, a lawyer who holds a government office

may not be disciplined as a member of the Bar for misconduct in the
discharge of his duties as a government official. He may be
disciplined by the Supreme Court (SC) as a member of the Bar only
when his misconduct also constitutes a violation of his oath as a
lawyer.·The Court concurs with the IBPÊs factual findings and
recommendation to hold respondent administratively liable, but not
for violating Rule 18.03, Canon 18 of the CPR, but instead, of Rule
6.02, Canon 6 of the same Code. The pertinent rules provide:
CANON 6 – THESE CANONS SHALL APPLY TO LAWYERS IN
GOVERNMENT SERVICE IN THE DISCHARGE OF THEIR
OFFICIAL TASKS. x x x x Rule 6.02 – A lawyer in the government
service shall not use his public position to promote or advance his
private interests, nor allow the latter to interfere with his public
duties. Generally, a lawyer who holds a government office may not
be disciplined as a member of the Bar for misconduct in the
discharge of his duties as a government official. He may be
disciplined by this Court as a member of the Bar only when his
misconduct also constitutes a violation of his oath as a lawyer. In
this regard, Rule 6.02 above quoted is particularly directed to
lawyers in the government service, enjoining them from using oneÊs
public position to: (1) promote private interests; (2) advance private
interests; or (3) allow private interests to interfere with public
duties.
Same; Prosecutors; Absent any intelligent explanation as
regards his lapses in the handling of I.S. No. 04-211 and his failure
to timely return the case records thereof for further action, despite
the directive to do so, it can only be inferred that respondent not
merely failed, but obstinately and deliberately refused to perform his
duties as a prosecutor.·Absent any intelligent explanation as
regards his lapses in the handling of I.S. No. 04-211 and his failure
to timely return the case records thereof for further action, despite
the direc-

_______________

* FIRST DIVISION.

390

390 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Facturan vs. Barcelona, Jr.

tive to do so, it can only be inferred that respondent not

merely failed, but obstinately and deliberately refused to
perform his duties as a prosecutor. Such refusal, under the
circumstances, evidently worked to the advantage of the
respondents in I.S. No. 04-21.1 · which included respondentÊs
cousin, Elezar · as the absence of the case records in the office of
the Provincial Prosecutor resulted in the delay in the filing of the
appropriate criminal information in court against them. Hence, it is
apparent that respondent used his public position as a prosecutor to
advance and protect the private interest of his relative, which is
clearly proscribed in the CPR.
Same; Same; A lawyer in public office is expected not only to
refrain from any act or omission which might tend to lessen the trust
and confidence of the citizenry in government, he must also uphold
the dignity of the legal profession at all times and observe a high
standard of honesty and fair dealing.·Indeed, respondentÊs actions
and omissions in this case, i.e., his failure to resolve I.S. No. 04-211
and to turn over the case records thereof despite orders to do so,
appear to have been committed for the benefit of and to safeguard
private interests. As a lawyer who is also a public officer,
respondent miserably failed to cope with the strict demands and
high standards of the legal profession. It bears stressing that a
lawyer in public office is expected not only to refrain from any act or
omission which might tend to lessen the trust and confidence of the
citizenry in government, he must also uphold the dignity of the
legal profession at all times and observe a high standard of honesty
and fair dealing. Otherwise said, a lawyer in government service is
a keeper of the public faith and is burdened with high degree of
social responsibility, perhaps higher than her brethren in private
practice. Accordingly, the Court finds that suspension for a period of
one (1) year, as recommended by the IBP, should be meted upon
respondent.

ADMINISTRATIVE CASE in the Supreme Court.

Disbarment.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Diabo, Dela Serna, De Fiesta, Canete for complainant.

391

VOL. 792, JUNE 8, 2016 391

Facturan vs. Barcelona, Jr.

PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:

The instant administrative case arose from an Affidavit-

Complaint1 for disbarment anchored on gross misconduct
or serious gross misconduct in office, dishonesty, and
conduct unbecoming of a lawyer or prosecutor filed by
complainant Ronaldo C. Facturan (complainant) against
respondent Prosecutor Alfredo L. Barcelona, Jr.
(respondent) before the Office of the Court Administrator
(OCA).

The Facts

Complainant alleged that on June 4, 2004, he filed a

complaint for qualified theft against Pilar Mendoza
(Mendoza), Jose Sarcon @ Jo (Sarcon), Elezar Barcelona
(Elezar), Rodrigo Arro (Arro), and Joseph Montero
(Montero; collectively, Mendoza, et al.) before the Provincial
Prosecution Office of Alabel, Sarangani Province. The case
was docketed as I.S. No. 04-211 and assigned for
preliminary investigation to Prosecutor Faisal D.
Amerkhan (Prosecutor Amerkhan).2
Thereafter, or on October 26, 2004, Prosecutor
Amerkhan forwarded the records of the case, together with
his Resolution recommending the prosecution of Mendoza,
et al. and the corresponding Information, to respondent for
his approval and signature. However, respondent neither
approved nor signed the resolution. Instead, he removed
the case records from the office of the Provincial Prosecutor
and brought them to his residence, where they were kept in
his custody. It appears that the respondents in I.S. No. 04-
211 were personally known to respondent, as Elezar is his
cousin, while Mendoza, Sarcon, Arro, and Montero are his
close friends.3

_______________

1 Rollo, pp. 4-5.

2 Id., at p. 4.
3 Id.

392

392 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Facturan vs. Barcelona, Jr.

Aggrieved, complainant sought4 the intervention of then

Department of Justice (DOJ) Secretary Raul Gonzales
(Secretary Gonzales), who, through then Chief State
Prosecutor Jovencito R. Zuño (Chief State Prosecutor
Zuño), endorsed5 complainantÊs concerns to State
Prosecutor Ringcar B. Pinote (State Prosecutor Pinote).
Unfortunately, State Prosecutor Pinote could not take
appropriate action on I.S. No. 04-211 as the case records
were still in the possession of respondent who failed to turn
them over despite the directive to do so.6
On July 20, 2005, complainant learned that the case
records had been turned over to the Provincial Prosecution
Office but without Prosecutor AmerkhanÊs Resolution and
Information. Neither did respondent approve nor act upon
the same, prompting complainant to file the present
complaint for disbarment against him.7
In his defense,8 respondent claimed that the „alleged
malicious ÂdelayingÊ or the perceived concealment of the
case record[s] was neither intentional nor due to
favoritism,‰9 as he had inhibited himself from I.S. No. 04-
211, which was the reason why this case was assigned to
Prosecutor Amerkhan.10 Respondent averred that as early
as October 2004, complainant already knew that he was
predisposed to disapprove the resolution prepared by
Prosecutor Amerkhan, as the controversy merely involved
a boundary dispute.11 Thus, he advised Prosecutor
Amerkhan to conduct a clarificatory hearing instead of
prematurely concluding the preliminary investiga-

_______________

4 See letter dated March 6, 2005; id., at p. 6.

5 Id., at p. 7.
6 Id., at p. 8.
7 Id., at pp. 4-5.
8 Id., at pp. 19-23.
9 Id., at p. 19.
10 Id.
11 Id., at pp. 19-20.

393

VOL. 792, JUNE 8, 2016 393

Facturan vs. Barcelona, Jr.

tion.12 However, Prosecutor Amerkhan failed to do so,

resulting in the delay in the resolution of I.S. No. 04-211.13
Furthermore, respondent asseverated that, except for
the fact that a criminal information had been filed on
September 8, 2006, he was no longer aware of any
development in I.S. No. 04-211, having been subsequently
detailed to the DOJ in Manila and recently, to the Office of
the City Prosecutor of Marikina City.14 He asserted that
complainant and Prosecutor Amerkhan manipulated the
filing in court of I.S. No. 04-211 through the original
resolution prepared by the latter.15
The OCA indorsed16 complainantÊs Affidavit-Complaint
to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), which then
set17 the case for mandatory conference on June 26, 2007.
However, only the respondent appeared, prompting the IBP
to terminate the mandatory conference and ordered the
submission of the partiesÊ position papers.18 Unfortunately,
the parties did not submit the required position papers.19
 The IBPÊs Report and Recommendation

In a Report20 dated March 20, 2014, the Commission on

Bar Discipline (CBD) of the IBP, through Commissioner
Leland R. Villadolid, Jr. (Commissioner Villadolid), found
respondent to

_______________

12 Id., at p. 20.
13 Id., at p. 21.
14 Id., at p. 20.
15 Id., at p. 21.
16 See 1st Indorsement dated August 16, 2005; id., at p. 2.
17 See Notice of Mandatory Conference/Hearing dated May 29, 2007;
id., at p. 30.
18 See Order dated August 7, 2007 signed by Commissioner Leland R.
Villadolid, Jr.; id., at pp. 34-35.
19 Id., at p. 40.
20 Id., at pp. 39-47.

394

394 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Facturan vs. Barcelona, Jr.

have violated Canons 1821 and 18.0322 of the Code of

Professional Responsibility (CPR) and recommended that
he be suspended from the practice of law for a period
ranging from six (6) months to two (2) years upon the
discretion of the IBP Governing Board.23
The IBP found that the case records of I.S. No. 04-211
were removed by respondent from the office of the
Provincial Prosecutor and kept in his possession.24 Records
also show that he failed to timely turn over the said case
records upon order of State Prosecutor Pinote.25 In fact, the
case records remained in his possession even after he had
been detailed to the DOJ in Manila in February 2005.
From the foregoing, respondentÊs neglect to perform his
duty was apparent.26
Furthermore, respondent failed to perform his duty of
approving or disapproving Prosecutor AmerkhanÊs
recommendation pertaining to I.S. No. 04-211.27 As such,
he is also guilty of violating Canon 6.0128 of the CPR for his
failure to resolve I.S. No. 04-211 and delaying its resolution
by keeping the case records in his possession.29

_______________

21 Canon 18 – A lawyer shall serve his client with competence and

diligence.
22 Rule 18.03 – A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to
him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.
23 Rollo, p. 47.
24 Id., at p. 45.
25 Id.
26 Id., at p. 46.
27 Id.
28 Rule 6.01 – The primary duty of a lawyer engaged in public
prosecution is not to convict but to see that justice is done. The
suppression of facts or the concealment of witnesses capable of
establishing the innocence of the accused is highly reprehensible and is
cause for disciplinary action.
29 Rollo, p. 46.

395

VOL. 792, JUNE 8, 2016 395

Facturan vs. Barcelona, Jr.

In a Resolution30 dated December 13, 2014, the IBP

Board of Governors adopted and approved the foregoing
recommendation and suspended respondent from the
practice of law for a period of one (1) year.

The Issue Before the Court

The sole issue for the CourtÊs resolution is whether or

not grounds exist to hold respondent administratively
liable.

The CourtÊs Ruling

 The Court concurs with the IBPÊs factual findings and
recommendation to hold respondent administratively
liable, but not for violating Rule 18.03, Canon 18 of the
CPR, but instead, of Rule 6.02, Canon 6 of the same Code.
The pertinent rules provide:

CANON 6 – THESE CANONS SHALL APPLY TO

LAWYERS IN GOVERNMENT SERVICE IN THE
DISCHARGE OF THEIR OFFICIAL TASKS.
xxxx
Rule 6.02 – A lawyer in the government service
shall not use his public position to promote or advance
his private interests, nor allow the latter to interfere
with his public duties.

Generally, a lawyer who holds a government office may

not be disciplined as a member of the Bar for misconduct in
the discharge of his duties as a government official. He may
be disciplined by this Court as a member of the Bar only
when his misconduct also constitutes a violation of his oath
as a lawyer.31 In this regard, Rule 6.02 above quoted is
particularly directed to lawyers in the government service,
enjoining them from

_______________

30 Id., at p. 38, including dorsal portion. Issued by IBP National

Secretary Nasser A. Marohomsalic.
31 Olazo v. Tinga, 651 Phil. 290, 298; 637 SCRA 1, 8 (2010).

396

396 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Facturan vs. Barcelona, Jr.

using oneÊs public position to: (1) promote private

interests; (2) advance private interests; or (3) allow private
interests to interfere with public duties.32
In Ali v. Bubong,33 the Court recognized that private
interest is not limited to direct interest, but extends to
advancing the interest of relatives.
In this case, respondentÊs accountability regarding I.S.
No. 04-211 has been duly established. When Prosecutor
Amerkhan forwarded to respondent the case records of I.S.
No. 04-211, together with the resolution recommending the
filing of the appropriate information in court, respondent
failed to take action thereon, as records are bereft of
evidence showing that he either approved or disapproved
it. As the IBP had correctly opined,34 if respondent did not
concur with the findings and recommendation of Prosecutor
Amerkhan, who conducted the preliminary investigation of
the case, respondent should have timely disapproved his
recommendation to enable complainant to take the
appropriate remedy to challenge the disapproval. Moreover,
the Court notes respondentÊs defense35 that complainant
was already aware beforehand that he (respondent) was
inclined to disapprove the resolution prepared by
Prosecutor Amerkhan, whom he ordered to conduct a
clarificatory hearing on the case. However, if such was the
case, then nothing could have prevented respondent from
proceeding to disapprove the resolution. Yet, as the records
bear out, he absolutely took no action thereon.
Worse, respondent removed the case records from the
office of the Provincial Prosecutor and, when directed to
turn them over, failed to do so notwithstanding his
assignment to the DOJ in Manila in February 2005. As a
result, no further ac-

_______________

32 Abella v. Barrios, Jr., A.C. No. 7332, June 18, 2013, 698 SCRA 683,
691-692.
33 493 Phil. 172; 453 SCRA 1 (2005).
34 Rollo, p. 46.
35 Id., at p. 19.

397

VOL. 792, JUNE 8, 2016 397

Facturan vs. Barcelona, Jr.

tion had been taken on I.S. No. 04-211 in the meantime.

In fact, as of June 30, 2005, respondent still had not
complied with State Prosecutor PinoteÊs directive to return
not only the case records of I.S. No. 04-211, but all the
cases previously assigned to him as well.36 Needless to
state, respondent ought to have known that without the
case records, no further action could be taken on any of
those cases. His assignment to the DOJ in Manila in
February 2005 should have even prompted him to turn
over the case records of I.S. No. 04-211 for appropriate
action, but he still failed to do so, without any plausible
reason.
Absent any intelligent explanation as regards his lapses
in the handling of I.S. No. 04-211 and his failure to timely
return the case records thereof for further action, despite
the directive to do so, it can only be inferred that
respondent not merely failed, but obstinately and
deliberately refused to perform his duties as a prosecutor.
Such refusal, under the circumstances, evidently worked to
the advantage of the respondents in I.S. No. 04-211 ·
which included respondentÊs cousin, Elezar · as the
absence of the case records in the office of the Provincial
Prosecutor resulted in the delay in the filing of the
appropriate criminal information in court against them.
Hence, it is apparent that respondent used his public
position as a prosecutor to advance and protect the private
interest of his relative, which is clearly proscribed in the
CPR.
Indeed, respondentÊs actions and omissions in this case,
i.e., his failure to resolve I.S. No. 04-211 and to turn over
the case records thereof despite orders to do so, appear to
have been committed for the benefit of and to safeguard
private interests. As a lawyer who is also a public officer,
respondent miserably failed to cope with the strict
demands and high standards of the legal profession.37 It
bears stressing that a lawyer

_______________

36 Id., at p. 8.
37 Huyssen v. Gutierrez, 520 Phil. 117, 131; 485 SCRA 244, 260
(2006).

398

398 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

 Facturan vs. Barcelona, Jr.

in public office is expected not only to refrain from any

act or omission which might tend to lessen the trust and
confidence of the citizenry in government, he must also
uphold the dignity of the legal profession at all times and
observe a high standard of honesty and fair dealing.
Otherwise said, a lawyer in government service is a keeper
of the public faith and is burdened with high degree of
social responsibility, perhaps higher than her brethren in
private practice.38 Accordingly, the Court finds that
suspension for a period of one (1) year,39 as recommended
by the IBP, should be meted upon respondent.
WHEREFORE, respondent Prosecutor Alfredo L.
Barcelona, Jr. is found GUILTY of violating Rule 6.02,
Canon 6 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He is
hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period
of one (1) year, effective upon his receipt of this Decision,
and is STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same
or similar acts will be dealt with more severely.
Let a copy of this Decision be attached to respondentÊs
personal record as a member of the Bar. Likewise, let
copies of the same be served on the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines and on the Office of the Court Administrator
for circulation to all courts in the country for their
information and guidance.
SO ORDERED.
Leonardo-De Castro** (Acting Chairperson), Bersamin
and Caguioa, JJ., concur.
Sereno, CJ., On Leave.

_______________

38 Vitriolo v. Dasig, 448 Phil. 199, 209; 400 SCRA 172, 180 (2003).
39 See Re: Resolution of the Court Dated 1 June 2004 in G.R. No.
72954 Against Atty. Victor C. Avecilla, 667 Phil. 547; 652 SCRA 415
(2011).
** Per Special Order No. 2354 dated June 2, 2016.

399
 VOL. 792, JUNE 8, 2016 399
Facturan vs. Barcelona, Jr.

Respondent Prosecutor Alfredo L. Barcelona, Jr.

suspended from practice of law for one (1) year for violation
of Rule 6.02, Canon 6 of Code of Professional Responsibility,
with stern warning against repetition of similar acts.

Notes.·Lawyers in the government service are subject

to constant public scrutiny under norms of public
accountability. (Olazo vs. Tinga, 637 SCRA 1 [2010])
A lawyer who holds a government office may be
disciplined as a member of the Bar only when his
misconduct also constitutes a violation of his oath as a
lawyer. (Abella vs. Barrios, Jr., 698 SCRA 683 [2013])

··o0o··

© Copyright 2021 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.