Magno vs Velasco-Jacoba

This involves brgy proceedings -- pertains to proceedings wherein

lawyers are prohibited from personally appearing for a party in his
office.
Facts: Magno filed a complaint against the respondent lawyer for
a violation of LGC as well as the Code of Professional
Responsibility. There was a dispute between complainant and her
uncle. She filed a case before the brgy wherein the uncle
allegedly authorized respondent lawyer as an attorney-in-fact to
appear in that brgy proceeding. Because of the appearance of the
atty, complainant questioned such representation.
Contention of Respondent: not appearing as a lawyer but as an
attorney-in-fact.
[Attorney-at-law: one who is admitted to the bar and qualified fit to
practice the profession Attorney-in-fact: can be lawyer/non-lawyer,
this authority is based on a document executed by another person
giving that attorney-in-fact to do the following acts; this power is
usually embodied in a document denominated as a special power
of attorney]
Ruling: It's clear that based on the minutes of the brgy
proceedings that respondent was acting as lawyer/counsel for
and in behalf of the uncle of complainant. Respondent violated
the provision on Katarungang Pambarangay Law which prohibits
lawyers from personally appearing before the brgy proceedings
except if they are party to such proceeding or if they represent a
minor/incompetents. In this case, respondent does not fall to any
of the exceptions. Because of that, respondent was disciplined by
SC and was fined 5,000.
The purpose of the provision of the Katarungan Pambarangay
Law which prohibits the personal appearance of lawyers is to
enable the lupon/brgy to get firsthand information, to get the facts
out of the mouth of the parties; to expedite the settlement
proceedings, because the participation of the lawyers may only
complicate and confuse the proceedings and may prevent the
parties from coming into an amicable settlement.