SAMONT E v GATDULA

February 26, 1999

FACTS

A suit was filed by Julieta Samonte against Gatdula charging the latter
with grave misconduct consisting in the alleged engagement in the private
practice law, which is in conflict with his official functions as a branch clerk
of court.

Samonte is the authorized representative of her sister, Flor de Leon, in a case where
there is a typographical error in the complaint in an ejectment suit. The petition to
have it corrected was granted and a motion for execution was issued. However, a
temporary restraining order (TRO) was subsequently issued by Judge Castillo of RTC
of Quezon City where Gatdula is the clerk.

Flor alleges that she went to inquire about the TRO but Gatdula brushed her off and
said “Wow, bad lawyer you have” and told her to change counsel and even handed
her a calling card of “Baligod, Gatula, Tacardon, Tacardon, Dimailig & Cellera” law
firm.

Respondent countered and said that Samonte was just very mad about the TRO
that’s why she she filed a case against him. He further alleged that he was not
connected with the law firm. He was invited to be part of it, but he wanted to
remain in the judiciary.

The investigating judge found that the complainant failed to substantiate her
allegations due to failure to appear in court despite several notices for hearing.
However, he that the calling card attached in the complaint, certainly included
respondent’s name

ISSUE

WON the inclusion of Gatdula’s name in the calling card of the law firm in subject is
a violation of the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and
Employees

HELD/RATIO

Yes. The Court found that respondent is guilty of an infraction, for not having denied
that his name appears on the calling card which admittedly came into the hands of
the complainant. It is a permissible form of advertising or solicitation of legal
services, and is therefore a clear manifestation of him being engaged in the private
practice of law. The inclusion/retention of his name in the professional card
constitutes an act of solicitation which violates the "Code of Conduct and Ethical
Standards for Public Officials and Employees" which declares it unlawful for a public
official or employee to, among others:

(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 official functions.

Inclusion of his name gives the impression that he is connected with the
firm, which is not permissible of an officer charged with the dispensation
of justice.