AR

Case No. 23
Canon 6 Government Lawyers
Diana Ramos vs. Atty. Jose Imbang
530 SCRA 759 (2007)

FACTS:
1. Diana Ramos sought the assistance of respondent Atty. Jose Imbang in filing civil and criminal actions
against the spouses Jovellanos. She gave respondent ₱8,500 as attorney's fees but the latter issued a receipt
for ₱5,000 only.

2. The complainant tried to attend the scheduled hearings of her cases. Oddly, respondent never allowed her
to enter the courtroom and always told her to wait outside. This happened 6 times and for each
"appearance" in court, respondent charged her ₱350.

3. The complainant then personally inquired about the status of her cases. She was shocked to learn that
respondent never filed any case against the Jovellanoses and that he was in fact employed in the PAO.

4. IBP found respondent guilty of violating the prohibitions on government lawyers from accepting private
cases and receiving lawyer's fees other than their salaries. It recommended respondent's suspension from
the practice of law for 3 years and ordered him to immediately return to the complainant the amount of
₱5,000 with interest, and in case of respondent's failure to return the total amount, an additional
suspension of six months.

ISSUE: Whether Atty. Imbang should be disbarred.

RULING: YES.
Engagement in Private Practice while still connected with PAO
Government employees are expected to devote themselves completely to public service. For this reason, the
private practice of profession is prohibited under the Code of Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees.
Thus, lawyers in government service cannot handle private cases for they are expected to devote
themselves full-time to the work of their respective offices. In this instance, respondent received ₱5,000 from
the complainant and issued a receipt while he was still connected with the PAO. Acceptance of money from a client
establishes an attorney-client relationship. Respondent clearly violated the prohibition on private practice of
profession.

Acceptance of Attorney’s Fees

\PAO was created for the purpose of providing free legal assistance to indigent litigants. As a PAO lawyer,
respondent should not have accepted attorney's fees from the complainant as this was inconsistent with the
office's mission.

Respondent's acceptance of the cases was also a breach of Rule 18.01 of the CPR because the prohibition on the
private practice of profession disqualified him from acting as the complainant's counsel.

Deception
Moreover, respondent also surreptitiously deceived the complainant. Not only did he fail to file a complaint,
respondent also led the complainant to believe that he really filed an action. He even made it appear that the cases
were being tried and asked the complainant to pay his "appearance fees" for hearings that never took place.

DISPOSITIVE: Atty. Jose Imbang is found guilty of violating the lawyer’s oath, Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and Canon
18, Rule 18.01 of the CPR. Accordingly, he is hereby DISBARRED from the practice of law and his name
is ordered stricken from the Roll of Attorneys. He is also ordered to return to complainant the amount of ₱5,000
with interest.

AR
Case No. 24
Canon 6 Government Lawyers
In re Atty. Victor Avecilla
AC No. 6683, June 21, 2011

FACTS:
1. Atty. Victor Avecilla filed a petition impugning the constitutionality of BP 883, i.e., the law that called for the
holding of a presidential snap election in 1986. The petition was docketed as G.R. No. 72954. SC upheld the
constitutionality, and the rollo was entrusted to the Judicial Records Office (JRO) for safekeeping.

2. Later, respondent sent a letter to CJ Davide, Jr. requesting that they be furnished several
documents relative to the expenditure of the Judiciary Development Fund (JDF). In order to show that he
has interest in the JDF, the respondent claimed that they made contributions to the said fund by way of the
docket and legal fees they paid in G.R No. 72954.

3. CJ Davide instructed the Chief of the JRO to forward the rollo of G.R. No. 72954 for the purpose of verifying
the claim of the respondent. It was found out that the rollo has long been missing, and based on the tracer
card, it was borrowed by respondent and was never returned.

4. Respondent’s defense is that he neither borrowed nor authorized anyone to borrow the rollo. He asserted
that, for some unknown reason, the subject rollo just ended up in his box of personal papers and effects.

5. Office of the Bar Confidant conducted a formal investigation on the matter. OBC dismissed the defenses of
the respondent and found the latter to be fully accountable for taking out the rollo and failing to return it
timely.  OBC, thus, recommended that the respondent be suspended from the practice of law for 1 year.

ISSUE: Whether respondent should be suspended.

RULING: YES. But the suspension is tempered from 1 year to 6 months.

Taking judicial records, such as a rollo, outside court premises, without the court’s consent, is an administratively
punishable act.

The act of the respondent in borrowing a rollo for unofficial business entails the employment of deceit, the use of
misrepresentation and, to a certain extent, even abuse of position on the part of the respondent because the
lending of rollos are, as a matter of policy, only limited to official purposes.

As a lawyer then employed with the government, the respondent clearly violated Rule 6.02, Canon 6: A lawyer in
the government service shall not use his public position to promote or advance his private interests.

HOWEVER, SC finds the recommended penalty as too harsh. Circumstances were considered:
1. G.R. No. 72954 was already finally resolved when its rollo was borrowed. Thus, the act of respondent in
keeping the subject rollo worked no prejudice insofar as the case is concerned.
2. It was never established that the contents of the rollo, which remained confidential, were disclosed by the
respondent.
3. After his possession of the subject rollo was discovered, the respondent cooperated with the JRO for the
return of the rollo.
DISPOSITIVE: The respondent is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for 6 months. The respondent is
also STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of a similar offense in the future will be dealt with more severely.