Pasok v.

Zapatos

Facts: Atty. Zapatos was the former Judge of the RTC in Ozamis City before he retired and a former
presiding Judge of the MTC in Tangub where he handled a Forcible Entry case. Atty. Pasok, on the other
hand, is the counsel for the complainant in the forcible entry case. During the course of the case, Judge
Zapatos rendered a decision in favor of the respondent.

Another case was filed by Atty. Pasok and his clients, this time for a declaration of nullity of deed of deed
of sale. This case was heard by Atty. Zapatos as the presiding judge of MTCC and when the case was
scheduled for trial on the merits, Atty. Zapatos suspended the hearing Motu Proprio on account of there
were still affirmative defenses raised by the defendants, like the lack of jurisdiction, which prompted the
plaintiff to file a manifestation and memorandum, causing the respondent to inhibit himself from trying
the case.

The case went undecided and Atty. Zapatos was appointed as the Judge of the RTC of Ozamis city. About
a decade later, the newly appointed judge of the MTCC in Tangub issued an order asking both parties
whether or not they were amenable to him rendering judgment on the case. Atty. Pasok was surprised
when he received a manifestation from the defendants that they will now be represented by none other
than recently retired Judge Zapatos.

Atty. Pasok contends that the appearance of Atty. Zapatos as the counsel of the defendants is highly
illegal, immoral, and unethical as he was the previous presiding judge of the case. Atty. Zapatos raised the
defense that he cannot be charged or penalized for any violation because when he rendered his judgment
on the first case, he believed that he was completely in absolute neutrality. He likewise justified his
appearance as counsel by citing extreme poverty and the absence of adequate income which forced him
to ply his profession.

The matter was raised with the IBP where it found that Atty. Zapatos was guilty of violating Rule 6.03 and
recommended his suspension for 1 month.

Issue: WON Atty. Zapatos should be suspended.

Held: Yes

Ratio: To come within the ambit of Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, the res pondent
must be shown to have accepted the engagement or employment in relation to a matter that, by virtue
of his judicial office, he had previously exercised power to influence the outcome of the proceedings.9
That showing was sufficiently made herein. The respondent, in his capacity as the judge of the MTCC of
Tangub City, presided over the case before eventually inhibiting himself from further proceedings. His act
of presiding constituted intervention within the meaning of the rule whose text does not mention the
degree or length of the intervention in the particular case or matter. It is also plain and unquestionable
that Canon 36, supra, from which the canon was derived, prohibited him as a former member of the Bench
from handling any case upon which he had previously acted in a judicial capacity. In this context, he not
only exercised the power to influence the outcome of the proceedings but also had a direct hand in
bringing about the result of the case by virtue of his having the power to rule on it.
The restriction extended to engagement or employment. The respondent could not accept work or
employment from anyone that would involve or relate to any matter in which he had intervened as a
judge except on behalf of the body or authority that he serve d during his public employment.10 The
restriction as applied to him lasted beyond his tenure in relation to the matters in which he had intervened
as judge.11 Accordingly, the fact that he was already retired from the Bench, or that he was already in the
private practice of law when he was engaged for the case was inconsequential.

Therefore, Atty. Zapatos was suspended for one month