[go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd
Upload
499 views2 pages

Legal Ethics Violation Case

Respondent Atty. Ladaga appeared as pro bono counsel for his cousin in a criminal case without prior authorization from the Court Administrator. An investigation was initiated to determine if this violated rules prohibiting government employees from engaging in private practice. It was found that while an isolated appearance does not constitute private practice, Respondent still failed to obtain required written permission. He was reprimanded for this violation.

Uploaded by

angelo prieto
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
499 views2 pages

Legal Ethics Violation Case

Respondent Atty. Ladaga appeared as pro bono counsel for his cousin in a criminal case without prior authorization from the Court Administrator. An investigation was initiated to determine if this violated rules prohibiting government employees from engaging in private practice. It was found that while an isolated appearance does not constitute private practice, Respondent still failed to obtain required written permission. He was reprimanded for this violation.

Uploaded by

angelo prieto
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Office of the Court Administrator v.

Ladaga

Facts:

Respondent Atty. Ladaga requested the Court Administrator, Justice Alfredo L. Benipayo, for
authority to appear as pro bono counsel of his cousin, Narcisa Naldoza Ladaga, in a Criminal
Case for Falsification of Public Document

Lisa Payoyo Andres, the private complainant in Criminal Case, sent a letter to the Court
Administrator, requesting for a certification with regard to respondent's authority to appear as
counsel for the accused in the said criminal case.

the Office of the Court Administrator referred the matter to respondent for comment.

In his comment, Respondent admitted that he appeared in the previous criminal case without
prior authorization. He alleged that:

- circumstances surrounding the criminal case compelled him to handle the defense of his
cousin who did not have enough resources to hire the services of a counsel de parte
- Private complainant was a member of a powerful family
- His appearance in the criminal case did not prejudice his office nor the interest of the
public since he did not take advantage of his position
- His appearances in court were covered by leave applications approved by the presiding
judge

Issue: Whether or not Respondent violated the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public
Officials and Employees

Held: Yes

Respondent is charged under Sec. 7(b)(2) of the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for
Public Officials and Employees which prohibits civil servants from engaging in the private
practice of their profession.

However, it should be clarified that "private practice" of a profession, specifically the law
profession in this case, which is prohibited, does not pertain to an isolated court appearance;
rather, it contemplates a succession of acts of the same nature habitually or customarily holding
one's self to the public as a lawyer.

In the case of People v. Villanueva, the Court ruled that an isolated appearance was not enough
to constitute practice

Based on the foregoing, it is evident that the isolated instances when respondent appeared as pro
bono counsel of his cousin in Criminal Case No. 84885 does not constitute the "private practice"
of the law profession contemplated by law.

Nonetheless, while respondent's isolated court appearances did not amount to a private practice
of law, he failed to obtain a written permission therefor from the head of the Department, which
is this Court as required by Section 12, Rule XVIII of the Revised Civil Service Rules, thus:

Sec 12. No officer or employee shall engage directly in any private business, vocation, or
profession or be connected with any commercial, credit, agricultural, or industrial undertaking
without a written permission from the head of the Department:

Reprimanded.

You might also like