Samonte vs. Gatdula

A public official's name appearing on a law firm's professional calling card constitutes an act of solicitation and engagement in the private practice of law in violation of Section 7(b)(2) of Republic Act No. 6713, even absent direct evidence that the official personally offered legal services to a prospective client.

Julieta Borromeo Samonte represented her sister, the plaintiff in an ejectment case before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Quezon City. The MTC rendered a favorable decision, but execution was enjoined by a temporary restraining order issued by the Regional Trial Court, Branch 220, Quezon City, where respondent Atty. Rolando R. Gatdula served as Branch Clerk of Court. Complainant visited Branch 220 to inquire about the restraining order and subsequently filed this administrative complaint alleging that respondent attempted to solicit her as a client.

• Nature: Administrative complaint charging respondent Atty. Rolando R. Gatdula, Branch Clerk of Court, RTC Branch 220, Quezon City, with grave misconduct for allegedly engaging in the private practice of law in conflict with his official duties.

• The Underlying Ejectment Case: Complainant Julieta Borromeo Samonte acted as authorized representative of her sister, plaintiff in Civil Case No. 37-14552 for ejectment before MTC Quezon City, Branch 37. A typographical error in the complaint stated the defendant's address as 63-C instead of 63-B P. Tuazon Blvd., Cubao, Quezon City. An amended complaint rectifying the error was admitted, and a decision was rendered in plaintiff's favor.

• The TRO and Injunction: Complainant was surprised to receive a temporary restraining order signed by Judge Prudencio Castillo of RTC Branch 220, where respondent served as Branch Clerk of Court, enjoining execution of the MTC decision. Complainant alleged she was never notified of the application. The RTC subsequently issued an order granting a writ of preliminary injunction despite the MTC having ordered execution of its decision.

• Complainant's Allegations: Complainant claimed that when she visited Branch 220 to inquire about the TRO, respondent blamed her lawyer for writing the wrong address and told her she should change counsel and retain his law office to succeed in ejecting the defendant. Respondent allegedly gave her a calling card bearing the name "Baligod, Gatdula, Tacardon, Dimailig and Celera" with office at Rm. 220 Mariwasa Bldg., 717 Aurora Blvd., Cubao, Quezon City, and warned that otherwise she would not be able to eject the defendant.

• Respondent's Version: Respondent maintained that the Notice of Hearing on the TRO application was duly served upon the parties and that the application was heard before the TRO issued. He claimed complainant came to court "very mad" and he tried to calm her, assuring her the restraining order was only temporary. Respondent asserted complainant later returned claiming a friend had recommended the "Baligod, Gatdula, Tacardon, Dimailig and Celera" law firm and asking if he could handle her case; he refused, stating he was not connected with the firm despite being invited to join, having chosen to remain in the judiciary. Respondent alleged complainant threatened to file an administrative case if he could not convince the judge to recall the injunction.

• Proceedings Before the Investigating Judge: The case was set for hearing three times—September 7, 17, and 24, 1997—but neither complainant nor counsel appeared despite due notice. The return of service for the last hearing stated complainant was abroad. The investigating judge proceeded with the investigation by examining respondent and reviewing the records of Civil Case No. Q-96-28187. A final hearing on October 22, 1997, again saw no appearance from complainant. Respondent testified to affirm his Comment and submitted documentary evidence consisting of pleadings in both the MTC and RTC civil cases.

• Investigating Judge's Findings: The failure of complainant to appear meant she could not substantiate her allegations, particularly that respondent gave her the calling card and tried to convince her to change lawyers. Records showed complainant was duly notified of all proceedings. However, the calling card attached as Annex "B" of complainant's affidavit showed respondent's name included in the law firm's name. While respondent denied assuming any position in the office, the inclusion of his name indicated dealings with the firm and gave the impression of a connection, which may constitute solicitation and private practice declared unlawful under R.A. No. 6713.

• Denial of Solicitation: Respondent vehemently denied giving complainant his calling card or attempting to convince her to change counsel. He claimed complainant herself presented the card during a follow-up visit, stating a friend had recommended the firm, and that she discovered his name was on it.

• No Connection to Law Firm: Respondent maintained he had not assumed any position in the law firm despite being invited to join, having chosen to remain in the judiciary since passing the bar. He asserted it was impossible for him to enter an appearance as counsel in the very court where he served as Branch Clerk of Court.

• Regularity of Court Proceedings: Respondent claimed the TRO was properly issued after notice and hearing, and that the preliminary injunction application was also set for hearing. He characterized the administrative complaint as retaliation for complainant's frustration in failing to secure the ejectment of the defendant.

• Solicitation and Private Practice: Whether the inclusion of respondent's name on a law firm's professional calling card constituted engaging in the private practice of law or an act of solicitation in violation of Section 7(b)(2) of Republic Act No. 6713.

• Sufficiency of Evidence: Whether complainant's failure to appear at the investigation hearings and substantiate her allegations warranted dismissal of the administrative complaint.

• Solicitation and Private Practice: The inclusion of respondent's name on the law firm's calling card constituted an act of solicitation and private practice of law. Respondent admitted that his name appeared on the calling card attached to the complaint. He did not claim the card was printed without his knowledge or consent. The card carried his name primarily and the firm name in the corner, giving the clear impression of a professional connection. This constituted a permissible form of advertising or solicitation of legal services, as recognized in Ulep vs. Legal Clinic, Inc., and violated Section 7(b)(2) of R.A. No. 6713, which declares it unlawful for public officials to engage in the private practice of their profession unless authorized by law, provided such practice will not conflict or tend to conflict with official functions.

• Sufficiency of Evidence: Complainant's failure to appear and substantiate her allegation that respondent personally handed her the card and tried to convince her to change lawyers meant the specific charge of personal solicitation was not established by convincing evidence. However, respondent's admission that the card bearing his name existed and came into complainant's hands was sufficient to sustain a finding of a minor infraction. The violation committed by having his name included in the calling card was treated as an infraction for which administrative sanction was warranted.

• Prohibition on Private Practice by Public Officials — Section 7(b)(2) of Republic Act No. 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees) declares it unlawful for a public official or employee to engage in the private practice of their profession unless authorized by the Constitution or law, and provided such practice will not conflict or tend to conflict with official functions. The inclusion of a public official's name on a professional calling card of a law firm constitutes a form of solicitation and private practice, violating this prohibition.

• Appearance of Impropriety — The conduct and behavior of every person connected with an office charged with the dispensation of justice, from the presiding judge to the lowliest clerk, should be circumscribed with the heavy burden of responsibility. Such conduct must be characterized by propriety and decorum and, above all else, must be above suspicion. The mere impression of connection to a law firm, created by the presence of the official's name on a professional card, offends this standard.

• "The inclusion/retention of his name in the professional card constitutes an act of solicitation which violates Section 7 sub-par. (b)(2) of Republic Act No. 6713."

• "Time and again this Court has said that the conduct and behavior of every one connected with an office charged with the dispensation of justice, from the presiding judge to the lowliest clerk, should be circumscribed with the heavy burden of responsibility. His conduct, at all times must only be characterized by propriety and decorum but above all else must be above suspicion."

• Ulep vs. Legal Clinic, Inc., 223 SCRA 378 (1993) — Cited for the proposition that a professional calling card is a permissible form of advertising or solicitation of legal services. The Court invoked this precedent to characterize respondent's name on the card as an act of solicitation.

• Annang vs. Vda. de Blas, 202 SCRA 635 — Cited to support the principle that court personnel must maintain conduct above suspicion.

• Mirano vs. Saavedra, 225 SCRA 77 — Cited alongside Annang for the same principle regarding the heavy burden of responsibility borne by those in the judicial service.

• Section 7(b)(2), Republic Act No. 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees) — Prohibits public officials and employees from engaging in the private practice of their profession unless authorized by the Constitution or law, provided such practice will not conflict or tend to conflict with official functions. Applied to respondent's inclusion of his name on a law firm's professional card, which was deemed an act of solicitation constituting private practice.

Justices Romero, Vitug, Panganiban, and Purisima concurred.

None.