A.C. No. 11069. June 08, 2016
Ronaldo C. Facturan, Complainant, vs. Prosecutor Alfredo L. Barcelona, Jr., Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Ronaldo C. Facturan filed a disbarment complaint against respondent Prosecutor Alfredo L. Barcelona, Jr., for gross misconduct, dishonesty, and conduct unbecoming of a lawyer. The complaint stemmed from respondent’s handling of I.S. No. 04-211, a qualified theft case filed by complainant. After the investigating prosecutor, Prosecutor Faisal D. Amerkhan, forwarded the records with a resolution recommending prosecution and a draft information for respondent’s approval in October 2004, respondent neither approved nor signed them. Instead, he removed the case records from the Provincial Prosecution Office and kept them at his residence.
The respondents in the theft case were personally known to respondent; one was his cousin and the others were close friends. Despite interventions from the Department of Justice, including a directive from State Prosecutor Ringcar B. Pinote to turn over the records, respondent failed to comply promptly. The records were eventually returned in July 2005, but without Prosecutor Amerkhan’s resolution and information, and respondent had taken no action on them. Respondent defended himself by claiming he had inhibited from the case, advised a clarificatory hearing, and alleged that the complainant and Prosecutor Amerkhan manipulated the filing.

ISSUE

Whether grounds exist to hold respondent administratively liable for his actions.

RULING

Yes, respondent is administratively liable. The Court agreed with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines’ factual findings but modified the legal basis. Respondent was found guilty of violating Rule 6.02, Canon 6 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, not Rule 18.03, Canon 18 as initially recommended. Canon 6 applies specifically to lawyers in government service. Rule 6.02 prohibits a lawyer in government service from using his public position to promote or advance his private interests or from allowing such private interests to interfere with his public duties.
The Court’s legal logic is clear: while a lawyer in government service is generally subject to disciplinary action as a public official, the Court may discipline him as a member of the Bar if his misconduct also violates his lawyer’s oath. Here, respondent’s act of removing and retaining the case records, coupled with his failure to act on them despite directives, constituted a failure to perform his official duty. Critically, his personal relationships with the respondents in the theft case established that he allowed his private interests to interfere with his public duties. His inaction and retention of the records, which delayed the proceedings, demonstrated he used his position to benefit his friends and relative, thereby advancing his private interests. This conduct breached the high standard of honesty and fair dealing required of a lawyer in public service, who is a keeper of public faith. Consequently, the Court suspended respondent from the practice of law for one year.