G.R. No. A.C. No. 1519 October 27, 1983
WENCESLAO SUMAPIG, PONCIANO PANOY, FAUSTA BALTES and MARCIANO SECO, complainants, vs. MACARIO ESMAS, JR., respondent.

FACTS

This is a disbarment case against Assistant Fiscal Macario Esmas, Jr. of Manila. The complaint, filed in 1975, contained two sets of allegations. First, complainant Wenceslao Sumapig charged Esmas with gross immorality for allegedly cohabiting with Sumapig’s daughter, Violeta, resulting in the birth of a child. Esmas admitted the cohabitation in a handwritten letter. However, Sumapig later withdrew this charge, revealing it was instigated by another lawyer, Narciso Marilao, Jr., due to a separate professional rivalry. Violeta Sumapig also executed an affidavit denying the allegations and refusing to testify. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the immorality charge.
Second, complainants Ponciano Panoy, Fausta Baltes, and Marciano Seco charged Esmas with malpractice and gross misconduct. They alleged that in 1972, while Esmas was on vacation in Leyte, he volunteered to handle an ejectment case for Dominador De la Cruz, collecting P500 as attorney’s fees despite being a public prosecutor prohibited from private practice. It was further alleged that Esmas gave Panoy a P50 commission for referring the case. Esmas referred the case to a private attorney, Antonio Villamor, who filed and prosecuted it.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Assistant Fiscal Macario Esmas, Jr. is guilty of malpractice and gross misconduct for collecting attorney’s fees from a client while holding a position that prohibits the private practice of law.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court found Esmas guilty of malpractice and gross misconduct. The Court disagreed with the Solicitor General’s initial finding that it was improbable for an assistant fiscal to openly engage in private practice. The Court held that the preponderance of evidence sustained the charge. Witnesses testified that they heard Esmas demand P500 from De la Cruz for handling the case, and De la Cruz had to borrow money to pay the initial P250. Although Esmas did not personally appear in court and his name was not on any pleading, the Court ruled that he took advantage of the client’s ignorance by extracting money under the pretext of handling the legal matter. This act constituted a clear violation of the prohibition against private practice for public prosecutors. The Court severely censured Esmas for this misconduct. The immorality charge had been previously dismissed due to the withdrawal of the complaint and the lack of supporting testimony from the principal witness.