G.R. No. A.C. No. 5305; March 17, 2003
MARCIANO P. BRION, JR., petitioner, vs. FRANCISCO F. BRILLANTES, JR., respondent.

FACTS

In a prior administrative case (A.M. No. MTJ-92-706), respondent Atty. Francisco Brillantes, Jr., a former judge, was dismissed from service with a perpetual disqualification from holding any government post, including in government-owned and controlled corporations (GOCCs). Petitioner Marciano Brion, Jr., filed this disbarment case, alleging respondent willfully violated this Court’s order by accepting a legal consultancy with the Local Water Utilities Administration (LWUA), a GOCC, from 1998 to 2000. The consultancy included a designation as the 6th member of the Board of Directors of the Urdaneta Water District. Petitioner contended that despite contract clauses disclaiming an employer-employee relationship, respondent functioned as a de facto employee by supervising personnel, issuing instructions, serving on key committees (e.g., Bids and Awards), receiving honoraria and bonuses, using official property, and undertaking official travel.
Respondent admitted the consultancy contracts but defended his actions by citing Civil Service Commission Memorandum Circular No. 27, s. 1993, which states consultancy services are not considered government service. He argued his designation to the water district board was not a prohibited “reappointment” to a plantilla position and that all such engagements had been terminated by 2000. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Commission on Bar Discipline found respondent liable and recommended a one-year suspension from law practice and a P10,000 fine.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Atty. Francisco Brillantes, Jr., is administratively liable for violating the Supreme Court’s order of perpetual disqualification from government service by accepting a consultancy with LWUA.

RULING

Yes, respondent is administratively liable. The Supreme Court affirmed the IBP’s findings and imposed the recommended penalty. The legal logic is clear: LWUA is a GOCC, thus squarely within the scope of the Court’s prior disqualification order in Atienza. The Court rejected respondent’s defense based on the CSC memorandum circular. It held that the nature of his actual duties—exercising supervisory authority, issuing directives, sitting on substantive committees, and receiving regular honoraria—transcended the merely “advisory” character contemplated for legitimate consultants. These functions demonstrated an integration into LWUA’s administrative structure akin to regular employment, constituting a circumvention of the Court’s directive.
By accepting and performing under these contracts, respondent engaged in deceitful conduct and willful disobedience of a lawful order, violating his oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility (Rule 1.01). His actions exhibited a lack of moral fitness and respect for judicial authority. The termination of his contracts did not absolve him of liability for the period of violation. Accordingly, respondent was SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one year and FINED Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00), with a stern warning.