G.R. No. A.C. No. 5738; February 19, 2008
Wilfredo M. Catu, complainant, vs. Atty. Vicente G. Rellosa, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Wilfredo Catu, a co-owner of a property in Manila, alleged that his mother and brother initiated barangay conciliation proceedings before the Lupong Tagapamayapa of Barangay 723 against Elizabeth Diaz-Catu and Antonio Pastor for possession of a unit. Respondent Atty. Vicente Rellosa, serving as the punong barangay, presided over these conciliation meetings. When no settlement was reached, he issued the required certification to file an action in court.
Subsequently, an ejectment case was filed against Elizabeth and Pastor in the Metropolitan Trial Court. Respondent, while still the incumbent punong barangay, entered his appearance as the legal counsel for the defendants in that very same ejectment case. This prompted complainant to file an administrative case, charging respondent with impropriety for representing a party in a matter he previously intervened in as a public official.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Atty. Vicente Rellosa committed professional misconduct by acting as counsel in a case where he previously intervened in his official capacity as punong barangay.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court found respondent guilty of professional misconduct. The Court clarified that the specific provisions cited by the IBP-CBD were inapplicable. Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility applies only to lawyers who have left government service. Furthermore, for elective local officials like a punong barangay, the governing law on the practice of profession is Section 90 of the Local Government Code (RA 7160), not the general provision in RA 6713. Section 90 prohibits local chief executives, including punong barangays, from practicing their profession.
The legal logic rests on the fundamental ethical duty to avoid conflicts of interest and uphold public confidence in the legal system. By presiding over the conciliation as a neutral public official and then switching roles to become an advocate for one party in the ensuing litigation, respondent created an impermissible conflict. His actions betrayed the trust and objectivity expected of his public office and undermined the integrity of the barangay conciliation process. This conduct violated his oath as a lawyer and Canons 1 and 7, and Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which mandate lawyers to uphold the law, avoid impropriety, and promote respect for legal processes. The Court suspended him from the practice of law for six months.