G.R. No. A.C. No. 6585; April 21, 2005
Tomas B. Yumol, Jr., Felix S. Ventic, Elmer L. Maniego and Jake M. Magcalas, Complainants, vs. Atty. Roberto R. Ferrer, Sr., Respondent.

FACTS

Complainants, employees of the Commission on Human Rights (CHR), filed a disbarment complaint against respondent Atty. Roberto R. Ferrer, Sr., also a CHR Attorney IV, for grave misconduct. The controversy stemmed from respondent’s issuance of two Orders dated September 18 and 19, 2001, in relation to a complaint filed by Ma. Cecilia Mallari-Dy against her husband, John Burt Dy. The first Order awarded custody of their child to the mother, while the second directed a rural bank to reinstate the wife’s account. These orders, which respondent signed as “Senior Legal Counsel IV,” were enforced with the aid of police and barangay officials. Complainant Atty. Yumol, as Officer-in-Charge, later clarified to the bank that the CHR’s role was limited to legal guidance and that the case was not officially docketed, disauthorizing respondent’s orders.
Subsequent investigation revealed that respondent was engaged in private law practice while employed full-time with the CHR. Evidence included numerous pleadings he filed in various courts (MTC, RTC), notarized documents for private clients, and his attendance at court hearings on official workdays. His daily time records indicated he was present at the CHR office during the same hours he was appearing in court.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Atty. Ferrer, Sr. should be disbarred for grave misconduct arising from: (1) the unauthorized issuance of official CHR orders in a private dispute, and (2) engaging in private practice while a full-time government employee.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court suspended respondent from the practice of law for one year. The legal logic is twofold. First, respondent usurped judicial authority and exceeded the CHR’s mandate. The CHR is not a court and cannot issue coercive orders like awarding child custody or directing a bank to reinstate an account; its function is investigatory and recommendatory. By issuing these orders, respondent misrepresented the CHR’s powers, abused his official position, and committed an act of deceit against the public.
Second, respondent violated the prohibition against private practice for full-time government employees under the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees ( R.A. No. 6713 ). His preparation and filing of pleadings, notarization of documents for private clients, and court appearances during office hours constituted clear private practice. This act constituted dishonesty, as he collected government salary for time spent on private cases, and undermined public confidence in the integrity of the legal profession. While disbarment is the ultimate penalty, the Court considered the one-year suspension sufficient, noting his dismissal from the CHR service was a separate administrative penalty. His actions demonstrated a failure to uphold the law and the standards of the legal profession.