G.R. No. A.C. 6854. April 25, 2007.
Juan Dulalia, Jr., Complainant, vs. Atty. Pablo C. Cruz, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Juan Dulalia, Jr. charged Atty. Pablo C. Cruz, the Municipal Legal Officer of Meycauayan, Bulacan, with violating the Code of Professional Responsibility. The complaint stemmed from respondent’s opposition to a building permit application filed by complainant’s wife. Respondent sent a letter to the Municipal Building Official, written on behalf of himself and neighboring families, expressing concerns about nuisances, safety hazards, and potential violations of the National Building Code posed by the construction. Complainant alleged this opposition was motivated by a personal grudge, as his wife had objected to respondent’s second marriage to her cousin while his first marriage was still subsisting. Complainant further accused respondent of using his official influence improperly and of engaging in private practice while a public official.
The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Commission on Bar Discipline recommended dismissal, finding respondent had satisfactorily answered the charges and that complainant failed to present clear and convincing evidence. The IBP Board of Governors approved this recommendation. Complainant elevated the case via a Petition for Review, reiterating his allegations that respondent violated Rules 1.01 (prohibiting unlawful conduct), 6.02 (prohibiting misuse of public position), and 7.03 (restricting private practice while in government service) of the Code.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Atty. Pablo C. Cruz should be held administratively liable for violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the complaint and affirmed the IBP’s recommendation. On the alleged violation of Rule 1.01 for bigamy, the Court found the charge unsubstantiated. Complainant failed to present competent evidence, such as a marriage certificate for the second marriage or proof that the first marriage was still valid and subsisting at that time. Mere allegations are insufficient to overcome the presumption of innocence enjoyed by a lawyer in disbarment proceedings.
Regarding the alleged misuse of influence (Rule 6.02) in sending the letter opposing the building permit, the Court agreed with the IBP and the Ombudsman’s prior dismissal of a related graft case. The letter was not an improper opposition but a legitimate inquiry and request for the Building Official to ensure compliance with the National Building Code. As Municipal Legal Officer, part of respondent’s duty was to advise on legal matters, including potential code violations affecting public safety. His actions fell within the scope of his official functions.
Finally, on the charge of engaging in private practice (Rule 7.03), the Court noted that respondent was authorized by a mayoral memorandum to engage in private legal practice, provided it did not conflict with his official duties. The act of sending the letter in question was performed in his official capacity, not in the course of private practice. Therefore, no violation was established. The burden of proof in disbarment cases rests on the complainant, and here, the evidence was insufficient to warrant the extreme penalty of disbarment or suspension.