Abeto v Garcesa

1995 | Davide, Jr., J.

A complaint was filed against respondent for
allegedly misrepresenting himself as a full-fledged lawyer
and having acted as one of the authorized representatives
of the complainant and his co-complainants in labour
cases despite him being a court employee(stenographer).
Respondent admitted he assisted complainant in
labour cases but denied he misrepresented himself as a
lawyer. He explained he frankly informed petitioner that
he is only a court employee and he was only helping one
Ronquillo (BP of Workders Amalgamated Union of the PH
(WAUP) whose assistance was sought by petitioner and
others. Respondent further alleges that the case arose out
of ill-feeling and is design to maligh his name and
reputation as a court employee. He manifests that if his
motives in helping poor and downtrodden
workers/employees of BISCOM Central would not be in
consonance with Memo Circ 17 (1986) issued by the Exec
Dept and is prohitibed by Admin Circ 5 issued by the
Supreme Court, he will readily submit to the discretion of
the SC.

Issue:
W/N complaint be dismissed. Yes but Respondent is
reprimanded.

Court agreed with recommendation of Deputy Court
Admin Elapano that respondent be reprimanded.
- Section 12 Rule XVIII of RCSR cited and SC
memo circ 5;
- Under the section 12, government employees
prohibited from engaging in any private business,
vocation of profession without permission from
the Court; a proviso was emphasized which
provided that the prohibition is absolute in the
case of officers and employees whose duties and
responsibilities require that their entire time be at
the disposal of the Government;
- Admin Circ 5 was also cited which provides that
the entire time of Judiciary officials and
employees must be devoted to government
service to insure efficient and speedy
administration of justice; the nature of their work
requires them to serve with the highest degree of
efficiency and responsibility in order to maintain
public confidence in the Judiciary;



W/N respondent should be held liable for
unauthorized practice of law. No.
- There is no convincing evidence respondent
represented himself as a lawyer; his appearance
merely was in his capacity as one of the
representatives of the complainants, not as a
lawyer;
- NLRC rules provided at that time that a non-
lawyer may appear before NLRC or any Labor
Arbiter if he represents himself or as a party to
the case, represents an organization or its
members or is a duly accredited member of a free
legal aid staff of the DOLE or other accredited
legal aid of office by the DoJ and IBP;