THIRD DIVISION
[A.M. No. P-99-1292. February 26, 1999]
JULIETA BORROMEO SAMONTE, complainant, vs. ATTY. ROLANDO R. GATDULA, Branch Clerk of Court, respondent.
R E S O L U T I O N
GONZAGA-REYES, J.:
The complaint filed by Julieta Borromeo
Samonte charges Rolando R. Gatdula, RTC, Branch 220, Quezon City with grave
misconduct consisting in the alleged engaging in the private practice of law
which is in conflict with his official functions as Branch Clerk of Court.
Complainant alleges that she is
the authorized representative of her sister Flor Borromeo de Leon, the
plaintiff in Civil Case No. 37-14552 for ejectment filed with the Metropolitan
Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 37. A typographical error was committed in
the complaint which stated that the address of defendant is No. 63-C instead of
63-B, P. Tuazon Blvd., Cubao, Quezon City.
The mistake was rectified by the filing of an amended complaint which
was admitted by the Court. A decision
was rendered in favor of the plaintiff who subsequently filed a motion for
execution. Complainant however, was
surprised to receive a temporary restraining order signed by Judge Prudencio
Castillo of Branch 220, RTC, Quezon City, where Atty. Rolando Gatdula is the Branch Clerk of Court, enjoining the
execution of the decision of the Metropolitan Trial Court. Complainant alleges that the issuance of the
temporary restraining order was hasty and irregular as she was never notified
of the application for preliminary injunction.
Complainant further alleges that
when she went to Branch 220, RTC, Quezon City, to inquire about the reason for
the issuance of the temporary restraining order, respondent Atty. Rolando
Gatdula, blamed her lawyer for writing the wrong address in the complaint for
ejectment and told her that if she wanted the execution to proceed, she should
change her lawyer and retain the law office of respondent at the same time
giving his calling card with the name "Baligod, Gatdula, Tacardon,
Dimailig and Celera" with office at Rm. 220 Mariwasa Bldg., 717 Aurora
Blvd., Cubao, Quezon City; otherwise she will not be able to eject the
defendant Dave Knope. Complainant told
respondent that she could not decide because she was only representing her sister. To her consternation, the RTC Branch 220
issued an order granting the preliminary injunction as threatened by respondent
despite the fact that the MTC, Branch 37 had issued an Order directing the
execution of the Decision in Civil Case No. 37-14552.
Asked to comment, respondent Atty.
Gatdula recited the antecedents in the ejectment case and the issuance of the
restraining order by the Regional Trial Court, and claimed that contrary to
complainant Samonte's allegation that she was not notified of the raffle and
the hearing, the Notice of Hearing on the motion for the issuance of a
Temporary Restraining Order was duly served upon the parties, and that the
application for injunctive relief was heard before the temporary restraining
order was issued. The preliminary
injunction was also set for hearing on August 7, 1996.
The respondent's version of the
incident is that sometime before the hearing of the motion for the issuance of
a temporary restraining order, complainant Samonte went to court "very
mad" because of the issuance of the order stopping the execution of the
decision in the ejectment case.
Respondent tried to calm her down, and assured her that the restraining
order was only temporary and that the application for preliminary injunction
would still be heard. Later the
Regional Trial Court granted the application for a writ of preliminary
injunction. The complainant went back
to court "fuming mad" because of the alleged unreasonableness of the
court in issuing the injunction.
Respondent Gatdula claims that
thereafter complainant returned to his office, and informed him that she wanted
to change counsel and that a friend of hers recommended the Law Finn of
"Baligod, Gatdula, Tacardon, Dimailig and Celera," at the same time
showing a calling card, and asking if he could handle her case. Respondent refused as he was not connected
with the law firm, although he was invited to join but he chose to remain in
the judiciary. Complainant returned to
court a few days later and told him that if he cannot convince the judge to
recall the writ of preliminary injunction, she will file an administrative case
against respondent and the judge. The
threat was repeated but the respondent refused to be pressured. Meanwhile, the Complainant's Motion to
Dissolve the Writ of Preliminary Injunction was denied. Respondent Gatdula claims that the
complainant must have filed this administrative charge because of her
frustration in procuring the ejectment of the defendant lessee from the
premises. Respondent prays for the
dismissal of the complaint against him.
The case was referred to Executive
Judge Estrella Estrada, RTC, Quezon City, for investigation, report and
recommendation.
In her report Judge Estrada states
that the case was set for hearing three times, on September 7, 1997, on
September 17, and on September 24, 1997, but neither complainant nor her
counsel appeared, despite due notice.
The return of service of the Order setting the last hearing stated that
complainant is still abroad. There
being no definite time conveyed to the court for the return of the complainant,
the investigating Judge proceeded with the investigation by "conducting
searching questions" upon respondent based on the allegations in the
complaint and asked for the record of Civil Case No. Q-96-28187 for evaluation. The case was set for hearing for the last
time on October 22, 1997, to give complainant a last chance to appear, but
there was again no appearance despite notice.
The respondent testified in his
own behalf to affirm the statements in his Comment and submitted documentary
evidence consisting mainly of the pleadings in MTC Civil Case No. 37-14552, and
in RTC Civil Case No. Q96-28187 to show that the questioned orders of the court
were not improperly issued.
The investigating judge made the
following findings:
"For failure of the complainant to appear at the several hearings despite notice, she failed to substantiate her allegations in the complaint particularly that herein respondent gave her his calling card and tried to convince her to change her lawyer. This being the case, it cannot be established with certainty that respondent indeed gave her his calling card and even convinced her to change her lawyer. Moreover, as borne by the records of Civil Case No. Q-96-28187, complainant was duly notified of all the proceedings leading to the issuance of the TRO and the subsequent orders of Judge Prudencio Altre Castillo, Jr. of RTC, Branch 220. Complainant's lack of interest in prosecuting this administrative case could be an indication that her filing of the charge against the respondent is only intended to harass the respondent for her failure to obtain a favorable decision from the Court.
However, based on the record of this administrative case, the
calling card attached as Annex "B" of complainant's affidavit dated
September 25, 1996 allegedly given by respondent to complainant would show that
the name of herein respondent was
indeed included in the BALIGOD, GATDULA, TACARDON, DIMAILIG & CELERA LAW
OFFICES. While respondent denied having
assumed any position in said office, the fact remains that his name is included
therein which may therefore tend to show that he has dealings with said
office. Thus, while he may not be
actually and directly employed with the firm, the fact that his name appears on
the calling card as a partner in the Baligod, Gatdula, Tacardon, Dimailig &
Celera Law Offices give the impression that he is connected therein and may
constitute an act of solicitation and private practice which is declared
unlawful under Republic Act No. 6713.
It is to be noted, however, that complainant failed to establish by
convincing evidence that respondent actually offered to her the services of
their law office. Thus, the violation
committed by respondent in having his name included/retained in the calling card
may only be considered as a minor infraction for which he must also be
administratively sanctioned."
and
recommended that Atty. Gatdula be
admonished and censured for the minor infraction he has committed.
Finding: We agree with the
investigating judge that the respondent is guilty of an infraction. The complainant by her failure to appear at
the hearings, failed to substantiate her allegation that it was the respondent
who gave her the calling card of "Baligod, Gatdula, Tacardon, Dimailig and
Celera Law Offices" and that he tried to convince her to change
counsels. We find however, that while
the respondent vehemently denies the complainant's allegations, he does not
deny that his name appears on the calling card attached to the complaint which
admittedly came into the hands of the complainant. The respondent testified before the Investigating Judge as
follows:
"Q: How about your statement that you even gave her a calling card of the "Baligod, Gatdula, Pardo, Dimailig and Celera law Offices at Room 220 Mariwasa building?
A: I vehemently deny the allegation of the complainant that I gave her a calling card. I was surprised when she presented (it) to me during one of her follow-ups of the case before the court. She told me that a friend of hers recommended such firm and she found out that my name is included in that firm. I told her that I have not assumed any position in that law firm. And I am with the Judiciary. since I passed the bar. It is impossible for me to enter an appearance as her counsel in the very same court where I am the Branch Clerk of Court."
The
above explanation tendered by the Respondent is an admission that it is his
name which appears on the calling card, a permissible form of advertising or
solicitation of legal services.[1] Respondent does not claim that the calling card was
printed without his knowledge or consent and the calling card[2] carries his name primarily and the name of
"Baligod, Gatdula, Tacardon, Dimailig and Celera with address at 220
Mariwasa Bldg., 717 Aurora Blvd., Cubao, Quezon City" in the left
comer. The card clearly gives the
impression that he is connected with the said law firm. The inclusion/retention of his name in the
professional card constitutes an act of solicitation which violates Section 7
sub-par. (b)(2) of Republic Act No. 6713, otherwise known as "Code of
Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees" which
declares it unlawful for a public official or employee to, among others:
"(2) Engage in the private practice of their profession unless authorized by the Constitution or law, provided that such practice will not conflict or tend to conflict with official functions."
Time and again this Court has said
that the conduct and behavior of every one connected with an office charged with
the dispensation of justice, from the presiding judge to the lowliest clerk.
should be circumscribed with the heavy burden of responsibility. His conduct, at all times must not only be
characterized by proprietor and decorum but above all else must be above
suspicion.[3]
WHEREFORE, respondent Rolando R. Gatdula. Branch Clerk of Court, RTC, Branch 220,
Quezon City is hereby reprimanded for engaging in the private practice of law
with the warning that a repetition of the same offense will be dealt with more
severely. He is further ordered to
cause the exclusion of his name in the firm name of any office engaged in the
private practice of law.
SO ORDERED.
Romero (Chairman), Vitug,
Panganiban, and Purisima, JJ., concur.