HEINZ R. HECK vs. CITY PROSECUTOR CASIANO A. GAMOTIN, JR.

[A.C. No. 5329. March 18, 2014.] BERSAMIN, J  : p

Disbarment complaint against ATTY. GAMOTIN, JR ( City Prosecutor), whose manner of dealing with the offender
Heck (foreigner) = dismissed, for complainant’s failure to prove that Atty. Gamotin breached any canon of
professional conduct or legal ethics. Every lawyer who is administratively charged is presumed innocent of
wrongdoing.
FACTS: September 2000 - Heinz Heck (foreigner) filed a complaint for disbarment against City Prosecutor Casiano
Gamotin of CDO City, as a victim of "faulty, highly improper, suspicious anomalous and unlawful practice" by Atty.
Gamotin, who obstructed justice by delaying cases and disregarding proper court procedures, and displayed favor to
Atty. Cesilo A. Adaza, his business partners and friends.
Stemming: 1999 - criminal case for unjust vexation filed by Heck against Oliver Cabrera in the Office of
the City Prosecutor (OCP) in CDO City = being dismissed.
THEN: Cabrera, represented by Atty. Adaza, countered 2 criminal cases against Heck (illegal
possession of firearms & unlawful incrimination of an innocent person)
Incriminating an innocent person is committed by any person who, by any act not constituting perjury, shall directly
incriminate or impute to an innocent person the commission of a crime, while intriguing against honor is committed by
any person who intrigues another for the principal purpose of blemishing his or he
Illegal Possession of firearms = dismissed but upon MR by Cabrera was granted by Atty. Gamotin,
but the order granting MR was challenged by Heck.
Unjust Vexation = dismissed due to prescription & insufficient evidence> MR = dismissed
September 11, 2000 - Heck claimed Atty. Gamotin scheduled a meeting with Heck, his lawyer, his wife and Atty.
Adaza (absent). Also, Heck claimed of private meeting with Atty. Adaza, questioned the propriety of private meeting
for possible connivance
But, Heck alleged that Atty. Adaza and Atty. Gamotin held "private meeting," leading Heck to question the propriety
of the private meeting and the possibility of connivance between Atty. Gamotin & Atty. Adaza.

September 13, 2000 - Heck together with Ullrich Coufal, went to Atty. Gamotin’s office to pick up documents
supposedly promised to him, but he was denied the documents by ladies sitting outside the respondent's office who
behaved arrogantly.
Upon arrival, Atty. Gamotin pushed through the people crowding outside the office. Heck described Atty. Gamotin’s
actuations (furiously kicked the chair sent flying to the conference table and slammed the door almost hitting Coufal,
thus being disgusted wit the officer and leaving smiling faces)

September 15, 2000 - Heck, his wife, child, and counsel went to the respondent's office for another meeting,
regarding an offer of withdrawal of the case, and asked why Atty. Gamotin was still entertaining Atty. Adaza despite
being suspended, Atty. Gamotin raised his voice asking how Heck had learned about the suspension, and
whether it was a final decision of the Supreme Court. 

Heck tried to explain his situation calmly to the respondent, but respondent continued screaming at him, saying:
“You foreigner, go home here we the law of the Filipinos, I am the Authority.”

Heck then left the office scared.

Atty Gamotin averred: (1) no knowledge Atty. Adaza's suspension; (2) Atty. Adaza’s MR had no irregularities in the
filing and its resolution; (3) September 11 meeting was not arranged by him; (4) absence of any act of violence
regarding the kicking of the chair and slamming of the door because of his age and build; (5) the September 14, 2000
meeting was between the parties' counsels to discuss ways to settle their cases, and Heck did not agree to the
withdrawal of the cases; (6) it was Heck who acted arrogantly when he challenged the respondent's authority in
allowing Atty. Adaza to appear in court despite his suspension; and (7) he admitted that after Heck said: I will not
believe the authorities of the Philippines, he slightly raised his voice to respond: If you will not believe the authorities
of the Philippines, you have no place in this country, you can go home.
Office of the Bar Confidante’s Report & Recommendation:
Heck had filed administrative complaints against Atty. Gamotin in (DOJ); & Office of the Ombudsman.
DOJ: the administrative complaint filed against the Atty. Gamotin = dismissed because absence of abuse of
authority and corruption; and case being moot & academic because Atty. Gamotin had retired from government
service.
Office of the Ombudsman: administrative cases were referred to the Public Assistance Bureau and the Fact Finding
Investigation Bureau (FFIB): 1st case closed & terminated & 2nd case referred to SC.

OBC’s report & recommendation: no evidence of misconduct as to warrant the penalty of disbarment; the
respondent's conduct should be sanctioned; that his act of privately entertaining Atty. Adaza and his brother, &
allowing his office to be used for a meeting even in his absence raised doubt on his integrity; that the Atty Gamotin’s
reaction to Heck's tirade against the country's justice system, particularly the respondent's retort that Heck should go
back to his country if he did not believe in the Philippine authorities, constituted decorum that was so unbecoming of
a lawyer. 

ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Gamotin has violated the canon of professional responsibility when Atty. Gamotin
favored Atty. Adaza in a case and he told toward Heck to go back to his country if he did not believe in the Philippine
Authorities.

HELD: The Court ruled in the negative.

Complainant failed to adduce evidence to warrant disbarment for Atty. Gamotin adopting OBC’s report,
1) A lawyer cannot be sanctioned for every perceived misconduct or wrong actuation, for he is to be presumed
innocent of wrongdoing until the proof against him are established. The burden is upon the complainant to show that
such conduct or actuation constitutes a breach of the norms of professional conduct & legal ethics. Otherwise, the
lawyer merits exoneration.
Here, the meeting between Atty. Babarin, Heck’s counsel & Atty. Adaza in respondent’s office was not suspicious,
illegal, or irregular. It is practice of same legal practitioners to arrange to meet with their opposing counsels and their
clients in the premises of the offices of the public prosecutors or in the courthouses primarily because such premises
are either a convenient or a neutral ground for both sides.

2) Atty. Gamotin cannot be sanctioned for having angrily reacted to Heck's unexpected tirade in his presence.
Atty. Gamotin was not reacting to an attack on his person, but for Heck's disrespectful remark against Philippine
authorities in general.
Any self-respecting government official like Atty. Gamotin should feel justly affronted by any expression or show of
disrespect in his presence, including harsh words which Heck uttered.
Lawyers may be expected to maintain their composure and decorum at all times, but they are still human, and their
emotions are like those of other normal people placed in unexpected situations that can crack their veneer of self-
control, which is similar to Atty. Gamotin’s actuation in reacting to Heck's utterance. The Court will not permit the
respondent's good record to be tarnished by his having promptly reacted to Heck's remark.

3) Whether Heck was justified in making the utterance is of no relevance to us.

It is unfair to take respondent's actuations to be arrogant and overbearing which the actuations occurred in the
absence of a credible showing that his actuations had been impelled by any bad motive, or had amounted to any
breach of any canon of professional conduct or legal ethics. 

4) The court believes in Atty. Gamotin’s explanation of absent of knowledge of Atty. Adaza’s suspension.
Atty. Adaza was suspended March 27, 2000.  When Heck confronted the respondent on September 15, 2000 about
his allowing Atty. Adaza to practice law despite his suspension, the respondent asked when Heck had learned of the
suspension, which implied of being unaware of the suspension until then, because the suspension became final
September 5,2000 after denying his MR, and the public would be informed of the suspension only after a lapse of a
reasonable period after September 5,2000.

NOTE: Disbarment is the most severe form of disciplinary sanction against a misbehaving member of the Integrated
Bar. As such, the power to disbar is always exercised with great caution only for the most imperative reasons and in
cases of clear misconduct affecting the standing and moral character of the lawyer as an officer of the court and
member of the bar. 
Prosecutors’ primay duty of a lawyer engaged in public prosecution is not to convict but to see that justice is done.
The suppression of facts or the secreting of witnesses capable of establishing the innocence of the accused is highly
reprehensible.

C6 CPR – rules to be observed by gov’t lawyers in the performance of their functions, highlights the continuing
standard of ethical conduct to be observed by gov’t lawyers in the discharge of their official tasks.
RA6713 for gov’t ees, lawyer in the gov’t services is obliged to observe the standard of conduct under CPR
Since public office is a public rusts, ethical conduct demanded upon lawyers in the gov’t is more exacting than the
standards for those in private practice. Lawyers in the gov’t service are subject to constant public scrutiny under
norms of public accountability, also bear the burden of having to put aside their private interest in favor of the interest
of the public; their private activities should not interfere w/ the discharge of their official function.

Public prosecutor must be present at the trial of the criminal case despite the presence of a private prosecutor in
order to see to it that the interest of the state is well-guarded and protected, should the private prosecutor be found
lacking in competence in prosecuting the case. Primary duty of a public prosecutor is not to convict but to see to it
that justice is done. A private prosecutor would be naturally interest only in the conviction of the accused.

C6: these canons shall apply to lawyers in government services in the discharge of their tasks.
R6.01 the primary duty of a lawyer engaged in public prosecution is not to convict but too that justice is done. The
suppression of facts or the concealment of witnesses capable of establishing the innocence of the accused is highly
reprehensible and is cause for disciplinary action
R6.02 a lawyer in the gov’t service shall not use his public position to promote or advance his private interests, nor
allow the latter to interfere w/ his public duties.
R6.03 a lawyer shall not, after leaving gov’t service, accept engagement or employment in connection w/ any matter
in which he had intervened while in said service.

Areola v. Mendoza
A.C No. 10135, January 15, 2014
Duty of a Lawyer Employed in the Government
FACTS: Respondent Atty. Maria Vilma Mendoza - PAO lawyer. Complainant Edgar  Areola is one of the detainees
at the Antipolo City Jail and one among those  represented by Atty. Mendoza. 

Areola filed a complaint addressed to the Commission on Bar Discipline against  Atty. Maria
Mendoza, in behalf of his co-detainees alleging that that during  Prisoners’ Week, Atty.
Mendoza, visited the Antipolo City Jail and called all  detainees with pending cases before the
RTC Branch 73, Antipolo City where she  was assigned, to attend her speech/lecture. Areola
claimed that Atty. Mendoza  stated the following during her speech: 
“O kayong may mga kasong drugs na may pangpiyansa o pang-areglo ay maging  praktikal sana kayo kung gusto
ninyong makalaya agad. Upang makatiyak kayo na  hindi masasayang ang pera ninyo ay sa akin ninyo ibigay o ng
kamag-anak ninyo  ang pera at ako na ang bahalang maglagay kay Judge Martin at Fiscal banqui; at  kayong mga
detenidong mga babae na no bail ang kaso sa drugs, iyak-iyakan lang  ninyo si Judge Martin at palalayain na kayo.
Malambot ang puso noon.” 
Moreover, Areola contends that Atty. Mendoza humiliated him and undermined his  capability when he helped his co-
detainees prepare for their motions and pleadings  and that Atty. Mendoza received money from the inmates. 
Atty. Mendoza: administrative complaint was just a  harassment tactic by Areola as the latter had filed several
administrative cases  against judges in the Courts of Antipolo. She also contended that Areola is not a  lawyer but
represented himself to his co-detainees as one. She alleged that the  motions/pleadings prepared and/or filed by
Areola were not proper.  
The IBP: that while Areola is knowledgeable in law, he must be subservient  to the skills and knowledge of a full-
fledged lawyer. The IBP found no convincing  evidence that Atty. Mendoza received money from the inmates.  
BUT: Atty. Mendoza admitted: she advised her clients and  their relatives to approach the judge and the fiscal “to beg
and cry” so that their  motions would be granted and their cases against them would be dismissed. To the 
Investigating Commissioner, this is highly unethical and improper as the act of Atty.  Mendoza degrades the image of
and lessens the confidence of the public in the  judiciary.
Investigating Commissioner recommended: Atty. Mendoza be  suspended from the practice of law for a period of (2)
months. The IBP  governors approved the recommendation.

Whether or not Atty. Mendoza violated Rule 1.02 and Rule 15.07 of the CPR  when he made irresponsible advices to
her clients?

The Court ruled in the affirmative. 

Atty. Mendoza admitted that she advised her clients to approach the judge and plead  for compassion so that their
motions would be granted. This admission corresponds  to one of Areola’s charges against Atty. Mendoza that she
told her clients “Iyak iyakan lang ninyo si Judge Martin at palalayain na kayo. Malambot ang puso noon.”  Atty.
Mendoza made it appear that the judge is easily moved if a party resorts to  dramatic antics such as begging and
crying in order for their cases to be dismissed. 
Clearly, Atty. Mendoza made irresponsible advices to her clients in violation of  Rule 1.02 and Rule 15.07 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility. It is the  mandate of Rule 1.02 that “a lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed 
at defiance of the law or at lessening confidence in the legal system.” Rule 15.07  states that “a lawyer shall impress
upon his client compliance with the laws  and the principles of fairness.” 
Atty. Mendoza’s improper advice only lessens the confidence of the public in our  legal system. Judges must be free
to judge, without pressure or influence from external forces or factors according to the merits of a case. Atty.
Mendoza’s careless  remark is uncalled for. 
In spite of the foregoing, the Court deems the penalty of suspension for two (2)  months as excessive and not
commensurate to Atty. Mendoza’s infraction.
NOTE: when Atty. Mendoza made the remark “Iyak-iyakan lang ninyo si  Judge Martin at palalayain na kayo.
Malambot ang puso noon”, she was not  compelled by bad faith or malice. While her remark was inappropriate and 
unbecoming, her comment is not disparaging and reproachful so as to cause  dishonor and disgrace to the
Judiciary.  

Therefore, Atty. Mendoza is meted out the penalty of REPRIMAND, with the  STERN WARNING that a repetition of
the same or similar act will be dealt with  more severely.

Wilfredo Catu v. Atty. Vicente Rellosa

A.C. 5738, 19 February 2008
Corona, J.
Facts: Complainant Wilfredo is a co-owner of a building wherein Elizabeth Diaz-Catu and Antonio Pastor possess a
unit.
Complainant’s mother, Regina, and brother, Antonio Caru, then contested such possession of Elizabeth and Pastor
and demanded them to vacate the premises, but it was ignored.
This led to the filing of a complaint before the Lupong Tagapamayapa of the barangay, wherein respondent Atty.
Rellosa was the punong barangay.
For failing to meet an amicable settlement, respondent issued a certification for filing of appropriate action in court.
An ejectment case was then filed by Regina and Antonio against Elizabeth and Pastor. Respondent then entered his
appearance as counsel for the defendants in that case. 
Because of this, complainant filed a complaint, claiming that respondent committed an act of impropriety as a lawyer
and as a public officer when he stood as counsel for the defendants despite the fact that he presided over the
conciliation proceedings between the litigants as punong barangay. For his part, respondent argued that as head of
the Lupon, he performed his task without bias, and when they failed to settle their dispute, Elizabeth sought his legal
assistance, which he acceded, and thereafter handled her case for free. 
IBP-CBD’s recommendation: respondent violating Rule 6.03 “a lawyer shall not, after leaving government service,
accept engagement or employment in connection with any matter in which he intervened while in said service”.
Furthermore, the IBP-CBD found him guilty of violating RA 6713 prohibiting public officials from engaging in the
private practice of profession, unless authorized by the Constitution or law. For these reasons, the IBP-CBD
recommended the suspension of the respondent from the practice of law for one month. These findings were
adopted by IBP Board of Governors. 
Issues: 
1. Whether or not respondent Atty. Rellosa violated Rule 6.03 when he appeared as counsel for Elizabeth and Pastor
despite his prior intervention as Punong Barangay in barangay conciliations between the parties. 
2. Whether or not Atty. Rellosa violated the prohibition under RA 6713 when he appeared as counsel. 
Ruling. 
1. In the first issue, the Court ruled in the negative. To reiterate, “a lawyer shall not, after leaving government service,
accept engagement or employment in connection with any matter in which he intervened while in said service”. As
worded, Rule 6.03 applies only to a lawyer who has left government service and in connection "with any matter in
which he intervened while in said service." Citing PCGG v. Sandiganbayan, the Court have previously ruled that Rule
6.03 prohibits former government lawyers from accepting "engagement or employment in connection with any matter
in which [they] had intervened while in said service."
In this case, the respondent was an incumbent punong barangay at the time he committed the act. Therefore, he was
not covered by that provision. 

2. As for the second issue, the Court also ruled in the negative.
RA 6713 is the general law which applies to all public officials and employees. For elective officials, Sec. 90, RA
7160 governs, being a special law. Under the said provision, all governors, city and municipal mayors are prohibited
from practicing their profession or engaging in any occupation other than the exercise of their functions as local chief
executives. Meanwhile, sanggunian members may practice their professions, engage in any occupation, or teach in
schools except during session hours, subject to certain exceptions. Since the law itself grants them the authority to
practice their professions, there is no longer any need for them to secure prior permission or authorization from any
other person or office for any of these purposes. 
Here, the respondent was elected as punong barangay. Clearly, no such interdiction is made on the punong
barangay and the members of the sangguniang barangay. Since they are excluded from any prohibition, the
presumption is that they are allowed to practice their profession. Thus, the respondent was not forbidden to practice
his profession. However, he should have procured prior permission or authorization from the Secretary of Interior and
Local Government, as required under Section 12, Rule XVIII of the Revised Civil Service Rules. 
In acting as counsel for a party without first securing the required written permission, respondent not only engaged in
the unauthorized practice of law but also violated civil service rules which is a breach of Rule 1.01 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, which provides that a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
conduct. Respondent also violated Canon 7 which provides that “a lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and
dignity of the legal profession and support the activities of the integrated bar” for not living up to his oath as well as
for not complying with the exacting ethical standards of the legal profession. 
For these reasons, the Court suspended Atty. Rellosa from the practice of law for a period of 6 months.