Monares vs Munoz

A.C. No. 5582

Facts:
This case is about the joint petition for review for absolution and clemency filed by
respondent Atty. Levi Munoz. This is in connection with the disbarment cases filed
against him by the petitioners, Arthur Monares, Atty. Oliver Olaybal of ALECO, and Benji
Constante.

In the complaint filed by Arthur Monares, he alleged that Atty. Munoz represented his
brother, Ludolfo Munoz in the civil case that Monares had filed against Ludolfo.
Monares alleged that Atty. Levi Munoz represented his brother in the case even during
regular government hours while he was employed as the Provincial Legal Officer of
Albay City.

In the complaint filed by Atty. Olaybal, he alleged that the old board of ALECO got the
service of Atty. Munoz as its counsel but Atty. Munoz did not disclose to the board that
he was employed as the Provincial Legal Officer of Albay City. He also alleged that Atty.
Munoz illegally collected notarial payments and attorney fees despite retainer
agreement that he had with the ALECO.

In the complaint filed by Benji Constante, the Executive Assistant for Legal Affairs of
Sunwest Construction and Development Corporation, he alleged that Atty. Munoz, while
being the Provincial Legal Officer of Albay City, filed cases against Sunwest in behalf of
his brother, Ludolfo.

All of the complaints pray for the disbarment of Atty. Munoz for unlawfully engaging in
private practice. They also cited the other complaints against Atty. Munoz, including
criminal cases filed against him.

In his defense, Atty. Munoz said that he has already ask the Governor for authority to
practice in private. The DILG granted his request under the conditions that, there
should be no government time, personnel, or funds used and that there would be no
conflict of interest, that the time devoted to his practice is outside of office hours, and
that the violation of the said restrictions will be a ground for the cancellation or
revocation of his authority.

When the complaints were referred by the court to the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines, IBP Commissioner Aguila recommended that Munoz be found guilty of gross
misconduct and violations of Rules:
Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
conduct.,
Rule 6.02 - A lawyer in the government service shall not use his public position to
promote or advance his private interests, nor allow the latter to interfere with his public
duties.
Rule 15.01. - A lawyer, in conferring with a prospective client, shall ascertain as soon as
practicable whether the matter would involve a conflict with another client or his own
interest, and if so, shall forthwith inform the prospective client.
Rule 15.03. - A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by written consent
of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts.

Issue: Whether Atty. Munoz is guilty of gross misconduct and violation of the Code of
Professional Responsibility

Ratio:
Munoz violated the conditions set by the DILG on his authority to private
practice.
Munoz's DILG authorization prohibited him from utilizing government time for his
private practice. Notably, Muñoz did not deny Monares' allegation that he made at least
eighty-six (86) court appearances in connection with at least thirty (30) cases from
April 11, 1996 to August 1, 2001.He merely alleged that his private practice did not
prejudice the functions of his office.

Court appearances are necessarily made within regular government working hours,
from 8:00 in the morning to 12:00 noon, and 1:00 to 5:00 in the afternoon. Additional
time is likewise required to study each case, draft pleadings and prepare for trial. The
sheer volume of cases handled by Muñoz clearly indicates that government time was
necessarily utilized in pursuit of his private practice, in clear violation of the DILG
authorization and Rule 6.02of the CPR.
Muñoz should have requested for authority to engage in private practice from
the Secretary of DILG for his second and third terms.

No officer or employee shall engage directly in any private business, vocation, or

profession or be connected with any commercial, credit, agricultural, or industrial
undertaking without a written permission from the head of Department.
Memorandum 17 was issued more than nine (9) years prior to Muñoz’s appointment as
Provincial Legal Officer, hence, he cannot feign ignorance thereof. As a local public
official, it was incumbent upon Muñoz to secure the proper authority from the Secretary
of the DILG not only for his first term, but also his second and third. His failure to do so
rendered him liable for unauthorized practice of his profession and violation of Rule
1.01 of the CPR.

Muñoz represented conflicting interests.

Muñoz cannot elude Olaybal’s allegations of disloyalty. In Mabini Colleges, Inc. v.
Pajarillo, the Court explained the tests to determine the existence of conflict of interest,
thus:
There is conflict of interest when a lawyer represents inconsistent interests of two or
more opposing parties. The test is “whether or not in behalf of one client, it is the
lawyer’s duty to fight for an issue or claim, but it is his duty to oppose it for the other
client. In brief, if he argues for one client, this argument will be opposed by him when
he argues for the other client.” 
Also, there is conflict of interest if the acceptance of the new retainer will require the
attorney to perform an act which will injuriously affect his first client in any matter in
which he represents him and also whether he will be called upon in his new relation to
use against his first client any knowledge acquired through their connection. 
Another test of the inconsistency of interests is whether the acceptance of a new
relation will prevent an attorney from the full discharge of his duty of undivided fidelity
and loyalty to his client or invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or double dealing in the
performance thereof.
Muñoz acted as counsel for ALECO under the management of the old BOD in
the two civil cases.
Muñoz served as retained counsel of ALECO under the direction of the NEA
management team. The conflict of interest between Olaybal’s board on one hand, and
NEA and its management team on the other, is apparent. By representing conflicting
interests without the permission of all parties involved, Muñoz violated Rules 15.01 and
15.03 of the CPR.
Atty. Levi P. Muñoz is found GUILTY of gross misconduct and violation of Rules 1.01,
6.02, 15.01 and 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He is
hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of three (3) years effective
upon receipt of this Decision, with a STERN WARNING that a repetition of any
violation hereunder shall be dealt with more severely.