Court Case Briefs
WILFREDO M. CATU, complainant vs. ATTY. VICENTE G. RELLOSA, respondent
A.C. No. 5738 (February 19, 2008)
This is an administrative case filed by the complainant claiming that the respondent committed an act of impropriety as a lawyer and as 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..
Facts: Complainant Wilfredo M. Catu is a co-owner of a lot and the building erected thereon located in Manila. His mother and brother, Regina Catu and Antonio Catu, contested the possession of Elizabeth C. Diaz-Catu2 and Antonio Pastor of one of the units in the building. The latter ignored demands for them to vacate the premises. Thus, a complaint was initiated against them in the Lupong Tagapamayapa of Barangay
Respondent, as punong barangay, summoned the parties to conciliation meetings. Hence, respondent issued a certification for the filing of the appropriate action in court for failure of the parties to arrive at an amicable settlement
Thereafter, Regina and Antonio filed a complaint for ejectment against Elizabeth and Pastor in the MTC of Manila. Respondent entered his appearance as counsel for the defendants in that case. Hence, this instant administrative complaint was filed.
Issues: Whether or not ATTY. VICENTE G. RELLOSA (respondent) violates the Code of Professional Responsibility specifically Canon 1(Rule 1.01) and Canon 7. Whether or not the respondent violates Section 12, Rule XVIII of the Revised Civil Service Rules.
Held:
The court ruled that indeed the respondent was found guilty of professional misconduct for violating Canons 1 and 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Section 12, Rule XVIII of the Revised Civil Service Rules. Rule 1.01 of the CPR provides, “A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. For not living up to his oath as well as for not complying with the exact ethical
A.C. No. 5738 (February 19, 2008)
This is an administrative case filed by the complainant claiming that the respondent committed an act of impropriety as a lawyer and as 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..
Facts: Complainant Wilfredo M. Catu is a co-owner of a lot and the building erected thereon located in Manila. His mother and brother, Regina Catu and Antonio Catu, contested the possession of Elizabeth C. Diaz-Catu2 and Antonio Pastor of one of the units in the building. The latter ignored demands for them to vacate the premises. Thus, a complaint was initiated against them in the Lupong Tagapamayapa of Barangay
Respondent, as punong barangay, summoned the parties to conciliation meetings. Hence, respondent issued a certification for the filing of the appropriate action in court for failure of the parties to arrive at an amicable settlement
Thereafter, Regina and Antonio filed a complaint for ejectment against Elizabeth and Pastor in the MTC of Manila. Respondent entered his appearance as counsel for the defendants in that case. Hence, this instant administrative complaint was filed.
Issues: Whether or not ATTY. VICENTE G. RELLOSA (respondent) violates the Code of Professional Responsibility specifically Canon 1(Rule 1.01) and Canon 7. Whether or not the respondent violates Section 12, Rule XVIII of the Revised Civil Service Rules.
Held:
The court ruled that indeed the respondent was found guilty of professional misconduct for violating Canons 1 and 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Section 12, Rule XVIII of the Revised Civil Service Rules. Rule 1.01 of the CPR provides, “A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. For not living up to his oath as well as for not complying with the exact ethical