Canon 6

Vitriolo vs. Dasig

(A.C. No. 4984, April 1, 2003)

Facts: The complainants, all high ranking officials of the Commission on Higher
Education (CHED), filed an administrative case for disbarment against Atty. Felina S.
Dasig, also an official of the CHED. The charge involves gross misconduct of
respondent in violation of the Attorneys Oath for having used her public office to
secure financial spoils to the detriment of the dignity and reputation of the CHED.
The complainants allege that during her tenure as OIC of the Legal Affairs Service of
the CHED, she attempted to extort from four different people sums of money as
consideration for her favorable action on their pending applications or requests
before her office.

Issue: Whether or not respondent should be disbarred for the acts she committed
during her tenure

Held: The respondent was DISBARRED for violation of the Attorneys Oath as well
as of Rule 1.01 and 1.03 of Canon 1 and Rule 6.02 of Canon 6 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility for acts of dishonesty and gross misconduct as OIC of
Legal Services. Respondents attempts to extort money from persons with
applications or requests pending before her office are violative of Rule 1.01 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility, which prohibits members of the Bar from
engaging or participating in any unlawful, dishonest, or deceitful acts. Said acts also
constitute a breach of Rule 6.02 of the Code which bars lawyers in government
service from promoting their private interests. Promotion of private interests
includes soliciting gifts or anything of monetary value in any transaction requiring
the approval of his office or which may be affected by the functions of his office.