Collantes v.

Renomeron

Facts:
On January 15, 1987 V & G requested to the Registry of Deeds for the registration of 163 Deed of
Sale with assignment in favor of GSIS but they did not receive any response. Then on February
16, 1987 they made another request but there is still no action except from requiring them to
submit a proof of realty tax payment and to certify some details in the transactions. Upon
compliance of V& G Atty. Renomeron suspended the registration of the said documents for a
special arrangement that the V&G shall provide his weekly round trip ticket from Tacloban to
Manila plus P2,000.00 of pocket money per trip in lieu of the said registration.
After that V&G sent a roundtrip ticket to Atty. Renomeron to his niece but they failed to give him
the Php2,000.00. In subsequent to this Atty. Renomeron formally denied the registration of the
transfer of certificate of titles to GSIS on the ground that the deeds of absolute sale with
assignment were ambiguous as to parties and subject matter. Then Atty. Collantes moved
forr reconsideration to NLTDRA in which the latter that the questioned documents are
registrable. Atty Collantes then filed an adminstrative charges for the conduct of
Renomeron in which the administrator of NLTDRA directed him to explain in writing and
upon receipt of the said order he denied the said allegations.

Issue:
WON the respondent as a lawyer may also be disciplined by this Court for his
malfeasances as a public official
Held:
Yes, because the acts of dishonesty and oppression which Attorney Renomeron committed
as a public official have demonstrated his unfitness to practice the high and noble calling
of the law. His misconduct as a public official also constituted a violation of his oath as a
lawyer. The lawyer's oath under Rule 138, Section 17, Rules of Court imposes upon
every lawyer the duty to delay no man for money or malice. The lawyer's oath is a source
of his obligations and its violation is a ground for his suspension, disbarment or other
disciplinary action.

Also, it should be noted that The Code of Professional Responsibility applies to lawyers in
government service in the discharge of their official tasks under Canon 6. Just as the
Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials requires public officials and
employees to process documents and papers expeditiously and prohibits them from
directly or indirectly having a financial or material interest in any transaction requiring the
approval of their office, and likewise bars them from soliciting gifts or anything of monetary
value in the course of any transaction which may be affected by the functions of their
office