Samonte vs. Atty.

Gatdula
This is a case in relation with grave misconduct consisting in the alleged engaging in the private
practice of law, which is in conflict with the respondent’s official functions as Branch Clerk of
Court. Julieta Samonte is the complainant in this case, she is charging respondent Atty. Gatdula
with grave misconduct. Samonte is the authorized representative of her sister Flor de Leon, who
is the plaintiff for ejectment filed with MTC of Quezon City Brach 37. In the ejectment case, a
typographical error was committed in the complaint stated that the address of defendant is No. 63-
C instead of 63-B, P. Tuazon Blvd., Cubao, Q.C. It was rectified by filing amendment complaint
which is admitted by the court, granted in favor with the plaintiff who filed a motion for execution.
However, he was surprised that she received a temporary restraining order signed by Judge
Prudencio Castillo of Branch 220, RTC, Quezon City, where Atty. Gatdula is the branch clerk of
court. Thus, to enjoin the TRO the complainant alleges that she went to the branch to ask the
reason. However, the respondent blamed the lawyer of the plaintiff for writing the wrong address
in the complaint. The respondent said if she wanted the execution to proceed, she should change
her lawyer and retain the law office of respondent at the same time giving his calling card with the
name “Baligod, Gatdula, Tacardon, Dimailig and Celera”, otherwise she will not be able to eject
the defendant Dave Knope. Thus it the RTC Branch 220 issued an order granting the preliminary
injunction as threatened by respondent.

Respondent recited that the issuance of the restraining order by the Regional Trial Court, and
claimed that contrary to complainant Samonte’s allegation that she was not notified of the raffle
and the hearing. The notice of hearing on the motion for the issuance of a temporary restraining
order was duly served upon the parties. The injunctive relief was heard before the temporary
restraining order was issued. Respondent also allege that the complainant returned to the office
and wanted to change counsel and that a friend of hers recommended the law firm and asking if
the respondent can handle the case. Respondent refused it as he was not related to the firm.
Complainant filed an administrative case against respondent.
The case was referred to Executive Judge Estrada for investigation, report and recommendation.
However, admin case the calling card attached as Annex B of Complaint affidavit allegedly given
by respondent to complainant would show that the name of respondent is included. Complainant
however failed to convince that respondent actually offered to her the services of their law office
and being included or retained in the calling card may only be considered as a minor infraction.
Issue:
Whether or not the respondent inclusion or retention of his name in the professional card
constitutes an act of solicitation which violates Section 7 sub-par. (b)(2) of Republic Act No. 6713,
otherwise known as “Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees”.
Ruling:
Yes, it violates the code of conduct and ethical standards for public officials and employees.
The card clearly gives the impression that he is connected with the said law firm. The inclusion
or retention of his name in the professional card constitutes an act of solicitation which violates
Section 7 sub-par. (b)(2) of Republic Act No. 6713, otherwise known as “Code of Conduct and
Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees”. Engage in the private practice of their
profession unless authorized by the Constitution or law, provided that such practice will not
conflict or tend to conflict with official functions. The conduct and behavior of every one
connected with an office charged with the dispensation of justice, from the presiding judge to the
lowliest clerk, should be circumscribed with the heavy burden of responsibility. His conduct, at
all times must not only be characterized by proprietor and decorum but above all else must be
above suspicion.
However, complainant failed to convince that respondent actually offered to her the services of
their law office. The respondent is hereby reprimanded for engaging in the private practice of law
with the warning that a repetition of the same offense will be dealt with more severely. He is
further ordered to cause the exclusion of his name in the firm name of any office engaged in the
private practice of law.