View full case

NELIA A. ZIGA v. VS.JUDGE RAMON A. AREJOLA

FACTS:

The case involves a complaint filed by Nelia A. Ziga against Judge Ramon A. Arejola of the Municipal Trial Court (MTC), Daet, Camarines Norte. Nelia Arejola-Ziga and Judge Ramon Arejola are heirs of Fabiana Arejola and became owners of a 19,664 sq. m. land in Calauag, Naga City by virtue of inheritance. In 1995, Judge Arejola filed an application for registration of title on behalf of his co-heirs. The Regional Trial Court granted the petition. A portion of the land was agreed to be sold to the City of Naga, while the remaining portion was subject to a dispute. Despite his appointment as judge of the MTC, Judge Arejola continued to appear in the land registration case. He was asked to submit his written authority from the Supreme Court to appear as counsel but failed to do so. He also wrote to the City Mayor of Naga City, demanding specific payment terms and claiming contingent attorney's fees and agent's commission. Nelia Arejola Ziga filed a complaint, alleging that Judge Arejola should be disciplined for appearing before a court without permission and for asking for excessive attorney's fees.

The case was referred to the Executive Judge for investigation, who recommended a warning for the Judge for using intemperate language. The Office of the Court Administrator disagreed with the findings and recommended a three-month suspension without pay for the Judge.

The case involves the violation of rules prohibiting judges from engaging in private law practice. The respondent, Judge Arejola, continued to engage in private law practice without the required permit from the Supreme Court. He filed a motion for reconsideration and a manifestation in a land registration case and appeared as counsel in a hearing, despite being required to secure permission. Respondent claimed that he appeared as counsel to protect his rights as one of the heirs and that he did not need permission from the Supreme Court. The Court has previously imposed sanctions on judges who engage in the practice of law without a permit. The Office of the Court Administrator recommended a three-month suspension without pay for Judge Arejola. The offense is punishable by suspension for six months to one year for the first offense under the Civil Service Rules and Regulations. Violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct are serious offenses punishable by suspension for three to six months without salary and benefits under the Rules of Court. Requirements of due process were met, and respondent failed to refute the documents showing his participation in the land registration case as counsel for the heirs.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether or not the respondent judge engaged in the private practice of law?

  2. Whether or not the respondent's acts of appearing and representing his co-heirs constituted private practice of law?

  3. Whether the respondent judge violated the prohibition on engaging in the private practice of law while holding a government office.

  4. Whether the respondent judge failed to obtain written permission to appear as counsel in a land registration case.

  5. Whether or not Judge Ramon A. Arejola is liable for illegal practice of law.

RULING:

  1. Yes, the respondent judge engaged in the private practice of law. His acts of signing pleadings, appearing in court, and defending the rights of his co-heirs constituted the practice of law.

  2. Yes, the respondent's acts of appearing and representing his co-heirs constituted private practice of law. The respondent continuously engaged in these acts, and they were not isolated instances.

  3. Yes, the respondent judge violated the prohibition on engaging in the private practice of law while holding a government office. As a Civil Service employee, the respondent judge cannot engage in private practice without the written permission from the court. The appointment or election of an attorney to a government office disqualifies him from engaging in the private practice of law to preserve the public trust in a public office and avoid conflicts of interest.

  4. Yes, the respondent judge failed to obtain written permission to appear as counsel in a land registration case. He did not comply with the requirement in Rule XVIII, Section 12 of the Revised Civil Service Rules which mandates that no officer or employee shall engage in any private business or profession without written permission from the head of the department. As a judge, the respondent judge is expected to devote full time to his judicial work.

  5. The Court finds Judge Ramon A. Arejola liable for illegal practice of law. He is ordered to pay a fine in the amount of Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00) and warned that a repetition of the same or similar acts or omissions will be dealt with more severely.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The practice of law is not limited to court appearances or participation in court proceedings. It also includes the preparation of legal documents, giving legal advice, and other activities related to the legal profession.

  • Prohibited "private practice" of law consists of frequent or customary actions, a succession of acts of the same nature habitually or customarily holding oneself out to the public as a lawyer.

  • Judges are prohibited from engaging in the private practice of law or giving professional advice to clients, as stated in Rule 138, Section 35 of the Revised Rules of Court and Canon 5 of the Code of Judicial Conduct.

  • Judges may engage in the practice of another profession, provided that it does not conflict or tend to conflict with their judicial duties.

  • The rights, duties, privileges, and functions of the office of an attorney-at-law are inherently incompatible with the high official functions, duties, powers, discretion, and privileges of a judge.

  • Judges are expected to give their full time and attention to their judicial duties and prevent extending special favors to their own private interests to ensure impartiality and promote the public interest.

  • The appointment or election of an attorney to a government office disqualifies him from engaging in the private practice of law to preserve the public trust, avoid conflict of interests, assure impartiality, and promote the public welfare.

  • A judge must obtain written permission to engage in private practice while holding a government office.

  • Violation of the prohibition on engaging in private practice without written permission can result in liability even if the acts were performed before joining the judiciary.

  • The integrity of the Judiciary rests upon the perception and confidence of the community that the people who run the system have done justice.

  • Judges and justices must possess the highest integrity, probity, and unquestionable moral uprightness both in their public and private lives.

  • Unauthorized practice of law by a judge constitutes a less serious charge under Section 9(3) of the amended Rule 140 of the Rules of Court.

  • A judge found guilty of a less serious charge may be suspended for a period of not less than one (1) nor more than three (3) months without salary and other benefits, or imposed a fine of more than P10,000.00 but not exceeding P20,000.00.

  • In lieu of suspension, the imposition of a fine may be considered just and reasonable, taking into account the circumstances and the first offense committed.