FACTS:

Atty. Florencio Alay Binalay filed a complaint against Judge Elias O. Lelina Jr., accusing him of violating Section 35, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court and Rule 5.07, Canon 5 of the Code of Judicial Conduct. Judge Lelina had previously been preventively suspended and detained due to administrative and criminal complaints against him for Rape, Abduction with Rape, and Slight Illegal Detention. However, he was acquitted and released. Judge Lelina then filed a motion for early resolution of the administrative complaint and requested permission to practice law during his suspension or be considered resigned from the judiciary. It was later discovered that Judge Lelina had engaged in private law practice while under suspension, representing clients in criminal and civil cases. The Office of the Court Administrator ordered Judge Lelina to comment on the complaint filed against him and also ordered him to stop practicing law while awaiting resolution of his motion. Judge Lelina argued that the prohibition against private law practice should not apply to judges under suspension, claiming financial difficulties as the reason for engaging in private practice. He also alleged that the complaint against him was driven by personal grudges. Atty. Binalay denied these allegations and stated that the complaint before the Office of the Ombudsman was filed independently.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the prohibition against engaging in the private practice of law applies to judges who are under suspension.

2. Whether the respondent's engagement in the private practice of law during his preventive suspension is justified by the circumstances.

RULING:

1. Yes. The prohibition against engaging in the private practice of law applies to judges who are under suspension. The purpose of the prohibition is to prevent conflicts of interest and ensure the impartiality and integrity of the judiciary. It applies regardless of the status of the judge, whether active or under suspension.

2. No. The respondent's engagement in the private practice of law during his preventive suspension cannot be justified by his personal circumstances. The Court has consistently held that financial difficulties or personal hardships cannot be used as an excuse to violate the prohibition against the private practice of law. The prohibition is absolute and must be complied with at all times.

PRINCIPLES:

• The prohibition against engaging in the private practice of law applies to judges who are under suspension, regardless of their status.

• Financial difficulties or personal hardships cannot be used as an excuse to justify the violation of the prohibition against the private practice of law. The prohibition is absolute and must be complied with at all times.