View full case

IN RE: ATTY. ROMULO P. ATENCIA: LAWYER'S UNETHICAL CONDUCT REFERRAL

FACTS:

Atty. Romulo P. Atencia, a former judge, was the presiding judge in Criminal Case Nos. 3265, 3266, and 3267 for transporting dangerous drugs. He ordered a joint trial for the cases as he found a commonality of evidence. After his resignation as judge, Atencia entered his appearance as substitute counsel for the accused in the same criminal cases almost two years later. The accused appealed the RTC's conviction, and the Court of Appeals (CA) acquitted them. However, the CA noted that Atencia's acceptance of the cause of the accused, who appeared before him when he was still a judge, constituted an ethical infraction. The CA referred the matter to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for further investigation. The IBP found Atencia administratively liable for violating Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) and recommended a one-year suspension from the practice of law. However, during the case's pendency, Atencia passed away. The issue is whether Atencia should be held administratively liable for violating Rule 6.03 of the CPR.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether or not respondent should be held administratively liable for violation of Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR).

RULING:

  1. The Court held that respondent should be held administratively liable for violation of Rule 6.03 of the CPR. As a former judge of the court where the cases were pending, respondent is considered to have "intervened" when he accepted to be the counsel for the accused. This is prohibited as it creates a conflict of interest and taints his stature as a lawyer. The Court agreed with the finding of the Investigating Commissioner that respondent's acceptance of the cause of the accused could have been perceived as an influence on a public official, which should be avoided. However, due to the unfortunate passing of respondent during the pendency of the case, the Court did not impose any penalty.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Acceptance of a case involving a former client who appeared before the lawyer when he/she was still a judge creates a conflict of interest and violates Rule 6.03 of the CPR.

  • A lawyer should avoid any perception of being able to influence any public official, tribunal, or legislative body, as it undermines the integrity of the legal profession.