The Supreme Court, in this case, addressed the critical issue of whether a judge under preventive suspension can engage in the private practice of law. The Court firmly ruled that a judge, even while suspended, remains bound by the ethical prohibitions against practicing law. This decision underscores the judiciary’s commitment to maintaining the integrity and impartiality of its members, irrespective of their temporary suspension from judicial duties, thereby reinforcing public trust in the legal system. This principle ensures that judges, even when not actively presiding, do not exploit their judicial background for personal gain or create conflicts of interest.

Can a Suspended Judge Hang Up Their Gavel and Pick Up a Case?

This case arose from a complaint filed by Atty. Florencio Alay Binalay against Judge Elias O. Lelina, Jr., who was under preventive suspension due to earlier administrative charges. Despite the suspension, Judge Lelina engaged in the private practice of law, representing clients in various cases. This action prompted the complaint, alleging a violation of Section 35, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court and Rule 5.07, Canon 5 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, which strictly prohibits judges from engaging in private legal practice.

The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the prohibition against practicing law applied to judges who were under preventive suspension. Judge Lelina argued that the prohibition should only apply to judges in active service and not to those temporarily suspended. He further justified his actions by citing financial hardship and the need to support his family. However, the Court rejected this argument, emphasizing that the prohibition exists to maintain judicial integrity and prevent potential conflicts of interest, regardless of a judge’s employment status.

The Supreme Court grounded its decision on the principle of Ubi lex non distinguit nec nos distinguere debemos, meaning where the law does not distinguish, the courts should not distinguish. Since Section 35, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, and Section 11, Canon 4 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary do not differentiate between active and suspended judges concerning the prohibition on practicing law, the Court found no basis to make such a distinction. The Court reiterated its stance from Tabao v. Judge Asis, emphasizing that the duties and functions of an attorney are inherently incompatible with those of a judge.

x x x Specifically, Section 35 of Rule 138 was promulgated pursuant to the constitutional power of the Court to regulate the practice of law. It is based on sound reasons of public policy, for there is no question that the rights, duties, privileges and functions of the office of an attorney-at-law are so inherently incompatible with the high official functions, duties, powers, discretions and privileges of a judge of the Regional Trial Court.

Furthermore, the Court highlighted that even attempting to seek authorization to practice law demonstrated Judge Lelina’s awareness of the existing prohibition. Additionally, the Court noted the ethical implications of allowing a former judge’s name to remain in a law firm’s name, as it could create the impression of improper influence. Citing the legal maxim, quando aliquid prohibitur ex directo, prohibitur et per obliquum, the Court stated that a judge cannot indirectly do what is directly prohibited.

Given these considerations, the Supreme Court found Judge Elias O. Lelina, Jr. guilty of unauthorized practice of law. Taking into account his prior administrative offense of gross misconduct, the Court suspended him from office for three months without salary and other benefits and sternly warned him against future infractions. This penalty underscored the seriousness with which the Court views violations of judicial ethics.

FAQs

What was the central issue in this case?	The core issue was whether a judge under preventive suspension is allowed to engage in the private practice of law, given the existing prohibitions on judges practicing law.
Why did the Supreme Court rule against Judge Lelina?	The Court ruled against Judge Lelina because Section 35, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, and Section 11, Canon 4 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary do not differentiate between active and suspended judges regarding the prohibition on practicing law.
What is the legal principle Ubi lex non distinguit nec nos distinguere debemos?	This legal principle means that where the law does not distinguish, the courts should not distinguish. The Supreme Court used this to support its decision by stating that since the law doesn’t differentiate between active and suspended judges in terms of the prohibition, the court cannot do so either.
What was the punishment for Judge Lelina’s actions?	Judge Lelina was suspended from office for three months without salary and other benefits. He also received a stern warning from the Court regarding future conduct.
What does the maxim quando aliquid prohibitur ex directo, prohibitur et per obliquum mean?	This maxim means that what is prohibited directly is also prohibited indirectly. The Court cited this in reference to Lelina’s name remaining in a law firm, which could indirectly give the firm influence.
What prior offense did Judge Lelina commit?	Judge Lelina had a prior administrative offense of gross misconduct, for which he was previously sanctioned. This was considered when determining the penalty for the unauthorized practice of law.
What is the relevance of Section 35, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court?	Section 35, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court prohibits judges and other officials of superior courts from engaging in the private practice of law, which was central to the complaint against Judge Lelina.
Does this ruling impact only suspended judges?	While the case directly involves a suspended judge, the ruling reinforces the broader principle that all members of the judiciary must adhere to the ethical standards set forth in the Rules of Court and the Code of Judicial Conduct to maintain integrity.

The Supreme Court’s decision in this case reinforces the importance of adhering to judicial ethics, even during periods of suspension. The ruling serves as a crucial reminder to all members of the judiciary about the standards they must uphold, irrespective of their employment status, thereby safeguarding the integrity and impartiality of the legal system.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: ATTY. FLORENCIO ALAY BINALAY VS. JUDGE ELIAS O. LELINA, JR., 49624, July 31, 2009