When Can a Lawyer Be Disciplined for Actions as a Government Official?

A.C. No. 2995, November 27, 1996

Imagine discovering that a crucial document affecting your financial interests has been altered after it was officially notarized. This scenario highlights the importance of integrity in public office and the legal profession. This case explores the circumstances under which a lawyer can face disciplinary action for misconduct committed while serving as a government official.

This case revolves around Atty. Leopoldo D. Cioco, who, while serving as a Clerk of Court and Ex-Officio Sheriff, was involved in the alteration of a Certificate of Sheriff’s Sale. The central question is whether his actions, which led to his dismissal from public service, also warrant disciplinary action as a member of the bar.

The Interplay Between Public Office and Legal Ethics

The legal profession demands the highest standards of ethical conduct, both in and out of the courtroom. When a lawyer also holds a government position, their actions are subject to even greater scrutiny. The Supreme Court has consistently held that a lawyer’s misconduct as a government official can lead to disciplinary action if it affects their qualification as a lawyer or demonstrates moral delinquency.

Moral turpitude is an act of baseness, vileness, or depravity in the private and social duties which a man owes to his fellow men, or to society in general, contrary to the accepted and customary rule of right and duty between man and man. It is everything done contrary to justice, honesty, modesty, or good morals.

Pertinent provisions of the Rules of Court outline the grounds for suspension or disbarment of attorneys, including deceit, malpractice, or gross misconduct in office. Specifically, Rule 138, Section 27 states:

“Section 27. Attorneys removed or suspended by Supreme Court. – No attorney shall be removed or suspended from the rolls of attorneys except for the causes and in the manner hereinafter provided. The Supreme Court may remove or suspend an attorney from his office as attorney for deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such office, grossly immoral conduct, or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, or for any violation of the oath which he is required to take before admission to practice, or for a wilful disobedience of any lawful order of the Supreme Court, or for corruptly or wilfully appearing as an attorney for a party to a case without authority so to do. The practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either personally or through paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice.“

For example, imagine a government attorney accepting bribes in exchange for influencing a zoning decision. This act, while committed in their capacity as a public official, would undoubtedly reflect poorly on their fitness to practice law and could lead to disciplinary action.

The Case of Atty. Cioco: Altering the Certificate of Sale

The case of Atty. Cioco unfolds as follows:

• Planters Machinery Corporation (PLAMACO) mortgaged properties to Traders Royal Bank (the Bank) and later defaulted on the loan.
• The Bank foreclosed on the mortgage, and at the foreclosure sale, the Bank was the sole bidder.
• Atty. Cioco, as Clerk of Court and Ex-Officio Sheriff, executed a Certificate of Sheriff’s Sale.
• Crucially, Page Four of the Certificate was later altered, reducing the bid price from P3,263,182.67 to P730,000.00.
• This alteration led to administrative charges against Atty. Cioco and Deputy Sheriff Renato M. Belleza, resulting in their dismissal.

In this disbarment case, Atty. Cioco argued that the previous administrative case already addressed the issue (res judicata). The Supreme Court rejected this argument, stating that the disbarment case concerned his fitness as a lawyer, separate from his role as a court employee.

The Supreme Court emphasized the gravity of Atty. Cioco’s actions, stating:

“It should be noted that the substitution done would have left PLAMACO open to a deficiency judgment case whereas the original bid by the BANK would totally extinguish PLAMACO’s obligation to the former.  In such case, PLAMACO was effectively defrauded of the difference between original bid and that substituted by respondent.“

The Court found that Atty. Cioco’s participation in altering the Certificate of Sheriff’s Sale demonstrated a lack of integrity and affected his fitness to practice law. The Court stated:

“As a lawyer, respondent knows that it is patently illegal to change the content of the said certificate after its notarization, it being already a public document.“

Ultimately, the Supreme Court suspended Atty. Cioco from the practice of law for one (1) year.

Practical Implications: Upholding Integrity in the Legal Profession

This case reinforces the principle that lawyers must maintain the highest ethical standards, regardless of whether they are acting in their capacity as private practitioners or government officials. The ruling serves as a warning that misconduct in public office can have serious consequences for a lawyer’s professional standing.

Businesses and individuals should ensure that all legal documents are carefully reviewed and protected from unauthorized alterations. Notarization provides a layer of security, but vigilance is always necessary.

Key Lessons:

• Lawyers are held to a high standard of ethical conduct, even when acting as government officials.
• Altering official documents is a serious offense that can lead to disciplinary action.
• The doctrine of res judicata does not prevent disciplinary action against a lawyer for misconduct already addressed in an administrative case.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: Can a lawyer be disbarred for actions taken while working for the government?

A: Yes, if the misconduct affects their qualification as a lawyer or demonstrates moral delinquency.

Q: What is moral turpitude?

A: It is an act of baseness, vileness, or depravity that violates accepted moral standards.

Q: What is the effect of altering a notarized document?

A: Altering a notarized document is illegal and can have serious legal consequences, including criminal charges and disciplinary action for lawyers involved.

Q: Does double jeopardy apply in cases where a lawyer faces both administrative and disbarment proceedings?

A: No, because both proceedings are administrative in nature and serve different purposes.

Q: What should I do if I suspect that a legal document has been altered?

A: Immediately report the suspicion to the proper authorities, such as the police or the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.

Q: What are some examples of actions that could lead to a lawyer’s disbarment?

A: Examples include accepting bribes, falsifying documents, and engaging in fraudulent schemes.

ASG Law specializes in legal ethics and administrative law. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.