Scribd
Upload
600 views1 page

Catu v. Rellosa: Ejectment Case Ruling

Respondent served as the punong barangay who presided over conciliation proceedings between parties in a property dispute. When the parties did not reach a settlement, respondent issued a certification allowing the case to be filed in court. However, respondent then entered an appearance as the lawyer for the defendants in the ensuing ejectment case. Complainant filed an administrative complaint, claiming this was improper. The Supreme Court held that while punong barangay and sangguniang barangay members are not expressly prohibited from practicing their professions like mayors and governors, respondent should have obtained prior authorization before taking the case, as required by civil service rules.

Uploaded by

Agnes Lintao
Copyright
© All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
600 views1 page

Catu v. Rellosa: Ejectment Case Ruling

Respondent served as the punong barangay who presided over conciliation proceedings between parties in a property dispute. When the parties did not reach a settlement, respondent issued a certification allowing the case to be filed in court. However, respondent then entered an appearance as the lawyer for the defendants in the ensuing ejectment case. Complainant filed an administrative complaint, claiming this was improper. The Supreme Court held that while punong barangay and sangguniang barangay members are not expressly prohibited from practicing their professions like mayors and governors, respondent should have obtained prior authorization before taking the case, as required by civil service rules.

Uploaded by

Agnes Lintao
Copyright
© All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
  • Catu v. Rellosa

2. Catu v.

Rellosa (AC 5738, 19Feb 2008)


Facts:

Complainant Wilfredo M. Catu is a co-owner of a lot and the building erected thereon located in
Manila. His mother and brother contested the possession of Elizabeth C. Diaz-Catu and
Antonio Pastor of one of the units in the building. The latter ignored demands for them to
vacate the premises. Thus, a complaint was initiated against them in the Lupong
Tagapamayapa of Barangay. Respondent, as punong barangay, summoned the parties to
conciliation meetings. When the parties failed to arrive at an amicable settlement, respondent
issued a certification for the filing of the appropriate action in court. Respondent entered his
appearance as counsel for the defendants in the (subsequent ejectment) case. Complainant
filed the instant administrative complaint, claiming that respondent committed an act of
impropriety as a lawyer and as a public officer when he stood as counsel for the defendants
despite the fact that he presided over the conciliation proceedings between the litigants
as punong barangay.

Issue:
WON incumbent Punong Barangay who is a lawyer can their his/her profession?

Held:
“Section 7(b)(2) of RA 6713 prohibits public officials and employees, during their incumbency,
from engaging in the private practice of their profession unless authorized by the Constitution
or law, provided that such practice will not conflict or tend to conflict with their official
functions. This is the general law which applies to all public officials and employees.

For elective local government officials, Section 90 of RA 7160 governs which provides that all
governors, city and municipal mayors are prohibited from practicing their profession or
engaging in any occupation other than the exercise of their functions as local chief executives.
Sanggunian members may practice their professions, engage in any occupation, or teach in
schools save some exceptions.

While certain local elective officials like governors, mayors, provincial board members and
councilors are expressly subjected to a total or partial proscription to practice their profession
or engage in any occupation, no such interdiction is made on the punong barangay and the
members of the sangguniang barangay. Expressio unius est exclusio alterius.

Since they are excluded from any prohibition, the presumption is that they are allowed to
practice their profession. Accordingly, as punong barangay, respondent was not forbidden to
practice his profession. However, he should have procured prior permission or authorization
from the head of his Department, as required by civil service regulations.

2. Catu v. Rellosa (AC 5738, 19Feb 2008) Facts: Complainant Wilfredo M. Catu is a co-owner of a lot and the building erec

You might also like