Scribd
Upload
192 views1 page

JULIETA BORROMEO SAMONTE, Complainant, vs. ATTY. ROLANDO R. GATDULA, Branch Clerk of Court, Respondent

Julieta Borromeo Samonte filed a complaint against Atty. Rolando R. Gatdula, the Branch Clerk of Court of Quezon City RTC, accusing him of grave misconduct for engaging in private law practice. Gatdula allegedly tried to convince Samonte to change lawyers if she wanted a judgment executed, giving her his calling card listing a law firm. Gatdula claimed Samonte showed him the card first. While Gatdula denied Samonte's allegations, he did not deny his name was on the card from the law firm. The court found Gatdula's inclusion on the card constituted unlawful solicitation as a public official. Gatdula was

Uploaded by

MariaFlordeluna
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
192 views1 page

JULIETA BORROMEO SAMONTE, Complainant, vs. ATTY. ROLANDO R. GATDULA, Branch Clerk of Court, Respondent

Julieta Borromeo Samonte filed a complaint against Atty. Rolando R. Gatdula, the Branch Clerk of Court of Quezon City RTC, accusing him of grave misconduct for engaging in private law practice. Gatdula allegedly tried to convince Samonte to change lawyers if she wanted a judgment executed, giving her his calling card listing a law firm. Gatdula claimed Samonte showed him the card first. While Gatdula denied Samonte's allegations, he did not deny his name was on the card from the law firm. The court found Gatdula's inclusion on the card constituted unlawful solicitation as a public official. Gatdula was

Uploaded by

MariaFlordeluna
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
You are on page 1/ 1

Digest

JULIETA BORROMEO SAMONTE, complainant, vs. ATTY. ROLANDO R. GATDULA, Branch Clerk of
Court, respondent.

Facts:
In a verified complaint, respondent, RTC Branch Clerk of Court, Quezon City, was charged with grave
misconduct in engaging in the private practice of law. Complainant was the representative of her sister,
plaintiff in Civil Case No. 37-14552 for ejectment pending with the MTC. The execution of that decision in
favor of plaintiff was enjoined by Branch 220, RTC, Quezon City where respondent is the Branch Clerk of
Court. Complainant alleged that respondent tried to convince her to change his lawyer if she wanted the
execution of the judgment to proceed and even gave her his calling card with the name Baligod, Gatdula,
Tacardon, Dimailig and Celera Law Offices with address at 220 Mariwasa Bldg., 717 Aurora Blvd.,
Cubao, Quezon City which complainant attached to her affidavit-complaint. Respondent, when asked to
comment, claimed that it was complainant who showed him said calling card and asked him if he could
handle the case but to which he refused as he was not connected with the law firm, though he was invited
to join the firm. The case was set for hearing for several times but complainant nor her counsel did not
appear. The return of the service stated that complainant was abroad. Respondent testified in his own
behalf and vehemently denied complainants allegation. He, however, did not deny that his name
appeared on the calling card or that the calling card was printed without his knowledge and consent.

Issue: won Atty. Gatdula is guilty of an infraction.

Held: Yes, while the respondent vehemently denies the complainant's allegations, he does not deny that
his name appears on the calling card attached to the complaint which admittedly came into the hands of
the complainant. Respondent does not claim that the calling card was printed without his knowledge or
consent and the calling card carries his name primarily and the name of "Baligod, Gatdula, Tacardon,
Dimailig and Celera with address at 220 Mariwasa Bldg., 717 Aurora Blvd., Cubao, Quezon City" in the
left comer. The card clearly gives the impression that he is connected with the said law firm. The
inclusion/retention of his name in the professional card constitutes an act of solicitation which violates
Section 7 sub-par. (b)(2) of Republic Act No. 6713, otherwise known as "Code of Conduct and Ethical
Standards for Public Officials and Employees" which declares it unlawful for a public official or employee
to, among others: "(2) Engage 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 official functions."
Respondent Rolando R. Gatdula, was reprimanded for engaging in the private practice of law with the
warning that a repetition of the same offense will be dealt with more severely. He is further ordered to
cause the exclusion of his name in the firm name of any office engaged in the private practice of law.

You might also like