TL;DR

The Supreme Court ruled that a judge under preventive suspension is still prohibited from engaging in the private practice of law. This prohibition extends because the judge remains under the authority and ethical obligations of the judiciary, even while suspended. This decision reinforces the principle that judicial office carries inherent restrictions, designed to ensure impartiality and dedication to public service, regardless of a judge’s active status. The Court emphasized that the prohibition against practicing law applies to all judges, and no distinction should be made between actively serving judges and those under suspension. The judge in this case was found guilty of unauthorized practice of law and was suspended for three months without pay.

The Suspended Judge and the Practice of Law: A Clash of Ethics

This case revolves around Judge Elias O. Lelina, Jr., who was administratively charged by Atty. Florencio Alay Binalay for violating Section 35, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court and Rule 5.07, Canon 5 of the Code of Judicial Conduct. The central question is whether a judge under preventive suspension can engage in the private practice of law. This issue arose after Judge Lelina, while suspended, represented clients in several cases, leading to the administrative complaint against him.

The complainant, Atty. Binalay, presented evidence that Judge Lelina represented clients in Criminal Case No. 5192 and Civil Case No. 632-2006, signing pleadings as a partner of a law firm. In response, Judge Lelina argued that the prohibition against private practice applies only to actively serving judges, not those under suspension. He cited his impoverished state and the needs of his family as justification. However, the Court found that the prohibition against practicing law applies to all judges, and no distinction should be made between actively serving judges and those under suspension.

The Supreme Court emphasized the principle of ubi lex non distinguit nec nos distinguire debemos, meaning where the law does not distinguish, courts should not distinguish. Section 35, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court clearly prohibits judges from engaging in private practice. Similarly, Section 11, Canon 4 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary reinforces this prohibition. Therefore, since Judge Lelina was merely suspended and not dismissed, he remained bound by this restriction.

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.

Building on this principle, the Court referenced Tabao v. Judge Asis, which underscores the incompatibility of a judge’s duties with the private practice of law. The objectives of this rule are to ensure judges give full attention to their judicial duties, prevent special favors for private interests, and assure the public of impartiality. Judge Lelina’s claim that he was forced to practice law due to financial hardship was dismissed. The Court emphasized that as a member of the judiciary, even a suspended one, he had a duty to comply with the Rules and the New Code of Judicial Conduct.

Moreover, the Court noted that Judge Lelina’s attempt to seek authorization to engage in private practice acknowledged his awareness of the prohibition. The Supreme Court also addressed the ethical implications of Judge Lelina allowing his name to remain in the law firm’s name. A judge cannot do indirectly what the Constitution prohibits directly, in accordance with the legal maxim, quando aliquid prohibitur ex directo, prohibitur et per obliquum. By allowing his name to be included in the firm name, he held himself out to the public as a practicing lawyer, violating the Rules and judicial ethics.

Under Sections 9 and 11(B), Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, as amended by A.M. No. 01-8-10 SC, unauthorized practice of law is classified as a less serious charge. The Court considered Judge Lelina’s prior administrative record, where he was previously found guilty of gross misconduct and suspended. The Court ultimately found Judge Elias O. Lelina, Jr. guilty of unauthorized practice of law, suspending him from office for three months without salary and other benefits. The Court also issued a stern warning against any repetition of similar acts.

FAQs

This decision serves as a reminder of the ethical responsibilities that accompany judicial office. The Supreme Court’s ruling reinforces the importance of maintaining public trust and ensuring impartiality within the judiciary, even during periods of suspension.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact Atty. Gabriel Ablola through gaboogle.com or via email at connect@gaboogle.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