Olazo vs Tinga
A.M. No. 10-5-7-SC, 2010
Doctrines
• SC can only discipline a lawyer as a member of the bar and if he violates his oath as a lawyer
o Generally, a lawyer who holds a government office may not be disciplined as a member of the Bar for
misconduct in the discharge of his duties as a government official.
o He may be disciplined by this Court as a member of the Bar only when his misconduct also constitutes a
violation of his oath as a lawyer.
• Government lawyer restrictions
o Promote private interests
o Advance private interests; or
o Allow private interest to interfere with his or her public duties.
• Private interests
o Promotion of private interest to include soliciting gifts or anything of monetary value in any transaction
requiring the approval of his or her office, or may be affected by the functions of his or her office
o Private interest is not limited to direct interest, but extends to advancing the interest of relatives.
o Private interest interferes with public duty when the respondent uses the office and his or her
knowledge of the intricacies of the law to benefit relatives.
• Practice of law by government lawyers
o Government lawyers are not allowed to engage in the private practice of their profession during their
incumbency.
o Exceptions
▪ The private practice is authorized by the Constitution or by the law
▪ The practice will not conflict or tend to conflict with his or her official functions.
• Rule 6.03 - Prohibition on conflict of interest after leaving government service
o Respondent must have accepted engagement or employment in a matter which, by virtue of his public
office, he had previously exercised power to influence the outcome of the proceedings.
• Burden of proof, disbarment cases
o The burden rests on the complainant to present clear, convincing and satisfactory proof for the Court to
exercise its disciplinary powers
• Private practice of law
o Private practice of law as one that contemplates a succession of acts of the same nature habitually or
customarily holding one’s self to the public as a lawyer.
Facts
• Respondent was a retired SC associate justice
• Respondent was one of the committee members on the Committee on Awards for the sale of a parcel of land in
Taguig
• First charge
o Complainant claimed that the respondent abused his position as Congressman and as a member of the
Committee on Awards when he unduly interfered with the complainant’s sales application because of
his personal interest over the subject land
• Second charge
Ariel Conrad Malimas
o The second charge involves another parcel of land within the proclaimed areas belonging to Manuel
Olazo, the complainant’s brother. The complainant alleged that the respondent persuaded Miguel Olazo
to direct Manuel to convey his rights over the land to Joseph Jeffrey Rodriguez.
• Third charge
o The complainant alleged that the respondent engaged in unlawful conduct considering his knowledge
that Joseph Jeffrey Rodriguez was not a qualified beneficiary under Memorandum No. 119. The
complainant averred that Joseph Jeffrey Rodriguez is not a bona fide resident of the proclaimed areas
and does not qualify for an award.
• Other charges
o The complainant also alleged that the respondent violated Section 7(b)(2) of the Code of Conduct and
Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees or Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6713 since he engaged in
the practice of law, within the one-year prohibition period, when he appeared as a lawyer for Ramon
Lee and Joseph Jeffrey Rodriguez before the Committee on Awards.
Issue
• Whether or not respondent was violating the code of professional responsibility and engaged in practice of law
Ruling
• First and third charge
o We find the absence of any concrete proof that the respondent abused his position as a Congressman
and as a member of the Committee on Awards
o Records do not clearly show if the complainant’s sales application was ever brought before the
Committee on Awards.
• Second charge
o Documents executed by Miguel Olazo, that the complainant presented to support his claim that the
respondent exerted undue pressure and influence over his father do not contain any reference to the
alleged pressure or force exerted by the respondent over Miguel Olazo.
• As to the illegal practice of law
o no evidence exists showing that the respondent previously interfered with the sales application covering
Manuel’s land when the former was still a member of the Committee on Awards.
o The complainant, too, failed to sufficiently establish that the respondent was engaged in the practice of
law.
o At face value, the legal service rendered by the respondent was limited only in the preparation of a
single document.
o private practice of law as one that contemplates a succession of acts of the same nature habitually or
customarily holding one’s self to the public as a lawyer.
o Even granting that respondent’s act fell within the definition of practice of law, the available pieces of
evidence are insufficient to show that the legal representation was made before the Committee on
Awards, or that the Assurance was intended to be presented before it.
Ariel Conrad Malimas
