The Supreme Court held that a prosecutor who used his position to favor a relative violated the Code of Professional Responsibility. Prosecutor Alfredo L. Barcelona, Jr. was found to have deliberately delayed a case where his cousin was a defendant. This decision underscores that government lawyers must avoid even the appearance of using their office to benefit personal interests, upholding the public’s trust in the legal system’s integrity and impartiality. The court’s ruling sends a clear message that lawyers in public service are held to a higher standard.

When Family Ties Obstruct Justice: Examining Prosecutorial Misconduct

This case arose from a disbarment complaint filed by Ronaldo C. Facturan against Prosecutor Alfredo L. Barcelona, Jr. Facturan alleged that Barcelona delayed a qualified theft case (I.S. No. 04-211) where Barcelona’s cousin and close friends were the accused. Despite a recommendation for prosecution by Prosecutor Amerkhan, Barcelona neither approved nor disapproved the resolution, keeping the case records at his residence. This inaction prompted Facturan to seek intervention from the Department of Justice, leading to the present administrative case after Barcelona failed to turn over the records as directed.

Barcelona defended himself by claiming he had inhibited himself from the case due to a conflict of interest, which is why it was assigned to Prosecutor Amerkhan. He argued that the delay was not intentional and stemmed from his belief that the case involved a boundary dispute requiring further clarification. He also stated that he was unaware of the case’s progress after being assigned to the DOJ in Manila. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) found Barcelona in violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility, leading to a recommendation for suspension, which the IBP Board of Governors approved for one year.

The central issue before the Supreme Court was whether Barcelona’s actions constituted grounds for administrative liability. The Court, while agreeing with the IBP’s findings, clarified that Barcelona’s violation fell under Rule 6.02, Canon 6 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, not Rule 18.03, Canon 18 as initially determined by the IBP. Canon 6 specifically applies to lawyers in government service, emphasizing that they must not use their public position to promote private interests.

CANON 6 – THESE CANONS SHALL APPLY TO LAWYERS IN GOVERNMENT SERVICE IN THE DISCHARGE OF THEIR OFFICIAL TASKS.

x x x x

Rule 6.02 – A lawyer in the government service shall not use his public position to promote or advance his private interests, nor allow the latter to interfere with his public duties.

The Court emphasized that a government lawyer can be disciplined for misconduct when it violates their oath as a lawyer. The concept of private interest extends beyond direct personal gain to include advancing the interests of relatives, as established in Ali v. Bubong, 493 Phil. 172 (2005). The Supreme Court emphasized the principle that private interest is not limited to direct interest, but extends to advancing the interest of relatives.

In Barcelona’s case, the court found clear accountability regarding I.S. No. 04-211. Despite receiving the case records and a recommendation for prosecution from Prosecutor Amerkhan, Barcelona failed to act on it. The Court noted that Barcelona’s inaction prevented the complainant from seeking remedies to challenge any disapproval of the resolution. Moreover, the unexplained removal of case records from the Provincial Prosecutor’s office, even after his reassignment to Manila, further demonstrated his neglect of duty.

The Court’s Reasoning
Absent any intelligent explanation as regards his lapses in the handling of I.S. No. 04-211 and his failure to timely return the case records thereof for further action, despite the directive to do so, it can only be inferred that respondent not merely failed, but obstinately and deliberately refused to perform his duties as a prosecutor.

The Supreme Court inferred that Barcelona’s deliberate refusal to act on the case was intended to benefit the respondents in I.S. No. 04-211, including his cousin Elezar. By delaying the filing of the criminal information, Barcelona used his position to protect a relative’s private interest, violating the Code of Professional Responsibility. This decision underscores the high standards expected of lawyers in public office. They must not only avoid actions that undermine public trust but also uphold the legal profession’s dignity and integrity.

A lawyer in government service is considered a guardian of public faith, carrying a higher degree of social responsibility than those in private practice, as highlighted in Vitriolo v. Dasig, 448 Phil. 199, 209 (2003). Consequently, the Court upheld the IBP’s recommendation to suspend Barcelona from the practice of law for one year, a sanction commensurate with the gravity of his misconduct. The case serves as a stern reminder that prosecutors, as ministers of justice, must act with utmost impartiality and diligence.

This ruling aligns with established jurisprudence on the ethical responsibilities of government lawyers. In Re: Resolution of the Court Dated 1 June 2004 In G.R. No. 72954 Against Atty Victor C. Avecilla, 667 Phil. 547 (2011), the Court emphasized that lawyers in public service must avoid even the appearance of impropriety, as their conduct reflects directly on the integrity of the government and the legal profession. The Facturan v. Barcelona case reinforces this principle, holding prosecutors accountable for actions that compromise the impartiality and fairness of the justice system.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether Prosecutor Barcelona violated the Code of Professional Responsibility by delaying a case where his relative was an accused. The Supreme Court examined whether his actions constituted using his public position to advance private interests.
What rule did Prosecutor Barcelona violate?	Prosecutor Barcelona violated Rule 6.02, Canon 6 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. This rule prohibits government lawyers from using their public position to promote or advance private interests.
Who filed the complaint against Prosecutor Barcelona?	The complaint against Prosecutor Barcelona was filed by Ronaldo C. Facturan, the complainant in the qualified theft case (I.S. No. 04-211) that Barcelona allegedly delayed.
What was the IBP’s recommendation?	The IBP recommended that Prosecutor Barcelona be suspended from the practice of law for one year. The IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved this recommendation.
Why was Prosecutor Barcelona suspended?	Prosecutor Barcelona was suspended for deliberately delaying a case to benefit his cousin, an accused in the case. This constituted a violation of his ethical duties as a government lawyer.
What is the significance of Canon 6 of the CPR?	Canon 6 of the CPR sets ethical standards for lawyers in government service, requiring them to avoid conflicts of interest. It ensures that their public duties are not compromised by private interests.
How does this case affect other government lawyers?	This case serves as a reminder to government lawyers that they must act impartially and avoid even the appearance of impropriety. Violations of ethical duties can result in disciplinary actions, including suspension from the practice of law.
What was the final ruling of the Supreme Court?	The Supreme Court found Prosecutor Alfredo L. Barcelona, Jr. guilty of violating Rule 6.02, Canon 6 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and suspended him from the practice of law for one year.

This case underscores the importance of ethical conduct among lawyers in public service, reinforcing that their actions must be beyond reproach. The Supreme Court’s decision serves as a clear warning that any use of public office to advance private interests will be met with serious consequences, preserving the integrity and impartiality of the Philippine legal system.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.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: Ronaldo C. Facturan v. Prosecutor Alfredo L. Barcelona, Jr., A.C. No. 11069, June 08, 2016