A.M. No. MTJ-99-1203; June 10, 2003
Nelia A. Ziga, Complainant, vs. Judge Ramon A. Arejola, Respondent.

FACTS

Respondent Judge Ramon A. Arejola, while still a Public Attorney’s Office (PAO) lawyer, filed an application for land registration in 1995 on behalf of himself and his co-heirs, including complainant Nelia A. Ziga, over an inherited property. The Regional Trial Court granted the application in 1996. Respondent was appointed as a Municipal Trial Court Judge in June 1997 and assumed office in August 1997. Despite his appointment to the judiciary, he continued to act in the land registration case, filing a Motion for Reconsideration in June 1998. The presiding judge in that case had earlier required him to submit written authority from the Supreme Court to appear as counsel, an order he did not comply with.
In April 1998, respondent Judge wrote to the Naga City Mayor, demanding that the proceeds from the sale of a portion of the subject property be paid via individual checks to each heir and that his claim for contingent attorney’s and agent’s fees, equivalent to 30% of the gross selling price, be segregated and paid to him first. He threatened to block the final sale if his demands were not met. This prompted complainant to file the present administrative case for unauthorized practice of law and improper conduct.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Ramon A. Arejola is administratively liable for engaging in the practice of law after his appointment to the judiciary and for his conduct in demanding attorney’s fees.

RULING

Yes, respondent Judge is administratively liable. The Supreme Court found that respondent violated explicit rules prohibiting judges from engaging in the private practice of law. Section 35, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court and Canon 5, Rule 5.07 of the Code of Judicial Conduct unequivocally forbid a judge from practicing law. The Court rejected respondent’s defense that he was merely appearing as a co-heir and party-in-interest. His actions—filing a Motion for Reconsideration and corresponding with the mayor regarding legal fees and sale terms—constituted the practice of law, which involves rendering legal advice or service for another. A judge’s role is fundamentally incompatible with private legal practice, as it undermines public confidence in the judiciary’s impartiality and may create conflicts of interest.
Furthermore, the Court found his demand for a 30% contingent fee from the co-heirs’ property sale, coupled with his threat to obstruct the transaction, to be highly improper. This conduct fell short of the integrity and propriety required of a judicial officer. While the investigating executive judge recommended only a warning, the Office of the Court Administrator correctly recommended a finding of liability. Considering the circumstances and the respondent’s claim of having rendered services, the Court imposed a fine of Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00) with a stern warning. The penalty serves to uphold ethical standards and preserve the integrity of the judicial office.