SC: LGU Legal Officers May Not Represent Local Government Officials Before the Ombudsman
March 20, 2024
Due to conflict of interest, legal officers of local government units (LGUs) may not represent public officials of the LGUs they are serving in cases filed against such officials before the Ombudsman.
Thus ruled the Supreme Court’s Second Division in a Decision penned by Associate Justice Antonio T. Kho, Jr. as it reprimanded a provincial legal officer for unauthorized practice of law, in violation of the then Code of Professional Responsibility.
The lawyer was appointed provincial legal officer of Negros Oriental in 2011. In 2013, he appeared as counsel for then Negros Oriental Governor Roel R. Degamo (Gov. Degamo) in the criminal and administrative cases filed against the governor before the Ombudsman.
When the criminal cases reached the Sandiganbayan, the lawyer likewise entered his appearance as counsel. However, the prosecution opposed his appearance arguing that it is not among his duties as provincial legal officer to represent the province’s public officials charged with criminal cases. The lawyer was thus ordered by the Sandiganbayan to desist from appearing as counsel for Gov. Degamo.
As for the administrative cases, the lawyer also represented Gov. Degamo when the cases reached the Court of Appeals and eventually the High Court, where a petition to disbar was filed against the lawyer.
Following an investigation, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) recommended the dismissal of the complaint against the lawyer for lack of merit, holding that at present, “there is no law that positively prohibits respondent from handling the case of his Governor.”
The Court, however, overturned the IBP’s recommendations and found that the lawyer engaged in unauthorized practice of law.
Under Section 7(b)(2) of Republic Act No. 6713, or the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees, public officials and employees are prohibited from engaging in private practice of their profession unless authorized by the Constitution or law, provided that such practice will not conflict or tend to conflict with their official functions.
The Court found that there is no proof that the lawyer possessed an authority to practice law outside of his duties as provincial legal officer. Thus, his act of representing Gov. Degamo in the criminal and administrative cases against the latter constitutes unauthorized practice of law.
The lawyer’s argument that he was simply performing his official duties as provincial legal officer was also rejected by the Court, stressing its ruling in the 2016 case of Fajardo v. Atty. Alvarez, that a basic conflict of interest exists when a government lawyer represents another public official before the Ombudsman.
The Court added that under Section 481(b) of the Local Government Code, the functions of a legal officer relate to the official duties of officials of an LGU, which are considered acts of the LGU itself. “[P]ublic officers are considered as agents of the State; and as such, acts done in the performance of their official functions are considered acts of the State,” stressed the Court.
“In contrast, when a public officer acts negligently, or worse, in bad faith, the protective mantle of State immunity is lost as the officer is deemed to have acted outside the scope of his official functions; hence, he is treated to have acted in his personal capacity and necessarily, subject to liability on his own,” the Court held.
In cases before the Ombudsman, public officials are charged with acts or omissions that appear to be illegal, unjust, improper, or inefficient. In the case of Gov. Degamo, his alleged acts constituting crimes and administrative offenses are no longer deemed as official acts of the LGU he serves, and thus fall beyond the ambit of the lawyer’s functions as provincial legal officer, said the Court.
For the guidance of the Bench and the Bar, the Court thus ruled that a legal officer for an LGU encounters conflict of interest in representing the LGU’s chief executive or any of its public officers in cases—administrative or criminal—filed before the Ombudsman, and thus amounts to unauthorized practice of law.
Applying this to the present case, the lawyer’s act of representing Gov. Degamo in the administrative and criminal cases constitutes unauthorized practice of law for which he should be administratively liable, the Court concluded.
As to the imposable penalty, the Court held that a penalty of suspension from the practice of law for six months is proper, consistent with jurisprudence.
However, the Court saw the need for leniency in the present case in light of the lawyer’s honest belief that his acts were part of his duties and responsibilities as provincial legal officer.
The Court thus found that the lawyer must be reprimanded for his act of representing the Provincial Governor, which gave rise to a conflict of interest. The leniency of this penalty, however, extends only to “the present case and not to subsequent cases of legal officers representing their LGU’s public officials when they are charged in their private capacities.” (Courtesy of the Supreme Court Public Information Office)
FULL TEXT of A.C. No. 13219, In re: G.R. Nos. 226935, 228238, and 228325 v. Atty. Richard R. Enojo (March 27, 2023), at: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/13219-in-re-g-r-nos-226935-228238-and-228325-vs-atty-richard-r-enojo/