Limitations/restrictions

of government lawyers in the practice of law Admonition to government lawyers

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.
Canon 6 – These canons shall apply to lawyers in government services in the
discharge of their tasks.
The above provision prohibits a lawyer from using his or her public position to: (1)
promote private interests; (2) advance private interests; or (3) allow private interest
Rule 6.01 - The primary duty of a lawyer engaged in public prosecution is not to
to interfere with his or her public duties.
convict but to see that justice is done. The suppression of facts or the concealment
We previously held that the restriction extends to all government lawyers who use
of witnesses capable of establishing the innocence of the accused is highly
their public offices to promote their private interests. - Olazo v. Justice Tinga, A.M.
reprehensible and is cause for disciplinary action.
No. 10-5-7-SC [2010]
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
“Revolving door” law practice
public duties.
“[T]he process by which lawyers and others temporarily enter government service
Rule 6.03 - A lawyer shall not, after leaving government service, accept
from private life and then leave it for large fees in private practice, where they can
engagement or employment in connection with any matter in which he had
exploit information, contacts, and influence garnered in government service.“ -
intervened while in said service.
PCCG v. Sandiganbayan and Tan, G.R. Nos. 151809-12 [April 12, 2005]
Rule 15.06. - A lawyer shall not state or imply that he is able to influence any public
These concerns were classified as adverse-interest conflicts" and "congruent-
official, tribunal or legislative body.
interest conflicts.
Rule 3.03 - Where a partner accepts public office, he shall withdraw from the firm
and his name shall be dropped from the firm name unless the law allows him to Considerations against disqualification of former government attorney
practice law currently. If service with the government will tend to sterilize an attorney in too large an area
of law for too long a time, or will prevent him from engaging in practice of the very
RRC Rule 138 Sec. 35. Certain attorneys not to practice. - No judge or other official specialty for which the government sought his service — and if that sterilization will
or employee of the superior courts or of the Office of the Solicitor General, shall spread to the firm with which he becomes associated —the sacrifices of entering
engage in private practice as a member of the bar or give professional advice to government service will be too great for most men to make. As for those men
clients. willing to make these sacrifices, not only will they and their firms suffer a restricted
practice thereafter, but clients will find it difficult to obtain counsel, particularly in
those specialties and suits dealing with the government. - US v.Russell White
Correct Interpretation
BROTHERS, Jr., G. Thomas Nebel, and Thomas White Brothers 856 F.Supp. 370 (1992)
The term "intervene" which we previously interpreted to include an act of a person
who has the power to influence the proceedings.
Favors disqualification of former government lawyers
On the other hand, policy considerations underlying DR 9-101(B) which militate
Otherwise stated, to fall within the ambit of Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional
toward disqualification include [t]he treachery of switching sides; the safeguarding
Responsibility, the respondent must have accepted engagement or employment in
of confidential governmental information from future use against the government;
a matter which, by virtue of his public office, he had previously exercised power to
the need to discourage government lawyers from handling particular assignments
influence the outcome of the proceedings. - Olazo v. Justice Tinga, A.M. No. 10-5-
in such a way as to encourage their own future employment in regard to those
7-SC [2010]
particular matters after leaving government service; and the professional benefit
derived from avoiding the appearance of evil.- US v.Russell White BROTHERS, Jr., G.
General Rule
Thomas Nebel, and Thomas White Brothers 856 F.Supp. 370 (1992)
Thus, lawyers in government service cannot handle private cases for they are
expected to devote themselves full-time to the work of their respective offices. -
Definition of “substantial responsibility”
Ramos v. Atty. Jose R. Imbang, A.C. no. 6788 [2007]
With these competing policies in mind, the Court turns to the requirements of likely to be magnified in the public eye - Huyssen v. Atty. Gutierrez, A.C. No. 6707
Canon 9 which prohibit a former government attorney from accepting private [2006]
employment in a matter in which he had "substantial responsibility" while working
for the government. According to the American Bar Association, a "substantial WON violations of RA 6713 are subject to disciplinary action under the CPR
responsibility" is "a responsibility requiring the official to become personally Nonetheless, respondent admitted that he rendered his legal services to
involved to an important, material degree, in the investigative or deliberative complainant while working as a government prosecutor. Even the receipts he
processes regarding the transactions or facts in question." - US v.Russell White signed stated that the payments by Taggat were for "Retainer's fee." Thus, as
BROTHERS, Jr., G. Thomas Nebel, and Thomas White Brothers 856 F.Supp. 370 (1992) correctly pointed out by complainant, respondent clearly violated the prohibition in
RA 6713.
However, violations of RA 6713 are not subject to disciplinary action under the
Application of C.P.R. on a government lawyer
Code of Professional Responsibility unless the violations also constitute
The Code of Professional Responsibility does not cease to apply to a lawyer simply
infractions of specific provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
because he has joined the government service. In fact, by the express provision of
……
Canon 6 thereof, the rules governing the conduct of lawyers“shall apply to lawyers
Certainly, the IBP has no jurisdiction to investigate violations of RA 6713 - the Code
in government service in the discharge of their official tasks.” Thus, where a
of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees - unless the acts
lawyer’s misconduct as a government official is of such nature as to affect his
involved also transgress provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
qualification as a lawyer or to show moral delinquency, then he may be disciplined
Here, respondent's violation of RA 6713 also constitutes a violation of Rule 1.01 of
as a member of the bar on such grounds.
Canon 1, which mandates that "[a] lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest,
immoral or deceitful conduct." Respondent's admission that he received from
Although the general rule is that a lawyer who holds a government office may not
Taggat fees for legal services while serving as a government prosecutor is an
be disciplined as a member of the bar for infractions he committed as a
unlawful conduct, which constitutes a violation of Rule 1.01. - Lim-Santiago v. Atty.
government official, he may, however, be disciplined as a lawyer if his misconduct
Sagucio, A.C. NO. 6705, March 31, 2006
constitutes a violation of his oath a member of the legal profession. - Ali v. Atty.
Bubong, A.C. No. 4018 [2005]
Code of Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees RA 6713 Rule X
Section 7. Prohibited Acts and Transactions. - In addition to acts and omissions of
Now, a lawyer who holds a government position may not be disciplined as a
public officials and employees now prescribed in the Constitution and existing laws,
member of the bar for misconduct in the discharge of his duties as a government
the following shall constitute prohibited acts and transactions of any public official
official. However, if the misconduct also constitutes a violation of the Code of
and employee and are hereby declared to be unlawful:
Professional Responsibility or the lawyer's oath or is of such character as to affect
xxxx
his qualification as a lawyer or shows moral delinquency on his part, such individual
(b) Outside employment and other activities related thereto. - Public officials and
may be disciplined as a member of the bar for such misconduct. - Pimentel, Jr. v.
employees during their incumbency shall not:
Attys. Llorente and Salayon, A.C. no. 4680 [2000]
(2) Engage in the private practice of their profession unless authorized by the
Constitution or law, provided, that such practice will not conflict or tend to conflict
We begin with the veritable fact that lawyers in government service in the
with their official functions;
discharge of their official task have more restrictions than lawyers in private
Cont…
practice. Want of moral integrity is to be more severely condemned in a lawyer
These prohibitions shall continue to apply for a period of one (1) year after
who holds a responsible public office.
resignation, retirement, or separation from public office, except in the case of
subparagraph (b) (2) above, but the professional concerned cannot practice his
Otherwise said, a lawyer in government service is a keeper of the public faith and is
profession in connection with any matter before the office he used to be with, in
burdened with high degree of social responsibility, perhaps higher than his brethren
which case the one-year prohibition shall likewise apply.
in private practice.
It bears stressing also that government lawyers who are public servants owe fidelity
to the public service, a public trust. As such, government lawyers should be more IRR of RA 6713 Rule X
sensitive to their professional obligations as their disreputable conduct is more Grounds for Administrative Disciplinary Action
 Section 1. In addition to the grounds for administrative disciplinary action
prescribed under existing laws, the acts and omissions of any official or
employee, whether or not he holds office or employment in a casual,
temporary, hold-over, permanent or regular capacity, declared unlawful or
prohibited by the Code, shall constitute the grounds for administrative
disciplinary action, and without prejudice to criminal and civil liabilities
provided herein, such as:
(c) Engaging in the private practice of his profession unless authorized by the,
Constitution, law or regulation, provided that such practice will not conflict or tend
to conflict with his official functions;
Cont…
These acts shall continue to be prohibited for a period of one (1) year after
resignation, retirement, or separation from public office, except in the case of
paragraph (c) above, but the professional concerned cannot practice his profession
in connection with any matter before the office he used to be with, within one year
after such resignation, retirement, or separation, provided that any violation
hereof shall be a ground for administrative disciplinary action upon re-entry to the
government service.
Correct Interpretation
“[s]uch practice" - refer to practice "authorized by the Constitution or law" or the
exception to the prohibition against the practice of profession.
The term "law" was intended by the legislature to include "a memorandum or a
circular or an administrative order issued pursuant to the authority of law.“
- Query of Atty. Silverio-Buffe, A.M. No. 08-6-352-RTC [2009]
Purpose of the Law
Thus, it may be well to say that the prohibition was intended to avoid any
impropriety or the appearance of impropriety which may occur in any transaction
between the retired government employee and his former colleagues, subordinates
or superiors brought about by familiarity, moral ascendancy or undue influence, as
the case may be.
Private practice of law
Private practice has been defined by this Court as follows:
“x xx. Practice is more than an isolated appearance, for it consists in frequent or
customary action, a succession of acts of the same kind. In other words, it is
frequent habitual exercise. Practice of law to fall within the prohibition of statute
[referring to the prohibition for judges and other officials or employees of the
superior courts or of the Office of the Solicitor General from engaging in private
practice] has been interpreted as customarily or habitually holding one's self out
to the public, as a lawyer and demanding payment for such services. x xx.”-
Maderada v. Judge Mediodea, A.M. No. MTJ-02-1459. October 14, 2003
Various ways a government lawyer leaves government service
1. retirement
2. resignation
3. expiration of the term of office
4. dismissal
5. abandonment
Pro se litigant
The raison d’etrefor allowing litigants to represent themselves in court will not
apply when a person is already appearing for another party. Obviously, because
she was already defending the rights of another person when she appeared for her
co-plaintiff, it cannot be argued that complainant was merely protecting her rights.
That their rights may be interrelated will not give complainant authority to appear
in court. The undeniable fact remains that she and her co-plaintiff are two distinct
individuals. The former may be impairing the efficiency of public service once she
appears for the latter without permission from this Court. - Maderada v. Judge
Mediodea, A.M. No. MTJ-02-1459. October 14, 2003
Under the Rules of Court, parties to a case in a first-level court may -- without
having to resign from their posts -- conduct their own litigation in person as well as
appear for and on their own behalf as plaintiffs or defendants.
The law allows persons who are not lawyers by profession to litigate their own case
in court. The right of complainant to litigate her case personally cannot be taken
away from her. Her being an employee of the judiciary does not remove from her
the right to proceedings in propria persona or to self-representation. To be sure,
the lawful exercise of a right cannot make one administratively liable. xxx
However, it was also clearly established that complainant had appeared on behalf
of her co-plaintiff in the case below, for which act the former cannot be completely
exonerated. Representing oneself is different from appearing on behalf of
someone else.- Maderada v. Judge Mediodea, A.M. No. MTJ-02-1459. October 14,
2003
To appear as counsel on behalf of their immediate family members
Thus, pursuant to the Court’s administrative supervision over all court personnel,
we have on a number of occasions, but on a case-by-case basis, requests of court
personnel to appear as counsel on behalf of their immediate family members.
This grant is premised on the strict condition that their representation will not
conflict or tend to conflict with their official functions.
Furthermore, they must not use official time in preparing for the case and must
file a leave of absence every time they are required to attend to the case. - Benito
Nate v. Judge Lelu P. Contreras A.M. No. RTJ-15-2406 February 18, 2015
Two theories on the disqualification of former government lawyers in
representing a client
“Adverse-interest conflict”
“Congruent-interest representation conflicts."
"Adverse-interest conflicts"
"Adverse-interest conflicts" exist where the matter in which the former government
lawyer represents a client in private practice is substantially related to a matter
that the lawyer dealt with while employed by the government and the interests of
the current and former are adverse.”- PCCG v. Sandiganbayan and Tan, G.R. Nos.
151809-12 [April 12, 2005]
Adverse-interest conflict
In the “adverse-interest conflict” a former government lawyer is enjoined from
representing a client in private practice when the matter is substantially related to a
matter that the lawyer dealt with while employed by the government and if the
interests of the current and former clients are adverse.
It must be observed that the “adverse-interest conflict” applies to all lawyers in that
they are generally disqualified from accepting employment in a subsequent
representation if the interests of the former client and the present client are
adverse and the matters involved are the same or substantially related.
Congruent-interest conflict
In “congruent-interest conflict”, the disqualification does not really involve a
conflict at all, because it prohibits the lawyer from representing a private practice
client even if the interests of the former government client and the new client are
entirely parallel. The “congruent-interest representation conflict”, unlike the
“adverse-interest conflict”, is unique to former government lawyers.
Grounds for Disqualification arising from COI
The fatal taint which would require disqualification arises in two types of cases:
(1) where an attorney's conflict of interests in violation of [Canons] undermines the
court's confidence in the vigor of the attorney's representation of his client, or
more commonly
(2) where the attorney is at least potentially in a position to use privileged
information concerning the other side through prior representation xxx thus giving
his present client an unfair advantage. - US v.Russell White BROTHERS, Jr., G.
Thomas Nebel, and Thomas White Brothers 856 F.Supp. 370 (1992)
PAO to provide free legal assistance
The PAO was created for the purpose of providing free legal assistance to indigent
litigants. Section 14(3), Chapter 5, Title III, Book V of the Revised Administrative
Code provides:
Sec. 14. xxx
The PAO shall be the principal law office of the Government in extending free legal
assistance to indigent persons in criminal, civil, labor, administrative and other
quasi-judicial cases.
PAO lawyer should not accept any remuneration for his services
As a PAO lawyer, respondent should not have accepted attorney's fees from the
complainant as this was inconsistent with the office's mission. Respondent violated
the prohibition against accepting legal fees other than his salary.
Acceptance of money by a government lawyer
Acceptance of money from a client establishes an attorney-client relationship.
Respondent's admission that he accepted money from the complainant and the
receipt confirmed the presence of an attorney-client relationship between him and
the complainant. Moreover, the receipt showed that he accepted the complainant's
case while he was still a government lawyer. Respondent clearly violated the
prohibition on private practice of profession. - Ramos v. Atty. Jose R. Imbang, A.C.
no. 6788 [2007]
Query
Why may an incumbent engage in private practice under (b)(2), assuming the same
does not conflict or tend to conflict with his official duties, but a non-incumbent like
myself cannot, as is apparently prohibited by the last paragraph of Sec. 7?
Why is the former allowed, who is still occupying the very public position that he is
liable to exploit, but a non-incumbent like myself – who is no longer in a position of
possible abuse/exploitation – cannot?"
Atty. Buffe alleged that Section 7(b)(2) of R.A. No. 6713 gives preferential treatment
to an incumbent public employee, who may engage in the private practice of his
profession so long as this practice does not conflict or tend to conflict with his
official functions.
In contrast, a public official or employee who has retired, resigned, or has been
separated from government service like her, is prohibited from engaging in private
practice on any matter before the office where she used to work, for a period of
one (1) year from the date of her separation from government employment.

The interpretation that Section 7 (b) (2) generally prohibits incumbent public
officials and employees from engaging in the practice of law, which is declared
therein a prohibited and unlawful act, accords with the constitutional policy on
accountability of public officers stated in Article XI of the Constitution …
Exception
As an exception, a public official or employee can engage in the practice of his or
her profession under the following conditions:
1. the private practice is authorized by the Constitution or by the law; and
2.the practice will not conflict, or tend to conflict, with his or her official functions.
By way of exception, they can practice their profession if the Constitution or the
law allows them, but no conflict of interest must exist between their current duties
and the practice of their profession.
No chance exists for lawyers in the Judiciary to practice their profession, as they are
in fact expressly prohibited by Section 5, Canon 3 of the Code of Conduct for Court
Personnel from doing so.
Clerk of Court status after separation from government
A clerk of court can already engage in the practice of law immediately after her
separation from the service and without any period limitation that applies to other
prohibitions under Section 7 of R.A. No. 6713.
The clerk of court’s limitation is that she cannot practice her profession within one
year before the office where he or she used to work with. In a comparison
between a resigned, retired or separated official or employee, on the one hand, and
an incumbent official or employee, on the other, the former has the advantage
because the limitation is only with respect to the office he or she used to work
with and only for a period of one year.
The incumbent cannot practice at all, save only where specifically allowed by the
Constitution and the law and only in areas where no conflict of interests exists.

Inclusion of name in a business card is “private practice of law”

Interpretation
"Baligod, Gatdula, Tacardon, Dimailig and Celera"
The Section 7 prohibitions continue to apply for a period of one year after the
with office at Rm. 220 Mariwasa Bldg., 717 Aurora Blvd., Cubao, Quezon City
public official or employee’s resignation, retirement, or separation from public
office, except for the private practice of profession under subsection (b)(2), which
While respondent denied having assumed any position in said office, the fact
can already be undertaken even within the one-year prohibition period. As an
remains that his name is included therein which may therefore tend to show that
exception to this exception, the one-year prohibited period applies with respect to
he has dealings with said office. Thus, while he may not be actually and directly
any matter before the office the public officer or employee used to work with.
employed with the firm, the fact that his name appears on the calling card as a
partner in the Baligod, Gatdula, Tacardon, Dimailig& Celera Law Offices give the
Section 5, Canon 3 of the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel
impression that he is connected therein and may constitute an act of solicitation
Outside employment may be allowed by the head of office provided it complies
and private practice which is declared unlawful under Republic Act No. 6713. -
with all of the following requirements:
Samonte v. Atty. Gatdula, A.M. No. P-99-1292 [1999]
(a) The outside employment is not with a person or entity that practices law
before the courts or conducts business with the Judiciary;
Section 7 sub-par. (b)(2) of Republic Act No. 6713, otherwise known as "Code of
(b) The outside employment can be performed outside of normal working hours
Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees" which declares it
and is not incompatible with the performance of the court personnel’s duties
unlawful for a public official or employee to, among others:
and responsibilities;
(c) That outside employment does not require the practice of law; Provided,
"(2) Engage in the private practice of their profession unless authorized by the
however, that court personnel may render services as professor, lecturer, or
Constitution or law, provided that such practice will not conflict or tend to conflict
resource person in law schools, review or continuing education centers or
with official functions."
similar institutions;
(d) The outside employment does not require or induce the court personnel to
Preparation of a legal document [Assurance] after separation from government
disclose confidential information acquired while performing officials duties;
service
(e) The outside employment shall not be with the legislative or executive branch of
The complainant, too, failed to sufficiently establish that the respondent was
government, unless specifically authorized by the Supreme Court.
engaged in the practice of law. At face value, the legal service rendered by the
respondent was limited only in the preparation of a single document.
No lawyer in the Judiciary can practice law
We specifically described 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.
In any event, 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.-Olazo v. Justice Tinga, A.M. No.
10-5-7-SC [2010]
Can the Office of the Solicitor General represent a public officer or employee in
the preliminary investigation of a criminal action against him or in a civil action for
damages against him?
Accordingly, the Court is of the opinion, and so holds that the Office of the Solicitor
General is not authorized to represent a public official at any stage of a criminal
case or in a civil suit for damages arising from a felony. This pronouncement applies
to all public officials and employees in the executive, legislative and judicial
branches of the Government. - G.R. No. 87977 March 19, 1990
IBP has no jurisdiction to investigate lawyers [who are public officials] involving
their official functions
Considering that both Exconde and Madrona are public officers being charged for
actions, which are allegedly unfair and discriminatory, involving their official
functions during their tenure, the present case should be resolved by the Office of
the Ombudsman as the appropriate government agency.
Indeed, the IBP has no jurisdiction over government lawyers who are charged
with administrative offenses involving their official duties. For such acts,
government lawyers fall under the disciplinary authority of either their superior or
the Ombudsman. Moreover, an anomalous situation will arise if the IBP asserts
jurisdiction and decides against a government lawyer, while the disciplinary
authority finds in favor of the government lawyer. - B. Buffe and Karen M. Silverio-
Buffo v. former Secretary of Justice Raul M. Gonzalez, former Undersecretary of
Justice Fidel J. Exconde, Jr., and former Congressman Eleandro Jesus F. Madrona,
A.C. No. 8168, October 12, 2016
Problem
Complainant Teresita P. Fajardo was the Municipal Treasurer of San Leonardo,
Nueva Ecija. She hired respondent Atty. Nicanor C. Alvarez [a lawyer working in the
Legal Section of the National Center for Mental Health under the Department of
Health] to defend her in criminal and administrative cases before the Office of the
Ombudsman. Granting that Atty. Alvarez has an authority to engage in private of
law, can he ethically represent complainant as counsel before the Office of the
Ombudsman? – Fajardo v. Atty. Nicanor C. Alvarez, A.C. No. 9018, April 20, 2016
……
There is basic conflict of interest here. Respondent is a public officer, an employee
of government. The Office of the Ombudsman is part of government. By appearing
against the Office of the Ombudsman, respondent is going against the same
employer he swore to serve.
However, by assisting and representing complainant in a suit against the
Ombudsman and against government in general, respondent put himself in a
situation of conflict of interest.
Respondent's practice of profession was expressly and impliedly conditioned on the
requirement that his practice will not be "in conflict with the interest of the Center
and the Philippine government as a whole."
Thus, a conflict of interest exists when an incumbent government employee
represents another government employee or public officer in a case pending
before the Office of the Ombudsman. The incumbent officer ultimately goes
against government's mandate under the Constitution to prosecute public officers
or employees who have committed acts or omissions that appear to be illegal,
unjust, improper, or inefficient. Furthermore, this is consistent with the
constitutional directive that "[p]ublic officers and employees must, at all times, be
accountable to the [P]eople, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity,
loyalty, and efficiency; act with patriotism and justice, and lead modest lives."–
Fajardo v. Atty. Nicanor C. Alvarez, A.C. No. 9018, April 20, 2016
Republic Act No. 6713:
Section 7. Prohibited Acts and Transactions. - In addition to acts and omissions of
public officials and employees now prescribed in the Constitution and existing laws,
the following shall constitute prohibited acts and transactions of any public official
and employee and are hereby declared to be unlawful:
xxx
(b) Outside employment and other activities related thereto. - Public officials and
employees during their incumbency shall not:
xxx
(2) Engage in the 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[.]
Memorandum Circular No. 17:
The authority to grant permission to any official or employee shall be granted by
the head of the ministry or agency in accordance with Section 12, Rule XVIII of the
Revised Civil Service Rules, which provides:
"Sec. 12. No officer or employee shall engage directly in anyprivate business,
vocation, or profession or be connected with any commercial, credit, agricultural,
or industrial undertaking without a written permission from the head of
Department;

Provided, That this prohibition will be absolute in the case of those officers and
employees whose duties and responsibilities require that their entire time be at
the disposal of the Government;
Provided, further, That if an employee is granted permission to engage in outside
activities, the time so devoted outside of office hours should be fixed by the chief
of the agency to the end that it will not impair in any way the efficiency of the other
officer or employee:
Problem
The petitioner was an incumbent City Councilor or member of the
SangguniangPanlungsod of Bago City. He was a lawyer by profession and had
continuously engaged in the practice of law without securing authority from the
Regional Director of the Department of Local Government.
In 1989, the petitioner acted as counsel for Antonio Javiero and Rolando Catapang
and filed a case for Illegal Dismissal and Reinstatement with Damages against Engr.
Ernesto C. Divinagracia, City Engineer of Bago City.
…….
In the first place, complaints against public officers and employees relating or
incidental to the performance of their duties are necessarily impressed with public
interest for by express constitutional mandate, a public office is a public trust.
The complaint for illegal dismissal filed by Javiero and Catapang against City
Engineer Divinagracia is in effect a complaint against the City Government of Bago
City, their real employer, of which petitioner Javellana is a councilman.
………
Hence, judgment against City Engineer Divinagracia would actually be a judgment
against the City Government. By serving as counsel for the complaining employees
and assisting them to prosecute their claims against City Engineer Divinagracia,
the petitioner violated Memorandum Circular No. 74-58 (in relation to Section 7[b-2]
of R[epublic] A[ct] [No.] 6713) prohibiting a government official from engaging in
the private practice of his profession, if such practice would represent interests
adverse to the government. - Javellana v. Department of Interior and Local
Government, G.R. No. 102549, August 10, 1992, 212
Problem
The members of the Land Bank legal department were appointed in their individual
capacities but styled themselves as "PiczonBeramo& Associates." And as members
of the Legal Department, they are deemed as public officials, salaried by the Land
Bank, and in the employ of the government-owned or controlled corporation with
original charter. Can the members of the Land Bank legal department properly do
so?
……..
On this score, two points are relevant. First, under Section 7(b)(2) of the Code of
Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees (Rep. Act No.
6713), public officials and employees during their incumbency are barred from
engaging in the private practice of their profession unless authorized by the
Constitution or by law. There is no law authorizing the members of the Legal
Department of Land Bank from engaging in private practice, and presumably these
lawyers are precluded from any professional legal practice other than in the service
of Land Bank. Thus, it behooves this Court why these members of the Land Bank
Legal Department choose to undertake the appearance of a private law firm when
they are barred by law from engaging in such private practice.
……
Second, Rule 3.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility declares that "where a
partner accepts public office, he shall withdraw from the firm and his name shall
be dropped from the firm name unless the law allows him to practice law
concurrently." Again, this ethical rule precludes the members of the Land Bank
Legal Department from establishing a private law firm or being designated a
"named partner" in such a firm. Thus, the impropriety of Attys. Piczon, Bersamo and
Berbaño representing themselves as "PiczonBersamo and Associates" becomes
even more glaring, considering that by their own admission, these three lawyers
belong to the Legal Department of Land Bank.– Landbank v. Luciano, G.R. No.
165428. April 27, 2005
Problem
A complaint was initiated before the LupongTagapamayapa of Barangay 723, Zone
79 of the 5th District of Manila where the parties reside.
Respondent lawyer, as punong barangay of Barangay 723, summoned the parties
to conciliation meetings. When the parties failed to arrive at an amicable
settlement, respondent lawyer issued a certification for the filing of the appropriate
action in court.
……..
Thereafter, Regina and Antonio filed a complaint for ejectment against Elizabeth
and Pastor in the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila, Branch 11.
Respondent entered his appearance as counsel for the defendants in that case.
Because of this, complainant filed the instant administrative complaint, claiming
that respondent committed an act of impropriety as a lawyer and as a public officer
when he stood as counsel for the defendants despite the fact that he presided over
the conciliation proceedings between the litigants as punong barangay.
For these infractions, the IBP-CBD recommended the respondent’s suspension from
the practice of law.
WON respondent is administratively liable.
Rule 6.03 - A lawyer shall not, after leaving government service, accept engagement
or employment in connection with any matter in which he had intervened while in
said service.
Respondent cannot be found liable for violation of Rule 6.03 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. As worded, that Rule applies only to a lawyer who has
left government service and in connection with any matter in which he intervened
while in said service.
In PCGG v. Sandiganbayan, we ruled that Rule 6.03 prohibits former government
lawyers from accepting engagement or employment in connection with any matter
in which [they] had intervened while in said service.
Respondent was an incumbent punong barangay at the time he committed the act
complained of. Therefore, he was not covered by that provision. –Catu v. Atty.
Rellosa, A.C. No. 5738, February 19, 2008
……..
Section 90 of RA 7160 [The Local Government Code of 1992], not Section 7(B)(2) OF
RA 6713, governs the practice of profession of elective local government officials.
Section 7(b)(2) of RA 6713 prohibits public officials and employees, during their
incumbency, from engaging in the 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. This is the general law which applies
to all public officials and employees.
……
For elective local government officials, Section 90 of RA 7160[12] governs:
SEC. 90. Practice of Profession.
(a) All governors, city and municipal mayors are prohibited from practicing their
profession or engaging in any occupation other than the exercise of their functions
as local chief executives.
(b) Sanggunian members may practice their professions, engage in any occupation,
or teach in schools except during session hours: Provided, That sanggunian
members who are members of the Bar shall not:
(1) Appear as counsel before any court in any civil case wherein a local government
unit or any office, agency, or instrumentality of the government is the adverse
party;
……..
(2) Appear as counsel in any criminal case wherein an officer or employee of the
national or local government is accused of an offense committed in relation to his
office;
(3) Collect any fee for their appearance in administrative proceedings involving the
local government unit of which he is an official; and
(4) Use property and personnel of the Government except when the sanggunian
member concerned is defending the interest of the Government.
…….
(c) Doctors of medicine may practice their profession even during official hours of
work only on occasions of emergency: Provided, That the officials concerned do
not derive monetary compensation therefrom.
This is a special provision that applies specifically to the practice of profession by
elective local officials. As a special law with a definite scope (that is, the practice of
profession by elective local officials), it constitutes an exception to Section 7(b)(2)
of RA 6713, the general law on engaging in the private practice of profession by
public officials and employees.
Under RA 7160, elective local officials of provinces, cities, municipalities and
barangays are the following: the governor, the vice governor and members of the
sangguniangpanlalawigan for provinces; the city mayor, the city vice mayor and the
members of the sangguniangpanlungsod for cities; the municipal mayor, the
municipal vice mayor and the members of the sangguniang bayan for municipalities
and the punong barangay, the members of the sangguniang barangay and the
members of the sangguniangkabataan for barangays.
Of these elective local officials, governors, city mayors and municipal mayors are
prohibited from practicing their profession or engaging in any occupation other
than the exercise of their functions as local chief executives. This is because they
are required to render full time service. They should therefore devote all their time
and attention to the performance of their official duties.
……..
On the other hand, members of the sangguniangpanlalawigan,
sangguniangpanlungsod or sangguniang bayan may practice their professions,
engage in any occupation, or teach in schools except during session hours.
In other words, they may practice their professions, engage in any occupation, or
teach in schools outside their session hours. Unlike governors, city mayors and
municipal mayors, members of the sangguniangpanlalawigan,
sangguniangpanlungsod or sangguniang bayan are required to hold regular sessions
only at least once a week. Since the law itself grants them the authority to practice
their professions, engage in any occupation or teach in schools outside session
hours, there is no longer any need for them to secure prior permission or
authorization from any other person or office for any of these purposes.
A lawyer in government service who is not prohibited to practice law must secure
prior authority from the head of his department.
A civil service officer or employee whose responsibilities do not require his time to
be fully at the disposal of the government can engage in the private practice of law
only with the written permission of the head of the department concerned.
Section 12, Rule XVIII of the Revised Civil Service Rules provides:
Sec. 12. No officer or employee shall engage directly in any private business,
vocation, or profession or be connected with any commercial, credit, agricultural, or
industrial undertaking without a written permission from the head of the
Department:
……..
Accordingly, as punong barangay, respondent was not forbidden to practice his
profession. However, he should have procured prior permission or authorization
from the head of his Department, as required by civil service regulations.
Suspension from the practice of law includes suspension from public office
Respondent attorney argues that, "[t]o stretch the coverage of [his suspension from
the practice of law] to [his] public office would be tantamount to [violating] his
constitutional rights [sic] to due process and to the statutory principle in law that
what is not included is deemed excluded.“
The exercise of the powers and functions of a Commission on Human Rights
Regional Director constitutes practice of law. Thus, the Regional Director must be
an attorney - a member of the bar in good standing and authorized to practice law.
When the Regional Director loses this authority, such as when he or she is disbarred
or suspended from the practice of law, the Regional Director loses a necessary
qualification to the position he or she is holding. The disbarred or suspended lawyer
must desist from holding the position of Regional Director.– Lingan v. Atty.
Calubaquib & Baliga, A.C. No. 5377, June 30, 2014
As a government lawyer
Government lawyers who are public servants owe utmost fidelity to the public
service because public service is a public trust. A lawyer does not shed his
professional obligations upon assuming public office. In fact, his professional
obligations should make him more sensitive to his official obligations because a
lawyer's disreputable conduct is more likely to be magnified in the public eye. -
Provincial Prosecutor Visbal v. judge Buban, Branch 1, Tacloban City, A.M. NO. MTJ-
02-1432 : September 3, 2004
Who may legally represent a municipality in a suit for or against it
We ruled that private attorneys cannot represent a province or municipality in
lawsuits.
Section 1683 of the Revised Administrative Code provides:
Sec. 1683. Duty of fiscal to represent provinces and provincial subdivisions in
litigation. — The provincial fiscal shall represent the province and any municipality
or municipal district thereof in any court, except in cases whereof (sic) original
jurisdiction is vested in the Supreme Court or in cases where the municipality or
municipal district in question is a party adverse to the provincial government or to
some other municipality or municipal district in the same province. When the
interests of a provincial government and of any political division thereof are
opposed, the provincial fiscal shall act on behalf of the province.
…….
When the provincial fiscal is disqualified to serve any municipality or other political
subdivision of a province a special attorney may be employed by its council.
Under the above provision, complemented by Section 3, Republic Act No. 2264, the
Local Autonomy Law, only provincial fiscal and the municipal attorney can
represent a province or municipality in their lawsuits. The provision is mandatory.
The municipality's authority to employ a private lawyer is expressly limited only
to situations where the provincial fiscal is disqualified to represent it.
For the aforementioned exception to apply, the fact that the provincial fiscal was
disqualified to handle the municipality's case must appear on record. In the instant
case, there is nothing in the records to show that the provincial fiscal is disqualified
to act as counsel for the Municipality of Pililla on appeal, hence the appearance of
herein private counsel is without authority of law.
None of the foregoing exceptions is present in this case. It may be said that Atty.
Romanillos appeared for respondent municipality inasmuch as he was already
counsel of Kristi Corporation which was sued with respondent municipality in this
same case. The order of the trial court dated September 19, 1990, stated that Atty.
Romanillos "entered his appearance as collaborating counsel of the provincial
prosecutor and the provincial attorney." This collaboration is contrary to law and
hence should not have been recognized as legal. It has already been ruled in this
wise:
The fact that the municipal attorney and the fiscal are supposed to collaborate with
a private law firm does not legalize the latter's representation of the municipality of
Hagonoy in Civil Case No. 5095-M. While a private prosecutor is allowed in
criminal cases, an analogous arrangement is not allowed in civil cases wherein a
municipality is the plaintiff.
As already stated, private lawyers may not represent municipalities on their own.
Neither may they do so even in collaboration with authorized government
lawyers. This is anchored on the principle that only accountable public officers may
act for and in behalf of public entities and that public funds should not be expanded
to hire private lawyers. – Ramos et. al. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 99425 March 3,
1997
Authority of private counsel can be questioned even on appeal
The contention of Atty. Mendiola that private respondent cannot raise for the first
time on appeal his lack of authority to represent the municipality is untenable. The
legality of his representation can be questioned at any stage of the proceedings.
In the cases hereinbefore cited, the issue of lack of authority of private counsel to
represent a municipality was only raised for the first time in the proceedings for the
collection of attorney's fees for services rendered in the particular case, after the
first time in the proceedings for the collection of attorney's fees for services
rendered in the particular case, after the decision in that case had become final and
executory and/or had been duly executed. – Ramos et. al. v. Court of Appeals, G.R.
No. 99425 March 3, 1997
What is the Effect of Unauthorized Representation?
Would the adoption by government lawyers of the proceedings participated in by
private counsel validate such proceedings?
[This Court] agree with public respondent that such adoption produces validity.
Public respondent stated the reasons to which we agree:
Moreover, it does not appear that the adoption of proceedings participated in or
undertaken by Atty. Romanillos when he was private counsel for the respondent
municipality of Baliuag— such as the proceedings on the motion to dissolve the
injunction, wherein petitioners had even cross-examined the witnesses presented
by Atty. Romanillos in support of said motion and had even started to present their
witnesses to sustain their objection to the motion — would have resulted in any
substantial prejudice to petitioners' interest. As Wee see it, to declare the said
proceedings null and void — notwithstanding the formal adoption thereof by Atty.
Regalado as Provincial Attorney of Bulacan in court — and to require trial anew to
cover the same subject matter, to hear the same witnesses and to admit the same
evidence adduced by the same parties cannot enhance the promotion of justice.
The rule on appearances of a lawyers is that until the contrary is clearly shown, an
attorney is presumed to be acting under authority of the litigant whom he purports
to represent. His authority to appear for and represent petitioner in litigation, not
having been questioned in the lower court, it will be presumed on appeal that
counsel was properly authorized to file the complaint and appear for his client. –
Ramos et. al. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 99425 March 3, 1997
OSG cannot represent an accused in a criminal case
There is likewise another reason, as earlier discussed, why the OSG cannot
represent an accused in a criminal case. Inasmuch as the State can speak and act
only by law, whatever it does say and do must be lawful, and that which in unlawful
is not the word or deed of the State, but is the mere wrong or trespass of those
individual persons who falsely speak and act in its name. Therefore, the accused
public official should not expect the State, through the OSG, to defend him for a
wrongful act which cannot be attributed to the State itself. In the same light, a
public official who is sued in a criminal case is actually sued in his personal capacity
inasmuch as his principal, the State, can never be the author of a wrongful act,
much less commit a crime. - Celso Pascual v. Beltran, G.R. No. 129318, October 27,
2006
The OSG cannot represent a public official in a civil suit for damages
The Court further ruled that its observation should apply as well to a public official
who is hailed to court in a civil suit for damages arising from a felony allegedly
committed by him. Any pecuniary liability he may be held to account for on the
occasion of such civil suit is for his own account. The Sate is not liable for the same.
A fortiori, the Office of the Solicitor General likewise has no authority to represent
him in such a civil suit for damages.
To repeat, the Solicitor General is the lawyer of the government, any of its agents
and officials in any litigation, proceeding, investigation or matter requiring the
services of a lawyer. The exception is when such officials or agents are being
charged or are being civilly sued for damages arising from a felony. - Celso Pascual v.
Beltran, G.R. No. 129318, October 27, 2006
Solicitor General cannot refuse to represent the government, its agencies,
instrumentalities, officials and agents without a just and valid reason
Thus, the Solicitor General cannot refuse to represent the government, its agencies,
instrumentalities, officials and agents without a just and valid reason. He should not
desist from appearing before the Court even in those cases where his opinions may
be inconsistent with the government or any of its agents he is expected to
represent. As in the case of fiscals or prosecutors, bias or prejudice and animosity or
hostility do not constitute legal and valid excuses for inhibition.
……
Unlike a practicing lawyer who has the right to decline employment, a fiscal or
prosecutor, or the Solicitor General in the case at bar, cannot refuse to perform his
functions without violating his oath of office. Refusal to perform the duty is
compellable by a writ of mandamus. On the other hand, government agencies were
admonished not to reject the services of the Solicitor General, or otherwise fail or
refuse to forward the papers of a case to the OSG for appropriate action. Actions
filed in the name of the Republic that are not initiated by the OSG will be
summarily dismissed. Moreover, the fee of the lawyer who rendered legal service
to the government in lieu of the OSG or the OGCC is the personal liability of the
government official who hired his services without the prior written conformity of
the OSG or the OGCC, as the case may be. – Gumaro v. Quirino State Colleges,
G.R. No. 164196, June 22, 2007
A fiscal cannot refuse to perform his functions
Unlike a practicing lawyer who has the right to decline employment, a fiscal cannot
refuse to perform his functions on grounds not provided for by law without
violating his oath of office. Instead of engaging the services of a special attorney,
the municipal council should request the Secretary of Justice to appoint an acting
provincial fiscal in place of the provincial fiscal who has declined to handle and
prosecute its case in court, pursuant to Section 1679 of the Revised Administrative
Code. - Municipality of Pililla, Rizal vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 105909 June 28,
1994

Provincial fiscal disqualified to represent a particular municipality

With Sec. 1683 of the old Administrative Code as legal basis, the Court therein cited
Enriquez, Sr. v. Gimenez [107 Phil 932 (1960)] which enumerated instances when
the provincial fiscal is disqualified to represent in court a particular municipality;
1. if and when original jurisdiction of case involving the municipality is vested in
the Supreme Court,
2. when the municipality is a party adverse to the provincial government or to
some other municipality in the same province, and when,
3. in a case involving the municipality, he, or his wife, or child, is pecuniarily
involved, as heir legatee, creditor or otherwise. – Ramos, et. al. v. Court
of Appeals, G.R. No. 99425 March 3, 1997

Counsel not guilty of contempt for representing two inconsistent positions or

interests
Counsel espouses two inconsistent positions or interests: the first, in favor of
Central Bank and Lucio Tan, which is the position taken in the case at bar, and the
second, in favor of the Republic but against Lucio Tan and his cohorts in the Civil
Case before the Sandiganbayan.
Petitioners harp on the alleged conflicting positions of respondent’s [counsel] in
Spec. Proc. No. 107812/CA-G.R. CV No. 39939 and in Sandiganbayan Civil Case No.
0005.

Assuming arguendo that [counsel] participated in these two cases, this Court
cannot hold him personally liable. The perceived inconsistent positions are the
official positions taken by his office as the principal law office and legal defender of
the Government.
In other words, the State in both cases has knowingly allowed counsel to represent
it, and for this reason, the latter may not be held in contempt and subjected to any
disciplinary action. - General Bank and Trust Company (GBTC) v. The Ombudsman,
et. al., G.R. No. 125440. January 31, 2000