The Supreme Court ruled that a lawyer employed as a Legal Officer V in the Manila Urban Settlement Office, while concurrently serving as a member of the People’s Law Enforcement Board (PLEB) in Quezon City, violated the constitutional prohibition against dual employment in the public sector. This decision underscores that accepting a second government position without legal authorization constitutes a breach of the Attorney’s Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility, leading to disciplinary actions.

Double Duty, Double Trouble: Can Public Servants Wear Two Hats?

The case of Francisco Lorenzana v. Atty. Cesar G. Fajardo revolves around allegations that Atty. Fajardo, while employed as a Legal Officer V at the Urban Settlement Office in Manila, simultaneously held positions in the People’s Law Enforcement Board (PLEB) of Quezon City and the Lupong Tagapamayapa of Barangay Novaliches Proper. Lorenzana charged that these dual roles, coupled with Fajardo’s alleged private practice of law and a property dispute, constituted violations of the Civil Service Law and the Code of Professional Responsibility. The central legal question is whether Fajardo’s concurrent positions and actions breached ethical and legal standards for public servants and members of the bar.

The complainant, Francisco Lorenzana, sought Atty. Fajardo’s disbarment, citing violations of the Civil Service Law and Canon 6 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Lorenzana highlighted Fajardo’s roles in the PLEB and the Lupong Tagapamayapa, where he received honoraria, alongside his engagement in private legal practice. In response, Atty. Fajardo argued that his PLEB membership was without fixed compensation, receiving only per diems, and that his Lupon membership was authorized by the Local Government Code of 1991. He admitted to appearing as private counsel but claimed his services were pro bono for relatives and friends.

The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) investigated the matter, finding Fajardo’s appointment as a Lupong Tagapamayapa member lawful under the Local Government Code of 1991, which authorizes such appointments and the receipt of honoraria. However, the IBP Commissioner found Fajardo’s PLEB appointment to be a violation of the prohibition against dual appointments for government officials. While the IBP found insufficient evidence that Fajardo received compensation for his court appearances, it noted his failure to obtain permission from his office to appear as counsel, which violated Civil Service Rules and Regulations.

The IBP Board of Governors adopted the Investigating Commissioner’s report, leading to Resolution No. XVI-2003-93, which suspended Fajardo from the practice of law for one month and reprimanded him with a warning for not securing written permission to represent relatives and friends. The constitutional prohibition against dual employment is rooted in Section 7, Article IX-B, which states that “Unless otherwise allowed by law or by the primary functions of his position, no appointive official shall hold any other office or employment in the Government.” The court emphasized that the provision concerning compensation for PLEB members does not override this prohibition.

The Supreme Court underscored the significance of upholding legal and ethical standards for lawyers, stating, “The lawyer’s paramount duty to society is to obey the law. For of all classes and professions, it is the lawyer who is most sacredly bound to uphold the laws, for he is their sworn servant.” The Court found Fajardo’s acceptance of the PLEB appointment violated the Constitution, the Administrative Code of 1987, and the Local Government Code of 1991, thereby breaching the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Attorney’s Oath, specifically Canon 1, which mandates that a lawyer shall uphold the Constitution and obey the laws of the land.

In contrast, the Court concurred with the IBP’s finding that Fajardo’s membership in the Lupong Tagapamayapa was permissible, citing Section 406 of the Local Government Code, which allows government officials and employees to serve as lupon or pangkat members without diminution in compensation or allowance. Regarding the allegation of illegal practice of law, the Court found that Fajardo’s actions were not isolated incidents, and he maintained a law office while serving as a Legal Officer. His failure to obtain written permission from his department head, as required by Section 12, Rule XVIII of the Revised Civil Service Rules, further compounded his violations.

The Court determined that Fajardo’s actions warranted a more severe penalty than the IBP’s recommendation. It emphasized that his transgressions extended beyond statutory violations to include breaches of the fundamental law itself, the Attorney’s Oath, and Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court outlines the grounds for disbarment or suspension, including violations of the Attorney’s Oath. Given these violations, the Supreme Court suspended Atty. Cesar G. Fajardo from the practice of law for six months and issued a reprimand with a stern warning against future misconduct.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The central issue was whether Atty. Fajardo violated the constitutional prohibition against dual employment by serving as a Legal Officer and a PLEB member simultaneously.
What is the constitutional provision regarding dual employment?	Section 7, Article IX-B of the Constitution prohibits appointive officials from holding any other office or employment in the Government unless allowed by law or by the primary functions of their position.
Did the court find Fajardo’s membership in the Lupon unlawful?	No, the court agreed with the IBP that his membership in the Lupon was lawful, as it is permitted by the Local Government Code of 1991.
What constitutes the private practice of law in this context?	The private practice of law involves a succession of acts of the same nature, where one habitually holds oneself out to the public as a lawyer.
What was the IBP’s recommendation in this case?	The IBP recommended that Fajardo be suspended for one month for accepting the PLEB appointment and reprimanded for failing to obtain permission to appear as counsel.
Why did the Supreme Court impose a heavier penalty?	The Supreme Court imposed a heavier penalty because Fajardo’s actions violated the Constitution and his Attorney’s Oath, in addition to statutory violations.
What was the final ruling of the Supreme Court?	The Supreme Court suspended Atty. Cesar G. Fajardo from the practice of law for six months and issued a reprimand with a stern warning.
What is the significance of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility?	Canon 1 mandates that a lawyer shall uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land, and promote respect for law and legal processes.

This case reinforces the importance of adhering to ethical and legal standards for lawyers, particularly those in public service. The decision serves as a reminder that dual employment without proper authorization can lead to severe disciplinary actions, underscoring the paramount duty of lawyers to uphold the law and the Constitution.

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: FRANCISCO LORENZANA VS. ATTY. CESAR G. FAJARDO, A.C. NO. 5712, June 29, 2005