Government Lawyers Beware: Representing Public Officials Can Lead to Ethical Violations

A.C. No. 13219 (Formerly CBD Case No. 18-5598), March 27, 2023

Imagine a scenario where a local government official faces charges of corruption. Can the province’s own legal officer defend them? This seemingly straightforward question has significant ethical implications for lawyers in government service. The Supreme Court’s decision in In re: G.R. Nos. 226935, 228238, and 228325, vs. Atty. Richard R. Enojo sheds light on the limitations and potential conflicts of interest that arise when government lawyers represent public officials facing administrative or criminal charges. This case serves as a crucial reminder that the duty to uphold the law and maintain public trust takes precedence over personal or political loyalties.

Understanding the Legal Landscape

The legal profession in the Philippines is governed by the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR), which outlines the ethical duties and obligations of lawyers. Canon 6 explicitly states that the rules governing lawyers apply to those in government service when discharging their official tasks. Furthermore, Republic Act No. 6713, the “Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees,” prohibits public officials from engaging in the private practice of their profession unless authorized by the Constitution or law, and provided that such practice doesn’t conflict with their official functions.

Key provisions in the Local Government Code (LGC) also define the powers and duties of local government unit (LGU) legal officers. Specifically, Section 481(b) outlines the legal officer’s responsibilities, including providing legal assistance to the governor or mayor, drafting legal documents, and representing the LGU in civil actions. However, this representation is generally understood to pertain to actions directly involving the LGU as a distinct entity, not the private legal troubles of its officers.

As the Supreme Court emphasized in Vitriolo v. Dasig, “a member of the Bar who assumes public office does not shed his professional obligations. [The] Code of Professional Responsibility was not meant to govern the conduct of private practitioners alone, but of all lawyers including those in government service.”

The Case of Atty. Enojo: A Conflict Unveiled

The case revolves around Atty. Richard R. Enojo, the provincial legal officer of Negros Oriental. He represented then-Governor Roel R. Degamo in criminal and administrative cases filed against Degamo before the Ombudsman and Sandiganbayan. This representation sparked controversy, leading to a petition to disbar Atty. Enojo, claiming unauthorized practice of law and conflict of interest.

Here’s a breakdown of the events:

• Initial Charges: June Vincent Manuel S. Gaudan filed criminal and administrative cases against Governor Degamo before the Ombudsman.
• Atty. Enojo’s Appearance: Atty. Enojo appeared as counsel for Degamo in these cases, even when they reached the Sandiganbayan.
• Prosecution’s Objection: The prosecution challenged Atty. Enojo’s appearance, arguing it wasn’t part of his duties as provincial legal officer. The Sandiganbayan agreed, ordering Atty. Enojo to desist.
• IBP Investigation: The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) investigated the disbarment complaint. The IBP-CBD initially recommended dismissal, finding Atty. Enojo guilty of, at most, an erroneous interpretation of the law.
• Supreme Court Review: The Supreme Court overturned the IBP’s recommendation, finding Atty. Enojo administratively liable for unauthorized practice of law.

The Court found that Atty. Enojo’s actions violated the Code of Professional Responsibility. As the Court stated, “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.“

Furthermore, the court emphasized that “the government has a serious interest in the prosecution of erring employees and their corrupt acts”.

The Ruling’s Impact and Practical Advice

This case clarifies the limitations on government lawyers representing public officials in legal proceedings. It underscores that a conflict of interest arises when a government lawyer defends a public official facing charges, especially before the Ombudsman, as the government has a vested interest in prosecuting erring officials.

Hypothetical Example: Consider a city mayor accused of accepting bribes. The city’s legal officer cannot ethically represent the mayor in the criminal case, even if the officer believes in the mayor’s innocence. The city legal officer is employed by the city, and the city is part of the state. The state prosecutes criminal acts. To act on behalf of the defendant would create an intrinsic conflict of interest.

Key Lessons:

• Avoid Conflicts of Interest: Government lawyers must be vigilant in identifying and avoiding situations where their representation could compromise their duty to the public.
• Know Your Boundaries: Understand the scope of your official duties and responsibilities. Representing public officials in personal legal matters, especially criminal cases, generally falls outside this scope.
• Seek Guidance: If unsure about the propriety of representation, seek guidance from the IBP or senior legal colleagues.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: What is considered the unauthorized practice of law?

A: It is when a person engages in activities considered the practice of law without being duly licensed and authorized to do so.

Q: Does this ruling affect all government lawyers?

A: Yes, it applies to all government lawyers, emphasizing that their ethical obligations as lawyers remain even while in public service.

Q: What should a government lawyer do if asked to represent a public official in a personal capacity?

A: The lawyer should decline the representation due to the potential conflict of interest. Refer the official to a private lawyer.

Q: What are the penalties for unauthorized practice of law?

A: Penalties can range from suspension from the practice of law to disbarment, depending on the severity of the violation.

Q: What specific provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility are most relevant to government lawyers?

A: Canon 1 (Upholding the law), Canon 6 (Applying rules to lawyers in government service), and Canon 7 (Upholding integrity of the legal profession) are particularly important.

ASG Law specializes in legal ethics and government regulations. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.