Lorenzana v. Fajardo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Francisco Lorenzana charged respondent Atty. Cesar G. Fajardo with violation of the Civil Service Law and Canon 6 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, seeking his disbarment. Respondent, while employed as Legal Officer V at the Urban Settlement Office in Manila until his retirement on May 15, 2002, was also a member of the People’s Law Enforcement Board (PLEB) of Quezon City, receiving a monthly honorarium, and a member of the Lupong Tagapamayapa of Barangay Novaliches Proper, also receiving an allowance/honorarium. Complainant alleged respondent was engaged in private law practice, receiving substantial acceptance fees, and occupied a house and lot owned by complainant's family without paying rent and refused to vacate. Procedural History: The complaint was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation. The IBP Investigating Commissioner found respondent's appointment to the Lupong Tagapamayapa lawful and authorized by the Local Government Code. However, the appointment to the PLEB was found to be an exception to the prohibition against dual employment. The IBP found that respondent's court appearances did not constitute private practice of law due to lack of proof of compensation, but he was liable for violating Civil Service Rules for failing to obtain written permission to appear as counsel. The IBP Board of Governors adopted the recommendation, suspending respondent for one month and reprimanding him for failing to obtain written permission. The Petition: The Supreme Court reviewed the IBP's findings and recommendations.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Atty. Cesar G. Fajardo violated the Constitution and laws by holding concurrent positions in government. Whether respondent engaged in the private practice of law while employed as a government official without the requisite permission.
Ruling
The Supreme Court found Atty. Cesar G. Fajardo guilty of violating the Constitution and statutes by accepting employment as a member of the PLEB of Quezon City while concurrently employed as Legal Officer V of the Manila Urban Settlement Office. The Court also found him guilty of engaging in the illegal practice of law. Consequently, Atty. Fajardo is suspended from the practice of law for six (6) months and reprimanded and warned that any repetition of similar acts would be dealt with more severely.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of dual employment and violation of the Constitution and statutes: The Court held that Section 7, Article IX-B of the Constitution prohibits appointive officials from holding any other office or employment in the Government, unless otherwise allowed by law or by the primary functions of their position. Respondent's invocation of Section 43(c) of R.A. No. 6975, which pertains to the compensation of PLEB members, was found to be irrelevant as it did not constitute an exception to the constitutional prohibition against dual appointments. The Court emphasized that respondent failed to establish that his primary functions as Legal Officer allowed his appointment as PLEB member. Therefore, by accepting the PLEB appointment, respondent transgressed the Constitution, the Administrative Code of 1987, and the Local Government Code of 1991, thereby violating his Attorney's Oath and Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which mandates upholding the Constitution and obeying the laws. The Court clarified that while his membership in the Lupong Tagapamayapa was authorized by law, his PLEB appointment was not. On the issue of engaging in the private practice of law: The Court defined private practice of law as a succession of acts of the same nature habitually or customarily holding oneself to the public as a lawyer and demanding payment for such services. Evidence presented showed that respondent maintained a law office and signed pleadings as counsel for clients, indicating an extensive practice rather than isolated appearances. His justification that his office was not strict about appearances was insufficient, as he failed to obtain the written permission required by Section 12, Rule XVIII of the Revised Civil Service Rules. This rule mandates that no government officer or employee shall engage in any private business, vocation, or profession without written permission from the head of the Department. Thus, respondent engaged in the illegal practice of law by failing to secure the necessary authorization.
Main Doctrine
A lawyer employed in the government service is prohibited from holding any other office or employment in the Government, or any subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof, unless otherwise allowed by law or by the primary functions of his position. Engaging in the private practice of law without the requisite written permission from the head of the department constitutes a violation of Civil Service Rules and Regulations and the Code of Professional Responsibility.