Abella v. Cruzabra
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Felipe E. Abella filed a complaint against respondent Atty. Asteria E. Cruzabra for violation of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Section 7(b)(2) of Republic Act No. 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees). Complainant alleged that respondent, while serving as Deputy Register of Deeds of General Santos City, obtained a commission as a notary public without prior authority from the Secretary of the Department of Justice (DOJ) and notarized approximately 3,000 documents. Complainant argued that this private practice prejudiced respondent's efficiency and performance as a public official. Procedural History: The Investigating Commissioner of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) recommended the dismissal of the complaint for lack of merit, finding that respondent's mistake was done in good faith and that she ceased notarial work after being reprimanded. The IBP Board of Governors adopted this recommendation and dismissed the case. Complainant appealed, arguing that the IBP committed a serious error in dismissing the complaint despite respondent's admission of acting as a notary public. The Petition: The Supreme Court reviewed the case to determine if respondent Atty. Asteria E. Cruzabra committed a violation of Section 7(b)(2) of RA 6713 by engaging in notarial practice without the requisite written authority.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Atty. Asteria E. Cruzabra, as a Deputy Register of Deeds, committed a violation of Section 7(b)(2) of Republic Act No. 6713 by engaging in the private practice of her profession as a notary public without the necessary written authority from the Secretary of the Department of Justice. Whether the authorization from her superior, the Register of Deeds, is sufficient to permit private practice under RA 6713.
Ruling
The Supreme Court found Atty. Asteria E. Cruzabra guilty of engaging in notarial practice without the written authority from the Secretary of the Department of Justice and reprimanded her, warning that repetition of the offense would merit a more severe sanction.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether respondent Atty. Asteria E. Cruzabra, as a Deputy Register of Deeds, committed a violation of Section 7(b)(2) of Republic Act No. 6713 by engaging in the private practice of her profession as a notary public without the necessary written authority from the Secretary of the Department of Justice: The Court held that respondent was guilty of engaging in notarial practice without the written authority from the Secretary of the Department of Justice. Section 7(b)(2) of RA 6713 explicitly prohibits public officials and employees from engaging in the private practice of their profession unless authorized by the Constitution or law, provided it does not conflict with their official functions. Memorandum Circular No. 17 of the Executive Department, implementing Section 12, Rule XVIII of the Revised Civil Service Rules, requires a written permission from the head of the department for government employees to engage in private business, vocation, or profession. Respondent admitted to acting as a notary public from February 29, 1988, to December 31, 1989, a period after Memorandum Circular No. 17 was issued in 1986. The Court found that respondent did not obtain the required written permission from the Secretary of the DOJ. The Court emphasized that ignorance of the law is not an excuse, and respondent, as a lawyer, was expected to know the legal requirements for engaging in private practice while in government service. The Court noted that respondent's claim of good faith and reliance on her superior's competence did not absolve her from liability, especially since the prohibition was clear and the circular requiring permission was already in effect. On whether the authorization from her superior, the Register of Deeds, is sufficient to permit private practice under RA 6713: The Court clarified that the Register of Deeds, as respondent's superior, could not issue the necessary authorization because he is not the head of the Department. The law and relevant circulars clearly stipulate that written permission must come from the head of the department. Even if the Register of Deeds had purportedly authorized her, respondent failed to present any proof of such written permission. The Court cited previous cases, such as Yumol, Jr. v. Ferrer Sr. and Muring, Jr. v. Gatcho, where lawyers employed in government service were held liable for engaging in private practice without proper authorization. In Yumol, a lawyer in the Commission on Human Rights was suspended for failing to obtain written authority and a leave of absence. In Muring, a court attorney was suspended for filing a petition for commission as a notary public without seeking exculpation for his error. These cases underscore the strict requirement for prior written authority from the appropriate department head before a government employee can engage in the private practice of their profession, and that authorization from a mere superior is insufficient.
Main Doctrine
A government employee engaged in the private practice of their profession without the required written authority from the head of department, especially when such practice may conflict with official functions, violates Section 7(b)(2) of Republic Act No. 6713.