A conflict of interest exists when an incumbent government employee [lawyer] represents another government employee or public officer in a case pending before the Office of the Ombudsman.

TERESITA P. FAJARDO, Complainant, v. ATTY. NICANOR C. 
ALVAREZ, Respondent. A.C. No. 9018, April 20, 2016.

“x x x.

In Javellana v. Department of Interior and Local Government,⁶⁰ the petitioner was an incumbent City Councilor or member of the Sangguniang Panlungsod 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.⁶¹ 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.⁶²

Engr. Ernesto C. Divinagracia filed an administrative case before the Department of Local Government for violation of Section 7(b)(2) of Republic Act No. 6713 and relevant Department of Local Government memorandum circulars on unauthorized practice of profession, as well as for oppression, misconduct, and abuse of authority.⁶³ While the case was pending before Department of Local Government, the petitioner was able to secure a written authority to practice his profession from the Secretary of Interior and Local Government, "provided that such practice will not conflict or tend to conflict with his official functions."⁶⁴

This Court in Javellana observed that the petitioner practiced his profession in conflict with his functions as City Councilor and against the interests of government:

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.

Petitioner's contention that Section 90 of the Local Government Code of 1991 and DLG Memorandum Circular No. 90-81 violate Article VIII, Section 5 of the Constitution is completely off tangent. Neither the statute nor the circular trenches upon the Supreme Court's power and authority to prescribe rules on the practice of law. The Local Government Code and DLG Memorandum Circular No. 90-81 simply prescribe rules of conduct for public officials to avoid conflicts of interest between the discharge of their public duties and the private practice of their profession, in those instances where the law allows it.⁶⁵

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.

In addition, the government has a serious interest in the prosecution of erring employees and their corrupt acts. Under the Constitution, "[p]ublic office is a public trust."⁶⁶ The Office of the Ombudsman, as "protectors of the [P]eople,"⁶⁷ is mandated to "investigate and prosecute . . . any act or omission of any public officer or employee, office or agency, when such act or omission appears to be illegal, unjust, improper or inefficient."⁶⁸

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.⁶⁹ 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."⁷⁰

X x x.”