Government lawyers who engage in private practice need written permissions

FELIPE E. ABELLA, Complainant, vs. ATTY. ASTERIA E. CRUZABRA,
Respondent, A.C. No. 5688, June 4, 2009:

“x x x.

Section 7(b) (2) of RA 6713 provides:

Section 7. Prohibited Acts and Transactions. - In addition to acts
and omissions of public officials and employees now prescribed in the
Constitution and existing laws, the following shall constitute
prohibited acts and transactions of any public official and employee
and are hereby declared to be unlawful:

x x x

(b) Outside employment and other activities related thereto. - Public
officials and employees during their incumbency shall not:

x x x

(2) Engage in the private practice of their profession unless
authorized by the Constitution or law, provided, that such practice
will not conflict or tend to conflict with their official functions;
or

x x x

Memorandum Circular No. 17[18] of the Executive Department allows
government employees to engage directly in the private practice of
their profession provided there is a written permission from the
Department head. It provides:

“The authority to grant permission to any official or employee shall
be granted by the head of the ministry or agency in accordance with
Section 12, Rule XVIII of the Revised Civil Service Rules, which
provides:

Sec. 12. No officer or employee shall engage directly in any private
business, vocation, or profession or be connected with any commercial,
credit, agricultural, or industrial undertaking without a written
permission from the head of Department; Provided, That this
prohibition will be absolute in the case of those officers and
employees whose duties and responsibilities require that their entire
time be at the disposal of the Government: Provided, further, That if
an employee is granted permission to engage in outside activities, the
time so devoted outside of office hours should be fixed by the chief
of the agency to the end that it will not impair in any way the
efficiency of the other officer or employee: And provided, finally,
That no permission is necessary in the case of investments, made by an
officer or employee, which do not involve any real or apparent
conflict between his private interests and public duties, or in any
way influence him in the discharge of his duties, and he shall not
take part in the management of the enterprise or become an officer or
member of the board of directors,

Subject to any additional conditions which the head of the office
deems necessary in each particular case in the interest of the
service, as expressed in the various issuances of the Civil Service
Commission”. (Boldfacing supplied)

It is clear that when respondent filed her petition for commission as
a notary public, she did not obtain a written permission from the
Secretary of the DOJ. Respondent’s superior, the Register of Deeds,
cannot issue any authorization because he is not the head of the
Department. And even assuming that the Register of Deeds authorized
her, respondent failed to present any proof of that written
permission. Respondent cannot feign ignorance or good faith because
respondent filed her petition for commission as a notary public after
Memorandum Circular No. 17 was issued in 1986.

X x x.”

OTHER CASES:

[A.M. No. MTJ-99-1203. June 10, 2003]
NELIA A. ZIGA, complainant, vs. JUDGE RAMON A. AREJOLA, respondent.

[A.M. No. MTJ-02-1459. October 14, 2003]
IMELDA Y. MADERADA, complainant, vs. Judge ERNESTO H. MEDIODEA, 12th
Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Cabatuan and Maasin, Iloilo,
respondent.

[A.M. No. MTJ-99-1203. June 10, 2003]
NELIA A. ZIGA, complainant, vs. JUDGE RAMON A. AREJOLA, respondent.

[A.C. No. 6585. April 21, 2005]
TOMAS B. YUMOL, JR., FELIX S. VENTIC, ELMER L. MANIEGO and JAKE M.
MAGCALAS, complainants, vs. ATTY. ROBERTO R. FERRER, SR., respondent.

DIANA RAMOS vs. ATTY. JOSE R. IMBANG, A. C. No. 6788 (Formerly, CBD
382), August 23, 2007.

WILFREDO M. CATU, ATTY. VICENTE G. RELLOSA, A.C. No. 5738, February 19, 2008.

QUERY OF ATTY. KAREN M. SILVERIO-BUFFE, FORMER Clerk of Court BRANCH
81, ROMBLON, ROMBLON ON THE PROHIBITION FROM ENGAGING IN THE PRIVATE
PRACTICE OF LAW. A.M. No. 08-6-352-RTC, August 19, 2009.