TERESITA P. FAJARDO, Complainant, v. ATTY.
NICANOR C. ALVAREZ, Respondent. A.C. No. 9018, April 20,
2016.
“x x x.
Under Section 7(b)(2) of Republic
Act No. 6713, otherwise known as the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for
Public Officials and Employees, and Memorandum Circular No. 17, series of 1986,53government
officials or employees are prohibited from engaging in private practice of
their profession unless authorized by their department heads. More importantly,
if authorized, the practice of profession must not conflict nor tend to
conflict with the official functions of the government official or employee:
Republic Act No. 6713:
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:
(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[.]
X x x.
Memorandum Circular No. 17:
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.
In Abella v. Cruzabra,54 the
respondent was a Deputy Register of Deeds of General Santos City. While serving
as an incumbent government employee, the respondent "filed a petition for
commission as a notary public and was commissioned . . . without obtaining
prior authority from the Secretary of the Department of Justice."55 According
to the complainant, the respondent had notarized around 3,000 documents.56 This
Court found the respondent guilty of engaging in notarial practice without
written authority from the Secretary of Justice. Thus:
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
D[epartment] [of] J[ustice]. 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 1986.57ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
In this case, respondent was given written permission by the Head of the National Center for Mental Health, whose authority was designated under Department of Health Administrative Order No. 21, series of 1999.58ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
However, by assisting and representing complainant in a suit against the Ombudsman and against government in general, respondent put himself in a situation of conflict of interest.
Respondent's practice of profession was expressly and impliedly conditioned on the requirement that his practice will not be "in conflict with the interest of the Center and the Philippine government as a whole."59
In this case, respondent was given written permission by the Head of the National Center for Mental Health, whose authority was designated under Department of Health Administrative Order No. 21, series of 1999.58ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
However, by assisting and representing complainant in a suit against the Ombudsman and against government in general, respondent put himself in a situation of conflict of interest.
Respondent's practice of profession was expressly and impliedly conditioned on the requirement that his practice will not be "in conflict with the interest of the Center and the Philippine government as a whole."59
X x x.”
