Government officials or employees are prohibited from engaging in private practice of their profession [e.g., private law practice] unless authorized by their department heads.

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

X x x.”