The Supreme Court (SC) has declared that legal officers of local government units (LGUs) may not represent public officials of the towns, cities and provinces where they are employed in administrative and criminal cases filed before the Office of the Ombudsman (OMB).

To do so, “it is a conflict of interest and amounts to unauthorized practice of law,” and the erring legal officer can be suspended from the practice of law from six months to one year, the SC warned.

The issue was tackled by the SC in a disbarment case filed against Atty. Richard R. Enojo.  He was not disbarred nor suspended from the practice of law by the SC but was reprimanded with stern warning that a repetition of the same offense would be dealt with more severely.

The SC’s decision on Enojo’s case was written by Associate Justice Antonio T. Kho Jr.

Case records show that Enojo was appointed legal officer of Negros Oriental in January 2011.  In the criminal and administrative cases filed against former Negros Oriental governor Roel R. Degamo, Enojo appeared as counsel for the late former governor.

When the cases against Degamo reached the Sandiganbayan, Enojo also represented the former governor.  His legal representation was opposed by OMB prosecutors.  The Sandiganbayan ordered him to desist from representing Degamo.

The administrative cases against Degamo reached the Court of Appeals (CA) and the SC where Enojo also represented the former governor as counsel.  It was when the cases reached the SC that the disbarment of Enojo was filed.

On June 4, 2018, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines-Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD) directed Enojo to answer the complaint. Enojo told the IBP-CBD that under the Local Government Code (LGC), the prohibition from appearing as counsel in criminal cases against an officer or employee of the national and local government for offenses committed in relation to their office is imposed, not on appointive legal officers, but on Sanggunian members, who are elective public officials.

Enojo also said that based his functions as provincial legal officer, the LGC authorized him to "defend the LGU's officers and employees who are sued in relation to or affecting the discharge of their official functions."

On June 4, 2020, the IBP-CBD recommended the dismissal of the complaint against Enojo for lack of merit.  On March 13, 2021, the IBP’s Board of Governors approved the recommendation.

In its decision made public on March 20, 2024, the SC overturned the IBP’s recommendation.  The SC said:

“Here, it is worthy to reiterate that respondent (Enojo) represented Degamo in a mix of administrative and criminal cases. In G.R. Nos. 226395, 228238, and 228325, Degamo was charged with several administrative offenses.

“In the cases that reached the Sandiganbayan, Degamo was criminally charged with, among others, Malversation of Public Funds and violation of Section 3( e) of RA 3019 (the Anti-graft and Corrupt Practices Act).

“Verily, Degamo's alleged acts constituting those administrative offenses and crimes are no longer deemed as official acts of the local government unit which he serves; and as such, falls beyond the ambit of respondent's functions as provincial legal officer.

“Thus, respondent's act of representing Degamo in these cases constitutes unauthorized practice of law for which he should be held administratively liable, and accordingly sanctioned.

“At the time the Petition to Disbar was filed, respondent was a government lawyer, employed as provincial legal officer of Negros Oriental. However, the fact that he is in government service will not preclude the Court from disciplining him as a member of the Bar, should circumstances so warrant.

“It bears emphasizing that the Code of Professional Responsibility does not cease to apply to a lawyer simply because he has joined the government service. In fact, by the express provision of Canon 6 thereof, the rules governing the conduct of lawyers 'shall apply to lawyers in government service in the discharge of their official tasks.'

“Thus, where a lawyer's misconduct as a government official is of such nature as to affect his qualification as a lawyer or to show moral delinquency, then he may be disciplined as a member of the bar on such grounds.

“Here, the Court is presented with a situation where the legal officer of an LGU represented the chief executive of such unit in administrative and criminal cases before the Ombudsman, ostensibly in the performance of his duties as legal officer.

“The records do not indicate, and no allegation is made, that respondent engaged in private practice of law or that he failed to secure an authorization for private practice. Nevertheless, the Court finds that the conflict of interest discussed exhaustively in Fajardo (ruling in previous case) is still present in this situation.

“A legal officer for an LGU encounters the same conflict of interest in representing the LGU' s chief executive or any of its public officers in cases -- administrative or criminal -- filed before the Ombudsman.

“Thus, for the guidance of the Bench and the Bar, the Court emphasizes that legal officers of LGUs may not represent the public officials of the LGUs where they are serving in cases filed against such officials before the Ombudsman; it is a conflict of interest and amounts to unauthorized practice of law.

“Prevailing case law, specifically the cases earlier cited, instructs that the penalty imposed by the Court for similar transgressions is suspension from the practice of law ranging from six months to one year.

“However, the Court sees the need for leniency in this case in light of respondent's honest belief that his acts were part of his duties and responsibilities as provincial legal officer. 
“Instead, the Court finds that respondent must be reprimanded for his act of representing the Provincial Governor, which gave rise to a conflict of interest.

“The Court, however, stresses that the leniency of this penalty extends only to the present case and not to subsequent cases of legal officers representing their LGU's public officials when they are charged in their private capacities.

“Accordingly, respondent Atty. Richard R. Enojo is found guilty of violating Rule 1.01, Canon 1, and Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He is hereby reprimanded, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely.”