LGU legal officers: cannot represent local gov't officials' cases
By J.Lo
"However, Court sees 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, Court finds that respondent must be reprimanded for his act of representing the Provincial Governor, which gave rise to conflict of interest. Court, however, stresses that leniency of this penalty extends only to present case and not to subsequent cases of legal officers representing their LGU's public officials when they are charged in their private capacities," decision read, legal officers from local government units (LGUs) are not allowed to represent local government officials in their cases before office of the Ombudsman.
In 2-page decision promulgated on March 27, 2023, high court reprimanded lawyer Richard Enojo, after disbarment case was filed against him.
However, he was not disbarred nor suspended from practice of law by SC but was issued stern warning that repetition of the same offense would be dealt with more severely.
Enojo was provincial legal officer of Negros Oriental appointed in 2011.
When criminal cases against late Negros Oriental Gov. Roel Degamo reached Sandiganbayan in 2013, Enojo served as former governor's legal counsel.
However, his representation was challenged by prosecutors of Ombudsman, leading Sandiganbayan to instruct him to cease representing the late governor.
Subsequently, Enojo still represented Degamo in his administrative cases that progressed in Court of Appeals (CA) and eventually SC.
It was during proceedings in SC that petition for Enojo's disbarment was filed.
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) subsequently directed Enojo to submit response to complaint. In his argument, Enojo contended that only "Sanggunian Officers" from LGU are prohibited from serving as legal counsels in cases involving public officers, and that appointed legal officers are not covered by this prohibition.
After conducting investigation, IBP recommended dismissal of complaint against Enojo, citing lack of merit.
IBP ruled that there is no law that prohibits respondent (Enojo) from handling case of his governor.
SC, however, overturned IBP's decision and said Enojo engaged in "unauthorized practice of law."
"After conducting investigation, IBP recommended dismissal of complaint against lawyer, citing lack of merit. IBP held that currently, "there is no law that positively prohibits respondent from handling case of his Governor," the court's decision read.
According to the SC, Degamo's cases and alleged offenses are "no longer deemed as official acts of the LGU he serves", and thus "fall beyond ambit of lawyer's functions as provincial legal officer."
"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 ambit of respondent's functions as provincial legal officer," ruling read.
SC highlighted if legal officer working for local government faces conflict of interest by representing LGU's top executive or any of its public officials in cases filed before Ombudsman, it would be considered unauthorized practice of law.
No comments:
Post a Comment