Government Lawyer Suspended for Unauthorized Practice and Grave Misconduct

A lawyer employed by the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) was suspended from the practice of law for one year after the Supreme Court found him guilty of gross misconduct. The case shows that government lawyers cannot engage in private practice without prior written authority, and that even a human rights body cannot issue orders that only courts may lawfully make.

The Facts

The respondent was an Attorney IV at the CHR Regional Office in Pampanga. In September 2001, a woman sought the CHR's help regarding the alleged kidnapping of her child by her husband and the coerced transfer of her bank deposit. Acting on her complaint, the lawyer issued two orders: one awarding custody of the child to the mother, and another directing a rural bank to reinstate the mother's account.

These orders were problematic. The CHR had no authority to award child custody or to compel a bank to act—those are judicial functions. The lawyer also signed the orders using his own name rather than the Commission's.

Further investigation revealed that the lawyer had been appearing in courts and filing pleadings in private cases while employed by the government. He also notarized documents before the CHR authorized him to do so. On days he attended court hearings, he logged in his Daily Time Records (DTRs) as if he were present at the office—an impossibility that the Court described as falsification.

The Issue

The central question was whether the lawyer committed gross misconduct by: (1) engaging in private practice while a government employee; (2) falsifying his DTRs; (3) issuing unauthorized orders; and (4) continuing private practice even after cases were filed against him.

The Ruling

The Supreme Court ruled against the lawyer on all four counts.

Private practice requires prior approval. The Court noted that CHR Resolution No. (III) A2002-133 allows CHR lawyers to engage in private practice, but only upon written request and approval, and subject to strict conditions—including no conflict of interest, no representation against the government, and coverage of absences by approved leave. The lawyer presented no written request, no approval, and no approved leave. Private practice was therefore unauthorized.

Notarization is part of legal practice. The Court held that notarizing documents falls within the "practice of law." Although the Regional Trial Court commissioned the lawyer as a notary in December 2000, the CHR authorized him to act as one only in October 2001. The belated authority could not retroactively cover documents notarized before that date.

Falsifying DTRs. Since the lawyer attended hearings on days he claimed to be at the office, the Court concluded he falsified his DTRs. A person cannot be in two places at the same time.

Issuing unauthorized orders. Citing Cariño v. Commission on Human Rights (G.R. No. 96681), the Court stressed that the CHR has only the power to investigate human rights violations. It cannot "try and decide cases" or "hear and determine causes" as courts or quasi-judicial bodies do. The orders awarding child custody and directing a bank to reinstate an account were judicial or adjudicatory acts beyond the CHR's mandate.

The penalty. The Court found these acts constituted gross misconduct under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court. While the IBP investigating commissioner recommended two years' suspension and the IBP Board of Governors recommended six months, the Court imposed one year—noting that suspension is meant to protect the public and the profession, not to punish.

Practical takeaways

• Government lawyers may practice law privately only with prior written authority from their agency and with approved leave; otherwise, they risk administrative sanctions.
• Notarizing documents is considered practice of law and requires both a notarial commission and, for government lawyers, agency approval.
• Government offices like the CHR can investigate but cannot issue orders that only courts or quasi-judicial bodies may lawfully make.
• Falsifying daily time records to conceal outside activities is serious misconduct that can result in suspension or disbarment.
• Lawyers facing administrative complaints should not continue the questioned conduct while cases are pending; continuing it can aggravate liability.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.