Dual Employment in the Public Sector: When Service Becomes a Violation of Duty

The Supreme Court's 2005 decision in Lorenzana v. Fajardo (A.C. No. 5712) serves as a clear warning to lawyers in government service: not every public appointment is permissible, and the practice of law while employed by the government carries strict conditions. The case reminds public attorneys that their oath to uphold the Constitution extends beyond the courtroom to their own employment choices.

The Case: A Legal Officer with Multiple Roles

Atty. Cesar G. Fajardo worked as Legal Officer V at the Urban Settlement Office in Manila until his retirement in May 2002. During his government employment, he also held two other positions: member of the People's Law Enforcement Board (PLEB) of Quezon City, and member of the Lupong Tagapamayapa of Barangay Novaliches Proper. He received honoraria and allowances from both positions. Additionally, he maintained a private law office and appeared as counsel for clients, including relatives and friends.

The Issue: Which Appointments Are Allowed?

The central question was whether Fajardo's concurrent public positions and private law practice violated the Constitution and Civil Service rules.

The Constitution (Article IX-B, Section 7) prohibits appointive officials from holding any other government office or employment unless allowed by law or by the primary functions of their position. Fajardo argued that a provision of R.A. No. 6975, which allows PLEB members to receive per diems, authorized his appointment.

The Court rejected this argument. The provision merely addresses compensation; it does not create an exception to the constitutional prohibition on dual appointments. Fajardo also failed to show that his duties as Legal Officer allowed him to serve on the PLEB. His acceptance of that appointment therefore violated the Constitution, the Administrative Code of 1987, and the Local Government Code of 1991.

The Lupong Tagapamayapa Exception

The Court reached a different conclusion for Fajardo's membership in the Lupong Tagapamayapa. The Local Government Code of 1991 explicitly allows government employees to serve as lupon or pangkat members. This statutory exception made that appointment lawful.

Private Practice: The Permission Requirement

The Court also examined Fajardo's private law practice. While an isolated court appearance may not constitute practice, the evidence showed Fajardo maintained a law office, used letterhead identifying himself as an attorney, and regularly appeared as counsel. This was not isolated activity—it was a habitual holding out to the public as a lawyer.

The Revised Civil Service Rules require government officers or employees to obtain written permission from their department head before engaging in any private profession or vocation. Fajardo admitted his office was "not really strict" about private appearances, but this informal tolerance did not satisfy the written permission requirement.

The Penalty

The Court suspended Fajardo from the practice of law for six months. In imposing a heavier penalty than the IBP recommended, the Court emphasized that Fajardo violated not only statutes but the Constitution itself, breaching his Attorney's Oath and Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which requires lawyers to uphold the Constitution and obey the laws.

Practical Takeaways

• Government lawyers cannot accept concurrent public appointments unless a law expressly allows it or their position's primary functions permit it. A provision merely authorizing compensation does not create an exception to the constitutional ban.
• The Lupong Tagapamayapa is a recognized exception. Public employees may serve as lupon or pangkat members under the Local Government Code, even receiving honoraria.
• Private practice by government lawyers requires written permission from their department head. Informal tolerance by superiors is not a substitute for the required written authorization.
• Maintaining a law office and regularly appearing as counsel constitutes practice of law, even if some clients are relatives or friends and services are rendered pro bono.
• Lawyers face disciplinary action, including suspension, for violating Civil Service rules and the Constitution, as such violations also breach the Attorney's Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility.

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