Lawyer Suspended for Dual Government Posts and Unauthorized Private Practice

The Supreme Court has long held lawyers in government service to a higher standard of conduct. In Lorenzana v. Fajardo (A.C. No. 5712, June 29, 2005), the Court suspended a government lawyer for six months for accepting a second government appointment prohibited by the Constitution and for engaging in private practice without the required written permission from his office head. The ruling is a clear reminder that lawyers who serve in government cannot simply treat their positions as a license for outside work.

The Facts of the Case

Atty. Cesar G. Fajardo was employed as Legal Officer V at the Urban Settlement Office in Manila until his retirement on May 15, 2002. While in government service, he simultaneously 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.

The complainant, Francisco Lorenzana, also alleged that Fajardo was engaged in the private practice of law, receiving acceptance fees ranging from P20,000 to P50,000. Fajardo admitted appearing as counsel in several cases but claimed his clients were relatives and friends and that his services were pro bono.

The Issue

The central question was whether a government lawyer may concurrently hold other government positions and appear as counsel in private cases without violating the Constitution, civil service rules, and the Code of Professional Responsibility.

The Court's Ruling

The Supreme Court ruled that Fajardo's appointment as a PLEB member was unconstitutional. Section 7, Article IX-B of the Constitution prohibits appointive officials from holding any other government office or employment unless allowed by law or by the primary functions of their position. Fajardo invoked a provision of R.A. No. 6975, the law creating the Philippine National Police, which allows PLEB members to receive per diems. The Court, however, held that this provision only covers compensation—it does not authorize a sitting government employee to accept a PLEB appointment. Since Fajardo failed to show that his primary functions allowed such an appointment, his dual post was void.

By contrast, the Court found his membership in the Lupong Tagapamayapa lawful. The Local Government Code of 1991 expressly allows government employees to serve as lupon members, stating that while performing their duties, they are deemed to be on official time and shall not suffer any diminution in compensation from their regular employment.

On the issue of private practice, the Court found that Fajardo's appearances were not isolated. He maintained a law office in Quezon City, used letterheads identifying himself as "Attorney and Counsellor-at-Law," and signed pleadings as counsel. This constituted the practice of law. Under the Revised Civil Service Rules, no officer or employee may engage in any private profession without written permission from the head of the department. Fajardo admitted his office was "not really strict" about outside appearances, but the Court emphasized that at most, he should have asked for written permission.

Why the Penalty Was Increased

The Integrated Bar of the Philippines recommended a one-month suspension and a reprimand. The Supreme Court imposed a heavier penalty of six months suspension because Fajardo violated not only statutes but the Constitution itself. The Court cited Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which requires lawyers to uphold the Constitution and obey the laws of the land—a duty enshrined in the Attorney's Oath. The Court noted that of all classes and professions, it is the lawyer who is most sacredly bound to uphold the law.

Practical Takeaways

• Government lawyers cannot hold a second government post unless the law or their primary functions expressly allow it. A provision merely authorizing compensation, like the per diem rule for PLEB members, does not create an exception to the constitutional ban on dual appointments.
• The Local Government Code is a valid exception. Serving as a lupon or pangkat member is expressly permitted for public employees, so this particular dual role is lawful.
• Private practice while in government service requires written permission from the head of the department. Even if the office is lenient, the lawyer must obtain formal authorization under the Civil Service Rules.
• A lawyer's duty to obey the law is not optional. Violations of the Constitution and statutes also breach the Attorney's Oath and Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, warranting disciplinary action.

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