G.R. No. A.M. No. P-88-269, December 29, 1995
Oscar Abeto, complainant, vs. Manuel Garcesa, Stenographic Reporter, Regional Trial Court, Branch 45, Bacolod City, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Oscar Abeto charged respondent Manuel Garcesa, a court stenographer, with misrepresenting himself as a lawyer and acting as an authorized representative in labor cases before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) in Bacolod City. The respondent admitted assisting the complainants in the labor cases but denied posing as a lawyer. He explained that he merely provided casual assistance to Arturo Ronquillo, a union vice-president, in filing and prosecuting the cases, motivated by a desire to help poor workers. He claimed the complaint arose from ill-feeling.
The Office of the Court Administrator initially recommended dismissing the misrepresentation charge but advised the respondent to heed Civil Service rules and Supreme Court circulars prohibiting government employees from engaging in private vocations without permission. The complainant later submitted an affidavit of desistance. The Court directed a reevaluation, leading to a new memorandum from Deputy Court Administrator Elepaño.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Manuel Garcesa is administratively liable for his actions in assisting in labor cases while being a court employee.

RULING

Yes, the respondent is administratively liable, but not for unauthorized practice of law or misrepresentation. The Court found no convincing evidence that Garcesa misrepresented himself as a lawyer. His appearance was as an authorized representative of the complainants, which is permissible under NLRC rules for non-lawyers in certain capacities, such as representing an organization or its members.
However, the respondent violated Section 12, Rule XVIII of the Revised Civil Service Rules and the Supreme Court’s Administrative Circular No. 5 dated October 4, 1988. These provisions prohibit government employees from engaging in any private business, vocation, or profession without written permission. For judiciary officials and employees, this prohibition is absolute, as their entire time must be devoted to public service to ensure the efficient administration of justice. The Court has consistently ruled that such “moonlighting” constitutes malfeasance. The respondent’s noble intention of helping poor workers does not absolve him from this administrative liability. Memorandum Circular No. 17 of the Executive Department is inapplicable to judiciary personnel.
Accordingly, the Court imposed the penalty of REPRIMAND on Manuel Garcesa for malfeasance in office, with a warning that a repetition of the same or similar acts shall be dealt with more severely.