G.R. No. A.C. No. 13219 (Formerly CBD Case No. 18-5598) March 27, 2023
IN RE: G.R. NOS. 226935, 228238, AND 228325, VS. ATTY. RICHARD R. ENOJO

FACTS

This is an administrative case for disbarment filed by the people of Negros Oriental, through Godofredo Renacia, against Atty. Richard R. Enojo. Respondent was the provincial legal officer of Negros Oriental. In 2013, June Vincent Manuel S. Gaudan filed criminal and administrative cases before the Ombudsman against then-Governor Roel R. Degamo. Atty. Enojo appeared as counsel for Degamo in these cases. When the criminal case reached the Sandiganbayan, the prosecution opposed his appearance, arguing it was not part of his duties as provincial legal officer to represent public officials in criminal cases. The Sandiganbayan ruled in favor of the prosecution and ordered him to desist. The administrative case reached the Supreme Court (G.R. Nos. 226935, 228325, and 228238), where Atty. Enojo again represented Degamo, prompting the filing of the disbarment petition. In his defense, Atty. Enojo argued that the Local Government Code prohibition on appearing as counsel in criminal cases applies only to Sanggunian members, not appointive legal officers like him, and that his functions include defending local government unit officers sued in relation to their official functions. He also contended that the ruling in Urbano v. Chavez, which held the Office of the Solicitor General unauthorized to represent public officials in criminal cases, did not apply to him. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines-Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD) recommended dismissal of the complaint, finding at most an erroneous interpretation of law and noting no specific law prohibits a provincial legal officer from such representation. The IBP Board of Governors adopted this recommendation.

ISSUE

Whether Atty. Richard R. Enojo should be held administratively liable for representing Governor Degamo in criminal and administrative cases, constituting unauthorized practice of law.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court reversed the IBP’s findings and held Atty. Enojo administratively liable for unauthorized practice of law. The Court clarified its jurisdiction over government lawyers in disciplinary cases involving their fitness as members of the Bar, as established in Guevarra-Castil v. Atty. Trinidad. Applying Republic Act No. 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees), Section 7(b)(2), which prohibits public officials from engaging in private practice unless authorized by law, the Court found that Atty. Enojo had no authority to practice law outside his official duties as provincial legal officer. His representation of Degamo in criminal and administrative cases constituted unauthorized private practice. The Court rejected his defenses, stating that the Local Government Code does not authorize provincial legal officers to represent public officials in criminal cases, and the rationale in Urbano v. Chavez applies by analogy to all government lawyers, as they are all prohibited from engaging in unauthorized private practice. Consequently, Atty. Enojo was found guilty of violating the Code of Professional Responsibility and was suspended from the practice of law for one year.