AM 08 6 352 RTC; (August, 2009) (Digest)
A.M. No. 08-6-352-RTC; August 19, 2009
Query of Atty. Karen M. Silverio-Buffe, Former Clerk of Court – Branch 81, Romblon, Romblon – on the Prohibition from Engaging in the Private Practice of Law
FACTS
Atty. Karen M. Silverio-Buffe, former Clerk of Court VI of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 81, Romblon, resigned effective February 1, 2008. Shortly thereafter, and within the one-year prohibition period under Section 7(b)(2) of Republic Act No. 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees), she engaged in private law practice by appearing as counsel in several cases before her former court. She sought clarification from the Office of the Court Administrator, querying why the law seemingly allows an incumbent public official to engage in private practice if it does not conflict with official duties, while a separated employee like herself is prohibited from practicing before her former office for one year. She argued the prohibition aims to prevent abuse of influence, a situation no longer applicable to her as a former employee.
ISSUE
Whether a former Clerk of Court is prohibited from engaging in the private practice of law before the court where she previously served within one year from her separation from service.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court clarified that Atty. Buffe’s interpretation of Section 7(b)(2) of R.A. No. 6713 was erroneous. The provision does not grant a blanket authority for incumbent public officials to practice law. Rather, it establishes a general prohibition, with an exception only if such practice is “authorized by the Constitution or law.” For judiciary personnel, no such authorization exists; in fact, the Court’s administrative rules explicitly prohibit clerks of court from engaging in the private practice of law. The one-year post-employment ban before the former office is a logical extension of this prohibition, designed to prevent even the appearance of impropriety, undue influence, or exploitation of insider information and familiarity with former colleagues.
The Court emphasized that the prohibition is rooted in the constitutional principle that public office is a public trust. It aims to preserve the integrity of the judiciary and maintain public confidence by avoiding any situation where a former court employee might leverage prior relationships or confidential knowledge. Atty. Buffe’s actions constituted a violation. Consequently, the Court directed her to cease and desist from practicing law before RTC, Branch 81, Romblon, until the expiration of the one-year period from her resignation. She was also sternly warned that any repetition would be dealt with more severely. The ruling underscores that ethical restrictions on the practice of law for court personnel are stringent and continue beyond incumbency to safeguard judicial integrity.