G.R. No. 102549 August 10, 1992
EDWIN B. JAVELLANA, petitioner, vs. DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND LUIS T. SANTOS, SECRETARY, respondents.

FACTS

Attorney Edwin B. Javellana, an elected City Councilor (Sanggunian member) of Bago City, Negros Occidental, was charged administratively by City Engineer Ernesto C. Divinagracia for violation of DLG Memorandum Circular No. 80-38 (in relation to DLG Memorandum Circular No. 74-58) and Section 7(b)(2) of Republic Act No. 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards). The complaint alleged that Javellana continuously engaged in the practice of law without securing the required authority from the DLG Regional Director. Specifically, on July 8, 1989, Javellana, as counsel for Antonio Javiero and Rolando Catapang, filed an “Illegal Dismissal and Reinstatement with Damages” case against City Engineer Divinagracia. He also appeared as counsel in several other cases without prior authority. DLG Memorandum Circular No. 80-38 allowed members of local legislative bodies to practice their professions provided authority is first secured from the Regional Director, subject to restrictions and conditions, including a favorable recommendation from the Sanggunian and local chief executive. On September 10, 1990, Javellana requested a permit to continue his practice of law, and Secretary Luis T. Santos replied that he interposed no objection, provided such practice would not conflict with his official functions. Subsequently, on September 21, 1991, Secretary Santos issued Memorandum Circular No. 90-81, setting guidelines for the practice of professions by local elective officials, requiring permission from the Secretary of Local Government and imposing conditions. On March 25, 1991, Javellana filed a Motion to Dismiss the administrative case, arguing that DLG Memorandum Circulars Nos. 80-38 and 90-81 are unconstitutional as the Supreme Court has sole authority to regulate the practice of law. His motion was denied on May 2, 1991, and his motion for reconsideration was denied on June 20, 1991. On October 10, 1991, the Local Government Code of 1991 (RA 7160) was signed into law, with Section 90 governing the practice of profession by local officials. The administrative case was set for hearing on November 26, 1991, prompting Javellana to file this petition for certiorari, praying that DLG Memorandum Circulars Nos. 80-38 and 90-81 and Section 90 of RA 7160 be declared unconstitutional and null.

ISSUE

Whether DLG Memorandum Circulars Nos. 80-38 and 90-81 and Section 90 of the Local Government Code of 1991 (RA 7160) are unconstitutional for infringing on the Supreme Court’s exclusive authority to regulate the practice of law.

RULING

The petition is DENIED for lack of merit. The Supreme Court held that neither the statute (Section 90 of RA 7160) nor the circulars (DLG Memorandum Circulars Nos. 80-38 and 90-81) trench upon the Supreme Court’s constitutional power to prescribe rules on the practice of law. The Local Government Code and the DLG circulars simply prescribe rules of conduct for public officials to avoid conflicts of interest between the discharge of their public duties and the private practice of their profession, in instances where the law allows it. Section 90 of the Local Government Code explicitly allows sanggunian members to practice their professions, engage in any occupation, or teach in schools except during session hours, with specific prohibitions for lawyer-members to prevent conflicts of interest. The Court found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the DILG in issuing the circulars and denying Javellana’s motion to dismiss. The complaint against Javellana involved public interest, as by serving as counsel for employees suing the City Engineer (and effectively the City Government), he violated prohibitions against engaging in private practice that represents interests adverse to the government. The guidelines are valid exercises of administrative rule-making to enforce laws and regulations entrusted to the DILG’s jurisdiction.