Case Digest (A.C. No. 13219 [Formerly CBD Case No. 18-5598) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
In A.C. No. 13219 (formerly CBD Case No. 18-5598) decided on March 27, 2023, the Supreme Court entertained a Petition to Disbar filed by the People of Negros Oriental through Godofredo Renacia against Atty. Richard R. Enojo, the Provincial Legal Officer of Negros Oriental since January 2011. On October 29, 2013, June Vincent Manuel S. Gaudan lodged criminal and administrative charges before the Office of the Ombudsman against then-Governor Roel R. Degamo. Respondent Enojo entered his appearance for Degamo at the Ombudsman, and thereafter in the Sandiganbayan, despite opposition on grounds that a provincial legal officer may not represent public officials in criminal cases. The Sandiganbayan ordered him to desist, and he was replaced. Undeterred, respondent appeared for Degamo in consolidated administrative cases elevated to the Supreme Court in G.R. Nos. 226935, 228238, and 228325. On June 4, 2018, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines-Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD) dire Case Digest (A.C. No. 13219 [Formerly CBD Case No. 18-5598) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Background of Parties and Positions
- The people of Negros Oriental, through Godofredo Renacia (movant), filed a Petition to Disbar Atty. Richard R. Enojo in connection with consolidated cases before the Supreme Court:
- G.R. No. 226935 – June Vincent Manuel S. Gaudan v. Roel R. Degamo
- G.R. No. 228238 – Office of the Ombudsman v. Roel R. Degamo
- G.R. No. 228325 – June Vincent Manuel S. Gaudan v. Roel R. Degamo
- Respondent Richard R. Enojo was appointed provincial legal officer of Negros Oriental in January 2011.
- Representation in Criminal and Administrative Proceedings
- On October 29, 2013, June Vincent Manuel S. Gaudan filed criminal and administrative charges against Governor Roel R. Degamo before the Office of the Ombudsman; respondent entered his appearance as Degamo’s counsel.
- Upon referral to the Sandiganbayan after a finding of probable cause, respondent also appeared; the prosecution opposed on grounds that representing a public official in criminal proceedings was outside his official duties. The Sandiganbayan ruled for the prosecution and directed respondent to desist; he was replaced.
- Disbarment Proceedings Before the IBP
- During the Supreme Court review of Degamo’s administrative-liability cases (G.R. Nos. 226935, 228238, 228325), a Petition to Disbar respondent was filed. On June 4, 2018, the IBP-Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD) directed respondent to file an answer; on August 14, 2018, he contended:
- The Local Government Code (LGC) authorized him to “defend the LGU’s officers and employees who are sued in relation to or affecting the discharge of their official functions.”
- The prohibition in LGC Section 90(b)(2) applies only to elective Sanggunian members, not appointive legal officers.
- Urbano v. Chavez (262 Phil. 374) restraining the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) does not extend to provincial legal officers.
- On November 15, 2019, a mandatory conference was held; respondent filed a Conference Brief. Neither party filed verified position papers. On June 4, 2020, the IBP-CBD issued a Report and Recommendation to dismiss the complaint for lack of merit; the IBP Board of Governors adopted it on March 13, 2021.
Issues:
- Whether respondent Atty. Richard R. Enojo should be held administratively liable for unauthorized practice of law and conflict of interest in representing Governor Degamo in criminal and administrative cases.
- Whether his official duties as provincial legal officer under the Local Government Code authorized such representation.
- The appropriate disciplinary sanction, if any, for his conduct.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)