A.C. No. 13219 [Formerly CBD Case No. 18-5598 - IN RE: Atty. Richard R. Enojo, respondent

Case Summary (A.C. No. 13219 [Formerly CBD Case No. 18-5598)

Procedural History in the Lower Fora

June Vincent Manuel S. Gaudan filed criminal and administrative complaints on October 29, 2013 against Governor Roel R. Degamo. Respondent entered appearances for Degamo before the Ombudsman and later before the Sandiganbayan when criminal charges were filed. The prosecution opposed respondent’s appearance at Sandiganbayan; the Sandiganbayan ordered respondent to desist and he was thereafter replaced as counsel in the criminal case. Administrative findings by the Ombudsman were challenged and the matters reached the Court in the consolidated G.R. numbers noted above, where respondent also appeared for Degamo.

Administrative Proceedings Before the IBP-CBD

A petition to disbar respondent was filed. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines–Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP‑CBD) directed respondent to answer; respondent filed an answer asserting his appearance was within functions authorized under the Local Government Code and distinguishing Urbano v. Chavez (1990) as concerning the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) only. The IBP‑CBD convened a mandatory conference, issued a Report and Recommendation (June 4, 2020) recommending dismissal for lack of merit, characterizing respondent’s conduct as at most an erroneous interpretation of law and noting absence of a statute expressly prohibiting a provincial legal officer from representing the governor. The IBP Board of Governors adopted that report (Resolution dated March 13, 2021).

Issue Before the Supreme Court

Whether respondent, a provincial legal officer, should be held administratively liable (including discipline up to disbarment) for unauthorized practice of law and conflict of interest by representing the provincial governor in administrative and criminal proceedings, thereby violating the CPR and related norms governing public lawyers.

Supreme Court’s Jurisdictional and Normative Framework

The Court emphasized its exclusive constitutional power to regulate the practice of law and discipline lawyers under Article VIII, Section 5(5) of the 1987 Constitution. The Court reiterated governing principles from precedent (e.g., Vitriolo v. Dasig, In re: Cunanan) that the CPR applies to lawyers in government service and that misconduct in public office that bears on fitness to practice law is within the Court’s disciplinary jurisdiction. The Court applied the guidelines from Guevarra‑Castil v. Atty. Trinidad (A.C. No. 10294, July 12, 2022) delineating that complaints seeking to discipline government lawyers as members of the Bar must be filed before the Supreme Court and that the Court must determine whether alleged misconduct, if true, renders the lawyer unfit to practice.

Statutory Rule Against Outside Practice and Relevant Local Government Duties

RA 6713 Section 7(b)(2) was invoked: public officials shall not “engage in the private practice of their profession unless authorized,” and such practice must not conflict with official functions. The Local Government Code (RA 7160) Section 481(b) enumerates duties of the legal officer, including representing the local government unit (LGU) in civil actions and special proceedings where the LGU or an official in his official capacity is a party, drafting and advising on ordinances/contracts, rendering opinions when requested, investigating local officials for administrative neglect or misconduct, and other functions tied to the LGU’s official interests.

Analysis: Conflict of Interest and Unauthorized Practice

The Court found respondent’s defense—that his representation of Governor Degamo was within his official duties—untenable. It relied principally on (1) the inherent conflict of interest when a government lawyer represents a public official in cases before the Ombudsman, because such representation places the lawyer in opposition to the government’s constitutional mandate to investigate and prosecute public officers for illegal or improper acts (as explained in Fajardo v. Atty. Alvarez), and (2) the scope of a legal officer’s duties under Section 481(b) of the Local Government Code, which focus on representing the LGU and its official acts rather than defending an individual official in proceedings alleging acts not performed in the official capacity or that are otherwise outside the scope of official functions. The Court emphasized that when alleged acts are not authorized acts of the State (e.g., crimes, acts in bad faith, or acts beyond authority), the protective mantle of the State does not cover them; representation of an official in such private-capacity or criminal/administrative allegations creates conflict and falls outside authorized functions.

Precedential Context

The Court situated the present case among related decisions:

Urbano v. Chavez (1990): OSG may not represent an accused public official at any stage of a criminal case due to inherent conflict.
Fajardo v. Atty. Alvarez (2016): government legal officer found to have engaged in unauthorized practice representing a municipal treasurer before the Ombudsman; conflict of interest and CPR violations established.
Cabalida; Lorenzana; Catu: prior decisions holding government legal officers or public officials liable for unauthorized practice when engaging in private practice or representing private clients without authorization.
The Court concluded that the same conflict of interest rationale in Fajardo applies to LGU legal officers representing their LGU chief executives in Ombudsman or criminal proceedings: such representation is a conflict of interest and constitutes unauthorized practice of law.

Specific Ethical Violations and Finding of Liability

The Court determined responde

Case Syllabus (A.C. No. 13219 [Formerly CBD Case No. 18-5598)

Case Caption and Decision

Second Division, A.C. No. 13219 (Formerly CBD Case No. 18-5598), Decision dated March 27, 2023, penned by Justice KHO, JR.
Administrative case styled as a Petition to Disbar respondent Atty. Richard R. Enojo, filed by the people of Negros Oriental through Godofredo Renacia, arising from consolidated cases docketed before the Court as G.R. Nos. 226935 (June Vincent Manuel S. Gaudan v. Roel R. Degamo), 228238 (Office of the Ombudsman v. Roel R. Degamo), and 228325 (June Vincent Manuel S. Gaudan v. Roel R. Degamo).
Decision renders respondent guilty of violations of Rule 1.01, Canon 1, and Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, imposes a reprimand with stern warning, and furnishes directives regarding record-keeping and notice to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and the Office of the Bar Confidant.

Parties and Roles

Petitioner/movant: People of Negros Oriental, through Godofredo Renacia (movant in consolidated cases).
Accused public official represented in the underlying litigation: Roel R. Degamo (then-Governor of Negros Oriental).
Respondent: Atty. Richard R. Enojo, appointed provincial legal officer of Negros Oriental sometime in January 2011; listed in some parts of the rollo as "Atty. Richard G. Enojo."
Institutional actors: Ombudsman (filed and prosecuted administrative and criminal complaints), Sandiganbayan (received the criminal cases), Integrated Bar of the Philippines — Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD) and IBP Board of Governors (handled the disciplinary complaint administratively before the Supreme Court assumed jurisdiction).

Factual Background

On October 29, 2013, June Vincent Manuel S. Gaudan filed criminal and administrative cases before the Ombudsman against Governor Roel R. Degamo.
Respondent Atty. Enojo appeared and acted as counsel for Degamo before the Ombudsman, and later entered appearances as counsel for Degamo in the Sandiganbayan when criminal charges (including malversation of public funds and violations of Section 3(e) of RA 3019) were brought.
The prosecution opposed respondent’s appearance in the Sandiganbayan, arguing that representing accused public officials in criminal cases was not within respondent’s duties as provincial legal officer.
The Sandiganbayan ruled in favor of the prosecution and ordered respondent to desist from appearing as counsel for Degamo; respondent was replaced in the criminal case.
Respondent nevertheless represented Degamo before the Court in the consolidated cases that reached the Supreme Court.

Procedural History of the Disciplinary Proceeding

Petition to Disbar Atty. Enojo filed in relation to his counsel appearances for Degamo in the consolidated cases before the Supreme Court.
On June 4, 2018, the IBP-CBD Director for Bar Discipline directed respondent to file his answer.
Respondent filed his answer on August 14, 2018.
Mandatory conference scheduled November 15, 2019; only respondent appeared and filed a Conference Brief.
IBP-CBD directed filing of verified position papers; both parties failed to file the position papers.
IBP-CBD issued a Report and Recommendation dated June 4, 2020, recommending dismissal of the complaint for lack of merit; IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved this Report and Recommendation in a Resolution dated March 13, 2021.
Supreme Court assumed jurisdiction, reviewed records, overturned IBP findings, and rendered decision finding respondent administratively liable.

Allegations and Nature of Complaint

Primary allegation: unauthorized practice of law by a government lawyer — specifically, that respondent, as provincial legal officer of a local government unit (LGU), represented the provincial governor in administrative and criminal cases filed before the Ombudsman and in the Sandiganbayan, thereby committing acts incompatible with his public office and the Code of Conduct for public officials.
The complaint sought disciplinary action up to disbarment for respondent’s acts as counsel for Degamo in cases where Degamo was charged in his private capacity for offenses allegedly connected to his office.

Respondent’s Defenses and Contentions

Respondent asserted that under the Local Government Code (RA No. 7160), the prohibition against appearing as counsel in criminal cases where an officer or employee of national or local government is accused applies to Sanggunian members (elective officials), not to appointive legal officers such as provincial legal officers.
He argued his functions as provincial legal officer included authority to “defend the LGU's officers and employees who are sued in relation to or affecting the discharge of their official functions,” thereby framing his appearances as performance of official duties, not private practice.
Respondent contended that the Supreme Court’s En Banc ruling in Urbano v. Chavez (holding the Office of the Solicitor General not authorized to represent a public official at any stage of a criminal case) did not apply to him because he was not part of the Office of the Solicitor General.

IBP-CBD Report and Recommendation

The IBP-CBD, in a Report dated June 4, 2020 (penned by Commissioner Vicente C. Andiano), recommended dismissal of the complaint for lack of merit.
IBP-CBD reasoning included that at most respondent was guilty of erroneous interpretation of the law; it observed that the Sandiganbayan had ruled it was not among respondent’s duties to appear as counsel for public officials accused in criminal cases, but also noted there was no law that positively prohibited a provincial legal officer from handling the governor’s case; the decision in Urbano concerned the Solicitor General and did not specifically refer to provincial legal officers.
The IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the IBP-CBD Report and Recommendation on March 13, 2021.

Issue Before the Supreme Court

Whether respondent Atty. Richard R. Enojo should be held administratively liable for unauthorized practice of law and related violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility for representing the provincial governor in administrative and criminal cases.

Jurisdictional and Normative Framework Applied by the Court

The Court reaffirmed its exclusive constitutional authority to regulate the practice of law under Article VIII, Section 5(5) of the 1987 Constitution and its primary and inherent prerogative to determine who may continue in the practice of law (citing In re: Cunanan and related precedents).
The Court emphasized that the Code of Professional Responsibility applies to lawyers in government service in the discharge of their official tasks (Canon 6), and misconduct that affects a lawyer’s qu