Case Summary (A.C. No. 13219 [Formerly CBD Case No. 18-5598)
Petitioner and Respondent
Petitioner: People of Negros Oriental, through Godofredo Renacia
Respondent: Atty. Richard R. Enojo, Provincial Legal Officer, Integrated Bar of the Philippines
Key Dates
• January 2011 – Respondent appointed Provincial Legal Officer
• October 29, 2013 – Gaudan filed criminal and administrative cases against Gov. Degamo
• June 4, 2018 – IBP-CBD directed respondent to file an answer to the disbarment complaint
• August 14, 2018 – Respondent filed his answer
• June 4, 2020 – IBP-CBD issued its Report and Recommendation
• March 13, 2021 – IBP Board of Governors adopted the IBP-CBD recommendation
• March 27, 2023 – Supreme Court rendered its decision
Applicable Law
• 1987 Constitution, Article VIII, Section 5(5) (Supreme Court’s exclusive power to regulate the practice of law)
• Republic Act No. 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees), Section 7(b)(2)
• Republic Act No. 7160 (Local Government Code), Section 481
• Code of Professional Responsibility, Canon 1 (Rule 1.01) and Canon 7
Background of the Case
After the Ombudsman found probable cause, respondent entered his appearance for Gov. Degamo in both administrative proceedings before the Ombudsman (later elevated to the Court of Appeals and then to the Supreme Court as G.R. Nos. 226935, 228238, 228325) and criminal proceedings before the Sandiganbayan. The Sandiganbayan ruled that his representation in the criminal case exceeded his official duties and directed him to desist, prompting his withdrawal.
IBP-CBD Proceedings
The IBP-Commission on Bar Discipline required respondent’s answer. He argued that RA 7160’s prohibition applies only to elective Sanggunian members, not appointive legal officers, and relied on Urbano v. Chavez to distinguish his role from that of the Solicitor General. The IBP-CBD found no positive prohibition against his actions and recommended dismissal; the IBP Board of Governors approved this recommendation.
Issue
Whether Atty. Enojo’s representation of Gov. Degamo in administrative and criminal cases constituted unauthorized practice of law and a conflict of interest, warranting administrative liability as a lawyer.
Disciplinary Authority Under the 1987 Constitution
Article VIII, Section 5(5) grants the Supreme Court exclusive authority to admit, suspend, disbar, and reinstate lawyers. Canon 6 of the Code of Professional Responsibility explicitly applies to government lawyers. Jurisprudence (Vitriolo v. Dasig; In re: Cunanan) confirms that lawyers in public service remain subject to bar discipline.
Unauthorized Practice and Conflict of Interest
RA 6713, Section 7(b)(2) prohibits public officials from engaging in private practice that conflicts with official duties. In Fajardo v. Alvarez, the Court held that a government lawyer’s representation of another public official before the Ombudsman creates an inherent conflict of interest, as it opposes the government’s prosecutorial role and undermines public trust.
Role and Limitations of Provincial Legal Officer
Under RA 7160, Section 481(b), a provincial legal officer may represent the local government un
...continue readingCase Syllabus (A.C. No. 13219 [Formerly CBD Case No. 18-5598)
Facts
- A petition to disbar respondent Atty. Richard R. Enojo was filed by the people of Negros Oriental through movant Godofredo Renacia.
- Enojo was appointed Provincial Legal Officer of Negros Oriental in January 2011.
- On October 29, 2013, June Vincent Manuel S. Gaudan filed criminal and administrative charges before the Ombudsman against then-Governor Roel R. Degamo.
- Respondent appeared as counsel for Degamo before the Ombudsman and later upon elevation to the Sandiganbayan.
- The Sandiganbayan ruled respondent’s appearance in Degamo’s criminal case was beyond his duties and barred him from further representation.
- Despite this, respondent continued to appear for Degamo before the Court of Appeals and this Court in cases docketed as G.R. Nos. 226935, 228238, and 228325.
Procedural History
- June 4, 2018: IBP-CBD directed respondent to file an answer; August 14, 2018: respondent filed answer.
- November 15, 2019: Mandatory conference held; only respondent appeared and filed a Conference Brief.
- June 4, 2020: IBP-CBD issued Report and Recommendation recommending dismissal for lack of merit.
- March 13, 2021: IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the Report and Recommendation.
- Case elevated to the Supreme Court for resolution on administrative liability.
Issue
- Whether respondent Atty. Richard R. Enojo should be held administratively liable for unauthorized practice of law by representing a public official in criminal and administrative proceedings.
Arguments of Respondent
- Under the Local Government Code, provincial legal officers may “defend the LGU’s officers and employees who are sued in relation to or affecting the discharge of their official functions.”
- The prohibition on appearing in criminal cases applies only to elective Sanggunian members, not appointive legal officers.
- The Supreme Court’s ruling in Urbano v. Chavez, barring the Office of the Solicitor General f