Case Summary (G.R. No. 102549)
Factual Background
The complainant, City Engineer Ernesto C. Divinagracia, charged petitioner in Administrative Case No. C-10-90 with violation of the DLG memorandum circulars and Section 7(b)(2) of RA 6713, and with oppression, misconduct and abuse of authority. The complaint alleged that while serving as a city councilor and being a lawyer by profession, petitioner continuously engaged in the private practice of law without securing authority from the Regional Director as required by Memorandum Circular No. 80-38 in relation to Memorandum Circular No. 74-58. The complaint specified that on July 8, 1989 petitioner acted as counsel for Antonio Javiero and Rolando Catapang in a suit for illegal dismissal and reinstatement filed against City Engineer Divinagracia, and that petitioner appeared as counsel in several other civil and criminal cases in the city.
Administrative Proceedings
A formal administrative hearing on the complaint was held on August 13, 1990 in Iloilo City where both parties presented evidence. While the proceeding was pending, petitioner on September 10, 1990 requested the Department for a permit to continue practicing law. Secretary Luis T. Santos indorsed the request the same day with the statement that the Department interposed no objection provided the practice would not conflict or tend to conflict with petitioner’s official functions. The administrative case was set for further hearing on November 26, 1991.
Regulatory Instruments and Their Content
Memorandum Circular No. 80-38 amended earlier guidance and, citing an opinion of the Minister of Justice, stated that members of local legislative bodies may be allowed to practice their professions provided authority is first secured from the Regional Directors pursuant to Memorandum Circular No. 74-58, and subject to restrictions including nonuse of government time, property, equipment or supplies. Memorandum Circular No. 90-81, issued by Secretary Santos, set forth guidelines for the practice of profession and private employment of local elective officials and specified that permission shall be granted by the Secretary of Local Government, that provincial governors and city and municipal mayors are prohibited from practicing their profession, and that other local elective officials may be allowed to practice on a limited basis subject to conditions designed to prevent impairment of official duties and conflicts of interest.
Statutory Change
On October 10, 1991 Congress enacted the Local Government Code of 1991 (RA 7160), and Section 90 declared that governors and city and municipal mayors are prohibited from practicing their professions, while sanggunian members may practice their professions or engage in occupations except during session hours, with specific prohibitions on lawyer-sanggunian members appearing in certain cases adverse to government or involving public officers and on the use of government property and personnel.
Petitioner’s Motions and Constitutional Challenge
On March 25, 1991 petitioner filed a Motion to Dismiss the administrative charge principally on the ground that Memorandum Circulars Nos. 80-38 and 90-81 are unconstitutional because the Supreme Court alone has the authority to regulate the practice of law under Article VIII, Section 5 of the 1987 Constitution. Petitioner later sought to have Memorandum Circulars Nos. 80-38 and 90-81 and Section 90 of RA 7160 declared unconstitutional on the additional ground that they constituted class legislation by discriminating against lawyers and doctors in ways not applied to other professions.
Respondents’ Action on the Motion
The Department denied petitioner’s motion to dismiss in an Order dated May 2, 1991 and denied his motion for reconsideration on June 20, 1991. The Solicitor General filed a Comment opposing the petition for certiorari, and petitioner submitted a Reply.
Issues Presented
The principal legal questions were whether DLG Memorandum Circular Nos. 80-38 and 90-81 and Section 90 of RA 7160 intruded upon the exclusive rule-making power of the Supreme Court concerning the practice of law as vested by Article VIII, Section 5 of the 1987 Constitution, and whether those measures constituted impermissible class legislation by discriminating against lawyers and medical doctors relative to other professions.
Ruling of the Supreme Court
The Court dismissed the petition for lack of merit. It found no grave abuse of discretion in the issuance of the challenged memorandum circulars or in the Department’s denial of petitioner’s motion to dismiss. The Court ordered costs against petitioner.
Legal Basis and Reasoning
The Court began by reiterating judicial respect for administrative decisions and the expertise of administrative authorities, citing Santiago vs. Deputy Executive Secretary, 192 SCRA 199, and Cuerdo vs. COA, 166 SCRA 657. It held that complaints against public officers related to their official duties are matters of public interest because a public office is a public trust. The Court reasoned that the complaint alleging illegal dismissal against the City Engineer effectively sought relief against the City Government and that petitioner’s representation of the complaining employees thereby placed him in a position adverse to the government. Such conduct fell squarel
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 102549)
Parties and Procedural Posture
- Erwin B. Javellana was the petitioner and an elected City Councilor of Bago City, Negros Occidental.
- Department of Interior and Local Government and Luis T. Santos, Secretary were the respondents and the administrative authority that issued the challenged memoranda and conducted the administrative proceedings.
- The petitioner filed a petition for review on certiorari attacking the constitutionality of departmental memoranda and provisions of the newly enacted Local Government Code while an administrative case against him remained pending.
- The Court resolved to dismiss the petition for lack of merit and ordered costs against the petitioner.
Key Factual Allegations
- The complaint in Administrative Case No. C-10-90 was filed on October 5, 1989 by City Engineer Ernesto C. Divinagracia alleging that the petitioner continuously practiced law without regional authority.
- The complaint alleged that on July 8, 1989 the petitioner appeared as counsel for Antonio Javiero and Rolando Catapang against Engineer Divinagracia in an illegal dismissal suit, thereby putting the engineer in public ridicule.
- The complaint further alleged that the petitioner appeared in several criminal and civil cases in Bago City without prior authority from the Regional Director as required by departmental circulars.
Statutory and Regulatory Framework
- DLG Memorandum Circular No. 80-38 and DLG Memorandum Circular No. 74-58 provided that local legislative members may practice their professions only upon securing authority from the Regional Director and subject to conditions that prevent use of government resources.
- Republic Act No. 6713, particularly Section 7, paragraph (b), No. 2, prohibited public officials from engaging in private practice when such practice would represent interests adverse to the government.
- Memorandum Circular No. 90-81 issued by Secretary Luis T. Santos on September 21, 1991 prescribed guidelines for practice of professions by local elective officials and delegated authority to grant permission to the Secretary of Local Government.
- Local Government Code of 1991 (RA 7160), Section 90 regulated the practice of profession by local officials by prohibiting certain chief executives from practicing and by allowing sanggunian members to practice subject to enumerated limitations.
- Memorandum Circular No. 17 of the Office of the President and Rule XVIII, Section 12 of the Revised Civil Service Rules were invoked as authority for departmental restrictions on outside employment by government officials.
Procedural History
- A formal administrative hearing was held on August 13, 1990 in Iloilo City where both parties presented evidence.
- On September 10, 1990 Secretary Santos indorsed the petitioner’s request for permission to practice law with the statement that there was no objection provided no conflict arose with official functions.
- The petitioner filed a Motion to Dismiss on March 25, 1991 contending unconstitutionality of