LGU legal officers: cannot represent local gov’t officials’ cases

By J.Lo

“However,  Court sees  need for leniency in this case in light of respondent’s honest belief that his acts were part of his duties and responsibilities as provincial legal officer. Instead, Court finds that respondent must be reprimanded for his act of representing the Provincial Governor, which gave rise to  conflict of interest.  Court, however, stresses that  leniency of this penalty extends only to  present case and not to subsequent cases of legal officers representing their LGU’s public officials when they are charged in their private capacities,”  decision read, legal officers from local government units (LGUs) are not allowed to represent local government officials in their cases before office of the Ombudsman. 

In 2-page decision promulgated on March 27, 2023, high court reprimanded lawyer Richard Enojo, after  disbarment case was filed against him.

However, he was not disbarred nor suspended from  practice of law by  SC but was issued  stern warning that  repetition of the same offense would be dealt with more severely.

Enojo was  provincial legal officer of Negros Oriental appointed in 2011.  

When criminal cases against late Negros Oriental Gov. Roel Degamo reached  Sandiganbayan in 2013, Enojo served as  former governor’s legal counsel.

However, his representation was challenged by prosecutors of Ombudsman, leading  Sandiganbayan to instruct him to cease representing the late governor.

Subsequently, Enojo still represented Degamo in his administrative cases that progressed in  Court of Appeals (CA) and eventually SC.

It was during  proceedings in SC that  petition for Enojo’s disbarment was filed.

Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) subsequently directed Enojo to submit  response to  complaint. In his argument, Enojo contended that only “Sanggunian Officers” from  LGU are prohibited from serving as legal counsels in cases involving public officers, and that appointed legal officers are not covered by this prohibition.

After conducting  investigation, IBP recommended dismissal of  complaint against Enojo, citing lack of merit. 

IBP ruled that there is no law that prohibits  respondent (Enojo) from handling  case of his governor.

SC, however, overturned  IBP’s decision and said  Enojo engaged in  “unauthorized practice of law.”

“After conducting  investigation, IBP recommended  dismissal of  complaint against  lawyer, citing lack of merit.  IBP held that currently, “there is no law that positively prohibits respondent from handling  case of his Governor,” the court’s decision read.

According to the SC, Degamo’s cases and alleged offenses are “no longer deemed as official acts of the LGU he serves”, and thus “fall beyond  ambit of  lawyer’s functions as  provincial legal officer.”

“Verily, Degamo’s alleged acts constituting those administrative offenses and crimes are no longer deemed as official acts of the local government unit which he serves; and as such, falls beyond  ambit of respondent’s functions as provincial legal officer,” ruling read. 

SC highlighted if  legal officer working for  local government faces  conflict of interest by representing  LGU’s top executive or any of its public officials in cases filed before  Ombudsman, it would be considered unauthorized practice of law.