Query of Atty. Karen M. Silverio-Buffe | 2009 | A.M. No. 08-6-352-RTC | Brion, J.

SUMMARY: Atty. Karen violated RA 6713 - Sec 7(b) when she engaged in the law practice
within the 1-year period after her resignation from being the Clerk of Court of RTC Branch 81 of
Romblon. She sends a letter-query to the Office of the Court Administrator imputing the
unfairness of the law. The Court held that she already violated the law and that she misconstrued
it. Her imputation of the law’s unfairness does not excuse her violation of said law.

FACTS:
 Feb. 1, 2008: Atty. Karen resigned from her position of Clerk of Court VI of the
Regional Trial Court Branch 81 of Romblon
 After her resignation, she practiced the law profession and appeared as counsel to
different civil cases:
o February 19, 2008, March 4, 2008, April 10, 2008 and July 9, 2008 as counsel for
the plaintiffs in Moreno Jr. v. Malacam
o February 2008, as counsel for the plaintiff in Manal v. Malasa
o February 21, 2008, as counsel for the plaintiff in Mayor v. Mayor
o April 11, 2008 and July 9, 2008, for defendants in PNB v. Mariano & Silverio
 Atty. Karen submitted a letter-query to the Office of the Court Administrator in order to
question RA 6713, Sec 7(b)(2):
o SECTION 7. (b) Outside employment and other activities related thereto.
Public officials and employees during their incumbency shall not:
 (2) Engage in the private practice of their profession unless authorized
by the Constitution or law, provided, that such practice will not
conflict or tend to conflict with their official functions;
 These prohibitions shall continue to apply for a period of one (1) year
after resignation, retirement, or separation from public office, except
in the case of subparagraph (b)(2) above, but the professional
concerned cannot practice his profession in connection with any
matter before the office he used to be with, in which case the one-year
prohibition shall likewise apply.
 Atty. Karen alleges a preferential treatment of incumbent public employees:
o “Why may an incumbent engage in private practice under (b)(2), assuming the
same does not conflict or tend to conflict with his official duties, but a non-
incumbent like myself cannot, as is apparently prohibited by the last paragraph
of Sec. 7?
o Why is the former allowed, who is still occupying the very public position that he
is liable to exploit, but a non-incumbent like myself who is no longer in a position
of possible abuse/exploitation cannot?”
 July 15, 2008: Through minute-resolution the query was forwarded to the Office of the
Chief Attorney (OCAT) for evaluation.
  November 11, 2008: Court issued en banc Resolution upon findings of OCAT and
directed the Regional Trial Court to issue circulars on the conduct of its employees and
the executive judge to supply records of Atty. Karen’s appearances in court
 Atty. Karen issued a manifestation upon receipt of above resolution that she already took
judicial remedies or that she filed the following petitions for declaratory relief:
o with Branch 54 of the RTC Manila, which had been taken when undersigned
was still a private practitioner, dismissed July 23, 2008
o with Branch 17 of the RTC of Manila, which had been taken when
undersigned was already a public prosecutor appearing before the same
Branch 81, after she took her oath of office on August 15, 2008, petition
dismissed on December 8, 2008
 The above cases were dismissed and Atty. Karen manifested that she intended to elevate
their dismissal to the SC for the same legal issue imputing now that there is no express
prohibition of her practice of law as now a public prosecutor of Branch 81

ISSUES + RULING:
 WON Atty. Karen’s practice of law is prohibited as contemplated by law? (YES)
o RA 6713 specifically prohibits the practice of an incumbent UNLESS provided
by Constitution or law, AND does not conflict the incumbent’s functions
 The same prohibition applies within a 1-year-period to an employee after
resignation, retirement or separation from employment, with respect to
functions related to previous employment
o Aside from RA 6713, there is also Section 5, Canon 3 of the Code of Conduct
for Court Personnel, which prohibits her practice of law
 Outside employment may be allowed if:
 The outside employment is not with a person or entity that
practices law before the courts or conducts business with the
Judiciary
 The outside employment can be performed outside of normal
working hours and is not incompatible with the performance of the
court personnel’s duties and responsibilities
 The outside employment does not require the practice of law;
Provided, however, that court personnel may render services as
professor, lecturer, or resource person in law schools, review or
continuing education centers or similar institutions
 The outside employment does not require or induce the court
personnel to disclose confidential information acquired while
performing official duties; and
 The outside employment shall not be with the legislative or
executive branch of government, unless specifically authorized by
the Supreme Court.
 Where a conflict of interest exists, may reasonably appear to exist, or
where the outside employment reflects adversely on the integrity of the
Judiciary, the court personnel shall not accept the outside employment.
  In Cayetano v. Monsod, practice of law = any activity, in and out of court,
that requires the application of law, legal procedure, knowledge, training
and experience
o A common objective is to avoid any conflict of interest on the part of the
employee who may wittingly or unwittingly use confidential information
acquired from his employment, or use his or her familiarity with court
personnel still with the previous office.
o Deputy Court Administrator Jose Perez commented on the intent of the law:
 “The prohibition was intended to avoid any impropriety or the
appearance of impropriety which may occur in any transaction
between the retired government employee and his former
colleagues, subordinates or superiors brought about by familiarity,
moral ascendancy or undue influence, as the case may be.”
 WON Atty. Karen can be held liable for her actions? (YES)
o Atty. Karen herself admitted her appearances before the trial court
o She is aware of the legal provision. Her perception that it is unfair or her stand
that it shouldn’t apply to her situation cannot hold.
 She first violated the law before making an inquiry.
o She referred to the practice of other government laywers similary stipulated.
 This showed her wilful and intentional disregard of the law by following
in their examples and replicating their unlawful conduct
o OCAT’s findings about her misreading the law shall govern.
 The practice of the law is not allowed even for incumbents, so it is not
unfair to the non-incumbent as Atty. Karen stipulated
 “Premise of the query is erroneous. There is a misreading of the law that
it is a blanket authority for the clerk of court to practice law. Confusion
stems from the phrase following ‘provided that.’ Read in the provision’s
entirety, the incumbent official can only practice law when expressly
provided in Constitution and the law, but Article XI of the Constitution
and its policy of public official accountability already prohibits such.”
o OCAT pointed to Section 5, Canon 3 of the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel
the rule on outside employment by an incumbent judicial employee
o OCAT further pointed to Rule 6.03, Canon 6 of the CPR, which governs the
conduct of lawyers in the government service:
 Rule 6.03 – A lawyer shall not, after leaving government service,
accept engagement or employment in connection with any matter in
which he had intervened while in said service
o She contravened Cannol 1 Rule 1.01 when she went against the law
 Canon 1 – A lawyer shall uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of
the land and promote respect for the law and for legal processes
 Rule 1.01 A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest,
immoral or deceitful conduct
o Atty. Karen also failed to live up to the lawyer’s oath and violated Canon 7
 Canon 7 – A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and the
dignity of the legal profession and support the activities of the
Integrated Bar
 o The facts on the record can already be admissible in determining Atty.
Karen’s administrative liability as held in jurisprudence
 Res ipsa loquitor (accidence is negligence) can be applied
o There is no formal directive from the court for Atty. Karen to explain why she
shouldn’t be penalized, but the essence of due process is the grant of the
opportunity to be heard
 Atty. Karen was given notice and also responded to the November 11
resolution concerning her appearances in court
o Due process cannot therefore deter the Court from taking into account the
appearances
o Absence of any formal charge against and/or formal investigation of an errant
lawyer do not preclude the Court from immediately exercising its disciplining
authority, as long as the errant lawyer or judge has been given the opportunity to
be heard
o Atty. Karen had no qualms raising her misgivings through the simultaneous use of
various fora.
 Although not the forum-shopping prohibited in the Rules of Court, this
can lead to a situation that can embarrass the Judiciary when the Courts
will have different opinion and sentiments on the raised query

DISPOSITION:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, we find Atty. Karen M. Silverio-Buffe GUILTY of
professional misconduct for violating Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 and Canon 7 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. She is hereby FINED in the amount of Ten Thousand Pesos
(P10,000.00), and STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of this violation and the commission of
other acts of professional misconduct shall be dealt with more severely.