All Other Government Officials and Employees Prohibited From Engaging in the Private Practice of Law
(Section 7(b)(2), R.A. No. 6713, in relation to Memorandum Circular No. 17, s. 1986 of the Office of the President, and Section 12, Rule XVIII of the Revised Civil Service Rules)

I. Introduction

The prohibition on public officials and employees from engaging in the private practice of law stems from the State’s duty to ensure the highest standards of ethics, devotion to public service, and avoidance of conflicts of interest within the government. This is expressly embodied in several legal instruments, chief among them Section 7(b)(2) of Republic Act No. 6713 (the “Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees”), Memorandum Circular No. 17, series of 1986 issued by the Office of the President, and Section 12, Rule XVIII of the Revised Civil Service Rules.

Below is a comprehensive discussion of the relevant laws and regulations, the rationale behind these rules, the meaning of “private practice of law,” the exceptions, and the consequences for violations.

II. Legal Framework

A. Republic Act No. 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards)

Section 7(b)(2)
- Prohibits public officials and employees from engaging in the private practice of their profession “unless authorized by the Constitution or by law, provided that such practice will not conflict or tend to conflict with their official functions.”
- The key principle is to avoid any possibility that personal or professional dealings conflict with official duties, or that a government position is leveraged improperly for private gain.
Scope and Policy
- R.A. 6713 is broad in scope, covering all government officials and employees, whether elected or appointed, career or non-career, and in any branch or instrumentality of government, including government-owned or controlled corporations (GOCCs).

B. Memorandum Circular No. 17, Series of 1986 (Office of the President)

This circular reiterates the general prohibition on government officials and employees from engaging in the private practice of law without proper authorization.
It stems from the principle that government service demands undivided attention and that the public interest should take precedence over personal or private interests.

C. Revised Civil Service Rules (Civil Service Commission)

Section 12, Rule XVIII
- Echoes the prohibition: “No officer or employee shall engage directly or indirectly in any private business or profession without a written permission from the head of agency…” (paraphrased).
- Specifically includes the private practice of law among the proscribed “private businesses or professions.”
- Any exception typically requires (a) that the private practice does not conflict with or is not inconsistent with the performance of official duties, and (b) that there is prior approval from the appropriate authority (e.g., department secretary or agency head).

III. Rationale for the Prohibition

Avoidance of Conflicts of Interest
- A government lawyer or employee might encounter cases where public interest runs contrary to a private client’s interest, placing the official in a potential conflict of interest or creating an appearance of impropriety.
Focus on Public Duties
- Government work is intended to be a full-time commitment, especially in agencies or offices where the law mandates undivided attention (e.g., prosecutors, judges, or officials whose time and resources must be wholly devoted to public service).
Preservation of Public Trust
- Public office is a public trust. Allowing government officials and employees to maintain a private practice of law erodes public confidence in the integrity, fairness, and impartiality of the government.
Prevention of Abuse of Position
- The use of official influence, government resources, and inside information to aid private clients or personal interests is expressly disallowed. The prohibition helps avoid scenarios where a public official might misuse official power or resources.

IV. Scope of “Private Practice of Law”

A. Definition of “Practice of Law”

While the Supreme Court has, in various decisions, refrained from giving a single, all-encompassing definition of “practice of law,” it generally includes:

Regularly holding oneself out to the public as a lawyer available for services,
Giving legal advice or opinions to clients,
Drafting legal documents (contracts, pleadings, etc.) for compensation, and
Appearing in court or other legal tribunals as an advocate for another person’s cause, with or without compensation.

The Supreme Court has further clarified that even occasional or “isolated” engagements, if repeated or done with a certain degree of continuity or public offering, may constitute the private practice of law.

B. Activities That Typically Fall Under the Prohibition

Representing private clients in court or administrative tribunals.
Drafting legal documents or pleadings for private clients for a fee or other consideration.
Offering legal services or advice to private individuals or entities for compensation.
Being “of counsel” in a law office, where there is an ongoing or regular engagement to provide legal services.

C. Minimal or Incidental Exceptions

Certain incidental activities do not necessarily constitute the “private practice of law.” For instance, academic activities (teaching law subjects, lecturing in MCLE or bar review classes, authoring law books) are often regarded as permissible, provided these do not conflict with official time or compromise the integrity of public service.
Volunteer work (e.g., pro bono representation in certain approved cases) may be allowed subject to the rules and approval of proper authorities, and only if it does not conflict with official duties.

V. Exceptions and Conditions

Express Authorization by Law
- Some statutes may allow specific government officials to engage in limited practice of their profession (e.g., certain local elective officials might be allowed to do so under local government codes, provided it does not conflict with official duties).
Prior Written Permission from the Head of Agency
- Section 12, Rule XVIII of the Revised Civil Service Rules allows limited practice of profession if there is written permission from the department secretary or agency head, and only if it is shown that:
  1. Such practice does not conflict with official functions,
  2. It occurs outside official hours of work,
  3. The official or employee will not use government resources to perform the private legal work, and
  4. The arrangement does not create any conflict of interest or diminish the integrity of public service.
Case-by-Case Determination
- Even with permission, if actual conflict of interest arises (or a serious risk of it), the official or employee is duty-bound to cease or refuse representation.

VI. Consequences of Violation

Administrative Liabilities
- Violations of R.A. 6713, Memorandum Circular No. 17 (s. 1986), or Section 12, Rule XVIII of the Revised Civil Service Rules can lead to administrative sanctions such as suspension, fine, or dismissal from service, depending on the gravity of the offense.
Criminal Liabilities
- Under R.A. 6713, willful violations can lead to criminal prosecution. Punishments can include fines and/or imprisonment, subject to the penalties prescribed by the statute.
Disbarment or Disciplinary Actions by the Supreme Court
- The Supreme Court, as the regulator of the legal profession, retains exclusive authority over disciplinary matters involving lawyers. Engaging in prohibited private practice while holding public office may be grounds for disbarment, suspension from the practice of law, or other disciplinary measures, especially where conflict of interest, unethical conduct, or dishonesty is proven.
Administrative Proceedings in the Civil Service Commission
- The Civil Service Commission exercises jurisdiction over administrative cases involving civil service personnel. Such a violation could lead to a CSC case or be consolidated with other administrative charges.

VII. Relevant Jurisprudence

Santiago v. Bautista, A.C. No. 7736 (2007) – Illustrates how the Supreme Court disciplines lawyers who hold public office but engage in private practice without authorization, emphasizing the public trust nature of government service.
Pimentel v. Legal Education Board (2020) – Although not directly on the private practice issue, the Court reiterated the definition and scope of the practice of law, emphasizing that practice covers more than appearing in court.
In re: Judge Dacanay, 104 Phil. 1 (1958) – An older but still instructive case wherein the Supreme Court laid down guidelines on what constitutes the practice of law, stressing the requirement of fidelity and devotion to duty for those in public service.

While there is no single case that completely consolidates all details of Section 7(b)(2) of R.A. 6713, Memorandum Circular No. 17 (s. 1986), and Section 12, Rule XVIII of the Revised Civil Service Rules, these rulings collectively demonstrate the Court’s consistent strictness in prohibiting conflicts of interest and unethical conduct among public servants.

VIII. Practical Reminders for Government Lawyers and Employees

Seek Clarification and Authorization
- Before considering any form of private legal work, secure a written clearance from the agency head.
- This clearance must be specific as to the nature, scope, and limitations of the authorized private legal work.
Disclosure Requirements
- Under R.A. 6713, government officials must file disclosures or statements of assets, liabilities, and net worth (SALN), including sources of additional income. Any lawful private practice (if permitted) should be disclosed as well.
Maintain Separate Resources
- If permitted, never use government time, office materials, or resources for private legal work. Maintain an office or separate facility for it, and keep separate records to avoid suspicion of impropriety.
Be Mindful of Potential Conflicts
- If handling any matter that involves an actual or potential conflict with the interests of your government office or the State, you must withdraw from representation or refuse the engagement outright.
Prioritize Public Duty
- Official obligations take precedence over any private practice. Missing official deadlines or hearings because of private commitments can result in administrative or even disciplinary sanctions.

IX. Conclusion

The prohibition against the private practice of law by government officials and employees is a central component of Philippine legal ethics and public accountability. Grounded in Section 7(b)(2) of R.A. No. 6713, Memorandum Circular No. 17 (s. 1986) of the Office of the President, and Section 12, Rule XVIII of the Revised Civil Service Rules, it is designed to preserve the integrity of public office, ensure devotion to public duty, and protect the public from conflicts of interest and abuses of power.

Because government service is a public trust, any form of private practice that competes with or compromises official functions is severely restricted. While exceptional situations may allow limited practice of profession (with prior authorization and strict conditions), the overarching rule remains: Government officials and employees must avoid any scenario that compromises or appears to compromise the faithful discharge of their public duties.

Failure to abide by these restrictions can result in administrative sanctions, criminal liability, and even disbarment. Hence, government lawyers and employees must be fully aware of these legal and ethical prohibitions—consistently putting public interest above personal or professional gain.