REPUBLICOF THE PHILIPPINESS.:;tmJJ(};A!J{(j3j1rt"jlJ{

Quezon City

SPECIAL THIRD DIVISION

PEOPLE OF THEPHILIPPINES,

Criminal Case No. SB-16-CRM-0467 -0478For: Violation of Republic Act No.

3019, Section 3 (e) andViolation of Art. 21 7, inrelation to Art. 171 & 48 ofthe Revised Penal Code, asamended (Malversation ofPublic Funds)

ROEL RAGAY DEGAMO etal., Present:

CABOTAJE-TANG,Chairperson,FERNANDEZ, S.J. J. 1 andTRESPESES,J.2Promulgated:

. . ~/e,/Al~lt-----------------------------------------------------------~------------------------lt

RESOLUTION----------

For resolution is Atty. Richard R. Enojo's Motion forReconsideration dated August 14, 2017,3 which seeks thereversal of the Court's Resolution promulgated on July 31,2017.4 The assailed resolution directed Atty. Enojo to desistfrom appearing in these criminal cases as counsel for theaccused public officials since the Local Government Code doesnot authorize the provincial or city legal officer to appearn1 As per Administrative Order No. 316-2016 dated September 13, 2017 /2 As per Admimstrative Order No. 0227-2016 dated July 26, 20163 p. 320, Vol. II, Record-l p. 252, id

RESOLUTIONCriminal Cases No. SB-16-CRM-0467-0478People vs. Degamo, et al.x-------------------------------------------------------x

criminal cases for local government officialswho are indicted foracts/ omissions committed in the discharge of their officialfunctions.

Atty. Enojo insists that he has the personality to appear inthese criminal cases as counsel for the said accused despite hisbeing the OIC Legal Officer of the Province of Negros Oriental.He maintains that the "prohibitions imposed upon appointiveand elective officials) in the private practice of their profession donot apply,to the legal officer because by defending a governmentemployee who is an accused in a criminal case for acts done byhim while in the performance of his official function the legalofficer is not engaged or deemed engaged in the private practiceof his profession. Putting the legal officer who is defending agovernment employee and an elective official who is engaged inthe private practice of his profession in the same class ofprohibition is tantamount to putting the red and the blue underthe same color) so to speak."5 He further claims that the Courterred in applying the teachings of the Supreme Court in Urbanovs. Chavez6 to his case.

The prosecution filed its Opposition dated September 14,2017 to the said motion for reconsideration on September 18,2017.7 It prays for the denial of the subject motion because theappearaIrce of Atty. Enojo as counsel for the accused publicofficials has no legal basis. The prosecution maintains that"Section 481 [of the Local Government Code] is clear andunambiguous) specifically Par. 3) subparagraph (i).Nowhere is itstated in the Local Government Code that the Legal Officers canor may appear in criminal cases for local government officials.Had this been the intention of the law) representations of localgovernment officials by the Legal Officer in criminal actions orproceedings would have been expressly stated or included in hisduties and responSibilitie~ ;

4 j'

5 Par. 3.d, p. 6, Molioll for Reco/IJ-ideralioll; p. 334, id6 183 SeRA 347 (1990)7 p. 347, id8 Par. 5, p. 3, Opposi/ioll; p. 349, id

RESOLUTIONCriminal Cases No. SB-16-CRM-0467-0478People vs. Degamo, et al.x ---- -- --------- --- --- --- -- ---- ---- -------- ------------- x

THE RULING OF THE COURT

After considering the arguments raised by Atty. Enojo inhis motion for reconsideration and the opposition thereto of theprosecution, the Court finds no cogent reason to reverse itsassailed resolution.

Atty. Enojo's continued insistence to appear as counsel forthe accused public officials of the Province of Negros Orientalsimply has no basis under the pertinent provisions of the LocalGovernment Code as held by the Court in its questionedResolution, to wit:

Section 481, paragraph (b) of the Local GovernmentCode defines the powers and duties of a Legal Officer, to wit:

(b) The legal officer, the chief legal counsel. of the local government unit, shall take charge of

\.' .the office of legal services and shall:

(1) Formulate measures for theconsideration of the sanggunian and provide legalassistance and support to the governor or mayor,as the case may be, in carrying out the delivery ofbasic services and provisions of adequate facilitiesas provided for under Section 17 of this Code;

(2) Develop plans and strategies and uponapproval thereof by the governor or mayor, as thecase may be, implement the same, particularly'those which have to do with programs and projectsrelated to legal services which the governor ormayor is empowered to implement and which thesanggunian is empowered to provide for under thisCode;

(3) In addition to the foregoing duties andft.~ctions, the legal officer shall:.

(i) Represent the local government unit inall civil actions and special proceedingswherein the local government unit or anyofficial thereof, in his official capacity, is aparty: Provided, That, in actions or proceedingswhere a component city or municipality..is a partyadverse to the provincial government or to another.component city or municipality,ia1 ~

RESOLUTIONCriminal Cases No. SB-16-CRM-0467-0478People vs. Degamo, et al.x-------------------------------------------------------x

officer may be employed to represent the adverseparty;9

(ii)When required by the governor, mayor orsanggunian, draft ordinances, contracts, bonds,'leases and other instruments, involving any

r interest of the local government unit and provide: comments and recommendations on any, instrument already drawn;

(iii) Render his opinion in writing on anyquestion of law when requested to do so by thegovernor, mayor or sanggunian;

(iv) Investigate or cause to be investigatedany local official or employee for administrativeneglect or misconduct in office, and recommendappropriate action to the governor, mayor orsanggunian, as the case may be;

(v) Investigate or cause to be in~estigatedany person, firm or corporation holding anyfranchise or exercising any public privilege forfailure to comply with any term or condition in thegrant of such franchise or privilege, andrecommending appropriate action to the governor,mayor or sanggunian, as the case may be;

(vi)When directed by the governor, mayor,or sanggunian, initiate and prosecute in theinterest of the local government unit concernedany civil action on any bond, lease or othercontract upon any breach or violation thereof; and

(vii) Review and submit recommendations.on ordinances approved and execute orders issuedby component units;

(3)Recommend measures to the sapggunianand advise the governor or mayor as the case maybe on all other matters related to upholding therule of law;

(4) Be in the frontline of protecting humanrights and prosecuting any violations thereof,particularly those which occur during and in theaftermath of man-made or natural disasters orcalamities; and

(5) Exercise such other powers and perform______ s_u_c_h__o_th_e_r_duties and functions as may.>79 Emphasis supplied / "

d'

RESOLUTIONCriminal Cases No. SB-16-CRM-0467-0478People vs. Degamo, et al.x------------- --------- ------ ------ ------ --------- ----- -x

Notably, the provincial or city legal officer may onlyrepresent the officials of his/her local government unit in civilactions and special proceedings wherein the localgovernment unit or any official thereof, in his official capacity,is a party. The Local Government Code does not authorize theprovincial or city legal officer to appear in criminal cases forlocal government officials who are indicted for acts/omissionscommitted in the discharge of their official functions. 10

Atty. Enojo's attempt to justify his appearance as counselfor the accused in these criminal cases on the claim that theprohibitions imposed upon appointive and elective officials inthe practice of their profession under Section 90 of the LocalGovernment Code purportedly do not apply to the provincial orcity legal officer does not find support in any of the provisionsof the afore-quoted section of the same Code.

To reiterate, Section 481 of the Local Government Code isunequivocal in stating that the provincial qr city legal officermay only represent the officialsofhis/her local government unitin civil actions and special proceedings wherein the localgovernment unit or any official thereof, in his official capacity,is a party. The Local Government Code does not confer a similarauthority to the provincial or city legal officer to appear ascounsel for local government officials who are criminallycharged although the same indictment is related to, or arosefrom, the exercise of their official functions. In the absence ofsuch authority, Atty. Enojo's appearance as counsel for theherein accused provincial officials in these cases isunwarranted.

.Atty. Enojo further claims that the Court erred in applying

Urbano to his case since "the lawyer of the state (SolicitorGeneral) was prohibited from lawyering against the State byappearing' as counsel for the accused. And obviously this is notthe situation of the undersigned. Again} persons who aredifferently situated cannot be subjected to the same set of

prohibition./'? (~ ;:;,10 pp. 31-33, Assailed Resolution; pp. 282-284, Vol. II, Record11 Par. 4, p. 6, Motion for Reconsideration; p. 334, Vol. II, Record

RESOLUTIONCriminal Cases No. SB-16-CRM-0467-0478People vs. Degamo, et al.x----------------------------------------- --x

Atty. Enojo sorely misses the point.

The Court applied by analogy the teachings of theSupreme Court in Urbano to the case of Atty. Enojo to explainwhy the Local Government Code excluded from the duties andfunctions of the provincial and city legal officer the authority torepresent provincial and city officials charged in criminal cases.Thus:

The teachings of the Supreme Court in Urbano vs.Chavez explain why government lawyers, like those comingfrom the Office of the Solicitor General, are not allowed toenter their appearance in criminal cases even if the accusedtherein are government officials charged in their officialcapacities. Thus:

There is likewise another reason, as earlierdiscussed, why the Officeof the Solicitor Generalcannot represent an accused in a criminal case.Inasmuch as the State can speak and act onlyby law, whatever it does say and do must belawful, and that which is unlawful is not theword or deed of the State, but is the merewrong or trespass of those individual personswho falsely speak and act in itsname. Therefore, the accused publiS officialshould not expect the State, through the Officeofthe Solicitor General, to defend him for alwrongfulact which cannot be attributed to the State itself.In the same light, a public official who is suedin a criminal case is actually sued in hispersonal capacity inasmuch as his principal,the State, can never be the author of awrongful act, much less commit a crime.12

The duties and functions of a provincial and/ or city legalofficer is akin to those of the duties and functions of the Officeof the Solicitor General. Thus, the raison d'etre for theprohibition on the Solicitor General to represent governmentofficialswho are facing criminal charges may likewise be appliedto a provincial and/ or city legal officer. A local governmentofficial who is charged criminally is actually sued in hispersonal capacity because his principal, the local governmentunit,can~ever commita Crirrn ~ y'

12 p. 33, ASJatied ReJO/utlOlI; p. 284, Vol. II, Record ~ ~ •

RESOLUTIONCriminal Cases No. SB-16-CRM-0467-0478People vs. Degamo, et al.x-------------------------------------------------------x

WHEREFORE, Atty. Richard R. Enojo's Motion forReconsideration dated August 14, 2017, is DENIED for lack ofmerit. r,

I/te' r4/RiB JANE T. F RNANDEZtA~ociate Justice