COULD an appointed senior executive and an executive assistant of the province continue to act as lawyers representing a private client against a local government entity within its jurisdiction who filed an expropriation case in the Regional Trial Court (RTC)? Before the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman in Cebu is a formal complaint filed by Provincial Lawyer Roxenne Sumanting with serious allegations that "constitute serious dishonesty; grave misconduct; gross abuse of authority; conduct grossly prejudicial to the best interest of the service and oppression and violations...." against her colleagues in the province.
I deemed it best for readers to become aware of a bold move from a former student and research assistant taught to maintain integrity in data collection, fight for truth and social justice using her acquired social research skills. After a decade of not hearing from her, we were reconnected through Facebook. I found out that she's already a full-fledged lawyer. As her mentor, I was joyful to know that she has become a lawyer--one I can tap for gross cases of injustice that I encountered in my counseling cases. When we met, she had a growing private practice. Next, I heard she joined the Provincial Legal Office (PLO). I thought it was a strategic move on her part. I had hopes that my mentee, Roxenne Sumanting, would make a difference at the PLO. It seems Sumanting has started shaking the PLO with her case filed against key provincial officers.
On September 16, 2019, an appointed senior executive officer from the province appeared as counsel for a private entity before RTC -Branch 56, Himamaylan under Honorable Raymond Joseph Javier against the Municipality of Binalbagan for the latter’s expropriation case for the construction of municipal road and drainage system that will avoid chronic flooding of the market premises, and lessen the traffic congestion. Prior to the said hearing, the Governor’s Office received a letter from Binalbagan dated September 12, 2019, requesting that it be provided a lawyer in the expropriation case. Interestingly, another lawyer working in the province appeared for the private entity representing herself as the junior associate of the appointed senior executive officer. Ironically, whilst the defendant's private entity had a counsel, the municipality of Binalbagan did not have any. Thus, on January 27, 2020, the expropriation case was dismissed for the reason of Binalbagan not having counsel for the past 2 court settings (September 16, 2019 and January 27, 2020). On January 29, 2020, the governor’s office received again the same letter of request for a lawyer from Binalbagan--the first, dated September 12, 2019, the second, January 29, 2020.
Binalbagan filed a motion for reconsideration without assistance from the Provincial Legal Office, which actually received on February 16, 2020--a reiterated appeal for provision of counsel as its case was dismissed. The municipality chose among the PLO lawyers, Lawyer Sumanting as counsel. Email exchanges from February 11, 2020 through March from Mun. Engr. Mabag to PLO through Lawyer Sumanting and the Provincial Legal Officer, reiterating urgent requests for the provision of counsel. On April 3, 2020, Lawyer Sumanting emailed the Provincial Legal Officer reminding him that they can be liable for gross neglect of duty for failure to act on a legitimate request. Significantly, on March 11, 2020, the Court received the appointed senior executive's Motion to Withdraw Appearance as counsel for his private client, stating, “Upon request of the Honorable Court for the undersigned to withdraw his appearance, undersigned hereby withdraws his legal services for the complainant."
On June 9, 2020, Binalbagan’s motion for reconsideration, without assistance from the Legal Office, was granted by the Court, whilst denying the senior executive's motion to withdraw services as private counsel. The Court cited that it did not request the said lawyer to withdraw his appearance for the defendant, reminding him in the same breath, that there is "the semblance of conflict of interest" with his private lawyering, and the exercise of his post as a senior executive of Negros Occidental, noting that plaintiff Municipality of Binalbagan, which sought legal representation from his subordinate office, the PLO, never sent one.
The Court warned that if indeed the said lawyer wants to continue representing the private defendant, he does so under the risk of administrative sanctions.
As normative, for government lawyers granted the privilege to concurrently pursue private practice, the interest of their clients is subservient to their duties as officers of the court. Equally, the authority to engage in private practice granted to lawyers in the government service is a mere privilege; the same should not breach their oath of office in the government service. I invite the said provincial officials to email me at vlg.seacrest@gmail.com their side of the story, for equal coverage.