TL;DR

The Supreme Court affirmed the Ombudsman’s finding of probable cause to indict a government lawyer for violating the Code of Conduct for Public Officials. The lawyer, employed by the National Housing Authority (NHA), notarized private documents for a fee without proper authorization and while lacking a valid notarial commission. The Court clarified that even isolated acts of private legal practice, like notarization for personal gain, by government lawyers without permission, can constitute a violation of ethical standards. This ruling underscores that public servants must strictly adhere to rules against unauthorized private practice to maintain integrity and avoid conflicts of interest, even for actions seemingly within their professional capacity.

The Notary’s Oversight: Public Servant or Private Practitioner?

Parina Jabinal, a lawyer working for the National Housing Authority (NHA), faced scrutiny when she notarized two private documents in 2008 and received payment for her services. This action led to a complaint alleging a violation of Republic Act No. 6713, specifically Section 7(b)(2), which prohibits public officials from engaging in the private practice of their profession without authorization. The central legal question became: did Jabinal’s notarization activities constitute ‘private practice’ and thus warrant criminal charges, or were they isolated incidents within the scope of her public duties?

The Ombudsman initiated an investigation, revealing that while Jabinal had been a notary public previously, her commission had lapsed in 2007, and her new commission only became effective in 2009. Crucially, at the time of notarizing the documents in August and September 2008, she lacked a valid commission and had not secured the necessary written authorization from the NHA to engage in private notarial practice. Jabinal argued that she acted in good faith, believing she was still commissioned and that her notarial acts were customary and related to her NHA duties. She contended that ‘private practice’ under the law implies habitual engagement for personal profit, which she claimed her isolated acts did not represent.

However, the Supreme Court sided with the Ombudsman. The Court emphasized the broad powers vested in the Ombudsman to investigate public officials and the policy of judicial non-interference in the Ombudsman’s probable cause determinations, absent grave abuse of discretion. The Court reiterated that grave abuse of discretion occurs when power is exercised arbitrarily, capriciously, or whimsically, amounting to an evasion of positive duty.

The legal framework rests on Section 7(b)(2) of R.A. 6713, which explicitly states:

Section 7. Prohibited Acts and Transactions. – In addition to acts and omissions of public officials and employees now prescribed in the Constitution and existing laws, the following shall constitute prohibited acts and transactions of any public official and employee and are hereby declared to be unlawful:

(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…

Complementing this, Memorandum Circular No. 17 allows government employees to engage in private practice with written permission from their department head. The Court highlighted that Jabinal admitted to notarizing the documents and receiving payment. Notarization is unequivocally considered within the practice of law. The critical missing element was the required written authorization from the NHA for Jabinal to engage in this private practice. Furthermore, the court pointed to the undisputed fact that Jabinal was not a commissioned notary public in Quezon City during 2008.

The Supreme Court referenced Abella v. Atty. Cruzabra, a similar case where a Deputy Register of Deeds was found guilty for notarizing numerous documents without authorization. The Court underscored that ignorance or good faith is not a valid defense, especially since Memorandum Circular No. 17 has been in effect since 1986. The Court found no grave abuse of discretion by the Ombudsman, stating that the evidence presented during the preliminary investigation sufficiently established probable cause. The Court dismissed Jabinal’s claims of good faith and lack of habituality as matters of defense best addressed during a full trial.

The Court reiterated the purpose of a preliminary investigation:

A preliminary investigation is conducted for the purpose of determining whether a crime has been committed, and whether there is probable cause to believe that the accused is guilty thereof and should be held for trial. It is not the occasion for full and exhaustive display of the parties’ evidence; it is for the presentation of such evidence only as may engender a well-grounded belief that an offense has been committed and that the accused is probably guilty thereof.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court upheld the Ombudsman’s resolution, emphasizing that the determination of probable cause does not require proof beyond reasonable doubt, but only a well-founded belief that an offense has been committed. The ruling reinforces the principle that public officials must strictly adhere to ethical standards and legal prohibitions against unauthorized private practice, even in seemingly minor professional activities.

FAQs

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact Atty. Gabriel Ablola through gaboogle.com or via email at connect@gaboogle.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Jabinal v. Overall Deputy Ombudsman, G.R. No. 232094, July 24, 2019