ABETO v.

GARCESA
G.R. No. AM P 88-269
December 29 1995
Davide Jr
Oscar
Abeto
petitioners
responden Manuel Garcesa (Stenographic Reporter, RTC, Branch 45, Bacolod City)

ts
summary Admin complaint was filed against Stenographic Reporter Garcesa for

representing Oscar et al in a labor case when he was not a lwayer. Since

Garcesa admitted representing them, Court found him liable under the Civil
Service Rules and the Admin Circular of the Supreme Court prohibiting court
employees from engaging in any other business, since the nature of their work
requires all their attention during work hours. He was just reprimanded though

facts of the case

-

Oscar filed this administrative complaint against Manuel Garcesa, charging the latter of
having misrepresented himself as a full-fledged lawyer and acting as one of the formers
represntatives in a labor case before the NLRC.
The Office of the Court Administrator forwarded the complaint to Garcesa and required
him to comment. Garcesa admitted to assisting the plaintiff but denied that he ever said
that he was a lawyer. He said that he frankly informed Oscar that he was only a court
employee and the help that he was extending was for Mr Arturo Ronquillo, the President of
the Workers Amalgamated Union of the Philippines. He avers that he only helped out of
good motives and intentions to help the poor and downtrodden.
The Deputy Court Admin submitted a memorandum recommending the termination of the
case.
To help the court decide on the matter, it ordered the Office of the Court Administrator to
submit a report. The Deputy Court Admin recommended that Mr Garcesa be reprimanded
(to be discussed later as her findings were adopted by the Court) for failure to heed the
Civil Service Rules

issue

Should Garcesa be reprimanded? YES

Ratio
-

According to Section 12, Rule XVIII of the Revised Civil Rules:

Sec. 12 No officer or employee shall engage directly in any private business,
vocation or profession or be connected with any commercial, credit, agricultural or
industrial undertaking without a written permission from the head of Department:
Provided, That this prohibition will be absolute in the case of those officers and employees
whose duties and responsibilities require that their entire time be at the disposal of the
Government: Provided, further, That if the employee is granted permission to engage in
outside activities, the time so devoted outside of office hours shall be fixed by the chief of
the agency to the end that it will not impair in any way the efficiency of the officer or
employee: And provided finally That no permission is necessary in the case of
investments, made by an officer or employee, which do not involve any real or apparent
conflict between his private interests and public duties, or in any way influence him in the
discharge of his duties, and he shall not take part in the management of the enterprise or
become an officer or member of the board of directors.

According to Admin Circular 5 (Oct 1988):

1

The entire time of judiciary officials and employees must be devoted to

government service to insure efficient and speedy administration of justice considering the
express prohibition in the Rules of Court and the nature of their work which requires them
to serve with the highest degree of efficiency and responsibility, in order to
maintain public confidence in the Judiciary
-

Since Mr. Garcesa admitted in filing and prosecuting the case, the Court found him guilty
of violating said provision of the Revised Civil Rules. His justification in helping the poor
will not absolve him.
The Court however did not find him liable of unauthorized practice of law, since there is no
convincing evidence that he misrepresented himself as a lawyer. His appearance was in
his capacity as one of the representatives of the complainant and not as a lawter. NLRC
Procedure at that time allowed for non-lawyers to appear before the NLRC or any LA if he
represents himself as a party to the case, represents an organization or any of its
members, or is a duly accredited member of a free legal aid staff of the DoLE or any other
legal aid office accredited by the DoJ or IBP
Lastly, the Court held that he could not be liable under Memorandum No 17 (Sept 1986) of
the Office of the President. Said Memorandum declared that the authority to grant
permission to any official or employee to engage in outside activities shall be granted by
the head of the ministry in accordance with the above-cited Civil Service Rules. This is
because the said Memorandum was held by this Court to be not applicable to court
employees.
o Basically the Court just reiterated whats in Admin Circular N. 5. The Rules of Court
orders court employees to devote their time fully to government service. Also, the
nature of their work requires them to serve with the highest degree of efficiency and
responsibility, in order to maintain public confidence in the Judiciary. According to
the Court, the prohibition with respect to court employees is called moonlighting
which amounts to a malfeasance in office