Jabinal v. Overall Deputy Ombudsman

CAMILLE JOY C. PEREDO BASIC LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS -SEC.
36
JABINAL v. OVERALL DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN, G.R. No. 232094,

PARINA R. JABINAL, petitioner,
vs.
HON. OVERALL DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN, respondents
July 24, 2019 G.R. No 232094 PERALTA, J.
Recit Ready Synopsis
On December 4, 2015, the Field Investigation Office of the Ombudsman, filed a complaint against Parina R.
Jabinal, Legal Services Department, National Housing Authority (NHA), for violation of Section 7(b)(2) of
Republic Act No. (R.A.) 6713, otherwise known as the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public
Officials and Employees, which prohibits all public officials and employees from engaging in the private
practice of their profession unless authorized.
It was alleged that the petitioner had notarized two documents (Deed of Sale dated August 20, 2008 and a
Deed of Assignment dated September 30, 2008) while he was the legal officer of the National Housing
Authority. Further, she was paid the amount of ₱30,000.00 for both documents. Such acts of notarization were
within the ambit of the term private practice of law, there should have been a prior request made by her to the
NHA for authority to engage in the practice of her profession. The Ombudsman found probable cause against
the petitioner. Petitioner filed for a motion for reconsideration and a supplemental motion for reconsideration.
The issue in this case is whether the respondent illegally engaged in private practice when she notarized the
documents in August and September 2009 while she was still employed by the National Housing Authority?
The Court DISMISSED the petition for certiorari saying that based on the foregoing the logical conclusion is
that there was no authority given by the NHA in order for respondent to engage in the limited practice of
notarial services when she notarized the documents in August and September 2008.
Provisions/Concepts/Doctrines and How Applied to the Case
Section 7(b)(2) of R.A. 6713, in relation to Section 11:
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;
FACTS
 Petitioner is a government employee and is prohibited from engaging in the private practice of her
profession unless authorized by the NHA.
 On December 4, 2015, the Field Investigation Office of the Ombudsman, filed a complaint against
Parina R. Jabinal, Legal Services Department, National Housing Authority (NHA), for violation of
Section 7(b)(2) of Republic Act No. (R.A.) 6713, otherwise known as the Code of Conduct and Ethical
Standards for Public Officials and Employees, which prohibits all public officials and employees
from engaging in the private practice of their profession unless authorized.
 It was alleged that the petitioner had notarized two documents (Deed of Sale dated August 20, 2008
and a Deed of Assignment dated September 30, 2008) while he was the legal officer of the National
Housing Authority. Further, she was paid the amount of ₱30,000.00 for both documents.
 Such acts of notarization were within the ambit of the term private practice of law, there should have
been a prior request made by her to the NHA for authority to engage in the practice of her profession.
 Petitioner submitted her counter affidavit which states that she filed a petition for appointment as a
notary public for and in Quezon City, attaching the authority issued by the NHA to engage in private
practice, which was granted by the Executive Judge of RTC Quezon City on May 4, 2006, covering the
period from 2006-2007. On February 9, 2008, she filed another petition for a notarial commission,
attaching a letter of authority issued by the NHA, but the certificate for notarial commission was issued
by the RTC Judge on March 3, 2009 for the period from 2009-2010
 Ombudsman found probable cause against the petitioner. Petitioner filed for a motion for
reconsideration and a supplemental motion for reconsideration.
ISSUE/S (relevant to the syllabus)

Whether the respondent illegally engaged in private practice when she notarized the documents in August and
September 2009 while she was still employed by the National Housing Authority?
RULING (include how the law was applied)
Since there was no petition filed on the said dates, and the authority given by the NHA comes as an
attachment to the petition, the logical conclusion is that there was no authority given by the NHA in order for
respondent to engage in the limited practice of notarial services when she notarized the documents in August
and September 2008.
Section 7, paragraph b(2), R.A. 6713, prohibits any public official and employee to engage in the private
practice of their profession unless authorized by the Constitution or law. Respondent is a government
employee and is prohibited from engaging in the private practice of her profession unless authorized by the
NHA.
Complainant has established that on two occasions respondent engaged in notarial practice while employed as
Legal Officer of [the] NHA in 2008, without prior authority from the NHA
DISPOSITIVE
WHEREFORE, the Petition for Certiorari is DISMISSED. The Resolution dated May 16, 2016 and the Joint
Order dated December 2, 2016 issued by the Office of the Ombudsman in OMB-C-C-15-0487 are
hereby AFFIRMED.
ADDITIONAL NOTES
Public officials and employees during their incumbency are prohibited from engaging in the private practice of
their profession unless authorized by law or the Constitution and such practice should not be in conflict with
their official functions.
Memorandum Circular No. 1716 of the Executive Department allows government employees to engage directly
in the private practice of their profession provided there is a written permission from the Department head.

Jabinal v. Overall Deputy Ombudsman

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Jabinal v. Overall Deputy Ombudsman

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Jabinal v. Overall Deputy Ombudsman

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CAMILLE JOY C. PEREDO BASIC LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS -SEC.

JABINAL v. OVERALL DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN, G.R. No. 232094,

ISSUE/S (relevant to the syllabus)

You might also like