Query of atty Karen m Silverio-Buffe

Facts: Atty. Buffe, a former clerk of court of Romblon, sent in a letter query to the OCA where she opined
that Section 7 (b)(2) of R.A. No. 6713, which prohibits public officials and employees from engaging during
their incumbency “in the private practice of their profession unless authorized by the Constitution or by
Law, provided, that such practice does not conflict or tend to conflict with their official functions.

Atty. Buffe opined that the provision gave preferential treatment to incumbent public offici als and
employees regarding private practice while giving non-incumbents the short end of the stick by not
allowing them to practice their profession in connection with any matter before the office that they used
to be with for a period of 1 year after resignation, retirement, or separation from public office. She further
recounted that the reason for the question was that she was a clerk of court prior to her resignation and
she had engaged in private practice by appearing as counsel in several cases before the RTC.

Issue: WON Atty. Buffe violated the CPR regarding the practice of law when she appeared as counsel.

Held: Yes.

Ratio: A distinctive feature of this administrative matter is Atty. Buffe's admission that she immediately
engaged in private practice of law within the one-year period of prohibition stated in Section 7(b)(2) of
R.A. No. 6713. Atty. Buffe apparently misreads the law. she interprets Section 7 (b)(2) as a blanket
authority for an incumbent clerk of court to practice law it is unlawful under this general rule for clerks of
court to practice their profession. By way of exception, they can practice their profession if the
Constitution or the law allows them, but no conflict of interest must exist between their current duties
and the practice of their profession.

By acting in a manner that R.A. No. 6713 brands as "unlawful," Atty. Buffe contravened Rule 1.01 of Canon
1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. We also find that Atty. Buffe also failed to live up to her
lawyer's oath and thereby violated Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility when she blatantly
and unlawfully practiced law within the prohibited period by appearing before the RTC Branch she had
just left.

Atty. Buffe's admitted appearance, before the very same branch she served and immediately after her
resignation, is a violation that we cannot close our eyes to and that she cannot run away from under the
cover of the letter-query she filed and her petition for declaratory relief, whose dismissal she manifested
she would pursue up to our level.

What are the cases that she filed?

A letter-query on March 4, 2008, two petitions for declaratory relief

How many times did she appear as counsel?

4 cases.
Re: due process:

These cases clearly show that the absence of any formal charge against and/or formal investigation of an
errant lawyer do not preclude the Court from immediately exercising its disciplining authority, as long as
the errant lawyer or judge has been given the opportunity to be heard. As we stated earlier, Atty. Buffe
has been afforded the opportunity to be heard on the present matter through her letter-query and
Manifestation filed before this Court.

General rule regarding the appearance in court:

GR: RA 6713 provides for the prohibited acts

XPN: a public official or employee can engage in the practice of his or her profession under the following
conditions: first, the private practice is authorized by the Constitution or by the law; and second, the
practice will not conflict, or tend to conflict, with his or her official functions.