May I quote below an email from Pros. Karen M. Silverio-Buffe, who is the subject of A.M. No. 08-6-352-RTC which I digested in a recent blog item (http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2009/08/conflict-of-interest.html), stating that she had filed a motion for reconsideration of the decision of the Supreme Court en banc in the said case.
It will be recalled that in the said case of “QUERY OF ATTY. KAREN M. SILVERIO-BUFFE, FORMER Clerk of Court – BRANCH 81, ROMBLON, ROMBLON – ON THE PROHIBITION FROM ENGAGING IN THE PRIVATE PRACTICE OF LAW, EN BANC, A.M. No. 08-6-352-RTC , August 19, 2009”, the Philippine Supreme Court en banc fined Atty. Karen M. Silverio-Buffe in the amount of Ten Thousand Pesos for professional misconduct under Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 and Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, with a stern warning that a repetition of the violation and the commission of other acts of professional misconduct shall be dealt with more severely by the Court.
The case involves the proper interpretation of Section 7(b) (2) of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6713, as amended (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees), which places a limitation on public officials and employees during their incumbency, and those already separated from government employment for a period of one (1) year after separation, in engaging in the private practice of their profession.
Here is her email to me, for the info of the visitors of this blog. (Attached to her email was a copy of her motion for reconsideration but I still have to read it when I have the time in the near future, so that I could digest it for posting on this blog, for legal research purposes).
"Good day, Atty. Laserna, Sir!
Having perused your blog at http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2009/08/conflict-of-interest.html , I'd like to make this humble request for a perusal of my hereto-attached "Twin Motions, etc." in A.M. No. 08-6-352-RTC (en banc), as well as my Petition in G.R. No. 187119 (1st Div.)
Your kind indulgence permitting, please give regard to these questions arising from the (without-show-cause-order) Decision in A.M. No. 08-6-352-RTC (contra-discussed in the Twin Motions), and from the Petition in G.R. No. 187119:
1. Was I given due process by the unceremonious promulgation of the Decision, which all along had been a query matter, but which, totally unawares, had become disciplinary, without so much as a show-cause order being afforded me?
2. Was the en banc correct in unceremoniously concluding that I allegedly made a "ready admission" of the charge that I allegedly "practiced law" before RTC Br. 81during the private-practice restricted period in Sec. 7 (b)(2), last par. thereof, of RA 6713?
3. Did my mere, physical appearances on the occasion of outright postponements ordered by RTC Br 81 (due to the absence of opposing counsel) amount to "practice of law" as defined in Cayetano vs. Monsod (assuming arguendo that I engaged in "practice of law" before Br. 81?
4. Did I truly make a voluntary desistance (prior to any breach of RA 6713) from the pertinent court cases (Br. 81), passing these cases on to other private lawyers (who were the ones to actually take part/"practice law" in actual legal proceedings in such cases)?
5. Did my initiatory query in A.M. No. 08-6-352-RTC foreclose my constitutional right to later (but while the admin. matter was pending) file for the direct action of declaratory relief before the proper RTC? Can the admin. matter be the proper venue for, or take the place of a justiciable controversy on, the issues presented in the co-intertwined Petition where the Govt/SolGen and myself as petitioner can be fully heard on issues of unconstitutionality? Given that each recourse has its own objective (which I both exercised with due notifications)--did I really toy with the administration of justice?
6. On the Petition: Sec. 7(b)(2), last par. thereof, of RA 6713, only refers to "private practice" of profession--does it not?
7. In other words, as in my actual case, where an ex-clerk of court (Br.81) becomes a public prosecutor (during the one-year private-practice restricted period)--the said law is not violated if the prosecutor appears before the office she used to be with (Br.81) by, say, filing criminal Informations--is that not correct?
8. In other words, the said law is unduly discriminatory (violative of the equal protection clause). Why does it unduly single out private law practitioners while not carrying a similar, explicit prohibition against public prosecutors who (within the 1-year period) practice law before the office they used to be with? The alleged wisdom of the law is to prevent undue clout or influence; why, is the public prosecutor then immune to such extra-legal factors but the private practitioner is not?
My Twin Motions had been filed within the reglementary period, and is still pending consideration by the en banc. The point then of this message, is not so much to lift my own chair, as to provide input for academic discussion on these nagging questions, by which, all matters not otherwise written/reflected in the Decision may also be allowed to come to light.
Thank you, Sir.
Pros. Karen M. Silverio-Buffe
edwinbbuffe@yahoo.com
"
