Case 19: Query of Atty. Karen M.

Silverio-Buffe
A.M. No. 08-6-352-RTC August 19, 2009

Facts: Atty. Karen M. Silverio-Buffe, a former clerk of court of Branch 81 of Romblon,

addressed a letter-query to the Office of the Court Administrator. It was related to
Section 7(b)(2) of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6713 or the “Code of Conduct and Ethical
Standards for Public Officials and Employees”, which prohibits public officials and
employees from engaging during their incumbency “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.”
Atty. Buffe questioned the provision giving preferential treatment to
incumbent public officials and employees as regards private practice, while non-
incumbents, according to the last paragraph of Section 7 of RA 6713, cannot practice
their profession in connection with any matter before the office they used to be with
for a period of one year after resignation, retirement or separation from public office.
Such question was due to the fact that, within one year after her resignation from her
position, she engaged in the private practice of law by appearing as private counsel in
several cases before RTC-Branch 81 of Romblon.
After review, the Court found that Atty. Buffe misinterpreted the law. The
confusion lay in the use of the term “such practice” after the phrase "provided that"
and the notion that incumbent public officials and employees are absolutely
permitted to the practice of their profession. By a thorough analysis of the provision,
the Court pointed out the limitation that only those authorized by the Constitution or
law and those that do not conflict or tend to conflict with their official functions are
allowed.

Issue: Did Atty. Buffe, as a lawyer, violate the rules governing the practice of law by
means of her actions?

Held: Yes, the Court found Atty. Buffe guilty of professional misconduct and was
fined. She was also sternly warned that repetition of the violation shall be dealt with
more severely. As ruled by the Court, 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. In addition, by failing to live up to her lawyer’s oath, she
also violated Canon 7 of the same Code.
The following are the violated rules, to wit:

CANON 1 – A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE

CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF THE LAND AND PROMOTE
RESPECT FOR LAW AND FOR LEGAL PROCESSES
x x x
Rule 1.01 – A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral
or deceitful conduct.
 CANON 7. A LAWYER SHALL AT ALL TIMES UPHOLD THE INTEGRITY
AND THE DIGNITY OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION AND SUPPORT THE
ACTIVITIES OF THE INTEGRATED BAR.

Although there was the absence of any formal charge against and/or formal
investigation of an errant lawyer, it did 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. In this case, Atty. Buffe has been afforded the
opportunity to be heard on the present matter through her letter-query and
Manifestation filed before this Court.