Practice-of-Law Restrictions for Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) Employees
(Philippine legal perspective, updated to 21 June 2025)
1. Policy Rationale
The State expects BIR personnel—who handle confidential tax information and wield coercive powers of assessment and collection—to be absolutely free of divided loyalties. Allowing them to appear in court or give legal advice to private clients risks (a) leakage of taxpayer data, (b) conflict between duty to the fisc and duty to a client, and (c) the perception that BIR influence may be “for sale.” Hence, several layers of restrictions converge on the same basic rule: unless a specific law authorises it, a BIR employee may not engage in the private practice of law.
2. Principal Sources of the Prohibition
| Source | Key Provision | Effect on BIR Personnel |
|---|---|---|
| § 7(C), National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC, as amended) | “Internal revenue officers assigned to assessment or collection shall not be allowed to practice their profession or be engaged in any calling inconsistent with the performance of their duties.” | Blanket ban on moonlighting for all tax-related employees—lawyers, CPAs, engineers, etc.—unless the Commissioner grants written authority for an activity “not inconsistent” with their duties (rarely granted). |
| § 7, R.A. 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards) | Public officials “shall not engage in the private practice of their profession unless authorized by the Constitution or law, and provided it will not conflict… with their official functions.” | Requires BOTH (a) statutory basis and (b) head-of-agency permission. For BIR, § 7(C) of the NIRC is controlling, so permission is almost never given. |
| Rule 138, § 35, Rules of Court | Enumerates officials barred from private practice; also provides that any “government attorney” may not appear against the State. | A BIR lawyer or revenue officer with Bar membership is a government attorney. Even pro bono representation adverse to the government is disallowed. |
| Civil Service Commission (CSC) Res. 94-0521 & Memo Cir. 17-2004 | Requires written authority for outside employment and limits it to 48 hours/month. | 48-hour ceiling is academic for BIR personnel because the NIRC already imposes a stricter rule (total ban). |
| BIR Personnel Manual; Revenue Memorandum Order (RMO) 53-2010 | Restates the NIRC ban, reminds officials that violations are “grave misconduct,” and outlines request-for-authority procedure (for teaching, research, MCLE lecturing). | Internal enforcement mechanism; violation triggers automatic Internal Affairs Service (IAS) investigation. |
3. Scope of “Practice of Law” in This Context
The Supreme Court defines “practice of law” broadly: any activity, in or out of court, which requires the application of law, legal procedure, knowledge, training, and experience (e.g., Cayetano v. Monsod, 1991). For BIR employees this captures:
- Court and quasi-judicial appearances (CTA, SEC, DARAB, NLRC, etc.)
- Drafting pleadings, contracts, tax opinions, protest letters for a private party
- Negotiating settlements on behalf of a client
- Paid tax lectures targeted at a private client’s specific situation
- Using the title “Atty.” in advertisements for non-government services
Not included:
- Teaching law in a CHED-accredited school (with written CSC/BIR authority)
- Authoring generic legal articles or textbooks
- MCLE lecturing (honorarium allowed within CSC’s 48-hour/month limit)
- Uncompensated bar review coaching (again, with written approval)
4. Jurisprudence Illustrating Enforcement
| Case | Gist | Penalty Imposed |
|---|---|---|
| Cuaresma v. Atty. Aqua-Esteban (A.C. 7895, 28 Jan 2015) | DOF lawyer moonlighted as counsel for a business that had pending tax audits. | Six-month suspension from the Bar; DOF also dismissed her for grave misconduct. |
| Calderon v. Roxas (G.R. 20262, 06 Feb 2019) | BIR revenue officer notarised deeds and powers of attorney for a fee. | Dismissal from the service, forfeiture of benefits, perpetual disqualification. |
| In re: Atty. Abellera (B.M. 2480, 17 Mar 2021) | Prosecutor appeared for a taxpayer in CTA, arguing it was “pro bono.” | One-year suspension; SC clarified that “pro bono” does not cure the conflict. |
5. Criminal and Administrative Liabilities
Administrative
- Grave Misconduct / Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service
- Penalties: Suspension to dismissal (Rule 10, 2017 Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service)
Criminal
- Violation of § 7(C), NIRC → Fine of ₱50,000–₱100,000 and imprisonment of 10–15 years (§ 268-A, NIRC)
- Direct Bribery / Indirect Bribery (Arts. 210–211, Revised Penal Code) if fee is tied to official action
Professional
- Disbarment or suspension under Canon 1 & 6, Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR 2023)
6. How a BIR Lawyer May Obtain Limited Authority
| Step | Requirement | Authority |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Written request citing nature of activity (e.g., teaching Taxation 2, 3 hrs/week) | Employee → Division Chief → Regional Director/Service Chief |
| 2 | No conflict certification (no pending cases of applicant’s assigned taxpayers) | Immediate supervisor |
| 3 | Commissioner’s approval endorsed to CSC | If disapproved, end of process |
| 4 | Annual renewal & submission of time records | HRMD & IAS |
Practice strictly limited to the activity approved; any client-related legal work voids the authority.
7. Best-Practice Compliance Checklist
- ✔ Update HR file with current MCLE compliance but do not list private clients.
- ✔ Refuse requests from friends/relatives to draft contracts or appear in court—refer them to Public Attorney’s Office or private counsel.
- ✔ Lecture invitations? Obtain written BIR permission; cap honoraria at government-allowed rates.
- ✔ Pro bono cases? Still barred if the government could be an adverse or interested party.
- ✘ Never notarise documents while in active BIR service (even for free).
8. Looking Ahead
The Department of Finance has floated proposals to professionalise BIR’s legal ranks by creating a distinct “BIR Law Office” redesignated as quasi-judicial counsel, which—if passed—may allow in-house specialization but still retain the outside-practice ban. As of June 2025, no bill has yet passed either chamber of Congress.
Conclusion
For BIR employees, the default rule is an absolute prohibition on the private practice of law. The handful of narrow exceptions (teaching, scholarly work) exist to advance public service, not private gain, and require prior written authority. Violations trigger triple exposure—administrative, criminal, and professional—underscoring the government’s uncompromising stance against conflicts of interest in tax administration. Every BIR lawyer or revenue officer should treat the prohibition as the professional equivalent of a “do-not-cross” line—and plan their careers, finances, and continuing legal education accordingly.
(This article is informational; for specific cases, consult the BIR-HRMD or the Legal Service.)