A.C. No. 9018 - Fajardo vs. Alvarez

Case Summary (A.C. No. 9018)

Petitioner and Respondent Positions

Complainant’s version: she retained respondent circa 2009 to defend her in Ombudsman administrative and criminal matters; respondent demanded an acceptance fee allegedly totaling P1,400,000, assured her he had “friends” at the Ombudsman who could secure dismissal for fees, requested that P500,000 be paid to those contacts, did not enter appearance or sign pleadings, and failed or refused to return money when the Ombudsman’s resolution recommended dismissal and criminal complaint.
Respondent’s version: he had written authorization from his agency head to engage in private practice (subject to conditions), charged an acceptance fee of P500,000 for the case, received staggered payments including P450,000 on February 11, 2010 and P60,000 for miscellaneous expenses, prepared motions and petitions in the matter, and later had his services terminated when complainant hired other counsel.

Key Dates (events in the record)

2009: retention and filing of motions and petitions (motions for reconsideration, petitions for injunction and preliminary injunction).
February 11, 2010: payment of P450,000 alleged by respondent.
March–April 2010: text messages exchanged (as reflected in the record).
June 1, 2011: complainant filed a verified complaint with the Office of the Bar Confidant.
December 7, 2011: referral to Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation.
November 12, 2012: Investigating Commissioner’s Report and Recommendation.
June 21, 2013: IBP Board of Governors adopted the Investigating Commissioner’s Report.
May 3, 2014: IBP denied respondent’s motion for reconsideration.

Applicable Law and Standards

Constitutional principle: public office is a public trust; public officers and employees must serve with integrity and avoid conflicts of interest (1987 Constitution).
Statutory/regulatory controls: Section 7(b)(2) of Republic Act No. 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees) prohibits private practice of profession by public employees unless authorized and such practice does not conflict with official functions; Memorandum Circular No. 17 (1986) and relevant civil service rules require written permission from department heads and condition that outside practice not impair official duties; DOH Administrative Order No. 21 (1999) delegated to the DOH chief authority to grant permission to engage in private practice, subject to conditions.
Professional norms: Lawyer’s Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility (Canons 1, 7, and 13) proscribe unlawful, dishonest, immoral, deceitful conduct and require reliance upon the merits of a cause rather than attempts to influence decisionmakers.
Definition of “practice of law”: jurisprudence (Cayetano v. Monsod; Lingan v. Calubaquib) treats practice of law broadly to include out-of-court legal advice, preparation of pleadings, and any activity requiring legal knowledge and skill; government work requiring legal knowledge is also considered practice of law.

Facts Found and Procedural Outcome at the IBP Level

The Investigating Commissioner found respondent guilty of unlawful, immoral and deceitful acts under the Code of Professional Responsibility, recommended suspension from the practice of law for one year, and ordered return of P700,000 with legal interest. The IBP Board of Governors adopted the Investigating Commissioner’s report and recommendation; respondent’s motion for reconsideration was denied.

Unauthorized Practice and Conflict-of-Interest Analysis

The Court applied the modern, broad definitions of practice of law and held that respondent engaged in the practice of law by preparing pleadings and advising complainant even though the pleadings did not bear his signature. The DOH letter granting permission to engage in private practice expressly conditioned such permission on the practice not being in conflict with the interests of the Center or the Philippine government. Representation or assistance in a suit against the Ombudsman or the government places an incumbent government lawyer in direct conflict with the public employer’s interests. Under RA 6713 and implementing rules, authorization to practice is permissible only if no conflict exists; here, respondent’s representation of a public officer in matters before the Ombudsman contravened that safeguard and created a basic conflict of interest analogous to the facts of Javellana v. DILG.

Influence Peddling, Ethical Violations, and Professional Duty

The record contains text messages and other indicia that respondent represented to complainant that he had contacts or “friends” at the Office of the Ombudsman and that payments would be made to secure favorable action. The Court treated such conduct as influence peddling and a breach of the Lawyer’s Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility. Canon 1 (prohibition against unlawful, dishonest or deceitful conduct), Canon 7 (duty to uphold the integrity and dignity of the profession), and Canon 13 (reliance on the merits of the cause and avoidance of impropriety that tends to influence decisionmakers) were applied to find the respondent’s conduct unethical and unlawful. The Court relied on prior authorities addressing similar misconduct and influence peddling to underscore that a lawyer’s attempt to secure outcomes through personal relationships with decisionmakers is condemnable and undermines public confidence in legal institutions.

Evidentiary Assessment and Burden of Proof

Disciplinary proceedings require proof by substantial evidence. The respondent contested the authenticity or attribution of the text messages and asserted privilege, confusion, or lack of recollection. The Investigating Commissioner and the IBP found the totality of evidence — including payments, the parties’ accountings, and the text exchanges — sufficient to establish influence peddling and illicit intent. The Supreme Court agreed there was enough proof to sustain the findings of unauthorized practice and influence peddling.

Attorney’s Fees and Quantum Meruit

The Investigating Commissioner found the total fees demanded by respondent excessive and recommended restitution of P700,000. The Court, having determined that respond

Case Syllabus (A.C. No. 9018)

Citation and Procedural Posture

Reported at 785 Phil. 303, Second Division; A.C. No. 9018; Decision promulgated April 20, 2016; ponente Justice Leonen.
Administrative complaint filed by Teresita P. Fajardo against Atty. Nicanor C. Alvarez for alleged unauthorized private practice of law while a government Legal Officer and for unethical conduct including influence peddling and the imposition of unreasonable attorney’s fees.
Case history includes initial filing before the Office of the Bar Confidant, referral to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, the Investigating Commissioner’s Report and Recommendation, adoption by the IBP Board of Governors, denial of Atty. Alvarez’s motion for reconsideration before the IBP, and ultimate review and decision by the Supreme Court.

Parties

Complainant: Teresita P. Fajardo — then Municipal Treasurer of San Leonardo, Nueva Ecija.
Respondent: Atty. Nicanor C. Alvarez — Legal Officer III of the National Center for Mental Health under the Department of Health.

Factual Allegations — Complainant’s Version

Around 2009, Fajardo engaged Atty. Alvarez to handle several cases filed against her before the Office of the Ombudsman.
Atty. Alvarez was then employed in the Legal Section of the National Center for Mental Health.
Atty. Alvarez allegedly asked for P1,400,000.00 as an “acceptance fee.”
Atty. Alvarez allegedly did not enter his appearance before the Office of the Ombudsman nor sign pleadings in the cases.
He allegedly assured Fajardo he had friends in the Office of the Ombudsman who could secure dismissal for a certain fee and said he needed to pay P500,000.00 to those acquaintances to achieve dismissal.
Two weeks after the discussion, the Office of the Ombudsman issued a resolution recommending criminal complaint filing and dismissal from service against Fajardo.
After the adverse actions, Fajardo demanded return of at least a portion of the money paid; Atty. Alvarez allegedly promised refund but did not comply.
Fajardo sent a demand letter which Atty. Alvarez failed to heed, prompting the verified complaint for disciplinary action.

Factual Assertions — Respondent’s Version

Atty. Alvarez admitted employment as Legal Officer III at the National Center for Mental Health and asserted he had authority to engage in private practice per a written authorization.
He claimed he represented Fajardo in several cases before the Office of the Ombudsman and had an ongoing arrangement to consult with her on cases filed against her.
Alleged fee arrangement: evaluation after receipt of complaint by courier, fee discussion by phone, 50% downpayment to his or his secretary’s bank account, balance paid in installments, and voluntary success fee.
On July 10, 2009, he claimed to have accepted Fajardo’s case and asked for P500,000.00 as acceptance fee, reflecting perceived difficulty and anticipated workload including appeals to higher courts.
He asserted the fee excluded filing and miscellaneous costs and that he prepared multiple pleadings (two motions for reconsideration dated July 23, 2009; petition for injunction to RTC on October 15, 2009; petition for preliminary injunction with TRO at the Court of Appeals on November 18, 2009 and amended petition on November 26, 2009) and various letters to government officials and agencies.
Atty. Alvarez alleged staggered payments by Fajardo, culminating in a balance payment of P450,000.00 on February 11, 2010, and P60,000.00 for miscellaneous expenses, while other advanced expenses remained unpaid.
Fajardo later informed Atty. Alvarez that she engaged Atty. Tyrone Contado (co-counsel) and was no longer retaining Alvarez’s services.
Atty. Alvarez relied on a written authorization dated August 1, 2001, from National Center for Mental Health Chief Bernardino A. Vicente, granting permission to engage in private practice “provided it will not run in conflict with the interest of the Center and the Philippine government as a whole,” and subject to revocation in exigency of service.

Evidence and Documentary Record

Complainant’s verified complaint to the Office of the Bar Confidant and subsequent IBP investigation record.
Investigating Commissioner’s Report and Recommendation (dated November 12, 2012) and associated IBP records.
Letter of authorization from National Center for Mental Health Chief Bernardino A. Vicente dated August 1, 2001 (cited by respondent).
Text messages allegedly sent by Atty. Alvarez to Fajardo, numerous in number and dated across 2010 and earlier, that the Investigating Commissioner found indicative of assurances and representation that friends in the Office of the Ombudsman would intervene; respondent contested authenticity and admissibility, suggesting possible confusion with other contacts and claiming privilege where communications were in the nature of lawyer-client privileged exchange.
Pleading drafts and alleged legal work asserted by Atty. Alvarez (motions for reconsideration, petitions to RTC and Court of Appeals), though the Investigating Commissioner noted that pleadings allegedly prepared did not bear respondent’s name and signature.

Investigating Commissioner’s Findings and Recommendation

Investigating Commissioner Honesto A. Villamayor found respondent guilty of violating the Code of Professional Responsibility, characterizing his acts as unlawful, immoral, and deceitful.
The Commissioner recommended suspension from the practice of law for one (1) year.
The Commissioner recommended return of P700,000.00 to complainant with legal interest from time of demand until full payment, reasoning that although the total sums demanded appeared excessive, P700,000.00 represented a reasonable portion based on records and evidence.
The Commissioner alluded to unauthorized practice of law, observed respondent’s pleadings did not bear his name and signature, and stated respondent’s time spent on complainant’s case was "time lost to the government."
The Commissioner also concluded th