Case Summary (A.C. No. 9018)
Relevant Procedural and Factual Background
In 2009, Fajardo engaged Alvarez to defend her against administrative and criminal charges before the Office of the Ombudsman. She advanced up to ₱1.4 million purportedly to secure dismissals through Alvarez’s “friends” in the Ombudsman’s Office. Two weeks later, the Ombudsman issued resolutions recommending her dismissal from service and criminal indictment. Fajardo demanded refund; Alvarez failed to return funds.
Respondent’s Version of Engagement
Alvarez asserted valid departmental authorization (per DOH Admin. Order No. 21, s. 1999) to undertake private practice so long as it did not conflict with government interest. He claimed to have prepared motions for reconsideration, injunction petitions, and other pleadings, charging a ₱500,000 acceptance fee (exclusive of costs) and setting a voluntary success fee. Fajardo paid ₱450,000 balance plus ₱60,000 miscellaneous expenses and later sought new counsel.
Disciplinary Proceedings and Findings
Fajardo filed a verified complaint before the IBP’s Commission on Bar Discipline in June 2011. In November 2012, the Investigating Commissioner recommended one-year suspension and refund of ₱700,000, finding Alvarez guilty of unlawful, immoral and deceitful acts, unauthorized practice of law, and unreasonable fees. The IBP Board of Governors adopted the recommendation in June 2013; a motion for reconsideration was denied in May 2014.
Issue 1: Unauthorized Practice of Law
Under the 1987 Constitution, RA 6713 § 7(b)(2), and Civil Service MC No. 17, government lawyers may engage in private practice only if authorized and without conflict. Despite a departmental authorization letter, Alvarez’s representation of a fellow government official before the Ombudsman (an arm of the same government he served) created an irreconcilable conflict of interest. His preparation of pleadings and private legal advice, undisclosed signature notwithstanding, constituted practice of law.
Issue 2: Influence Peddling and Professional Misconduct
Alvarez assured Fajardo he had “friends” in the Ombudsman’s Office who could secure favorable outcomes for fees. Text messages (corroborated by the IBP record) and his conduct demonstrated influence peddling—an unlawful, dishonest and deceitful act in violation of the Lawyer’s Oath and Code of Professional Responsibility (Canon 1, Rules 1.01–1.02; Canon 7; Canon 13).
Supreme Court Analysis and Ruling
The Court held that Alvarez’s actions breached the Code of Conduct and E
...continue readingCase Syllabus (A.C. No. 9018)
Background of the Parties and Engagement
- Teresita P. Fajardo served as Municipal Treasurer of San Leonardo, Nueva Ecija.
- Atty. Nicanor C. Alvarez was Legal Officer III in the Legal Section of the National Center for Mental Health under the Department of Health.
- In 2009, Fajardo engaged Alvarez to defend her in administrative and criminal cases before the Office of the Ombudsman.
- Alvarez purportedly negotiated an “acceptance fee” and assured Fajardo of influence with Ombudsman personnel.
Dispute over Fees and Promised Services
- Alvarez initially demanded ₱1,400,000 as an acceptance fee, later reducing to ₱500,000 for his “friends” in the Ombudsman.
- Fajardo paid staggered amounts, including ₱500,000 alleged to be passed on to Ombudsman contacts and ₱60,000 for miscellaneous expenses.
- Despite payments, the Ombudsman issued a resolution dismissing Fajardo from service and recommending her indictment two weeks after engagement.
- Fajardo demanded refund; Alvarez promised repayment but failed to return any amount.
Respondent’s Version and Professional Activities
- Alvarez produced an August 1, 2001 authorization letter from his Medical Center Chief permitting private practice, subject to non-conflict with government interest.
- Fee arrangement: 50% down payment to his or his secretary’s account, balance in installments, success fee voluntary and exclusive of filing or appearance costs.
- Alvarez claimed to have prepared multiple pleadings: motions for reconsideration (July 23, 2009), injunction petitions (RTCGapan Oct. 15, 2009; CA Nov. 18 & 26, 2009), and correspondence to officials.
- Fajardo allegedly paid the balance of ₱450,000 on February 11, 2010, plus miscellaneous outlays, but declined further services, hiring a co-counsel instead.
Disciplinary Proceedings and Findings Below
- June 1, 2011: Fajardo filed a verified disbar