Post

Teresita P. Fajardo vs. Atty. Nicanor C. Alvarez

Posted
By Anonymous
7 min read
Teresita P. Fajardo vs. Atty. Nicanor C. Alvarez

Case Title and Citation

Teresita P. Fajardo, complainant, vs. Atty. Nicanor C. Alvarez, respondent.
A.C. No. 9018, April 20, 2016
Supreme Court - Second Division
Ponente: Justice Leonen

Facts

  • Complainant Teresita P. Fajardo was Municipal Treasurer of San Leonardo, Nueva Ecija. Around 2009 she hired respondent Atty. Nicanor C. Alvarez, at the time Legal Officer III of the National Center for Mental Health (Department of Health), to handle administrative and criminal matters before the Office of the Ombudsman.
  • Complainant’s allegations:
    1. Around 2009 respondent asked for P1,400,000.00 as acceptance fee and assured she had friends at the Office of the Ombudsman who could secure dismissal for a fee.
    2. Respondent allegedly said he needed to pay P500,000.00 to friends at the Ombudsman to have the cases dismissed.
    3. Respondent did not enter his appearance before the Ombudsman nor sign pleadings, and two weeks after their talks the Ombudsman issued a resolution recommending criminal indictment and dismissal for dishonesty.
    4. Complainant demanded return of money; respondent promised to return it but failed to do so; she sent a demand letter which went unheeded.
  • Respondent’s assertions:
    1. He had written authority from the Medical Center Chief of the National Center for Mental Health dated August 1, 2001 to engage in private practice, subject to non-conflict with the Center and the government.
    2. He represented complainant in several proceedings and prepared pleadings (motions for reconsideration, petitions for injunction and preliminary injunction) and letters to officials.
    3. Fee arrangement: acceptance fee (P500,000.00 in the instance cited), 50% downpayment to his or his secretary’s account, balance in installments; success fee voluntary; fee exclusive of filing and miscellaneous costs.
    4. Complainant made staggered payments; he alleged receipt of P450,000.00 as balance on February 11, 2010 and P60,000.00 for miscellaneous expenses; other advanced costs remained unpaid.
  • Procedural history before disciplinary bodies:
    1. On June 1, 2011 complainant filed a verified complaint seeking respondent’s disbarment.
    2. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Investigating Commissioner recommended suspension for one year and return of P700,000.00 with legal interest (Report and Recommendation dated November 12, 2012).
    3. The IBP Board of Governors adopted the recommendation on June 21, 2013 and denied respondent’s motion for reconsideration on May 3, 2014.
  • Evidence referred to the Court included respondent’s written authorization to practice (August 1, 2001 letter), respondent’s claimed pleadings and fee arrangements, and multiple text messages from the phone number attributed to respondent which, as found by the Investigating Commissioner, suggested influence peddling and requests for periodic payments.

Issues

  1. Was respondent, as a lawyer working in the Legal Section of the National Center for Mental Health under the Department of Health, authorized to engage in the private practice of law? (Yes/No)
  2. Was the amount charged by respondent for attorney’s fees reasonable under the principle of quantum meruit? (Yes/No)

Ruling

  1. No - The Court found respondent committed unauthorized practice of law and engaged in conduct that created a conflict with his public functions; authorization was conditioned on non-conflict and respondent represented a client against the Office of the Ombudsman, his employer’s interest.
  2. No - The Court held that because respondent engaged in unauthorized practice and influence peddling, it was unnecessary to finally resolve the reasonableness of the fees under quantum meruit; nonetheless the Court ordered restitution of P500,000.00 (sum alleged to have been given to respondent’s “friends” at the Ombudsman) with legal interest.

Reasoning / Ratio Decidendi

  • Definition of practice of law: The Court reiterated precedents that the practice of law includes out-of-court activities requiring legal knowledge, advice, preparation of pleadings and representation (citing Cayetano v. Monsod, 278 Phil. 235 (1991); Lingan v. Calubaquib, A.C. No. 5377). Preparing pleadings and giving legal advice in complainant’s matters amounted to practicing law even though respondent’s name did not appear on filed pleadings; surreptitious actuations evidenced illicit intent.
  • Authorization and conflict of interest: Under Section 7(b)(2) of Republic Act No. 6713 and Memorandum Circular No. 17 (Revoking Memorandum Circular No. 1025), government officials may engage in private practice only with written permission from the head of the department and only if such practice will not conflict with official functions. Administrative Order No. 21 (DOH) delegated authority to the Medical Center Chief to grant permission; respondent had such a letter but the permission was expressly conditioned on non-conflict with the Center and the Philippine government.
  • Representing a party against the Ombudsman constituted a direct conflict: The Ombudsman is part of government charged to investigate and prosecute public officers; an incumbent government lawyer representing a public officer against the Ombudsman is adverse to government interests and tends to conflict with official duties (citing Javellana v. Department of Interior and Local Government, G.R. No. 102549).
  • Influence peddling and ethical violations: Text messages attributed to respondent, together with circumstances, supported the finding that respondent implied he had contacts at the Ombudsman who could help secure favorable outcomes in exchange for money. Such conduct violates the Lawyer’s Oath, Canon 1 (rules 1.01, 1.02), Canon 7, and Canon 13 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (prohibiting unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct and impropriety that tends to influence decision-makers). The Court cited analogous precedents condemning influence peddling and bribery (Bildner v. Ilusorio; Jimenez v. Verano, Jr.; Bueno v. Ra�eses).
  • On penalty and restitution: Given unauthorized practice and influence peddling, the Court found suspension for one year appropriate (matching IBP’s recommendation) and ordered restitution of P500,000.00 (the amount respondent allegedly gave to his contacts at the Ombudsman) with legal interest. The Court stressed the need to preserve public trust in government and the legal profession.

Doctrine / Legal Principle

  • Practice of law includes out-of-court legal advice and preparation of pleadings; one may practice law without formal appearance if performing acts characteristic of the profession (Cayetano v. Monsod; Lingan v. Calubaquib).
  • Government officials may engage in private practice only with written departmental authorization and only when such practice will not conflict or tend to conflict with official functions (RA No. 6713, Section 7(b)(2); Memorandum Circular No. 17).
  • An incumbent government lawyer who represents a party adverse to government or before the Ombudsman places himself in a conflict of interest and may be barred from practicing in such matters.
  • Influence peddling or implying access to decision-makers for money violates the Lawyer’s Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility (Canons 1, 7, 13) and warrants disciplinary sanction.
  • Restitution of monies improperly exacted or paid as part of unethical influence peddling may be ordered in disciplinary proceedings.

Disposition

  • Respondent Atty. Nicanor C. Alvarez is found guilty of violating the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees, the Lawyer’s Oath, and the Code of Professional Responsibility.
  • Sanction: Suspension from the practice of law for one (1) year with a warning that repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely.
  • Monetary relief: Respondent is ordered to return P500,000.00 with legal interest to complainant Teresita P. Fajardo.
  • Administrative directions: Copies of the Decision to be furnished to the Office of the Bar Confidant (to be appended to respondent’s personal record as attorney), the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, and all courts in the country.

Concurring / Dissenting Opinions

  • Carpio (Chairperson), Brion, Del Castillo, and Mendoza, JJ., concurred.
  • No dissenting opinion indicated in the decision.

Significance / Notes

  • Reinforces that the practice of law encompasses advisory and out-of-court acts; a lawyer need not formally sign pleadings to be deemed to have practiced.
  • Clarifies limits on private practice by government lawyers: written permission is insufficient if the private practice conflicts with governmental interests or the lawyer represents parties adverse to the government or the Ombudsman.
  • Reaffirms that influence peddling—implying access to or control over decision-makers in exchange for money—is a serious ethical breach justifying suspension and restitution.
  • Demonstrates that disciplinary bodies may order restitution of amounts improperly exacted by lawyers in the course of unethical conduct.
  • Serves as a caution to members of the bar that reputation, integrity, and public trust are paramount; misconduct that suggests bribery or influence peddling will be met with significant sanctions.
Public Officers Judicial Conduct and Discipline
This post is licensed under CC BY 4.0 by the author.