Case #107

FAJARDO v. ALVAREZ
A.C. No. 9018
April 20, 2016

FACTS
This is a disbarment complaint filed by Fajardo against Atty. Alvarez for unauthorized practice of
law and unreasonable attorney’s fees in violation of the Lawyer’s Oath and the CPR.
Complainant Fajardo who was the Municipal Treasurer of a town in Nueva Ecija hired Atty.
Alvarez to defend her in criminal and administrative cases in the Ombudsman. Alvarez who was then
working in the Legal Section of the National Center for Mental Health asked for a P1.4million acceptance
fee saying he had to pay P500K to his friends in the Ombudsman that could help dismiss her case.
Atty. Alvarez did not enter his appearance before the Ombudsman nor sign any pleadings. Two
weeks after, the Ombudsman issued a resolution recommending the filing of a criminal complaint against
Fajardo and her dismissal from service.
Fajardo then asked for her money back or at least a portion of it. Atty. Alvarez promised to return
it to her yet failed to fulfill this promise. Thus,the reason for this complaint.
In his defense, Atty. Alvares claimed that he was authorized by his superior to engage in private
practice and that he cannot be held liable for unauthorized practice as he did not sign any pleadings.
IBP CBD found Atty. Alvarez guilty of violating the CPR and recommended suspension of one
(1) year and to return the amount of P700K with legal interest.
IBP BOG adopted and approved the report of the commissioner.

ISSUE
1. WON a lawyer working at the Legal Section of the Nation Center for Mental Health under the
DOH is authorized to practice law.
2. WON the amount charged by respondent for atty’s fees is reasonable.

HELD
The Court finds the respondent guilty of unauthorized practice of law. The permission of his
superior was hinged on the condition that his practice will not be in conflict with the interest of the Center
and the Phil. government as a whole. Representing complainant against the Obudsman violates this.
Respondent also violated Canon 1, Rules 1.01 and 1.02; Canon 7 by making it appear that he
could get a favourable decision in the Ombudsman through his personal connections with the employees
of the Ombudsman.
In relation to Canon 13 mandates that lawyers “shall rely upon the merits of his cause and refrain
from any impropriety which tends to influence, or gives the appearance of influencing the court.” As
found by the Investigating Commissioner and as shown by records, there is enough proof to hold
respondent guilty of influence peddling.
It is time to emphasize that to even imply to the client that a lawyer knows who will make the
decision is an act worthy of the utmost condemnation. There is never an excuse for influence peddling.
Thus, respondent is SUSPENDED for 1 year and ORDERED to pay back P500K with legal interest to
complainant Teresita Fajardo.
Case #108
BUENO v. RANESES
A.C. No. 9018
July 19, 2017

FACTS
This is a disbarment complaint filed by Amparo Bueno against Atty. Raneses for negligence and
for soliciting money to bribe a judge both of which are in violation of Canon 18, Rule 18.03 and Canon
13 of the CPR respectively.
Bueno hired Atty. Raneses to represent her in a civil case. She paid Atty. Raneses a retainer fee of
P3K and additional P300 for every hearing he attended. No receipt was issued.
Bueno alleged that Atty. Raneses asked for P10K in order to bribe the judge and win the case. To
raise the amount needed, she immediately sold a pig and a refrigerator. Sometime later, Atty. Raneses
asked for another P5K, she then sold her sala set and TV.
Despite the complainant’s giving of the required money, however, she was shocked
to find out that the case turned out against her despite her counsel’s assurance of winning
the case. Worse, the respondent allegedly concealed all the development of the case from her, including
his failure to comment on the adverse party’s offer of evidence and to submit their memorandum on the
case. Respondent also failed to attend hearings set by the IBP.
IBP CBD recommended that Atty. Raneses be absolved of the charge of negligence and disbarred
for being found guilty of soliciting money to bribe a judge.
IBP BOG adopted and approved the recommendation but reduced the penalty to indefinite
suspension from the practice of law.

ISSUE
WON Atty. Raneses is guilty of negligence and of soliciting money to bribe the judge.

HELD
The Court resolved to DISBAR Atty. Raneses from the practice of law in accordance with IBP-
CBD’s recommendation.
For the charge of negligence, Canon 18 provides that lawyers must serve their clients with
competence and diligence. Atty. Raneses’ alleged failure to file a comment on the adverse party’s
evidence and to submit the required memorandum would have amounted to negligence. However, Bueno
did not support her allegations and thus failed to prove Atty. Raneses’ negligence. The court then
absolves respondent of the charge of negligence
For the charge of soliciting money, respondent lawyer violated Canon 13 of the CPR instructing
lawyers to refrain from any impropriety tending to influence, or from any act giving the appearance of
influencing, the court. First, he extracted money from his client for a purpose that is both false and
fraudulent. It is false because no bribery apparently took place as Atty. Rañeses in fact lost the case. It is
fraudulent because the professed purpose of the exaction was the crime of bribery. Beyond these, he
maligned the judge and the Judiciary by giving the impression that court cases are won, not on the merits,
but through deceitful means a decidedly black mark against the Judiciary. Last but not the least, Atty.
Rañeses grossly disrespected the IBP by his cavalier attitude towards its disciplinary proceedings.
Case #109
BILDNER v. ILUSORIO
G.R. No. 157384
June 5, 2009

FACTS
This is a disbarment case against Atty. Sinsgson for attempted bribery and gross misconduct
which stemmed from his alleged attempt, as counsel of Ramon Ilusorio in a civil case to exert influence
on presiding RTC Judge Antonio Reyes to rule in Ilusorio’s favor.
Atty. Singson’s bid to influence the judge, allegedly came in the form of a bribe offer. In the
hearing, Ilusorio motioned for Judge Reyes to inhibit himself. Judge Reyes then narrated that Atty.
Singson had been calling his residence about 20-50 times and had offered Atty. Sevilla (family friend of
judge) who is his classmate at law school P500K to give to him, for the purpose of ruling in Ilusorio’s
favor.
Complainant-petitioner then submitted an affidavit made by Judge Reyes narrating Atty.
Singson’s attempts to influence him concerning the case of [Ramon Ilusorio v Baguio Country Club]. The
attempts consisted of visiting him 3 times in his office and making a dozen calls to Manila and Bagio
residences offering him bribe money. Atty. Sevilla also submitted an affidavit to support the bribery
charge against Atty. Singson.

ISSUE
WON Atty. Singson should be administratively disciplined or disbarred from the practice of law
for alleged gross misconduct in attempting to bribe Judge Antonio Reyes?

HELD
There is a well-grounded reason to believe that Atty. Singson indeed attempted to influence Judge
Reyes. The evidence are: stenographic notes, Judge Reyes’ affidavit and Atty. Sevilla’s affidavit. The
facts that the calls were made in late evening or unusual hours corroborate Judge Reyes’ statement. This
leads us to conclude that Atty. sinson was indeed trying to influence the court.
First we must stress the difficulty of proving bribery as it is often done in secret. Thus, there is no
concrete evidence regarding Atty. Singson’s attempts. Nevertheless, Judge Reyes’ statements must be
given weight.
Canon 13 provides that a lawyer shall rely upon the merits of his cause and refrain from
impropriety which tends to influence or gives the appearance of influencing the court. In this case, there is
enough proof to hold Atty. Singson liable of unethical behaviour and attempting to influence a Judge,
itself a transgression of considerable gravity.
However, heeding the injunction against decreeing disbarment where a lesser sanction would
suffice to accomplish the desired end, a SUSPENSION for one year from the practice of law appears
appropriate.