MENDIOLA, Reyzen Paul Unite

2011030966
3E
Fajardo v Alvarez
A.C. No. 9018 April 20, 2016

FACTS:
(As summarized by the Commission on Bar Discipline, the parties’ have differing
versions of facts.)
Fajardo was the Municipal Treasurer of San Leonardo, Nueva Ecija. When she
hired Atty. Alvarez to defend her in criminal and administrative cases filed against her
before the Ombudsman, Atty. Alvarez was employed in the Legal Section of the National
Center for Mental Health. He asked for P1,400,000.00 as acceptance fee but did not enter
his appearance before the Ombudsman nor sign any pleadings. After assuring Fajardo
that his friends connected with the Ombudsman could help with dismissing her case, he
asked for an additional P500,000.00 as payment to his friends to have her case
dismissed. After just two weeks, the Ombudsman issued a resolution and decision
recommending the filing of a criminal complaint against Fajardo and her dismissal from
service. She then demanded that Atty. Alvarez return at least a portion of the amount she
gave to which the latter promised to return but failed to do so, even when the former sent
him a demand letter.
(According to Atty. Alvarez, despite being a Legal Officer III of the National Center
for Mental Health, he had the authority to engage in private practice of the profession.
After discussing the decision and resolution of the Ombudsman, he accepted the case
and asked for P500,000.00 as acceptance fee. This fee, however, is exclusive of filing,
appearance, and other miscellaneous fees. He claimed he prepared several pleading in
connection with Fajardo’s case and several letters to different government officials and
agencies. Atty. Alvarez alleged Fajardo made staggered payments: she only paid
P450,000.00 of the agreed acceptance fee and while she paid P60,000.00 for the
miscellaneous expenses, expenses for other legal works performed and advanced by him
were left unpaid. On the last day of filing of the petition for review, Fajardo informed Atty.
Alvarez that she was no longer interested in his services and had hired Atty. Contado, a
co-counsel in the cases against Fajardo.)
The Commission on Bar Discipline found Atty. Alvarez guilty of violating the Code
of Professional Responsibility and recommended that he be suspended from the practice
of law for one year. He was also ordered to return the amount of P700,000.00 to Fajardo
with legal interest. (1.) On the unauthorized practice of law, while his claim that he was
authorized to privately practice law, the pleadings he allegedly prepared did not bear his
name and signature. Granting that he was indeed authorized, he was prohibited to handle
cases involving malversation of funds by government officials. (2.) On the amount of
attorney’s fees, the fees Atty. Alvarez asked were unreasonable, as such was exorbitant
and too much for a lowly local government employee. Such action was not only illegal,
immoral, and dishonest, but also taking advantage of the defenseless victim. This finding
is adopted by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.
ISSUE:
1. WON a lawyer working in the Legal Section of the National Center for Mental
Health under the Department of Health is authorized to engage in the private
practice of law.
2. (WON the amount charged by Atty. Alvarez for attorney’s fees is reasonable under
the principle of quantum meruit.) *
RULING:
(The Court first fleshed out what the practice of law is and its connection with government
employees privately practicing law before deducing what provisions, or canons, of the law
Atty. Alvarez violated.)
MENDIOLA, Reyzen Paul Unite
2011030966
3E
YES. (The Court answered in the affirmative but with reservation with regards to
the acts committed by Atty. Alvarez.) Although he is indeed authorized to privately
practice law, as evidenced by a letter of NCMH Head Chief, his surreptitious acts reveal
illicit intent. He practiced law even if he did not sign any pleading. Not only did he do an
unauthorized practice, his acts also show badges of offering to peddle influence in the
Ombudsman.
In the case of Cayetano v Monsod, practice of law is defined as any activity in and
out of the court, which requires the application of law, legal procedure, knowledge,
training, and experience. It includes performing acts which are characteristics of the legal
profession or rendering any kind of service which requires the use in any degree of legal
knowledge or skill. Albeit being a government employee, by preparing the pleadings of
and giving legal advice to Fajardo, Atty. Alvarez practiced law.
Under Section 7(b)(2) of the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public
Officials and Employees, government officials and employees are prohibited from
engaging in the private practice of their profession unless authorized by the Constitution
and law. If authorized, such practice must not conflict with the official functions of
the government official. Memorandum Circular No. 17 added another authority that may
permit a government officer or employee to engage in the private practice of his
profession: the head of the Department. It also provided further that when said official or
employee is granted to privately practice, the time so devoted outside office hours should
be fixed by the chief of the agency so as not to impair the efficiency of the officer or
employee. In this case, Atty. Alvarez was authorized to privately practice his
profession. However, by assisting and representing Fajardo in a suit against the
Ombudsman and against the government in general, he put himself in a situation
of conflict of interest.
As was discussed in the case of Javellana v DILG, complaints against public
officers and employees relating to or incidental to the performance of their duties are
necessarily impressed with public interest for by express constitutional mandate, a public
office is a public trust. In this case, there is a basic conflict of interest. Atty. Alvarez
is a public officer, an employee of the government. The Office of the Ombudsman
is part of the government. By appearing against the Office of the Ombudsman, Atty.
Alvarez is going against the same employer he swore to serve. A conflict of interest
exists when an incumbent government employee represents another government
employee or public officer in a case pending before the Office of the Ombudsman.
Under the Lawyer’s Oath, lawyers are mandated to uphold, at all times, integrity
and dignity in the practice of their profession. Atty. Alvarez violated the oath when he
proposed to gain a favorable outcome for Fajardo’s case by resorting to his influence
among staff in the Office where the case was pending. He likewise violated the Code of
Professional Responsibility. Canon 1, Rules 1.01 and 1.02 prohibit lawyer from
engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct. His act of ensuring that
the case will be dismissed because of his personal relationships with officers or
employees in the Office of the Ombudsman is unlawful and dishonest. Canon 7 requires
lawyers to always uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession. In relation,
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.
* (Having determined that Atty. Alvarez illicitly practiced law, the Court find that
there is no need to determine whether the fees he charged were reasonable.)
The Court found Atty. Alvarez 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, and suspended him from the practice of law for one year with
a warning that a repetition of the same or similar acts shall be dealt with more severely.
MENDIOLA, Reyzen Paul Unite
2011030966
3E
Lawyers who offer no skill other than their acquaintances or relationships with
regulators, investigators, judges, or Justices pervert the system, weaken the rule of law,
and debase themselves even as they claim to be members of a noble profession.
Practicing law should not degenerate to one's ability to have illicit access. Rather, it should
be about making an honest appraisal of the client's situation as seen through the evidence
fairly and fully gathered. It should be about making a discerning and diligent reading of
the applicable law. It is foremost about attaining justice in a fair manner. Law exists to
temper, with its own power, illicit power and unfair advantage. It should not be conceded
as a tool only for those who cheat by unduly influencing people or public officials.