TERESITA P. FAJARDO vs. ATTY. NICANOR C. ALVAREZ

Summary: Lawyers are mandated to uphold, at all times, integrity and dignity in the practice of their profession. Respondent violated the oath he took when he proposed to gain a favorable outcome for complainant's case by resorting to his influence among staff in the Office where the case was pending.

FACTS: Complainant Teresita P. Fajardo (Teresita) was the Municipal Treasurer of San Leonardo, Nueva Ecija. She hired respondent Atty. Nicanor C. Alvarez (Atty. Alvarez) to defend her in criminal and administrative cases before the Office of the Ombudsman.

Atty. Alvarez was then working in the Legal Section of the National Center for Mental Health. He asked for P1,400,000.00 as acceptance fee. However, Atty. Alvarez did not enter his appearance before the Office of the Ombudsman nor sign any pleadings. Atty. Alvarez assured Teresita that he had friends connected with the Office of the Ombudsman who could help with dismissing her case for a certain fee. Atty. Alvarez said that he needed to pay the amount of P500,000.00 to his friends and acquaintances working at the Office of the Ombudsman to have the cases against Teresita dismissed.

However, just two (2) weeks after Teresita and Atty. Alvarez talked, the Office of the Ombudsman issued a resolution and decision recommending the filing of a criminal complaint against Teresita, and her dismissal from service, respectively.

Teresita then demanded that Atty. Alvarez return at least a portion of the amount she gave. Atty. Alvarez promised to return the amount to Teresita; however, he failed to fulfill this promise. Teresita sent a demand letter to Atty. Alvarez, which he failed to heed.

ISSUES: First, whether respondent Atty. Nicanor C. Alvarez, as 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.

Second, whether the amount charged by respondent for attorney's fees is reasonable under the principle of quantum meruit.

HELD: We find that respondent committed unauthorized practice of his profession.

Respondent practiced law even if he did not sign any pleading. In the context of this case, his surreptitious actuations reveal illicit intent. Not only did he do unauthorized practice, his acts also show badges of offering to peddle influence in the Office of the

Ombudsman.

In this case, respondent was given written permission by the Head of the National Center for Mental Health, whose authority was designated under Department of Health Administrative Order No. 21, series of 1999.

However, by assisting and representing complainant in a suit against the Ombudsman and against government in general, respondent put himself in a situation of conflict of interest.

Respondent's practice of profession was expressly and impliedly conditioned on the requirement that his practice will not be "in conflict with the interest of the Center and the Philippine government as a whole There is basic conflict of interest here. Respondent is a public officer, an employee of government. The Office of the Ombudsman is part of government. By appearing against the Office of the Ombudsman, respondent is going against the same employer he swore to serve.

Likewise, we find that respondent violated the Lawyer's Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility when he communicated to or, at the very least, made it appear to complainant that he knew people from the Office of the Ombudsman who could help them get a favorable decision in complainant's case.

Thus, respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibility. Canon 1, Rules 1.01, and 1.02 prohibit lawyers from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct. Respondent's 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 of the Code of Professional Responsibility 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 [or her] cause and refrain from any impropriety which tends to influence, or gives the appearance of influencing the court."

A lawyer that approaches a judge to try to gain influence and receive a favorable outcome for his or her client violates Canon 13 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Nevertheless, as found by the Investigating Commissioner and as shown by the records, we rule that there is enough proof to hold respondent guilty of influence peddling.

Respondent Arty. Nicanor C. Alvarez is 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. He is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one (1) year with a WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar acts shall be dealt with more severely. Respondent is ORDERED to return the amount of P500,000.00 with legal interest to complainant Teresita P. Fajardo.