AC 5878; (March, 2005) (Digest)
G.R. No. A.C. 5878. March 21, 2005
JESUS E. SANTAYANA, Complainant, vs. ATTY. ELISEO B. ALAMPAY, Respondent.
FACTS
Complainant Jesus E. Santayana charged respondent Atty. Eliseo B. Alampay, a member of the Board of Administrators of the National Electrification Administration (NEA), with malpractice and violation of the Attorney’s Oath. The complaint stemmed from NEA’s disqualification of Nerwin Industries Corporation, the lowest bidder in a public bidding, and the subsequent award to another bidder. The Office of the Government Corporate Counsel (OGCC), NEA’s statutory counsel, opined that this action was illegal.
Despite this, respondent, through his private law firm, rendered a legal opinion adverse to the OGCC’s, which NEA used to justify nullifying Nerwin’s award. When Nerwin sued NEA for specific performance, respondent’s law firm entered its appearance as counsel for NEA. The trial court, and later the Court of Appeals, disqualified the firm, ruling that representation by a private law firm was improper absent the written conformity of the Solicitor General or OGCC and the written concurrence of the Commission on Audit, as required by law and administrative issuances.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Atty. Eliseo B. Alampay is administratively liable for representing NEA, a government-owned and controlled corporation, in judicial proceedings without the requisite legal authority.
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court found respondent administratively liable. The legal framework is clear: pursuant to its charter and Memorandum Circular No. 9 from the Office of the President, NEA must be represented in judicial proceedings by the OGCC, its in-house legal division, or the Office of the Solicitor General. Engaging a private lawyer is allowed only in exceptional circumstances, which requires the written conformity of the Solicitor General or OGCC and the written concurrence of the Commission on Audit.
The Court examined NEA Board Resolution No. 38, which respondent claimed authorized his representation. The Resolution was legally infirm as it contained none of the required written conformities or concurrences. Therefore, respondent willfully appeared as counsel for NEA without lawful authority, constituting a violation of Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, which prescribes disbarment or suspension for “corruptly or willfully appearing as an attorney for a party to a case without authority.” The Court noted the absence of proven bad faith and that the services were rendered pro bono, mitigating the penalty. Consequently, respondent was fined Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00) and warned that a repetition would be dealt with more severely.