AC 9018; (April, 2016) (Digest)
A.C. No. 9018. April 20, 2016. TERESITA P. FAJARDO, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. NICANOR C. ALVAREZ, RESPONDENT.
FACTS:
Complainant Teresita P. Fajardo, a former Municipal Treasurer, hired respondent Atty. Nicanor C. Alvarez, a Legal Officer III at the National Center for Mental Health (NCMH), to represent her in criminal and administrative cases before the Office of the Ombudsman. Fajardo alleged that Atty. Alvarez demanded and received a total of P1,400,000.00, part of which was purportedly to be paid to his “friends” at the Ombudsman to secure a dismissal. However, the Ombudsman soon issued adverse resolutions against her. Fajardo claimed Atty. Alvarez never formally entered his appearance, signed pleadings, or performed substantial legal work, prompting her to demand a refund, which he failed to provide.
Atty. Alvarez countered that he was authorized to engage in private practice and that he rendered significant legal services, including preparing motions for reconsideration and petitions for injunction. He asserted that the fees charged were based on the case’s complexity and the anticipated workload, which included potential appeals to higher courts. He admitted receiving payments but claimed Fajardo unilaterally terminated his services after he had performed work and after she had paid most of the agreed acceptance fee.
ISSUE
Whether Atty. Alvarez is guilty of professional misconduct warranting disciplinary action.
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court found Atty. Alvarez guilty of violating the Code of Professional Responsibility and suspended him from the practice of law for one year, with an order to return P700,000.00 to the complainant with legal interest. The Court’s ruling was based on two primary grounds. First, Atty. Alvarez engaged in the unauthorized private practice of law. As a Legal Officer III in a government hospital under the Department of Health, his position is classified as a “second level” career service position. The law and civil service rules prohibit such government employees from private law practice unless specifically authorized by law or the Civil Service Commission, which authorization he failed to substantiate. His private engagement was therefore unlawful.
Second, his conduct was grossly unethical. The Court found his claim of having performed substantial legal work unsupported, as the critical pleadings he allegedly prepared did not bear his signature or name as counsel. More egregiously, his admission that he solicited money from his client to be given to “friends” at the Ombudsman constitutes a serious violation of Canon 1 (prohibiting deceitful conduct) and Canon 13 (prohibiting conduct that tends to influence the court by improper means). This act corruptly implied he could unduly influence the proceedings, severely undermining public confidence in the legal system. The excessive fee, coupled with the failure to render commensurate service and the deceitful solicitation, justified the penalty of suspension and restitution.