3 Fajardo vs. Alvarez

Fajardo vs.
Alvarez
A.C. No. 9018. April 20, 2016
LEONEN, J.:
Facts:
Teresita P. Fajardo, complainant, was a Municipal Treasurer of San Leonardo, Nueva
Ecija who had several criminal and administrative cases before the Office of the Ombudsman
hired Atty. Nicanor C. Alvarez, respondent, to defend her. The parties have differing versions of
the facts. Complainant averred that Atty. Alvarez was then working in the Legal Section of the
National Center for Mental Health and 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. While respondent claims that he did all the paper works but complainant failed to pay
the expenses of other legal work performed and advanced by him and was informed that she was
no longer retaining him. Complainant filed a complaint before the Office of the Bar Confidant a
Verified Complaint praying for the disbarment of Atty. Alvarez, which the case was referred to
the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for investigation, report, and recommendation. Investigating
Commissioner Honesto A. Villamayor found Atty. Alvarez guilty of violating the Code of
Professional Responsibility and recommended Atty. Alvarez’s suspension from the practice of
law for one (1) year and was also ordered to return the amount of P700,000.00 to Teresita with
legal interest from the time of demand until its full payment. The IPB adopted findings and
recommendations of the Investigating Commissioner. Respondent filed for motion for
reconsideration but was denied.
Issue:
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?
Rule of law:
Practice of law
Application:
Under Section 7(b)(2) of Republic Act No. 6713, otherwise known as the Code of
Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees, and Memorandum Circular
No. 17, Series of 1986, government officials or employees are prohibited from engaging in
private practice of their profession unless authorized by their department heads. More
importantly, if authorized, the practice of profession must not conflict nor tend to conflict with
the official functions of the government official or employee.
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. In
addition, the government has a serious interest in the prosecution of erring employees and their
corrupt acts. Under the Constitution, “[p]ublic office is a public trust.” The Office of the
Ombudsman, as “protectors of the [P]eople,” is mandated to “investigate and prosecute . . . any
act or omission of any public officer or employee, office or agency, when such act or omission
appears to be illegal, unjust, improper or inefficient.”
Conclusion:
WHEREFORE, Respondent Atty. 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.

3 Fajardo vs. Alvarez

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

3 Fajardo vs. Alvarez

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Fajardo vs.

You might also like