5/31/25, 8:09 AM Fajardo vs.

Alvarez

Title
Fajardo vs. Alvarez

Case Decision Date

A.C. No. 9018 Apr 20, 2016

A government lawyer, Atty. Alvarez, was suspended for one year for unauthorized
practice, excessive fees, and influence peddling, ordered to refund P500,000.

Atty. Nicanor C. Alvarez is suspended for one year and ordered to refund P500,000.00
to Teresita P. Fajardo.

785 Phil. 303

SECOND DIVISION

[ A.C. No. 9018, April 20, 2016 ]

TERESITA P. FAJARDO, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. NICANOR C. ALVAREZ, RESPONDENT.

DECISION

LEONEN, J.:

This administrative case involves the determination of whether a lawyer working in the
Legal Section of the National Center for Mental Health under the Department of Health is
authorized to privately practice law, and consequently, whether the amount charged by
respondent for attorney's fees is reasonable under the principle of quantum meruit.

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.

The parties have differing versions of the facts as summarized by the Investigating
Commissioner of the Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines. Teresita's version of the facts is as follows:

Around 2009, Teresita hired Atty. Alvarez to handle several cases filed against her before
the Office of the Ombudsman.1 Atty. Alvarez was then working in the Legal Section of the
https://jur.ph/jurisprudence/v/fajardo-v-alvarez?q=90183 1/30
5/31/25, 8:09 AM Fajardo vs. Alvarez

National Center for Mental Health.2 He asked for P1,400,000.00 as acceptance fee.3
However, Atty. Alvarez did not enter his appearance before the Office of the Ombudsman
nor sign any pleadings.4

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.5 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.6

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.7

Teresita then demanded that Atty. Alvarez return at least a portion of the amount she gave.8
Atty. Alvarez promised to return the amount to Teresita; however, he failed to fulfill this
promise.9 Teresita sent a demand letter to Atty. Alvarez, which he failed to heed.10

On the other hand, Atty. Alvarez claims the following:

Atty. Alvarez is Legal Officer III of the National Center for Mental Health under the
Department of Health.11 He has authority to engage in private practice of the profession.12
He represented Teresita in several cases before the Office of the Ombudsman.13

Atty. Alvarez and Teresita had an arrangement that Teresita would consult Atty. Alvarez
whenever a case was filed against her.14 Atty. Alvarez would then advise Teresita to send
him a copy of the complaint and its attachments through courier.15 Afterwards, Atty.
Alvarez would evaluate the case and call Teresita to discuss his fees in accepting and
handling the case.16 A 50% downpayment would be deposited to Atty. Alvarez's or his
secretary's bank account.17 The balance would then be paid in installments.18 The success
fee was voluntary on Teresita's part.19

On July 10, 2009, Atty. Alvarez received a call from Teresita regarding a meeting at Shangri-
La Mall to discuss the decision and resolution she received from the Office of the
Ombudsman dismissing her from service for dishonesty and indicting her for violation of
Section 3 of Republic Act No. 3019, respectively.20 Atty. Alvarez accepted the case and asked
for P500,000.00 as acceptance fee.21 According to Atty. Alvarez, he arrived at the amount
after considering the difficulty of the case and the workload that would be involved, which
would include appeals before the Court of Appeals and this Court.22 However, the fee is

https://jur.ph/jurisprudence/v/fajardo-v-alvarez?q=90183 2/30
5/31/25, 8:09 AM Fajardo vs. Alvarez

exclusive of filing fees, appearance fees, and other miscellaneous fees such as costs for
photocopying and mailing.23

Atty. Alvarez claimed that he prepared several pleadings in connection with Teresita's case:

(1) motion for reconsideration filed on July 23, 2009 in connection with the administrative case;

(2) motion for reconsideration filed on July 23, 2009 in connection with the criminal case;

(3) petition for injunction filed on October 15, 2009 before the Regional Trial Court of Gapan City; and

(4) petition for preliminary injunction with prayer for a temporary restraining order filed before the
Court of Appeals on November 18, 2009, and the amended petition on November 26, 2009.24

Atty. Alvarez also said that he prepared several letters to different government officials and
agencies.25

Atty. Alvarez alleged that Teresita made staggered payments for the amounts they agreed
on.26 Teresita only paid the balance of the agreed acceptance fee equivalent to P450,000.00
on February 11, 2010.27 While Teresita paid P60,000.00 for the miscellaneous expenses, she
did not pay the expenses for other legal work performed and advanced by Atty. Alvarez.28

On the last day for filing of the petition for review of the Office of the Ombudsman's
Decision, Teresita informed Atty. Alvarez that she was no longer interested in retaining
Atty. Alvarez's services as she had hired Atty. Tyrone Contado from Nueva Ecija, who was
Atty. Alvarez's co-counsel in the cases against Teresita.29

On June 1, 2011, Teresita filed before the Office of the Bar Confidant a Verified Complaint
praying for the disbarment of Atty. Alvarez.30 This Court required Atty. Alvarez to file his
comment on the complaint within 10 days from notice.31

On December 7, 2011, the case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for
investigation, report, and recommendation.32

In his Report and Recommendation33 dated November 12, 2012, 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.34 Atty. Alvarez was also ordered to return the amount of
https://jur.ph/jurisprudence/v/fajardo-v-alvarez?q=90183 3/30
5/31/25, 8:09 AM Fajardo vs. Alvarez

P700,000.00 to Teresita with legal interest from the time of demand until its full
payment.35 The dispositive portion of the Investigating Commissioner's Report and
Recommendation reads:
WHEREFORE, finding Respondent guilty of committing unlawful, immoral and deceitful
acts of the Canon of Professional Responsibility, [it] is recommended that he be suspended
for one (1) year in the practice of law and he be ordered to return the amount of
P700,000.00 to the Complainant within two (2) months from receipt of this order with
legal interest from the time of demand, until fully paid, with a warning that repetition of [a]
similar offense in the future will be dealt with more severely.36
On the unauthorized practice of law, the Investigating Commissioner found that while Atty.
Alvarez claimed that he was authorized by his superior to privately practice law, the
pleadings he allegedly prepared and filed did not bear his name and signature.37 Hence, the
Investigating Commissioner stated that:
The time that Respondent spent in following up the case of Complainant in the Office of the
Ombudsman is a time lost to the government which could have been used in the service of
many taxpayers[.]38
In any case, granting that Atty. Alvarez was authorized by his superior to practice his
profession, the Investigating Commissioner stated that Atty. Alvarez was prohibited to
handle cases involving malversation of funds by government officials such as a municipal
treasurer.39

Moreover, the Investigating Commissioner found that the attorney's fees Atty. Alvarez
asked for were unreasonable:
From all indication, Complainant was forced to give to the Respondent the amount of
P1,400,000.00 because of the words of Respondent that he has friends in the Office of the
Ombudsman who can help with a fee. That because of that guarantee, Complainant was
obligated to shell out every now and then money for the satisfaction of the allege[d] friend
of the Respondent[.]

Complainant is an ordinary Municipal Treasurer of a 4th or 5th class municipality and the
amount of attorney's fees demanded by the Respondent is very much excessive. . . . The
exorbitant amount that he demanded from complainant is too much for a lowly local
government employee. What the Respondent did is not only illegal, immoral and dishonest
but also taking advantage of a defenseless victim.

....

While a lawyer should charge only fair and reasonable fees, no hard and fast rule may be

https://jur.ph/jurisprudence/v/fajardo-v-alvarez?q=90183 4/30
5/31/25, 8:09 AM Fajardo vs. Alvarez

set in the determination of what a reasonable fee is, or what is not. That must be
established from the facts of each case[.]

....

The fees claimed and received by the Respondent for the alleged cases he handled despite
the fact that the records and evidence does not show that he ever signed pleadings filed, the
amount of P700,000.00 is reasonable, thus, fairness and equity dictate, he has to return the
excess amount of P700,000.00 to the complainant[.]40
In Notice of Resolution No. XX-2013-77841 dated June 21, 2013, the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines Board of Governors adopted the findings and recommendations of the
Investigating Commissioner:
RESOLVED to ADOPT AND APPROVE, as it is hereby unanimously ADOPTED AND
APPROVED, the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner in the
above-entitled case, herein made part of this Resolution as Annex "A", and finding the
recommendation fully supported by the evidence on record and the applicable laws and
rules and considering that complaint [sic] is guilty of unlawful, immoral and deceitful acts,
Atty. Nicanor C. Alvarez is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one (1) year
with [a] Warning that repetition of the same acts shall be dealt with more sever[ejly.
Further, he is Ordered to Return the amount of P700,000.00 to complainant with legal
interest from the time of demand.42 (Emphasis in the original)
Atty. Alvarez moved for reconsideration of the Resolution,43 but the Motion was denied by
the Board of Governors in Notice of Resolution No. XXI-2014-28644 dated May 3, 2014. The
Resolution reads:
RESOLVED to DENY Respondent's Motion for Reconsideration, there being no cogent
reason to reverse the findings of the Commission and the resolution subject of the motion,
it being a mere reiteration of the matters which had already been threshed out and taken
into consideration. Thus, Resolution No. XX-2013-778 dated June 21, 2013 is hereby
AFFIRMED.45 (Emphasis in the original)
We resolve the following 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; and

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

https://jur.ph/jurisprudence/v/fajardo-v-alvarez?q=90183 5/30
5/31/25, 8:09 AM Fajardo vs. Alvarez

The Investigating Commissioner did not make a categorical declaration that respondent is
guilty of unauthorized practice of his profession. The Investigating Commissioner merely
alluded to respondent's unauthorized practice of law.

We find that respondent committed unauthorized practice of his profession.

Respondent claims that he is authorized to practice his profession46 as shown in the letter
dated August 1, 2001 of National Center for Mental Health Chief Bernardino A. Vicente.47
The letter reads:
TO : ATTY. NICANOR C. ALVAREZ
Legal Officer III
This Center

Subject : Authority to engage in private practice of profession

This refers to your request for permission to engage in private practice of your profession.

In accordance with Administrative Order No. 21, s. 1999 of the Department of Health, which
vested in the undersigned the authority to grant permission for the exercise of profession
or engage in the practice of profession, you are hereby authorized to teach or engage in the
practice of your profession provided it will not run in conflict with the interest of the
Center and the Philippine government as a whole. In the exigency of the service however,
or when public interest so requires, this authority may be revoked anytime.

Please be guided accordingly.

[sgd.]
BERNARDINO A. VICENTE, MD, FFPPA, MHA, CESO IV
Medical Center Chief II48 (Emphasis supplied)
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 Cayetano v. Monsod,49 the modern concept of the term "practice of law" includes the
more traditional concept of litigation or appearance before courts:
The practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases in court. A person is also
considered to be in the practice of law when he:
"x x x for valuable consideration engages in the business of advising person, firms,

https://jur.ph/jurisprudence/v/fajardo-v-alvarez?q=90183 6/30
5/31/25, 8:09 AM Fajardo vs. Alvarez

associations or corporations as to their rights under the law, or appears in a representative

capacity as an advocate in proceedings pending or prospective, before any court,
commissioner, referee, board, body, committee, or commission constituted by law or
authorized to settle controversies and there, in such representative capacity performs any
act or acts for the purpose of obtaining or defending the rights of their clients under the
law. Otherwise stated, one who, in a representative capacity, engages in the business of
advising clients as to their rights under the law, or while so engaged performs any act or
acts either in court or outside of court for that purpose, is engaged in the practice of law."
....

The University of the Philippines Law Center in conducting orientation briefing for new
lawyers (1974-1975) listed the dimensions of the practice of law in even broader terms as
advocacy, counseling and public service.
"One may be a practicing attorney in following any line of employment in the profession. If
what he does exacts knowledge of the law and is of a kind usual for attorneys engaging in
the active practice of their profession, and he follows some one or more lines of
employment such as this he is a practicing attorney at law within the meaning of the
statute."
Practice of law means any activity, in or out of court, which requires the application of law,
legal procedure, knowledge, training and experience. "To engage in the practice of law is to
perform those acts which are characteristics of the profession. Generally, to practice law is
to give notice or render any kind of service, which device or service requires the use in any
degree of legal knowledge or skill."

....

Interpreted in the light of the various definitions of the term "practice of law," particularly
the modern concept of law practice, and taking into consideration the liberal construction
intended by the framers of the Constitution, Arty. Monsod's past work experiences as a
lawyer-economist, a lawyer-manager, a lawyer-entrepreneur of industry, a lawyer-
negotiator of contracts, and a lawyer-legislator of both the rich and the pooraverily more
than satisfy the constitutional requirementathat he has been engaged in the practice of law
for at least ten years.50 (Emphasis supplied)
Cayetano was reiterated in Lingan v. Calubaquib:51
Practice of law is "any activity, in or out of 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."

https://jur.ph/jurisprudence/v/fajardo-v-alvarez?q=90183 7/30
5/31/25, 8:09 AM Fajardo vs. Alvarez

Work in government that requires the use of legal knowledge is considered practice of law.
In Cayetano v. Monsod, this court cited the deliberations of the 1986 Constitutional
Commission and agreed that work rendered by lawyers in the Commission on Audit
requiring "[the use of] legal knowledge or legal talent" is practice of law.52 (Citations
omitted)
By preparing the pleadings of and giving legal advice to complainant, respondent practiced
law.

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 1986,53 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:
Republic Act No. 6713:

Section 7. Prohibited Acts and Transactions. - In addition to acts and omissions of public
officials and employees now prescribed in the Constitution and existing laws, the following
shall constitute prohibited acts and transactions of any public official and employee and are
hereby declared to be unlawful:

....

(b) Outside employment and other activities related thereto. - Public officials and
employees during their incumbency shall not:

....

(2) Engage in the private practice of their profession unless authorized by the Constitution
or law, provided, that such practice will not conflict or tend to conflict with their official
functions[.]

....

Memorandum Circular No. 17:

The authority to grant permission to any official or employee shall be granted by the head

https://jur.ph/jurisprudence/v/fajardo-v-alvarez?q=90183 8/30
5/31/25, 8:09 AM Fajardo vs. Alvarez

of the ministry or agency in accordance with Section 12, Rule XVIII of the Revised Civil
Service Rules, which provides:
"Sec. 12. No officer or employee shall engage directly in any private business, vocation, or
profession or be connected with any commercial, credit, agricultural, or industrial
undertaking without a written permission from the head of Department; Provided, That
this prohibition will be absolute in the case of those officers and employees whose duties
and responsibilities require that their entire time be at the disposal of the Government:
Provided, further, That if an employee is granted permission to engage in outside activities,
the time so devoted outside of office hours should be fixed by the chief of the agency to the
end that it will not impair in any way the efficiency of the other officer or employee: And
provided, finally, That no permission is necessary in the case of investments, made by an
officer or employee, which do not involve any real or apparent conflict between his private
interests and public duties, or in any way influence him in the discharge of his duties, and
he shall not take part in the management of the enterprise or become an officer or member
of the board of directors",
subject to any additional conditions which the head of the office deems necessary in each
particular case in the interest of the service, as expressed in the various issuances of the
Civil Service Commission.
In Abella v. Cruzabra,54 the respondent was a Deputy Register of Deeds of General Santos
City. While serving as an incumbent government employee, the respondent "filed a petition
for commission as a notary public and was commissioned . . . without obtaining prior
authority from the Secretary of the Department of Justice."55 According to the complainant,
the respondent had notarized around 3,000 documents.56 This Court found the respondent
guilty of engaging in notarial practice without written authority from the Secretary of
Justice. Thus:

It is clear that when respondent filed her petition for commission as a notary public, she
did not obtain a written permission from the Secretary of the D[epartment] [of] J[ustice].
Respondent's superior, the Register of Deeds, cannot issue any authorization because he is
not the head of the Department. And even assuming that the Register of Deeds authorized
her, respondent failed to present any proof of that written permission. Respondent cannot
feign ignorance or good faith because respondent filed her petition for commission as a
notary public after Memorandum Circular No. 17 was issued in 1986.57

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 1999.58

https://jur.ph/jurisprudence/v/fajardo-v-alvarez?q=90183 9/30
5/31/25, 8:09 AM Fajardo vs. Alvarez

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."59

In Javellana v. Department of Interior and Local Government,60 the petitioner was an

incumbent City Councilor or member of the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Bago City. He was
a lawyer by profession and had continuously engaged in the practice of law without
securing authority from the Regional Director of the Department of Local Government.61 In
1989, the petitioner acted as counsel for Antonio Javiero and Rolando Catapang and filed a
case for Illegal Dismissal and Reinstatement with Damages against Engr. Ernesto C.
Divinagracia, City Engineer of Bago City.62

Engr. Ernesto C. Divinagracia filed an administrative case before the Department of Local
Government for violation of Section 7(b)(2) of Republic Act No. 6713 and relevant
Department of Local Government memorandum circulars on unauthorized practice of
profession, as well as for oppression, misconduct, and abuse of authority.63 While the case
was pending before Department of Local Government, the petitioner was able to secure a
written authority to practice his profession from the Secretary of Interior and Local
Government, "provided that such practice will not conflict or tend to conflict with his
official functions."64

This Court in Javellana observed that the petitioner practiced his profession in conflict
with his functions as City Councilor and against the interests of government:
In the first place, complaints against public officers and employees relating 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. The complaint for illegal
dismissal filed by Javiero and Catapang against City Engineer Divinagracia is in effect a
complaint against the City Government of Bago City, their real employer, of which
petitioner Javellana is a councilman. Hence, judgment against City Engineer Divinagracia
would actually be a judgment against the City Government. By serving as counsel for the
complaining employees and assisting them to prosecute their claims against City Engineer
Divinagracia, the petitioner violated Memorandum Circular No. 74-58 (in relation to Section
7[b-2] of R[epublic] A[ct] [No.] 6713) prohibiting a government official from engaging in the
private practice of his profession, if such practice would represent interests adverse to the
government.

https://jur.ph/jurisprudence/v/fajardo-v-alvarez?q=90183 10/30
5/31/25, 8:09 AM Fajardo vs. Alvarez

Petitioner's contention that Section 90 of the Local Government Code of 1991 and DLG
Memorandum Circular No. 90-81 violate Article VIII, Section 5 of the Constitution is
completely off tangent. Neither the statute nor the circular trenches upon the Supreme
Court's power and authority to prescribe rules on the practice of law. The Local
Government Code and DLG Memorandum Circular No. 90-81 simply prescribe rules of
conduct for public officials to avoid conflicts of interest between the discharge of their
public duties and the private practice of their profession, in those instances where the law
allows it.65
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."66 The Office
of the Ombudsman, as "protectors of the [P]eople,"67 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."68

Thus, 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. The incumbent officer ultimately goes against government's mandate under
the Constitution to prosecute public officers or employees who have committed acts or
omissions that appear to be illegal, unjust, improper, or inefficient.69 Furthermore, this is
consistent with the constitutional directive that "[p]ublic officers and employees must, at all
times, be accountable to the [P]eople, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity,
loyalty, and efficiency; act with patriotism and justice, and lead modest lives."70

The objective in disciplinary cases is not to punish the erring officer or employee but to
continue to uplift the People's trust in government and to ensure excellent public service:
[W]hen an officer or employee is disciplined, the object sought is not the punishment of
that officer or employee, but the improvement of the public service and the preservation of
the public's faith and confidence in the government. . . . These constitutionally-enshrined
principles, oft-repeated in our case law, are not mere rhetorical flourishes or idealistic
sentiments. They should be taken as working standards by all in the public service.71
Having determined that respondent illicitly practiced law, we find that there is now no need
to determine whether the fees he charged were reasonable.

https://jur.ph/jurisprudence/v/fajardo-v-alvarez?q=90183 11/30
5/31/25, 8:09 AM Fajardo vs. Alvarez

In disbarment or disciplinary cases pending before this Court, the complainant must prove
his or her allegations through substantial evidence.72 In Advincula v. Macabata,73 this Court
dismissed a complaint for disbarment due to the lack of evidence in proving the
complainant's allegations:
As a basic rule in evidence, the burden of proof lies on the party who makes the
allegationsaei incumbit probation, qui decit, non qui negat; cum per rerum naturam factum
negantis probation nulla sit. In the case at bar, complainant miserably failed to comply with
the burden of proof required of her. A mere charge or allegation of wrongdoing does not
suffice. Accusation is not synonymous with guilt.74 (Emphasis in the original, citations
omitted)
Moreover, lawyers should not be hastily disciplined or penalized unless it is shown that
they committed a transgression of their oath or their duties, which reflects on their fitness
to enjoy continued status as a member of the bar:
The power to disbar or suspend ought always to be exercised on the preservative and not
on the vindictive principle, with great caution and only for the most weighty reasons and
only on clear cases of misconduct which seriously affect the standing and character of the
lawyer as an officer of the court and member of the Bar. Only those acts which cause loss of
moral character should merit disbarment or suspension, while those acts which neither
affect nor erode the moral character of the lawyer should only justify a lesser sanction
unless they are of such nature and to such extent as to clearly show the lawyer's unfltness
to continue in the practice of law. The dubious character of the act charged as well as the
motivation which induced the lawyer to commit it must be clearly demonstrated before
suspension or disbarment is meted out. The mitigating or aggravating circumstances that
attended the commission of the offense should also be considered.75
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.

Lawyers are mandated to uphold, at all times, integrity and dignity in the practice of their
profession.76 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.77

Thus, respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibility. Canon 1, Rules 1.01, and
1.0278 prohibit lawyers from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful
conduct.79 Respondent's act of ensuring that the case will be dismissed because of his

https://jur.ph/jurisprudence/v/fajardo-v-alvarez?q=90183 12/30
5/31/25, 8:09 AM Fajardo vs. Alvarez

personal relationships with officers or employees in the Office of the Ombudsman is

unlawful and dishonest. Canon 780 of the Code of Professional Responsibility requires
lawyers to always "uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession."

In relation, Canon 1381 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.82 This act
of influence peddling is highly immoral and has no place in the legal profession:
The highly immoral implication of a lawyer approaching a judgeaor a judge evincing a
willingnessato discuss, in private, a matter related to a case pending in that judge's sala
cannot be over-emphasized. The fact that Atty. Singson did talk on different occasions to
Judge Reyes, initially through a mutual friend, Atty. Sevilla, leads us to conclude that Atty.
Singson was indeed trying to influence the judge to rule in his client's favor. This conduct is
not acceptable in the legal profession.83
In Jimenez v. Verano, Jr.,84 we disciplined the respondent for preparing a release order for
his clients using the letterhead of the Department of Justice and the stationery of the
Secretary:
The way respondent conducted himself manifested a clear intent to gain special treatment
and consideration from a government agency. This is precisely the type of improper
behavior sought to be regulated by the codified norms for the bar. Respondent is duty-
bound to actively avoid any act that tends to influence, or may be seen to influence, the
outcome of an ongoing case, lest the people's faith in the judicial process is diluted.

The primary duty of lawyers is not to their clients but to the administration of justice. To
that end, their clients' success is wholly subordinate. The conduct of a member of the bar
ought to and must always be scrupulously observant of the law and ethics. Any means, not
honorable, fair and honest which is resorted to by the lawyer, even in the pursuit of his
devotion to his client's cause, is condemnable and unethical.

....

Zeal and persistence in advancing a client's cause must always be within the bounds of the
law. A self-respecting independence in the exercise of the profession is expected if an
attorney is to remain a member of the bar. In the present case, we find that respondent fell
short of these exacting standards. Given the import of the case, a warning is a mere slap on

https://jur.ph/jurisprudence/v/fajardo-v-alvarez?q=90183 13/30
5/31/25, 8:09 AM Fajardo vs. Alvarez

the wrist that would not serve as commensurate penalty for the offense.85
Similar to the present case, in Bueno v. RaAeses,86 we disbarred a lawyer who solicited
bribe money from his client in violation of Canon 13 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility:
Rather than merely suspend Atty. RaAeses as had been done in Bildner, the Court believes
that Atty. RaAeses merits the ultimate administrative penalty of disbarment because of the
multi-layered impact and implications of what he did; by his acts he proved himself to be
what a lawyer should not be, in a lawyer's relations to the client, to the court and to the
Integrated Bar.

First, he extracted money from his client for a purpose that is both false and fraudulent. It
is false because no bribery apparently took place as Atty. RaAeses in fact lost the case. It is
fraudulent because the professed purpose of the exaction was the crime of bribery. Beyond
these, he maligned the judge and the Judiciary by giving the impression that court cases
are won, not on the merits, but through deceitful meansaa decidedly black mark against the
Judiciary. Last but not the least, Atty. RaAeses grossly disrespected the IBP by his cavalier
attitude towards its disciplinary proceedings.

From these perspectives, Atty. RaAeses wronged his client, the judge allegedly on the "take,"
the Judiciary as an institution, and the IBP of which he is a member. The Court cannot and
should not allow offenses such as these to pass unredressed. Let this be a signal to one and
allato all lawyers, their clients and the general publicathat the Court will not hesitate to act
decisively and with no quarters given to defend the interest of the public, of our judicial
system and the institutions composing it, and to ensure that these are not compromised by
unscrupulous or misguided members of the Bar.87 (Emphasis supplied)
In the interest of ridding itself of corrupt personnel who encourage influence peddling, and
in the interest of maintaining the high ethical standards of employees in the judiciary, this
Court did not hesitate in dismissing its own employee from government service when she
peddled influence in the Court of Appeals:88
What brings our judicial system into disrepute are often the actuations of a few erring court
personnel peddling influence to party-litigants, creating the impression that decisions can
be bought and sold, ultimately resulting in the disillusionment of the public. This Court has
never wavered in its vigilance in eradicating the so-called "bad eggs" in the judiciary. And
whenever warranted by the gravity of the offense, the supreme penalty of dismissal in an
administrative case is meted to erring personnel.89
The Investigating Commissioner found that complainant was "forced to give . . .
Respondent the amount of P1,400,000.00 because of the words of Respondent that he ha[d]
friends in the Office of the Ombudsman who c[ould] help with a fee."90 It is because of

https://jur.ph/jurisprudence/v/fajardo-v-alvarez?q=90183 14/30
5/31/25, 8:09 AM Fajardo vs. Alvarez

respondent's assurances to complainant that she sent him money over the course of
several months.91 These assurances are seen from the text messages that respondent sent
complainant:
FROM: Atty. Alvarez <+639063630224>

SUBJECT:

Cnbi ko dun sa kontak dati na magbibigay tayo na pera sa allowance lang muna later na ang
bayad pag labas ng reso at kaliwaan pero sbi nya mas maganda kung isasabay na ang pera
pagbgay ng letter mo sa omb.. Parang dun tayo nagkamali pero ang solusyon ay sana ibalik
nila ang pera . . in d meantime hindi dapat apektado ang kaso at kailangan an Appeal sa CA
at may deadline yun

DATE: 31-05-2010

TIME: 5:24 pm

TYPE: Text Message

....

FROM: Atty. Alvarez <+639063630224>

SUBJECT:

Gud pm pnro, naLBC n b ang Reso? Kung Jan un pnrmahn ...

DATE: 21-05-2010

TIME: 5:13 pm

TYPE: Text Message

....

FROM: Atty. Alvarez <+639063630224>

SUBJECT:

https://jur.ph/jurisprudence/v/fajardo-v-alvarez?q=90183 15/30
5/31/25, 8:09 AM Fajardo vs. Alvarez

Pnro sbi ng Dep Omb la png cnabi sa knya ng Omb. Ang CA Reso pnaiwan n Orly @
studyohn nya (txt kontal)

DATE: 15-04-2010

TIME: 6:07 pm

TYPE: Text Message

....

FROM: Atty. Alvarez <+639063630224>

SUBJECT:

Yung blessing pala ni gutierez ang hnhntay ng overall dep omb si orly at dun din siya subok
kuha letter pero nasbhan na si gutierez ng dep omb for Luzon sbi ko pwwde b nila gawin
total alam na ni gutierez. . . Maya tawag ko sayo update

DATE: 15-04-2010

TIME: 12:44 pm

TYPE: Text Message

....

FROM: Atty. Alvarez <+639063630224>

SUBJECT:

Gud mrng Tess hindi na svmagot kahapon tnxt ko pero minsan hndi tlga sumasagot yun
nag ttxt lang pagkatapos kaya lang d mo pala naiintindihan ang txt nya bisaya "istudyahun"
ibig sabihn kausapin pa so nasbi na nya sa omb yung letter at istudzahan pa

DATE: 31-03-2010

https://jur.ph/jurisprudence/v/fajardo-v-alvarez?q=90183 16/30
5/31/25, 8:09 AM Fajardo vs. Alvarez

TIME: 8:25 am

TYPE: Text Message

....

FROM: Atty. Alvarez <+639063630224>

SUBJECT:

Ok panero update ko na lang client pero nag txt tlga kailangan daw nya letter habang wala
pa omb reso., Txt mo lang ko panero, have a nice holidays., (sagot ko yan tess)

DATE: 03-03-2010

TIME: 5:03 pm

TYPE: Text Message

....

FROM: Atty. Alvarez <+639063630224>

SUBJECT:

Sa dep omb for Luzon na nya follow up ang MR at saka overall dep omb si orly dun nya
kukunin letter

DATE: 30-03-2010

TIME: 5:00 pm

TYPE: Text Message

....

FROM: Atty. Alvarez <+639063630224>

https://jur.ph/jurisprudence/v/fajardo-v-alvarez?q=90183 17/30
5/31/25, 8:09 AM Fajardo vs. Alvarez

SUBJECT:

Gud pm pnro. Ang Dep. Omb. My closd dor mtng pro pnkta s knya ang note q at sabi rw
bumalik aq aftr Holy wk. C Orly nman ay ngsabi n es2dyuhn p rw nya.

DATE: 30-03-2010

TIME: 4:52 pm

TYPE: Text Message

....

FROM: Atty. Alvarez <+639063630224>

SUBJECT:

Binigay ko na pera kahapon at kinausap ko para sa letter magkikita pa kami marnaya las 2
at kukunin nya copy letter natin kay sales at CA reso

DATE: 15-04-2010

TIME: 12:32 pm

TYPE: Text Message

....

FROM: Atty. Alvarez <+639063630224>

SUBJECT:

Tess ndpst mo na? Kakausapin ko kasi na qc na lang kami kita at malapit ako dun maya at
hindi na sa crsng. Tnx

DATE: 14-04-2010

TIME: 1:29 pm

https://jur.ph/jurisprudence/v/fajardo-v-alvarez?q=90183 18/30
5/31/25, 8:09 AM Fajardo vs. Alvarez

TYPE: Text Message

....

FROM: Atty. Alvarez <+639063630224>

SUBJECT:

Gud pm pnro. Ok ba ang 15k rep maya 6pm? Thnx (txt ng kontak tess kausapin ko mbuti sa
letter)

DATE: 14-04-2010

TIME: 10:25 am

TYPE: Text Message

....

FROM: Atty. Alvarez <+639063630224>

SUBJECT:

Pnro ung rep alo n bngay mo 1st Mar 24 ay ok Ing pra s 2 falo-ups q Mar 25 @ Mar 30. As
usual, magkita tau Apr 14 @ kunin q 20th para sa falo-up Apr 15 thnx

DATE: 08-04-2010

TIME: 10:58 am

TYPE: Text Message

....

FROM: Atty. Alvarez <+639063630224>

SUBJECT:

https://jur.ph/jurisprudence/v/fajardo-v-alvarez?q=90183 19/30
5/31/25, 8:09 AM Fajardo vs. Alvarez

Ok panero kailangan malinaw din ang presentation lp sa client panero at ang impression
nya yun na ang hningi natin... so april 15 panero an balik mo sa MR at yung letter form omb
to dof bhala ka na sa diskarte panero pag nakakuha tayo nakahanda na 150k dun

DATE: 08-04-2010

TIME: 10:56 am

TYPE: Text Message

....

FROM: Atty. Alvarez <+639063630224>

SUBJECT:

Pnero dapat maalala mo n ung purpose ng 400th hindi directly delivery ng Reso granting d
MR pro ung delivery by the Dep Omb ng letr of appeal 2 d Omb at pgpaliwang nya sa Omb.
Re sa hnhngi ng rspondnt n modfcation ng Dcsion. Nung 1st mtng ntn Mar 24, ngin4m q
sau n ngawa n i2 ng Dep Omb pro kausapn p ng Omb c Orly. Itong huli ang nabtn p, pro yon
ay dscrtion n ng Omb@ wing control d2 and Dep. Omb.

DATE: 08-04-2010

TIME: 10:55 am

TYPE: Text Message

....

FROM: Atty. Alvarez <+639063630224>

SUBJECT:

Tess gud mrng, wag mo kalimutan mgdpst 25k today 6pm mtng naming omb tnx.

DATE: 24-03-2010

https://jur.ph/jurisprudence/v/fajardo-v-alvarez?q=90183 20/30
5/31/25, 8:09 AM Fajardo vs. Alvarez

TIME: 10:23 am

TYPE: Text Message

....

FROM: Atty. Alvarez <+639063630224>

SUBJECT:

Gud pm uli pnro. Kung subukan q n lkrn ky Orly ung cnabi mong letr adrsd 2 DOF Sec @
synd n Orly ang letr, pktanong s rspndnt kung ok b s knya nab yarn nya aq ng Atty's fee n
75thou upfront @ another 75thou upon receipt of a DOF ordr holdng n abyans implmntation
of hr dsmsal due 2 Orly's letr? thnx

DATE: 11-03-2010

TIME: 7:03 pm

TYPE: Text Message92

In response to his alleged text messages, respondent claims that complainant must have
confused him with her other contacts.93 Respondent found it "mesmerizing" that
complainant was able to save all those alleged text messages from two (2) years ago.94
Moreover, assuming these messages were "true, still they [were] not legally admissible as
they [were] covered by the lawyer-client privileged communication as those supposed texts
'[had been] made for the purpose and in the course of employment, [were] regarded as
privileged and the rule of exclusion [was] strictly enforced.'"95

In cases involving influence peddling or bribery, "[t]he transaction is always done in secret
and often only between the two parties concerned."96 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.

We agree with the penalty recommended by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Board of
Governors. We find respondent's acts of influence peddling, coupled with unauthorized
practice of law, merit the penalty of suspension of one (1) year from the practice of law. To
be so bold as to peddle influence before the very institution that is tasked to prosecute

https://jur.ph/jurisprudence/v/fajardo-v-alvarez?q=90183 21/30
5/31/25, 8:09 AM Fajardo vs. Alvarez

corruption speaks much about respondent's character and his attitude towards the courts
and the bar.

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.

It is time that we unequivocally underscore that to even imply to a client that a lawyer
knows who will make a decision is an act worthy of the utmost condemnation. If we are to
preserve the nobility of this profession, its members must live within its ethical
parameters. There is never an excuse for influence peddling.

While this Court is not a collection agency for faltering debtors,97 this Court has ordered
restitution of amounts to complainants due to the erroneous actions of lawyers.98
Respondent is, therefore, required to return to complainant the amount of
P500,000.00athe amount that respondent allegedly gave his friends connected with the
Office of the Ombudsman.

WHEREFORE, 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.

Let copies of this Decision be furnished to the Office of the Bar Confidant, to be appended to
respondent's personal record as attorney. Likewise, copies shall be furnished to the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines and all courts in the country for their information and
guidance.

SO ORDERED.

https://jur.ph/jurisprudence/v/fajardo-v-alvarez?q=90183 22/30
5/31/25, 8:09 AM Fajardo vs. Alvarez

Carpio, (Chairperson), Brion, Del Castillo, and Mendoza, JJ., concur.

1Rollo, p. 1, Integrated Bar of the Philippines Commission on Bar Discipline Report and
Recommendation dated November 14, 2012.

2 Id.

3 Id.

4 Id.

5 Id. at 2.

6 Id.

7 Id.

8 Id.

9 Id.

10 Id.

11 Id. at 9, Comment.

12 Id.

13 Id. at 10-11.

14 Id. at 12.

15 Id.

16 Id.

https://jur.ph/jurisprudence/v/fajardo-v-alvarez?q=90183 23/30
5/31/25, 8:09 AM Fajardo vs. Alvarez
17 Id.

18 Id.

19 Id.

20 Id. at 12-13. The Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon promulgated the Decision
dated February 19, 2008 finding Teresita guilty of serious dishonesty and ordered her
dismissal from service (OMB-L-A-04-0254-D[OMB-L-C-04-0376-D] For: Dishonesty). In the
Resolution dated February 19, 2008, the same Office issued the Resolution recommending
the indictment of Teresita for violation of Rep. Act No. 3019, sec. 3(e) (OMB-L-C-04-0376-D
[OMB-L-A-04-0254-D] For: Violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019).

21 Id.

22 Id.

23 Id. at 14.

24 Id. at 13-14.

25 Id. at 419, Report and Recommendation.

26 Id.

27 Id.

28 Id.

29 Id. at 419-420.

30 Id. at 1-3.

31 Id. at 8, Resolution dated July 25, 2011.

32 Id. at 282.

33 Id. at 416-423.

https://jur.ph/jurisprudence/v/fajardo-v-alvarez?q=90183 24/30
5/31/25, 8:09 AM Fajardo vs. Alvarez

34 Id. at 422.

35 Id. at 423.

36 Id. at 422-423.

37 Id. at 429.

38 Id. at 421.

39 Id. at 422.

40 Id. at 421-422.

41 Id. at 415.

42 Id.

43 Id. at 424-433.

44 Id. at 444.

45 Id.

46 Id. at 21.

47 Id.

48 Id.

49 278 Phil. 235 (1991) [Per J. Paras, En Banc].

50 Id. at 241-256, citing Land Title Abstract and Trust Co. v. Dworken, 129 Ohio St. 23, 193
N.E. 650; State ex. rel. Mckittrick v. C.S. Dudley and Co., 102 S.W. 2d 895, 340 Mo. 852; Barr
D. Cardell 155 NW 312; and 111 ALR 23.

51 A.C. No. 5377, June 30, 2014, 727 SCRA 341 [Per J. Leonen, Third Division]

https://jur.ph/jurisprudence/v/fajardo-v-alvarez?q=90183 25/30
5/31/25, 8:09 AM Fajardo vs. Alvarez

52 Id. at 355.

53Issued by the Office of the President, entitled Revoking Memorandum Circular No. 1025
Dated November 25, 1977.

54 606 Phil. 200 (2009) [Per J. Carpio, First Division].

55 Id. at 202.

56 Id.

57 Id. at 206-207. Respondent was reprimanded and "warned that a repetition of the same
or similar act in the future shall merit a more severe sanction" (Id. at 208).

58 Rollo, p. 21.

59 Id.

60 G.R. No. 102549, August 10, 1992, 212 SCRA 475 [Per J. GriAo-Aquino, En Banc].

61 Id. at 476.

62 Id.

63 Id.

64 Id.

65 Id. at 482.

66 CONST., art. XI, sec. 1.

67 CONST., art. XI, sec. 12.

68 Rep. Act No. 6770, sec. 15(1). See CONST., art. XI, secs. 12 and 13, which provide:

Section 12. The Ombudsman and his Deputies, as protectors of the people, shall act

https://jur.ph/jurisprudence/v/fajardo-v-alvarez?q=90183 26/30
5/31/25, 8:09 AM Fajardo vs. Alvarez

promptly on complaints filed in any form or manner against public officials or employees
of the Government, or any subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof, including
government-owned or controlled corporations, and shall, in appropriate cases, notify the
complainants of the action taken and the result thereof.

Section 13. The Office of the Ombudsman shall have the following powers, functions, and
duties:

(1) Investigate on its own, or on complaint by any person, any act or omission of any public
official, employee, office or agency, when such act or omission appears to be illegal, unjust,
improper, or inefficient.

(2) Direct, upon complaint or at its own instance, any public official or employee of the
Government, or any subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof, as well as of any
government-owned or controlled corporation with original charter, to perform and
expedite any act or duty required by law, or to stop, prevent, and correct any abuse or
impropriety in the performance of duties.

(3) Direct the officer concerned to take appropriate action against a public official or
employee at fault, and recommend his removal, suspension, demotion, fine, censure, or
prosecution, and ensure compliance therewith.

(4) Direct the officer concerned, in any appropriate case, and subject to such limitations as
may be provided by law, to furnish it with copies of documents relating to contracts or
transactions entered into by his office involving the disbursement or use of public funds or
properties, and report any irregularity to the Commission on Audit for appropriate action,

(5) Request any government agency for assistance and information necessary in the
discharge of its responsibilities, and to examine, if necessary, pertinent records and
documents.

(6) Publicize matters covered by its investigation when circumstances so warrant and with
due prudence.

(7) Determine the causes of inefficiency, red tape, mismanagement, fraud, and corruption
in the Government and make recommendations for their elimination and the observance of
high standards of ethics and efficiency.

https://jur.ph/jurisprudence/v/fajardo-v-alvarez?q=90183 27/30
5/31/25, 8:09 AM Fajardo vs. Alvarez

(8) Promulgate its rules of procedure and exercise such other powers or perform such
functions or duties as may be provided by law.

69 This must be differentiated, however, from the rule governing former government
lawyers acting as counsel for private parties after leaving the service. See Presidential
Commission on Good Government v. Sandiganbayan, 495 Phil. 485 (2005) [Per J. Puno, En
Banc] and Code of Professional Responsibility, Canon 6, rule 6.03.

70 CONST., art. XI, sec. 1.

71Government Service Insurance System v. Mayordomo, 665 Phil. 131, 151-152 (2011) [Per J.
Mendoza, En Banc], citing Civil Service Commission v. Cortez, 474 Phil. 670, 690 (2004)
[Per Curiam, En Banc]; and Bautista v. Negado, 108 Phil. 283, 289 (1960) [Per J. Gutierrez
David, En Banc].

72See Spouses Boyboy v. Yabut, Jr., A.C. No. 5225, April 29, 2003, 401 SCRA 622 [Per J.
Bellosillo, Second Division].

73 546 Phil. 431 (2007) [Per J. Chico-Nazario, Third Division].

74 Id. at 446.

75 Id. at 447-448.

76 See Heirs of Alilano v. Examen, A.C. No. 10132, March 24, 2015 <> [Per J. Villarama, Jr., En

Banc]; Sipin-Nabor v. Baterina y Figueras, All Phil. 419, 424 (2001) [Per J. Pardo, En Banc];
Vitriolo v. Dasig, 448 Phil. 199, 209 (2003) [Per Curiam, En Banc].

77 Lawyer's Oath a I, _____, do solemnly swear that I will maintain allegiance to the
Republic of the Philippines; I will support its Constitution and obey the laws as well as the
legal orders of the duly constituted authorities therein; I will do no falsehood, nor consent
to the doing of any in court; I will not wittingly or willingly promote or sue any groundless,
false or unlawful suit, nor give aid nor consent to the same; I will delay no man for money
or malice, and will conduct myself as a lawyer according to the best of my knowledge and
discretion with all good fidelity as well to the courts as to my clients; and I impose upon
myself this voluntary obligation without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion. So
help me God.

https://jur.ph/jurisprudence/v/fajardo-v-alvarez?q=90183 28/30
5/31/25, 8:09 AM Fajardo vs. Alvarez
78 Code of Professional Responsibility, Canon 1, rules 1.01 and 1.02 provide:

CANON 1 - A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote
respect for law and for legal processes.

RULE 1.01 A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.

RULE 1.02 A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the law or at
lessening confidence in the legal system[.]

79See Phil. Association of Court Employees v. Alibutdan-Diaz, A.C. No. 10134, November 26,
2014 <> [Per J. Mendoza, Second Division].

80 Code of Professional Responsibility, Canon 7 provides:

CANON 7 - A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal
profession and support the activities of the integrated bar.

81 Code of Professional Responsibility, Canon 13 provides:

CANON 13 - A lawyer 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.

82 Bildner v. Ilusorio, 606 Phil. 369 (2009) [Per J. Velasco, Jr., Second Division].

83 Id. at 389.

84 A.C. No. 8108, July 15, 2014, 730 SCRA 53 [Per C.J. Sereno, En Banc].

85 Id. at 61-62.

86 700 Phil. 817 (2012) [Per Curiam, En Banc].

87 Id. at 827.

88 Nuez v. Cruz-Apao, 495 Phil. 270 (2005) [Per Curiam, En Banc], citing Mendoza v.
Tiongson, 333 Phil. 508 (1996) [Per Curiam, En Banc].

https://jur.ph/jurisprudence/v/fajardo-v-alvarez?q=90183 29/30
5/31/25, 8:09 AM Fajardo vs. Alvarez
89 Id. at 272.

90Rollo, p. 421, Integrated Bar of the Philippines Commission on Bar Discipline Report and
Recommendation dated November 14, 2012.

91 Id.

92 Id. at 339-344.

93 Id. at 382, Respondent's Position Paper dated September 28, 2012, paragraph 64.
Integrated Bar of the Philippines Records.

94 Id.

95 Id. at 382-383, citation omitted.

96 Bildner v. Ilusorio, 606 Phil. 369, 390 (2009) [Per J. Velasco, Jr., Second Division].

97See In re: Complaint for Failure to Pay Just Debts Against Esther T. Andres, 493 Phil. 1
(2005) [Per J. Chico-Nazario, En Banc].

98See Adrimisin v. Javier, 532 Phil. 639 (2006) [Per J. Carpio, En Banc]; Rollon v. Naraval,
493 Phil. 24 (2005) [Per J. Panganiban, En Banc]; Ramos v. Imbang, 557 Phil. 507 (2007) [Per
Curiam, En Banc].

https://jur.ph/jurisprudence/v/fajardo-v-alvarez?q=90183 30/30