RONALD ALLAN JR. U.

MORENO LEGAL ETHICS –SUN 9-12

ATTY. RAYMUND P. PALAD, petitioner

vs.
LOLIT SOLIS, SALVE V. ASIS, AL G. PEDROCHE and RICARDO F. LO, respondents
G.R. No. 206691, October 3, 2016.
PERALTA, J.:

FACTS:
On December 14, 2012, the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP)
issued a Resolution in CBD Case No. 09-2498, recommending the penalty of suspension of herein
petitioner Atty. Raymund P. Palad. Palad received a copy of the Resolution on March 8, 2013, and filed
his Motion for Reconsideration.

Petitioner averred that around 6:30 in the morning on April 23, 2013, he received a text
message from his fellow lawyer friends informing him that the latter read in an article in Pilipino Star
Ngayon that petitioner was already suspended from the practice of law for one (1) year.2 The article
was written by respondent Solis in her column “Take it, Take it,” which was also published on the
tabloid’s website.

Petitioner also alleged that respondent Lo broached the same topic in his column Funfare in The
Philippine Star on April 23, 2013.

Petitioner avowed that respondents clearly violated the confidentiality rule in proceedings
against attorneys as provided by Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court when they disclosed the pending
administrative case to the public and are, likewise, liable for indirect contempt since they made
comments, opinions and conclusions as to the findings of the IBP Board of Governors regarding the
administrative case against him.

In addition to the respondent’s joint comment, Solis and Lo further claimed that sometime in
April 2013, they received information from a reliable source that petitioner was reportedly
suspended from the practice of law for supposed violation of the code of ethics. They argued that the
administrative case against petitioner is a matter of public interest because he became a public figure by
gaining national recognition and notoriety as the ardent counsel of Katrina Halili, whose scandal with
Hayden Kho made headlines a few years ago. Petitioner inevitably became an overnight celebrity
lawyer due to his extensive media exposure in defending his client. The issue with which petitioner was
associated as Halili’s lawyer generated so much publicity, captured the entire nation’s attention,
and even led to a Senate investigation. As such, they alleged that their writings about petitioner’s
suspension are considered qualified privileged communication, which is protected under the
constitutional guarantee of freedom of the press.

ISSUE:
Whether or not respondents violated rule 139-b of the rules of court which declares that
proceedings against attorney shall be private and confidential, warranting a finding of guilt for indirect
contempt of court.
HELD:
No.
As provided in rule 139-b of the rules of court:

Section 18. Confidentiality.—Proceedings against attorneys shall be

private and confidential. However, the final order of the Supreme Court shall be
published like its decisions in other cases.

It is settled that Section 18, Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court is not a restriction on the freedom
of the press. As long as there is a legitimate public interest, the media is not prohibited from making a
fair, true, and accurate news report of a disbarment complaint. However, in the absence of a legitimate
public interest in a disbarment complaint, members of the media must preserve the confidentiality of
disbarment proceedings during its pendency.

Public interest is something in which the public, the community at large, has some pecuniary
interest, or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected; it does not mean anything
so narrow as mere curiosity, or as the interests of the particular localities, which may be affected by the
matters in question.

In the case at bar, the highly-publicized controversy involving petitioner’s client, who is a public
figure, roused the public’s attention, as the footage was made available to anyone who has access to
internet. The case involved the issue on photo or video voyeurism on the internet which is considered
a subject of public interest. The public concern was focused on the event, the conduct of the
personalities, and the content, effect and significance of the conduct, and not on the mere personalities.
Thus, petitioner represents a matter of public interest.

Since petitioner has become a public figure for being involved in a public issue, and because
the event itself that led to the filing of the disciplinary case against petitioner is a matter of public
interest, the media has the right to report the disciplinary case as legitimate news. The legitimate media
has a right to publish such fact under the constitutional guarantee of freedom of the press. Respondents
merely reported on the alleged penalty of suspension from the practice of law for a year against
petitioner, and the supposed grounds relied upon.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION:

WHEREFORE, the instant petition filed by petitioner Atty. Raymund P. Palad to cite respondents
Lolit Solis, Salve V. Asis, Al G. Pedroche, and Ricardo F. Lo for indirect contempt is hereby DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED
TERESITA P. FAJARDO, complainant
vs.
ATTY. NICANOR C. ALVAREZ, respondent
A.C. No. 9018, April 20, 2016.
LEONEN, J.:

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.

Here, as summarized by the Investigating Commissioner of IBP-CBD, parties have differing

version of facts:

According to complainant, around 2009, Teresita hired Atty. Alvarez to handle several cases
filed against her before the Office of the Ombudsman. Atty. Alvarez was then working in the Legal
Section of the National Center for Mental Health under DOH. He asked for P1,400,000.00 as acceptance
fee. However, he 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.8
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.

On the other hand, Atty. Alvarez claims that he has authority to engage in private practice of
the profession. He represented Teresita in several cases before the Office of the Ombudsman.

On July 10, 2009, Atty. Alvarez received a call from Teresita 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. Atty. Alvarez
accepted the case and asked for P500,000.00 as acceptance fee. 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. However, the fee is exclusive of filing fees,
appearance fees, and other miscellaneous fees such as costs for photocopying and mailing.

Atty. Alvarez claimed that he prepared several pleadings in connection with Teresita’s case. He
also said that he prepared several letters to different government officials and agencies and that
Teresita made staggered payments for the amounts they agreed on.
 On June 1, 2011, Teresita filed before the Office of the Bar Confidant a Verified Complaint
praying for the disbarment of Atty. Alvarez. On December 7, 2011, the case was referred to the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines for investigation, report, and recommendation. In his Report and
Recommendation 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. Atty. Alvarez 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.

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.

Third, whether respondent violated the Lawyer’s Oath and the Code of Professional
Responsibility.

HELD:

First, SC ruled 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.

By preparing the pleadings of and giving legal advice to complainant, respondent practiced law.
Citing the case of Cayetano vs. Monsod in relation to Practice of 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,
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.”

In addition, the government has a serious interest in the prosecution of erring employees and
their corrupt acts. Under the Constitution, “public office is a public trust.” The Office of the
Ombudsman, as “protectors of the People,” 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.”

Second, having determined that respondent illicitly practiced law, SC ruled that there is now no
need to determine whether the fees he charged were reasonable.

Third, SC 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. 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.

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. This act of influence peddling
is highly immoral and has no place in the legal profession.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION:

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.