[go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd
Upload
547 views1 page

FAJARDO vs. ALVAREZ

This case involved a lawyer working for the Department of Health who was accused of unauthorized private practice of law. The complainant hired the respondent to defend her in a criminal case, paying him 1.4 million pesos, but he failed to appear in court or file any pleadings. The respondent also assured the complainant he could influence the Office of the Ombudsman to dismiss the case for 500,000 pesos. However, the Ombudsman ruled against the complainant. It was ruled that the respondent engaged in unauthorized practice by giving legal advice and preparing pleadings while having a conflict of interest as a public officer representing a case against the government. The respondent violated codes of professional conduct and ethics.

Uploaded by

Belle Frances Timosa
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
547 views1 page

FAJARDO vs. ALVAREZ

This case involved a lawyer working for the Department of Health who was accused of unauthorized private practice of law. The complainant hired the respondent to defend her in a criminal case, paying him 1.4 million pesos, but he failed to appear in court or file any pleadings. The respondent also assured the complainant he could influence the Office of the Ombudsman to dismiss the case for 500,000 pesos. However, the Ombudsman ruled against the complainant. It was ruled that the respondent engaged in unauthorized practice by giving legal advice and preparing pleadings while having a conflict of interest as a public officer representing a case against the government. The respondent violated codes of professional conduct and ethics.

Uploaded by

Belle Frances Timosa
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

FAJARDO V. ATTY. ALVAREZ, A.C. NO.

9018, 2016

Facts:
This was an administrative case involving the determination of whether a lawyer working in the
Legal Section of the National Health Center for Mental Health under the Department of Health is
authorized to privately practice law.
The complainant hired the respondent to defend her in a criminal and administrative case. The
respondent asked for a P1,400,000.00 as an acceptance fee. However, the respondent failed to
appear before the Office of the Ombudsman or sign any pleadings.
The respondent assured the complainant that he had connections in the Office of Ombudsman
who can dismiss the case for her for a fee of P500,000.
However just after two (2) weeks of their talk, the Office of the Ombudsman issued a resolution
and decision recommending the filling of a criminal complaint against the complainant and her
dismissal from service.
The complainant demanded from the respondent, that he return a portion of the amount she
gave. He failed to heed.
Issue:
Whether the respondent, 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.
Ruling:
It was ruled that the respondent committed an unauthorized practice of his profession.
In this case, it is established that the respondent practiced law even if he did not sign any
pleading. The mere preparation of the pleadings and giving legal advice to the complainant, it is
established that the respondent praticed law. In addition, his acuations reveal illicit intent and
there was an attempt to peddle influence in the Office of the Ombudsman.
The respondent, was given the written permission the authority to engage in private practice by
the National Center for Mental Health, in accordance to Administrative Order No. 21, w. 1999. It
was expressly implied in this written permission that the only condition for his practice of law
that his practice must not be “in conflict with the interest of the Center and the Phillipine
Government as a whole.”
However, by assisting and representing a suit against the Ombudsman and against the
government by placing himself in a situation of conflict of interest. The conflict of interest here
rests on the fact that the respondent, is a public officer thus under the government. By
appearing against the Ombudsman, he is going against the government.
The respondent also violated the Lawyer’s Oath, the Code of Professional Responsibility and
Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees when he
communicated to the complainant that he knew people from the office who can help them get a
favourable decision on the case.

You might also like