SECOND DIVISION sent a demand letter to Atty.

Alvarez, which he
failed to heed.10ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
A.C. No. 9018, April 20, 2016
On the other hand, Atty. Alvarez claims the
TERESITA P. FAJARDO, Complainant, v. ATTY. following:
NICANOR C. ALVAREZ, Respondent.
Atty. Alvarez is Legal Officer III of the National
Center for Mental Health under the Department of
DECISION Health.11 He has authority to engage in private
practice of the profession.12 He represented
LEONEN, J.: Teresita in several cases before the Office of the
Ombudsman.13ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
This administrative case involves the
determination of whether a lawyer working in the Atty. Alvarez and Teresita had an arrangement that
Legal Section of the National Center for Mental Teresita would consult Atty. Alvarez whenever a
Health under the Department of Health is case was filed against her.14 Atty. Alvarez would
authorized to privately practice law, and then advise Teresita to send him a copy of the
consequently, whether the amount charged by complaint and its attachments through
respondent for attorney's fees is reasonable under courier.15 Afterwards, Atty. Alvarez would evaluate
the principle of quantum meruit. the case and call Teresita to discuss his fees in
accepting and handling the case.16 A 50%
Complainant Teresita P. Fajardo (Teresita) was the downpayment would be deposited to Atty.
Municipal Treasurer of San Leonardo, Nueva Ecija. Alvarez's or his secretary's bank account. 17 The
She hired respondent Atty. Nicanor C. Alvarez (Atty. balance would then be paid in installments.18 The
Alvarez) to defend her in criminal and success fee was voluntary on Teresita's
administrative cases before the Office of the part.19ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
Ombudsman.
On July 10, 2009, Atty. Alvarez received a call from
The parties have differing versions of the facts as Teresita regarding a meeting at Shangri-La Mall to
summarized by the Investigating Commissioner of discuss the decision and resolution she received
the Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated from the Office of the Ombudsman dismissing her
Bar of the Philippines. Teresita's version of the from service for dishonesty and indicting her for
facts is as follows: violation of Section 3 of Republic Act No. 3019,
respectively.20 Atty. Alvarez accepted the case and
Around 2009, Teresita hired Atty. Alvarez to handle asked for P500,000.00 as acceptance
several cases filed against her before the Office of fee.21According to Atty. Alvarez, he arrived at the
the Ombudsman.1 Atty. Alvarez was then working amount after considering the difficulty of the case
in the Legal Section of the National Center for and the workload that would be involved, which
Mental Health.2 He asked for P1,400,000.00 as would include appeals before the Court of Appeals
acceptance fee.3 However, Atty. Alvarez did not and this Court.22 However, the fee is exclusive of
enter his appearance before the Office of the filing fees, appearance fees, and other
Ombudsman nor sign any miscellaneous fees such as costs for photocopying
pleadings.4ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary and mailing.23ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

Atty. Alvarez assured Teresita that he had friends Atty. Alvarez claimed that he prepared several
connected with the Office of the Ombudsman who pleadings in connection with Teresita's case:
could help with dismissing her case for a certain
fee.5 Atty. Alvarez said that he needed to pay the (1) motion for reconsideration filed on July 23,
amount of P500,000.00 to his friends and 2009 in connection with the administrative
acquaintances working at the Office of the case;
Ombudsman to have the cases against Teresita
dismissed.6ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary (2) motion for reconsideration filed on July 23,
2009 in connection with the criminal case;
However, just two (2) weeks after Teresita and
Atty. Alvarez talked, the Office of the Ombudsman (3) petition for injunction filed on October 15,
issued a resolution and decision recommending 2009 before the Regional Trial Court of
the filing of a criminal complaint against Teresita, Gapan City; and
and her dismissal from service, (4) petition for preliminary injunction with
respectively.7ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary prayer for a temporary restraining order
filed before the Court of Appeals on
Teresita then demanded that Atty. Alvarez return at November 18, 2009, and the amended
least a portion of the amount she gave. 8 Atty. petition on November 26, 2009.24
Alvarez promised to return the amount to Teresita;
however, he failed to fulfill this promise. 9 Teresita
Atty. Alvarez also said that he prepared several
letters to different government officials and The time that Respondent spent in following up the
agencies.25ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary case of Complainant in the Office of the
Ombudsman is a time lost to the government
Atty. Alvarez alleged that Teresita made staggered which could have been used in the service of many
payments for the amounts they agreed taxpayers[.]38cralawred
on.26Teresita only paid the balance of the agreed In any case, granting that Atty. Alvarez was
acceptance fee equivalent to P450,000.00 on authorized by his superior to practice his
February 11, 2010.27 While Teresita paid profession, the Investigating Commissioner stated
P60,000.00 for the miscellaneous expenses, she that Atty. Alvarez was prohibited to handle cases
did not pay the expenses for other legal work involving malversation of funds by government
performed and advanced by Atty. officials such as a municipal
Alvarez.28ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary treasurer.39ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
On the last day for filing of the petition for reviewMoreover, the Investigating Commissioner found
of the Office of the Ombudsman's Decision, that the attorney's fees Atty. Alvarez asked for
Teresita informed Atty. Alvarez that she was no were unreasonable:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
longer interested in retaining Atty. Alvarez's From all indication, Complainant was forced to give
services as she had hired Atty. Tyrone Contado to the Respondent the amount of P1,400,000.00
from Nueva Ecija, who was Atty. Alvarez's co- because of the words of Respondent that he has
counsel in the cases againstfriends in the Office of the Ombudsman who can
Teresita.29ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary help with a fee. That because of that guarantee,
Complainant was obligated to shell out every now
On June 1, 2011, Teresita filed before the Office of and then money for the satisfaction of the
the Bar Confidant a Verified Complaint praying for allege[d] friend of the Respondent[.]
the disbarment of Atty. Alvarez. 30 This Court
required Atty. Alvarez to file his comment on the Complainant is an ordinary Municipal Treasurer of a
complaint within 10 days from 4th or 5th class municipality and the amount of
notice.31ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary attorney's fees demanded by the Respondent is
very much excessive. . . . The exorbitant amount
On December 7, 2011, the case was referred to that he demanded from complainant is too much
the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for for a lowly local government employee. What the
investigation, report, and Respondent did is not only illegal, immoral and
recommendation.32ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary dishonest but also taking advantage of a
defenseless victim.
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 While a lawyer should charge only fair and
and recommended Atty. Alvarez's suspension from reasonable fees, no hard and fast rule may be set
the practice of law for one (1) year. 34 Atty. Alvarez in the determination of what a reasonable fee is, or
was also ordered to return the amount of what is not. That must be established from the
P700,000.00 to Teresita with legal interest from the facts of each case[.]
time of demand until its full payment. 35 The
dispositive portion of the Investigating . . . .
Commissioner's Report and Recommendation
reads:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary The fees claimed and received by the Respondent
WHEREFORE, finding Respondent guilty of for the alleged cases he handled despite the fact
committing unlawful, immoral and deceitful acts of that the records and evidence does not show that
the Canon of Professional Responsibility, [it] is he ever signed pleadings filed, the amount of
recommended that he be suspended for one (1) P700,000.00 is reasonable, thus, fairness and
year in the practice of law and he be ordered to equity dictate, he has to return the excess amount
return the amount of P700,000.00 to the of P700,000.00 to the complainant[.]40cralawred
Complainant within two (2) months from receipt of
this order with legal interest from the time of In Notice of Resolution No. XX-2013-778 41 dated
demand, until fully paid, with a warning that June 21, 2013, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
repetition of [a] similar offense in the future will be Board of Governors adopted the findings and
dealt with more severely.36cralawred recommendations of the Investigating
Commissioner:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
On the unauthorized practice of law, the RESOLVED to ADOPT AND APPROVE, as it is hereby
Investigating Commissioner found that while Atty. unanimously ADOPTED AND APPROVED, the
Alvarez claimed that he was authorized by his Report and Recommendation of the Investigating
superior to privately practice law, the pleadings he Commissioner in the above-entitled case, herein
allegedly prepared and filed did not bear his name made part of this Resolution as Annex "A", and
and signature.37 Hence, the Investigating finding the recommendation fully supported by the
Commissioner stated evidence on record and the applicable laws and
that:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary 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)cralawred
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:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
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)cralawred
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.
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:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
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)cralawred
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:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
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:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
"x x x for valuable consideration engages in the
business of advising person, firms, 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."cralawred
. . . .
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."cralawred
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 related thereto. - Public officials and employees
notice or render any kind of service, which device during their incumbency shall not:
or service requires the use in any degree of legal
knowledge or skill." . . . .

. . . . (2) Engage in the private practice of their

profession unless authorized by the Constitution or
Interpreted in the light of the various definitions of law, provided, that such practice will not conflict or
the term "practice of law," particularly the modern tend to conflict with their official functions[.]
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 Memorandum Circular No. 17:
lawyer-manager, a lawyer-entrepreneur of
industry, a lawyer-negotiator of contracts, and a The authority to grant permission to any official or
lawyer-legislator of both the rich and the poor employee shall be granted by the head of the
verily more than satisfy the constitutional ministry or agency in accordance with Section 12,
requirementthat he has been engaged in the Rule XVIII of the Revised Civil Service Rules, which
practice of law for at least ten years.50 (Emphasis provides:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
supplied)cralawred "Sec. 12. No officer or employee shall engage
directly in any private business, vocation, or
Cayetano was reiterated in Lingan v. Calubaquib: 51

Practice of law is "any activity, in or out of court, profession or be connected with any commercial,
which requires the application of law, legal credit, agricultural, or industrial undertaking
procedure, knowledge, training and experience." It without a written permission from the head of
includes "[performing] acts which are Department; Provided, That this prohibition will be
characteristics of the [legal] profession" or absolute in the case of those officers and
"[rendering any kind of] service [which] requires employees whose duties and responsibilities
the use in any degree of legal knowledge or skill." require that their entire time be at the disposal of
the Government: Provided, further, That if an
Work in government that requires the use of legal employee is granted permission to engage in
knowledge is considered practice of law. outside activities, the time so devoted outside of
In Cayetano v. Monsod, this court cited the office hours should be fixed by the chief of the
deliberations of the 1986 Constitutional agency to the end that it will not impair in any way
Commission and agreed that work rendered by the efficiency of the other officer or employee: And
lawyers in the Commission on Audit requiring "[the provided, finally, That no permission is necessary
use of] legal knowledge or legal talent" is practice in the case of investments, made by an officer or
employee, which do not involve any real or
of law.52 (Citations omitted)cralawred
apparent conflict between his private interests and
By preparing the pleadings of and giving legal public duties, or in any way influence him in the
advice to complainant, respondent practiced law. discharge of his duties, and he shall not take part
in the management of the enterprise or become an
Under Section 7(b)(2) of Republic Act No. 6713, officer or member of the board of
otherwise known as the Code of Conduct and directors",cralawred
Ethical Standards for Public Officials and
Employees, and Memorandum Circular No. 17, subject to any additional conditions which the
series of 1986,53government officials or employees head of the office deems necessary in each
are prohibited from engaging in private practice of particular case in the interest of the service, as
their profession unless authorized by their expressed in the various issuances of the Civil
department heads. More importantly, if authorized, Service Commission.cralawred
the practice of profession must not conflict nor In Abella v. Cruzabra,54 the respondent was a
tend to conflict with the official functions of the Deputy Register of Deeds of General Santos City.
government official or While serving as an incumbent government
employee:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary employee, the respondent "filed a petition for
Republic Act No. 6713: commission as a notary public and was
commissioned . . . without obtaining prior authority
Section 7. Prohibited Acts and Transactions. - In from the Secretary of the Department of
addition to acts and omissions of public officials Justice."55 According to the complainant, the
and employees now prescribed in the Constitution respondent had notarized around 3,000
and existing laws, the following shall constitute documents.56 This Court found the respondent
prohibited acts and transactions of any public guilty of engaging in notarial practice without
official and employee and are hereby declared to written authority from the Secretary of Justice.
be unlawful: Thus:

. . . . It is clear that when respondent filed her petition

for commission as a notary public, she did not
(b) Outside employment and other activities obtain a written permission from the Secretary of
the D[epartment] [of] J[ustice]. Respondent's performance of their duties are necessarily
superior, the Register of Deeds, cannot issue any impressed with public interest for by express
authorization because he is not the head of the constitutional mandate, a public office is a public
Department. And even assuming that the Register trust. The complaint for illegal dismissal filed by
of Deeds authorized her, respondent failed to Javiero and Catapang against City Engineer
present any proof of that written permission. Divinagracia is in effect a complaint against the
Respondent cannot feign ignorance or good faith City Government of Bago City, their real employer,
because respondent filed her petition for of which petitioner Javellana is a councilman.
commission as a notary public after Memorandum Hence, judgment against City Engineer
Circular No. 17 was issued in Divinagracia would actually be a judgment against
1986.57ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary the City Government. By serving as counsel for the
complaining employees and assisting them to
In this case, respondent was given written prosecute their claims against City Engineer
permission by the Head of the National Center for Divinagracia, the petitioner violated Memorandum
Mental Health, whose authority was designated Circular No. 74-58 (in relation to Section 7[b-2] of
under Department of Health Administrative Order R[epublic] A[ct] [No.] 6713) prohibiting a
No. 21, series of government official from engaging in the private
1999.58ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary practice of his profession, if such practice would
represent interests adverse to the government.
However, by assisting and representing
complainant in a suit against the Ombudsman and Petitioner's contention that Section 90 of the Local
against government in general, respondent put Government Code of 1991 and DLG Memorandum
himself in a situation of conflict of interest. Circular No. 90-81 violate Article VIII, Section 5 of
the Constitution is completely off tangent. Neither
Respondent's practice of profession was expressly the statute nor the circular trenches upon the
and impliedly conditioned on the requirement that Supreme Court's power and authority to prescribe
his practice will not be "in conflict with the interest rules on the practice of law. The Local Government
of the Center and the Philippine government as a Code and DLG Memorandum Circular No. 90-81
whole."59ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary simply prescribe rules of conduct for public officials
to avoid conflicts of interest between the discharge
In Javellana v. Department of Interior and Local of their public duties and the private practice of
Government,60 the petitioner was an incumbent their profession, in those instances where the law
City Councilor or member of the Sangguniang allows it.65cralawred
Panlungsod of Bago City. He was a lawyer by There is basic conflict of interest here. Respondent
profession and had continuously engaged in the is a public officer, an employee of government.
practice of law without securing authority from the The Office of the Ombudsman is part of
Regional Director of the Department of Local government. By appearing against the Office of
Government.61 In 1989, the petitioner acted as the Ombudsman, respondent is going against the
counsel for Antonio Javiero and Rolando Catapang same employer he swore to serve.
and filed a case for Illegal Dismissal and
Reinstatement with Damages against Engr. Ernesto In addition, the government has a serious interest
C. Divinagracia, City Engineer of Bago in the prosecution of erring employees and their
City.62ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary corrupt acts. Under the Constitution, "[p]ublic
office is a public trust."66 The Office of the
Engr. Ernesto C. Divinagracia filed an Ombudsman, as "protectors of the [P]eople," 67 is
administrative case before the Department of mandated to "investigate and prosecute . . . any
Local Government for violation of Section 7(b)(2) act or omission of any public officer or employee,
of Republic Act No. 6713 and relevant Department office or agency, when such act or omission
of Local Government memorandum circulars on appears to be illegal, unjust, improper or
unauthorized practice of profession, as well as for inefficient."68ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
oppression, misconduct, and abuse of
authority.63 While the case was pending before Thus, a conflict of interest exists when an
Department of Local Government, the petitioner incumbent government employee represents
was able to secure a written authority to practice another government employee or public officer in
his profession from the Secretary of Interior and a case pending before the Office of the
Local Government, "provided that such practice Ombudsman. The incumbent officer ultimately
will not conflict or tend to conflict with his official goes against government's mandate under the
functions."64ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary Constitution to prosecute public officers or
employees who have committed acts or omissions
This Court in Javellana observed that the petitioner that appear to be illegal, unjust, improper, or
practiced his profession in conflict with his inefficient.69 Furthermore, this is consistent with
functions as City Councilor and against the the constitutional directive that "[p]ublic officers
interests of and employees must, at all times, be accountable
government:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary to the [P]eople, serve them with utmost
In the first place, complaints against public officers responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency; act
and employees relating or incidental to the
with patriotism and justice, and lead modest circumstances that attended the commission of
lives."70ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary the offense should also be considered.75cralawred
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:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
[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.71cralawred
Having determined that respondent illicitly
practiced law, we find that there is now no need to
determine whether the fees he charged were
reasonable.
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:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
As a basic rule in evidence, the burden of proof lies
on the party who makes the allegationsei
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)cralawred
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:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
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
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.77ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
Thus, respondent violated the Code of Professional
Responsibility. Canon 1, Rules 1.01, and
1.0278prohibit 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 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:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
The highly immoral implication of a lawyer
approaching a judgeor a judge evincing a
willingnessto 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.83cralawred
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:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
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 members of the Bar.87(Emphasis
people's faith in the judicial process is diluted. supplied)cralawred
In the interest of ridding itself of corrupt personnel
The primary duty of lawyers is not to their clients who encourage influence peddling, and in the
but to the administration of justice. To that end, interest of maintaining the high ethical standards
their clients' success is wholly subordinate. The of employees in the judiciary, this Court did not
conduct of a member of the bar ought to and must hesitate in dismissing its own employee from
always be scrupulously observant of the law and government service when she peddled influence in
ethics. Any means, not honorable, fair and honest the Court of Appeals:88
which is resorted to by the lawyer, even in the What brings our judicial system into disrepute are
pursuit of his devotion to his client's cause, is often the actuations of a few erring court
condemnable and unethical. 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
Zeal and persistence in advancing a client's cause wavered in its vigilance in eradicating the so-called
must always be within the bounds of the law. A "bad eggs" in the judiciary. And whenever
self-respecting independence in the exercise of the warranted by the gravity of the offense, the
profession is expected if an attorney is to remain a supreme penalty of dismissal in an administrative
member of the bar. In the present case, we find case is meted to erring personnel.89cralawred
that respondent fell short of these exacting
standards. Given the import of the case, a warning The Investigating Commissioner found that
is a mere slap on the wrist that would not serve as complainant was "forced to give . . . Respondent
commensurate penalty for the offense.85cralawred the amount of P1,400,000.00 because of the words
of Respondent that he ha[d] friends in the Office of
Similar to the present case, in Bueno v. the Ombudsman who c[ould] help with a fee."90 It
Raeses,86 we disbarred a lawyer who solicited is because of respondent's assurances to
bribe money from his client in violation of Canon complainant that she sent him money over the
13 of the Code of Professional course of several months.91 These assurances are
Responsibility:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary seen from the text messages that respondent sent
Rather than merely suspend Atty. Raeses as had complainant:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
been done in Bildner, the Court believes that Atty. FROM: Atty. Alvarez <+639063630224>
Raeses merits the ultimate administrative penalty
of disbarment because of the multi-layered impact SUBJECT:
and implications of what he did; by his acts he
proved himself to be what a lawyer should not be, Cnbi ko dun sa kontak dati na magbibigay tayo na
in a lawyer's relations to the client, to the court pera sa allowance lang muna later na ang bayad
and to the Integrated Bar. pag labas ng reso at kaliwaan pero sbi nya mas
maganda kung isasabay na ang pera pagbgay ng
First, he extracted money from his client for a letter mo sa omb.. Parang dun tayo nagkamali
purpose that is both false and fraudulent. It is false pero ang solusyon ay sana ibalik nila ang pera . . in
because no bribery apparently took place as Atty. d meantime hindi dapat apektado ang kaso at
Raeses in fact lost the case. It is fraudulent kailangan an Appeal sa CA at may deadline yun
because the professed purpose of the exaction
was the crime of bribery. Beyond these, he DATE: 31-05-2010
maligned the judge and the Judiciary by giving the
impression that court cases are won, not on the TIME: 5:24 pm
merits, but through deceitful meansa decidedly
black mark against the Judiciary. Last but not the TYPE: Text Message
least, Atty. Raeses grossly disrespected the IBP
by his cavalier attitude towards its disciplinary ....
proceedings.
FROM: Atty. Alvarez <+639063630224>
From these perspectives, Atty. Raeses wronged
his client, the judge allegedly on the "take," the SUBJECT:
Judiciary as an institution, and the IBP of which he
is a member. The Court cannot and should not Gud pm pnro, naLBC n b ang Reso? Kung Jan un
allow offenses such as these to pass unredressed. pnrmahn ...
Let this be a signal to one and allto all lawyers,
their clients and the general publicthat the Court DATE: 21-05-2010
will not hesitate to act decisively and with no
quarters given to defend the interest of the public, TIME: 5:13 pm
of our judicial system and the institutions
composing it, and to ensure that these are not TYPE: Text Message
compromised by unscrupulous or misguided
....
FROM: Atty. Alvarez <+639063630224> TYPE: Text Message

SUBJECT: ....

Pnro sbi ng Dep Omb la png cnabi sa knya ng FROM: Atty. Alvarez <+639063630224>
Omb. Ang CA Reso pnaiwan n Orly @ studyohn nya
(txt kontal) SUBJECT:

DATE: 15-04-2010 Sa dep omb for Luzon na nya follow up ang MR at

saka overall dep omb si orly dun nya kukunin letter
TIME: 6:07 pm
DATE: 30-03-2010
TYPE: Text Message
TIME: 5:00 pm
....
TYPE: Text Message
FROM: Atty. Alvarez <+639063630224>
....
SUBJECT:
FROM: Atty. Alvarez <+639063630224>
Yung blessing pala ni gutierez ang hnhntay ng
overall dep omb si orly at dun din siya subok kuha SUBJECT:
letter pero nasbhan na si gutierez ng dep omb for
Luzon sbi ko pwwde b nila gawin total alam na ni Gud pm pnro. Ang Dep. Omb. My closd dor mtng
gutierez. . . Maya tawag ko sayo update pro pnkta s knya ang note q at sabi rw bumalik aq
aftr Holy wk. C Orly nman ay ngsabi n es2dyuhn p
DATE: 15-04-2010 rw nya.

TIME: 12:44 pm DATE: 30-03-2010

TYPE: Text Message TIME: 4:52 pm

.... TYPE: Text Message

FROM: Atty. Alvarez <+639063630224> ....

SUBJECT: FROM: Atty. Alvarez <+639063630224>

Gud mrng Tess hindi na svmagot kahapon tnxt ko SUBJECT:

pero minsan hndi tlga sumasagot yun nag ttxt lang
pagkatapos kaya lang d mo pala naiintindihan ang Binigay ko na pera kahapon at kinausap ko para sa
txt nya bisaya "istudyahun" ibig sabihn kausapin letter magkikita pa kami marnaya las 2 at kukunin
pa so nasbi na nya sa omb yung letter at nya copy letter natin kay sales at CA reso
istudzahan pa
DATE: 15-04-2010
DATE: 31-03-2010
TIME: 12:32 pm
TIME: 8:25 am
TYPE: Text Message
TYPE: Text Message
....
....
FROM: Atty. Alvarez <+639063630224>
FROM: Atty. Alvarez <+639063630224>
SUBJECT:
SUBJECT:
Tess ndpst mo na? Kakausapin ko kasi na qc na
Ok panero update ko na lang client pero nag txt lang kami kita at malapit ako dun maya at hindi na
tlga kailangan daw nya letter habang wala pa omb sa crsng. Tnx
reso., Txt mo lang ko panero, have a nice
holidays., (sagot ko yan tess) DATE: 14-04-2010

DATE: 03-03-2010 TIME: 1:29 pm

TIME: 5:03 pm TYPE: Text Message

 control d2 and Dep. Omb.
....
DATE: 08-04-2010
FROM: Atty. Alvarez <+639063630224>
TIME: 10:55 am
SUBJECT:
TYPE: Text Message
Gud pm pnro. Ok ba ang 15k rep maya 6pm? Thnx
(txt ng kontak tess kausapin ko mbuti sa letter) ....

DATE: 14-04-2010 FROM: Atty. Alvarez <+639063630224>

TIME: 10:25 am SUBJECT:

TYPE: Text Message Tess gud mrng, wag mo kalimutan mgdpst 25k
today 6pm mtng naming omb tnx.
....
DATE: 24-03-2010
FROM: Atty. Alvarez <+639063630224>
TIME: 10:23 am
SUBJECT:
TYPE: Text Message
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 FROM: Atty. Alvarez <+639063630224>

DATE: 08-04-2010 SUBJECT:

TIME: 10:58 am Gud pm uli pnro. Kung subukan q n lkrn ky Orly

ung cnabi mong letr adrsd 2 DOF Sec @ synd n
TYPE: Text Message 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
FROM: Atty. Alvarez <+639063630224> letr? thnx

SUBJECT: DATE: 11-03-2010

Ok panero kailangan malinaw din ang presentation TIME: 7:03 pm

lp sa client panero at ang impression nya yun na
ang hningi natin... so april 15 panero an balik mo TYPE: Text Message92cralawred
sa MR at yung letter form omb to dof bhala ka na In response to his alleged text messages,
sa diskarte panero pag nakakuha tayo nakahanda respondent claims that complainant must have
na 150k dun confused him with her other
contacts.93 Respondent found it "mesmerizing" that
DATE: 08-04-2010 complainant was able to save all those alleged text
messages from two (2) years ago.94 Moreover,
TIME: 10:56 am assuming these messages were "true, still they
[were] not legally admissible as they [were]
TYPE: Text Message 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
FROM: Atty. Alvarez <+639063630224> the rule of exclusion [was] strictly
enforced.'"95ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
SUBJECT:
In cases involving influence peddling or bribery,
Pnero dapat maalala mo n ung purpose ng "[t]he transaction is always done in secret and
400th hindi directly delivery ng Reso granting d MR often only between the two parties
pro ung delivery by the Dep Omb ng letr of appeal concerned."96 Nevertheless, as found by the
2 d Omb at pgpaliwang nya sa Omb. Re sa hnhngi Investigating Commissioner and as shown by the
ng rspondnt n modfcation ng Dcsion. Nung 1st records, we rule that there is enough proof to hold
mtng ntn Mar 24, ngin4m q sau n ngawa n i2 ng respondent guilty of influence peddling.
Dep Omb pro kausapn p ng Omb c Orly. Itong huli
ang nabtn p, pro yon ay dscrtion n ng Omb@ wing
We agree with the penalty recommended by the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines Board of Carpio, (Chairperson), Brion, Del Castillo,
Governors. We find respondent's acts of influence and Mendoza, JJ., concur.
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 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 P500,000.00the 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.
Republic of the Philippines After this court had suspended Atty. Baliga from
SUPREME COURT the practice of law, the Commission on Human
Manila Rights En Banc issued the resolution 10 dated
January 16, 2007, suspending him from his
THIRD DIVISION position as Director/Attorney VI of the. Commission
on Human Rights Regional Office for Region II.
A.C. No. 5377 June 30, 2014 According to the Commission on Human Rights En
Banc, Atty. Baliga's suspension from the practice of
VICTOR C. LINGAN, Complainant, law "prevent[ed] [him] from assuming his post [as
vs. Regional Director] for want of eligibility in the
ATTYS. ROMEO CALUBAQUIB and JIMMY P. meantime that his authority to practice law is
BALIGA, Respondents. suspended."11

RESOLUTION Atty. Baliga argued that he cannot be suspended

for acts not connected with his functions as
Commission on Human Rights Regional Director.
LEONEN, J.:
According to Atty. Baliga, his suspension from the
practice of law did not include his suspension from
This court has the exclusive jurisdiction to regulate
public office. He prayed for clarification of this
the practice of law. When this court orders a
court's resolution dated June 15, 2006 "to prevent
lawyer suspended from the practice of law, the
further injury and prejudice to [his] rights."12
lawyer must desist from performing all functions
requiring the application of legal knowledge within
This court noted without action Atty. Baliga's ex
the period of suspension. This includes desisting
parte clarificatory pleading as this court does not
from holding a position in government requiring
render advisory opinions.13
the authority to practice law.

On May 8, 2009, this court received a letter from

For our resolution is respondent Atty. Jimmy P.
complainant Lingan. In his letter14 dated May 4,
Baliga's motion to lift one-year suspension from
2009, Lingan alleged that Atty. Baliga continued
the practice of law.1
practicing law and discharging his functions as
Commission on Human Rights Regional Director, in
In the resolution2 dated June 15, 2006, this court
violation of this court's order of suspension.
found Attys. Romeo I. Calubaquib and Jimmy P.
Baliga guilty of violating Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the
Complainant Lingan allegedly received a copy of
Code of Professional Responsibility3 and of the
the Commission on Human Rights En Banc 's
Lawyer's 4
Oath. Respondents allowed their
resolution suspending Atty. Baliga as Regional
secretaries to notarize documents in their stead, in
Director. On Atty. Baliga's motion, the ommission
violation of Sections 2455 and 2466 of the Notarial
reconsidered Atty. Baliga's suspension and instead
Law. This court suspended respondents from the
admonished him for "[violating] the conditions of
practice of law for one year, revoked their notarial
his commission as a notary public." 15According to
commissions, and disqualified them from
complainant Lingan, he was not served a copy of
reappointment as notaries public for two years.
Atty. Baliga's motion for reconsideration.16
Complainant Victor C. Lingan filed his motion for
Complainant Lingan claimed that the discharge of
reconsideration,7 praying that respondents be
the functions of a Commission on Human Rights
disbarred, not merely suspended from the practice
Regional Director necessarily required the practice
of law. In the resolution8 dated September 6, 2006,
of law. A Commission on Human Rights Regional
this court denied complainant Lingan's motion for
Director must be a member of the bar and is
reconsideration for lack of merit.
designated as Attorney VI. Since this court
suspended Atty. Baliga from the practice of law,
On March 22, 2007, Atty. Baliga, also the Regional
Atty. Baliga was in effect "a non-lawyer . . . and
Director of the Commission on Human Rights
[was] disqualified to hold the position of [Regional
Regional Office for Region II, filed the undated ex
Director] [during the effectivity of the order of
parte clarificatory pleading with leave of court. 9
suspension]."17 The Commission on Human Rights,
according to complainant Lingan, should have
In his ex parte clarificatory pleading, Atty. Baliga ordered Atty. Baliga to desist from performing his
alleged that on July 14, 2006, complainant Lingan functions as Regional Director. Complainant Lingan
wrote the Commission on Human Rights. Lingan prayed that this court give "favorable attention
requested the Commission to investigate Atty. and action on the matter."18
Baliga following the latter's suspension from the
practice of law.
This court endorsed complainant Lingan's letter to performing his functions as Regional Director while
the Office of the Bar Confidant for report and he was suspended from the practice of law. The
recommendation.19 resolution dated September 23, 2009 provides:

In its report and recommendation20 dated June 29, Considering that the period of suspension from the
2009, the Office of the Bar Confidant found that practice of law and disqualification from being
the period of suspension of Attys. Calubaquib and commissioned as notary public imposed on
Baliga had already lapsed. It recommended that respondents have [sic] already elapsed, this Court
respondents be required to file their respective resolves:
motions to lift order of suspension with
certifications from the Integrated Bar of the (1) to require both respondents, within ten
Philippines and the Executive Judge of the court (10) days from notice, to FILE their
where they might appear as counsel and state that respective motions to lift relative to their
they desisted from practicing law during the period suspension and disqualification from being
of suspension. commissioned as notary public and SUBMIT
certifications from the Integrated Bar of the
On the claim that the Commission on Human Philippines and Executive Judge of the
Rights allowed Atty. Baliga to perform his functions Court where they may appear as counsel,
as Regional Director during the period of stating that respondents have actually
suspension, the Office of the Bar Confidant said ceased and desisted from the practice of
that the Commission "deliberate[ly] law during the entire period of their
disregard[ed]"21 this court's order of suspension. suspension and disqualification, unless
According to the Office of the Bar Confidant, the already complied with in the meantime;
Commission on Human Rights had no power to
"[alter, modify, or set aside any of this court's (2) to require Atty. Jimmy P. Baliga to
resolutions] which [have] become final and SUBMIT a certification from the Commission
executory. "22 on Human Rights [CHR] stating that he has
been suspended from office and has
Thus, with respect to Atty. Baliga, the Office of the stopped from the performance of his
Bar Confidant recommended that this court require functions for the period stated in the order
him to submit a certification from the Commission of suspension and disqualification, within
on Human Rights stating that he desisted from ten (10) days from notice hereof;
performing his functions as Regional Director while
he was suspended from the practice of law. 23 (3) to require respondent Atty. Baliga and
the CHR to COMMENT on the allegations of
The Office of the Bar Confidant further complainant against them, both within ten
recommended that Atty. Baliga and the (10) days from receipt of notice
Commission .on Human Rights be required to hereof; ...27 (Emphasis in the original)
comment on complainant Lingan's allegation that
Atty. Baliga continued to perform his functions as In compliance with this court's order, Attys.
Regional Director while he was suspended from the Calubaquib and Baliga filed their respective
practice of law. motions to lift order of suspension. 28 Atty. Baliga
also filed his comment on complainant Lingan's
On July 17, 2009, Atty. Baliga filed a allegation that he continued performing his
manifestation,24 arguing that his suspension from functions as Regional Director during his
the practice of law did not include his suspension suspension from the practice of law.
from public office. Atty. Baliga said, "[t]o stretch
the coverage of [his suspension from the practice In his comment29 dated November 13, 2009, Atty.
of law] to [his] public office would be tantamount Baliga alleged that as Regional Director, he
to [violating] his constitutional rights [sic] to due "perform[ed], generally, managerial
process and to the statutory principle in law that functions,"30 which did not require the practice of
what is not included is deemed excluded."25 law. These managerial functions allegedly included
."[supervising] ... the day to day operations of the
In the resolution26 dated September 23, 2009, this regional office and its personnel";31 "monitoring
court required respondents to file their respective progress of investigations conducted by the
motions to lift order of suspension considering the [Commission on Human Rights] Investigation
lapse of the period of suspension. This court Unit";32 "monitoring the implementation of all other
further ordered Atty. Baliga and the Commission on services and assistance programs of the
Human Rights to comment on complainant [Commission on Human Rights] by the different
Lingari's allegation that Atty. Baliga continued units at the regional level";33 and "[supervising] . . .
the budgetary requirement preparation and
disbursement of funds and expenditure of the
[Regional Office]."34 The Commission allegedly has
its own "legal services unit which takes care of the
legal services matters of the [Commission]."35
Stating that his functions as Regional Director did
not require the practice of law, Atty. Baliga claimed
thaf he "faithful[ly] [complied] with [this court's
resolution suspending him from the practice of
law]."36
The Commission on Human Rights filed its
comment37 dated November 27, 2009. It argued
that "the penalty imposed upon Atty. Baliga as a
member of the bar is separate and distinct from
any penalty that may be imposed upon him as a
public official for the same acts." 38 According to the
Commission, Atty. Baliga's suspension from the
practice of law is a "bar matter"39 while the
imposition of penalty upon a Commission on
Human Rights official "is an entirely different thing,
falling as it does within the exclusive authority of
the [Commission as] disciplining body."40
Nevertheless, the Commission manifested that it
would defer to this court's resolution of the issue
and would "abide by whatever ruling or decision
[this court] arrives at on [the] matter. " 41 In
reply42 to Atty. Baliga's comment, complainant
Lingan argued that Atty. Baliga again disobeyed
this. court. Atty. Baliga failed to submit a
certification from the Commission on Human
Rights stating that he was suspended from office
and desisted from performing his functions as
Regional Director.
As to Atty. Baliga's claim that he did not practice
law while he held his position as Regional Director
and only performed generally managerial
functions, complainant Lingan countered that Atty.
Baliga admitted to defying the order of suspension.
Atty. Baliga admitted to performing the functions
of a "lawyer-manager,"43 which under the landmark
case of Cayetano v. Monsod44 constituted practice
of law. Complainant Lingan reiterated that the
position of Regional Director/ Attorney VI requires
the officer "to be a lawyer [in] good
standing."45 Moreover, as admitted by Atty. Baliga,
he had supervision and control over Attorneys III,
IV, and V. Being a "lawyer-manager," Atty. Baliga
practiced law while he held his position as Regional
Director.
With respect to Atty. Baliga's claim that he was in
good faith in reassuming his position as Regional
Director, complainant Lingan countered that if Atty.
Baliga were really in good faith, he should have
followed the initial resolution of the Commission on
Human Rights suspending him from office. Atty.
Baliga did not even furnish this court a copy of his
motion for reconsideration of the Commission on
Human Right's resolution suspending him from
office. By "playing ignorant on what is 'practice of
law', twisting facts and
46
philosophizing," complainant Lingan argued that
Atty. Baliga "[no longer has that] moral vitality
imperative to the title of an
attorney."47Compfainant Lingan prayed that Atty.
Baliga be disbarred.
On February 17, 2010, this court lifted the order of
suspension of Atty. Calubaquib.48 He was allowed
to resume his practice of law and perform notarial
acts subject to compliance with the requirements
for issuance of a notarial commission.
On the other hand, this court referred to the Office
of the Bar Confidant for evaluation, report, and
recommendation Atty. Baliga's motion to lift one-
year suspension and the respective comments of
Atty. Baliga and the Commission on Human
Rights.49
In its report and recommendation 50 dated October
18, 2010, the Office of the Bar Confidant stated
that Atty. Baliga "should not [have been] allowed
to perform his functions, duties, and
responsibilities [as Regional Director] which
[required acts constituting] practice .of
law."51 Considering that Atty. Baliga claimed that
he did not perform his functions as Regional
Director which required the practice of law, the
Office of the Bar Confidant recommended that the
Commission on Human Rights be required to
comment on this claim. The Office of the Bar
Confidant also recommended holding in abeyance
the resolution of Atty. Baliga's motion to lift
suspension "pending [the Commission on Human
Right's filing of comment]."52
In the resolution53 dated January 12, 2011, this
court held in abeyance the resolution of Atty.
Baliga's motion to lift one-year suspension. The
Commission on Human Rights was ordered to
comment on Atty. Baliga's claim that he did not
practice law while he held his position as Regional
Director.
In its comment54 dated April 6, 2011, the
Commission on Human Rights reiterated that the
penalty imposed on Atty. Baliga as a member of
the bar is separate from the penalty that might be
imposed on him as Regional Director. The
Commission added that it is "of honest belief that
the position of [Regional Director] is managerial
and does not [require the practice of law]." 55 It
again manifested that it will "abide by whatever
ruling or decision [this court] arrives on [the]
matter."56
The issue for our resolution is whether Atty. e. To issue Commission on Human Rights
Baliga's motion to lift order of suspension should processes, including notices, letter-
be granted. invitations, orders, or subpoenas within the
territorial jurisdiction of the regional
We find that Atty. Baliga violated this court's order office;69 and
of suspension. We, therefore, suspend him further
from the practice of law for six months. f. To review and approve draft resolutions of
human rights cases prepared by the legal
Practice of law is "any activity, in or out of court, officer.70
which requires the application of law, legal
procedure, knowledge, training and These powers and functions are characteristics of
experience."57 It includes "[performing] acts which the legal profession. Oaths and affirmations are
are characteristics of the [legal] profession" 58 or usually performed by members of the judiciary and
"[rendering any kind of] service [which] requires notaries public71 - officers who are necessarily
the use in any degree of legal knowledge or skill."59 members of the bar.72Investigating human rights
complaints are performed primarily by the
Work in government that requires the use of legal Commission's legal officer.73 Discussing immediate
knowledge is considered practice. of law. In courses of action and protection remedies and
Cayetano v. Monsod,60 this court cited the reviewing and approving draft resolutions of
deliberations of the 1986 Constitutional human rights cases prepared by the legal officer
Commission and agreed that work rendered by require the use of extensive legal knowledge.
lawyers in the Commission on Audit requiring "[the
use of] legal knowledge or legal talent"61 is The exercise of the powers and functions of a
practice of law. Commission on Human Rights Regional Director
constitutes practice of law. Thus, the Regional
The Commission on Human Rights is an Director must be an attorney - a member of the
independent office created under the Constitution bar in good standing and authorized to practice
with power to investigate "all forms of human law. When the Regional Director loses this
74

rights violations involving civil and political authority, such as when he or she is disbarred or
rights[.]"62 It is divided into regional offices with suspended from the practice of law, the Regional
each office having primary responsibility to Director loses a necessary qualification to the
investigate human rights violations in its territorial position he or she is holding. The disbarred or
jurisdiction.63 Each regional office is headed by the suspended lawyer must desist from holding the
Regional Director who is given the position of position of Regional Director.
Attorney VI.
This court suspended Atty. Baliga from the practice
Under the Guidelines and Procedures in the of law for one year on June 15, 2006, "effective
Investigation and Monitoring of Human Rights immediately." From the time Atty. Baliga received
75

Violations and Abuses, and the Provision of CHR the court's order of suspension on July 5,
Assistance,64 the Regional Director has the 2006, he has been without authority to practice
76

following powers and functions: law. He lacked a necessary qualification to his

position as Commission on Human Rights Regional
a. To administer oaths or affirmations with Director/ Attorney VI. As the Commission on
respect to "[Commission on Human Rights] Human Rights correctly resolved in its resolution
matters;"65 dated January 16, 2007:

b. To issue mission orders in their WHEREAS, this suspension under ethical

respective regional offices;66 standards, in effect, prevents Atty. Baliga from
assuming his post, for want of eligibility in the
c. To conduct preliminary evaluation or meantime that his authority to practice law is
initial investigation of human rights suspended. This is without prejudice to the
complaints in the absence of the legal investigation to be conducted to the practice of
officer or investigator;67 law of Atty. Baliga, which in the case of all Regional
Human Rights Directors is not generally allowed by
the Commission;
d. To conduct dialogues or preliminary
conferences among parties and discuss
"immediate courses of action and WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing, the
protection remedies and/or possible Commission on Human Rights of the Philippines
submission of the matter to an alternative resolved to put into effect and implement the legal
dispute resolution";68 implications of the SC decision by decreeing the
suspension of Atty. Jimmy P. Baliga in the discharge We note that the Commission on Human Rights En
of his functions and responsibilities as Banc issued the resolution dated April 13, 2007,
Director/Attorney VI of CHRP-Region II in reconsidering its first resolution suspending Atty.
Tuguegarao City for the period for which the Baliga as Regional Director/ Attorney VI. Instead,
Supreme Court Resolution is in effect. 77 (Emphasis the Commission admonished Atty. Baliga and
in the original) sternly warned him that repeating the same
offense will cause his dismissal from the service.
In ordering Atty. Baliga suspended from office as The resolution with CHR (III) No. A2007-045 dated
Regional Director, the Commission on Human April 13, 2007 reads:
Rights did not violate Atty. Baliga's right to due
process. First, he was only suspended after: In his Motion for Reconsideration dated March 15,
investigation by the Commission on Human Rights 2007, respondent Atty. Jimmy P. Baliga prays
Legal and Investigation Office.78 Second, the before the Honorable Commission to recall and
Commission gave Atty. Baliga an opportunity to be annul his suspension as Regional Director/
heard when he filed his motion for reconsideration. Attorney VI of the Commission on Human Rights -
Regional Office No. II, per 16 January 2007
Atty. Baliga's performance of generally managerial Commission en Banc Resolution CHR (III) No.
functions was not supported by the record. It was A2007-013.
also immaterial.1wphi1 He held the position of
Commission on Human Rights Regional Director The grounds relied upon the motion are not
because of his authority to practice law. Without sufficient to convince the Commission that Atty.
this authority, Atty. Baliga was disqualified to hold Jimmy P. Baliga is totally blameless and should not
that position. suffer the appropriate penalty for breach of the
Code of Professional Responsibility and his
All told, performing the functions of a Commission Lawyer's oath.
on Human Rights Regional Director constituted
practice of law. Atty. Baliga should have desisted The Commission, in the exercise of its authority to
from holding his position as Regional Director. discipline, is concerned with the transgression by
Atty. Baliga of his oath of office as government
Under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, employee. As records have it, the Commission
willful disobedience to any lawful order of a granted Atty. Baliga authority to secure a
superior court is a ground for disbarment or commission as a notary public. With this, he is
suspension from the practice of law: mandated to act as a notary public in accordance
with the rules and regulations, to include the
SEC. 27. Disbarment or suspension of attorneys by conditions expressly set forth by the Commission.
Supreme Court; grounds therefor. - A member of
the bar may be disbarred or suspended from his With the findings clearly enunciated in the
office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any Supreme Court resolution in SC Administrative
deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in Case No. 5277 dated 15 June 2006, the
such office, grossly immoral conduct, or by reason Commission cannot close its eyes to the act of
of his conviction of a crime involving moral Atty. Baliga that is clearly repugnant to the
turpitude, or for any violation of the oath which he conduct of an officer reposed with public trust.
is required to take before admission to practice, or
for a willful disobedience of any lawful order of a This is enough just cause to have this piece of
superior court, or for corruptly or willfully word, short of being enraged, and censure Atty.
appearing as an attorney for a party to a case Baliga for having contravened the conditions of his
without authority so to do. The practice of commission as a notary public. What was granted
soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, to Atty. Baliga is merely a privilege, the exercise of
either personally or through paid agents or which requires such high esteem to be in equal
brokers, constitutes malpractice. footing with the constitutional mandate of the
Commission. Clearly, Atty. Baliga should keep in
In Molina v. Atty. Magat,79 this court suspended mind that the Commission exacts commensurate
further Atty. Ceferino R. Magat from the practice of solicitude from whatever privilege the Commission
law for six months for practicing his profession grants of every official and employee.
despite this court's previous order of suspension.
The Commission notes that by now Atty. Baliga is
We impose the same penalty on Atty. Baliga for serving the one year suspension imposed on him
holding his position as Regional Director despite pursuant to the Supreme Court resolution. The
lack.of authority to practice law.1wphi1 Commission believes that the further suspension
of Atty. Baliga from the office may be too harsh in
the meantime that the Supreme Court penalty is
being served. This Commission is prevailed upon
that the admonition of Atty. Baliga as above
expressed is sufficient to complete the cycle of
penalizing an erring public officer.

WHEREFORE, the Commission hereby modifies its

ruling in Resolution CHR (III) No. A2007-013 and
imposes the penalty of admonition with a stem
warning that a repetition of the same will merit a
penalty of dismissal from the service. 80 (Emphasis
in the original)

The Commission on Human Rights erred in issuing

the resolution dated April 13, 2007. This resolution
caused Atty. Baliga to reassume his position as
Regional Director/ Attorney VI despite lack of
authority to practice law.

We remind the Commission on Human Rights that

we have the exclusive jurisdiction to regulate the
practice of law.81 The Commission cannot, by mere
resolutions and .other issuances, modify or defy
this court's orders of suspension from the practice
of law. Although the Commission on Human Rights
has the power to appoint its officers and
employees,82 it can only retain those with the
necessary qualifications in the positions they are
holding.

As for Atty. Baliga, we remind him that the practice

of law is a "privilege burdened with
conditions."83 To enjoy the privileges of practicing
law, lawyers must "[adhere] to the rigid standards
of mental fitness, [maintain] the highest degree of
morality[,] and [faithfully comply] with the rules of
[the] legal profession."84

WHEREFORE, we further SUSPEND Atty. Jimmy P.

Baliga from the practice of law for six ( 6) months.
Atty. Baliga shall serve a total of one (1) year and
six (6) months of suspension from the practice of
law, effective upon service on Atty. Baliga of a
copy of this resolution.

SERVE copies of this resolution to the Integrated

Bar of the Philippines, the Office of the Bar
Confidant, and the Commission on Human Rights.

SO ORDERED.

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
 EN BANC Miguel Olazo to accept, on various dates, sums of
money as payment of the latters alleged rights
A.M. No. 10-5-7-SC December 7, over the subject land. The complainant further
2010 claimed that the respondent brokered the transfer
of rights of the subject land between Miguel Olazo
JOVITO S. OLAZO, Complainant, and Joseph Jeffrey Rodriguez, who is the nephew of
vs. the respondents deceased wife.
JUSTICE DANTE O. TINGA (Ret.), Respondent.
As a result of the respondents abuse of his official
DECISION functions, the complainants sales application was
denied. The conveyance of rights to Joseph Jeffrey
BRION, J.: Rodriguez and his sales application were
subsequently given due course by the Department
of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR).
Before us is the disbarment case against retired
Supreme Court Associate Justice Dante O. Tinga
(respondent) filed by Mr. Jovito S. Olazo The Second Charge: Violation of Rule 6.03
(complainant). The respondent is charged of
violating Rule 6.02,1 Rule 6.032 and Rule 1.013 of The second charge involves another parcel of land
the Code of Professional Responsibility for within the proclaimed areas belonging to Manuel
representing conflicting interests. Olazo, the complainants brother. The complainant
alleged that the respondent persuaded Miguel
Factual Background Olazo to direct Manuel to convey his rights over
the land to Joseph Jeffrey Rodriguez. As a result of
the respondents promptings, the rights to the land
In March 1990, the complainant filed a sales
were transferred to Joseph Jeffrey Rodriguez.
application covering a parcel of land situated in
Barangay Lower Bicutan in the Municipality of
Taguig. The land (subject land) was previously part In addition, the complainant alleged that in May
of Fort Andres Bonifacio that was segregated and 1999, the respondent met with Manuel for the
declared open for disposition pursuant to purpose of nullifying the conveyance of rights over
Proclamation No. 2476,4 issued on January 7, 1986, the land to Joseph Jeffrey Rodriguez. The
and Proclamation No. 172,5 issued on October 16, complainant claimed that the respondent wanted
1987. the rights over the land transferred to one Rolando
Olazo, the Barangay Chairman of Hagonoy, Taguig.
The respondent in this regard executed an
To implement Proclamation No. 172, Memorandum
"Assurance" where he stated that he was the
No. 119 was issued by then Executive Secretary
lawyer of Ramon Lee and Joseph Jeffrey Rodriguez.
Catalino Macaraig, creating a Committee on
Awards whose duty was to study, evaluate, and
make a recommendation on the applications to The Third Charge: Violation of Rule 1.01
purchase the lands declared open for disposition.
The Committee on Awards was headed by the The complainant alleged that the respondent
Director of Lands and the respondent was one of engaged in unlawful conduct considering his
the Committee members, in his official capacity as knowledge that Joseph Jeffrey Rodriguez was not a
the Congressman of Taguig and Pateros (from 1987 qualified beneficiary under Memorandum No. 119.
to 1998); the respondents district includes the The complainant averred that Joseph Jeffrey
areas covered by the proclamations. Rodriguez is not a bona fide resident of the
proclaimed areas and does not qualify for an
The First Charge: Violation of Rule 6.02 award. Thus, the approval of his sales application
by the Committee on Awards amounted to a
violation of the objectives of Proclamation No. 172
In the complaint,6 the complainant claimed that
and Memorandum No. 119.
the respondent abused his position as
Congressman and as a member of the Committee
on Awards when he unduly interfered with the The complainant also alleged that the respondent
complainants sales application because of his violated Section 7(b)(2) of the Code of Conduct
personal interest over the subject land. The and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and
complainant alleged that the respondent exerted Employees or Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6713 since he
undue pressure and influence over the engaged in the practice of law, within the one-year
complainants father, Miguel P. Olazo, for the latter prohibition period, when he appeared as a lawyer
to contest the complainants sales application and for Ramon Lee and Joseph Jeffrey Rodriguez before
claim the subject land for himself. The complainant the Committee on Awards.
also alleged that the respondent prevailed upon
In his Comment,7 the respondent claimed that the
present complaint is the third malicious charge
filed against him by the complainant. The first one
was submitted before the Judicial and Bar Council
when he was nominated as an Associate Justice of
the Supreme Court; the second complaint is now
pending with the Office of the Ombudsman, for
alleged violation of Section 3(e) and (i) of R.A. No.
3019, as amended.
With his own supporting documents, the
respondent presented a different version of the
antecedent events.
The respondent asserted that Miguel Olazo owned
the rights over the subject land and he later
conveyed these rights to Joseph Jeffrey Rodriguez.
Miguel Olazos rights over the subject land and the
transfer of his rights to Joseph Jeffrey Rodriguez
were duly recognized by the Secretary of the DENR
before whom the conflict of rights over the subject
land (between Miguel Olazo and Joseph Jeffrey
Rodriguez, on one hand, and the complainant on
the other hand) was brought. In its decision, the
DENR found Joseph Jeffrey Rodriguez a qualified
applicant, and his application over the subject land
was given due course. The respondent emphasized
that the DENR decision is now final and executory.
It was affirmed by the Office of the President, by
the Court of Appeals and by the Supreme Court.
The respondent also advanced the following
defenses:
(1) He denied the complainants allegation
that Miguel Olazo told him (complainant)
that the respondent had been orchestrating
to get the subject land. The respondent
argued that this allegation was without
corroboration and was debunked by the
affidavits of Miguel Olazo and Francisca
Olazo, the complainants sister.
(2) He denied the complainants allegation
that he offered the complainant P50,000.00
for the subject land and that he (the
respondent) had exerted undue pressure
and influence on Miguel Olazo to claim the
rights over the subject land. The
respondent also denied that he had an
inordinate interest in the subject land.
sell his rights over the subject land for the
medical treatment of his heart condition
and the illness of his daughter, Francisca
Olazo. The respondent insisted that the
money he extended to them was a form of
loan.
(5) The respondents participation in the
transaction between Miguel Olazo and
Joseph Jeffrey Rodriguez involved the
payment of the loan that the respondent
extended to Miguel Olazo.
(6) Manuels belated and secondhand
allegation in his Sinumpaang Salaysay,
dated January 20, 2000, regarding what his
father told him, cannot prevail over his
earlier Sinumpaang Salaysay with Francisca
Olazo, dated August 2, 1997. In the said
Sinumpaang Salaysay, Manuel categorically
asserted that his father Miguel Olazo, not
the complainant, was the farmer-
beneficiary. Manuel also expressed his
agreement to the transfer of rights
(Pagpapatibay Sa Paglilipat Ng Karapatan)
in favor of Joseph Jeffrey Rodriguez, and the
withdrawal of his fathers application to
give way to Joseph Jeffrey Rodriguezs
application.
(7) The complainants allegation that the
respondent had pressured and influenced
Miguel Olazo to sell the subject land was
not sufficient as it was lacking in specificity
and corroboration. The DENR decision was
clear that the complainant had no rights
over the subject land.
The respondent additionally denied violating Rule
1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He
alleged that during his third term as Congressman
from 1995 to 1997, the conflicting applications of
the complainant, Miguel Olazo and Joseph Jeffrey
Rodriguez were not included in the agenda for
deliberation of the Committee on Awards. Rather,
their conflicting claims and their respective
supporting documents were before the Office of
the Regional Director, NCR of the DENR. This office
ruled over the conflicting claims only on August 2,
2000. This ruling became the basis of the decision
of the Secretary of the DENR.

(3) He claimed that there was nothing Similarly, the respondent cannot be held liable
wrong in signing as a witness in Miguel under Rule 6.02 of the Code of Professional
Olazos affidavit where the latter asserted Responsibility since the provision applies to
his rights over the subject land. The lawyers in the government service who are
affidavit merely attested to the truth. allowed by law to engage in private law practice
and to those who, though prohibited from
(4) He asserted that he and Miguel Olazo engaging in the practice of law, have friends,
were cousins and that the latter decided to former associates and relatives who are in the
active practice of law.8 In this regard, the
respondent had already completed his third term
in Congress and his stint in the Committee on
Awards when he represented Joseph Jeffrey
Rodriguez on May 24, 1999.
Lastly, the respondent claimed that he cannot be
held liable under Rule 6.03 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility since he did not
intervene in the disposition of the conflicting
applications of the complainant and Joseph Jeffrey
Rodriguez because the applications were not
submitted to the Committee on Awards when he
was still a member.
having to put aside their private interest in favor of
the interest of the public; their private activities
should not interfere with the discharge of their
official functions.11
The first charge involves a violation of Rule 6.02 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility. It imposes
the following restrictions in the conduct of a
government lawyer:
A lawyer in the government service shall not use
his public position to promote or advance his
private interests, nor allow the latter to interfere
with his public duties.

The Courts Ruling The above provision prohibits a lawyer from using
his or her public position to: (1) promote private
Generally, a lawyer who holds a government office interests; (2) advance private interests; or (3)
may not be disciplined as a member of the Bar for allow private interest to interfere with his or her
misconduct in the discharge of his duties as a public duties. We previously held that the
government official.9 He may be disciplined by this restriction extends to all government lawyers who
Court as a member of the Bar only when his use their public offices to promote their private
misconduct also constitutes a violation of his oath interests.12
as a lawyer.10
In Huyssen v. Gutierrez,13 we defined promotion of
The issue in this case calls for a determination of private interest to include soliciting gifts or
whether the respondents actions constitute a anything of monetary value in any transaction
breach of the standard ethical conduct first, while requiring the approval of his or her office, or may
the respondent was still an elective public official be affected by the functions of his or her office. In
and a member of the Committee on Awards; and Ali v. Bubong,14 we recognized that private interest
second, when he was no longer a public official, is not limited to direct interest, but extends to
but a private lawyer who represented a client advancing the interest of relatives. We also ruled
before the office he was previously connected that private interest interferes with public duty
with. when the respondent uses the office and his or her
knowledge of the intricacies of the law to benefit
After a careful evaluation of the pleadings filed by relatives.15
both parties and their respective pieces of
evidence, we resolve to dismiss the administrative In Vitriolo v. Dasig,16 we found the act of the
complaint. respondent (an official of the Commission on
Higher Education) of extorting money from persons
Accountability of a government lawyer in public with applications or requests pending before her
office office to be a serious breach of Rule 6.02 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility.17 We reached
Canon 6 of the Code of Professional Responsibility the same conclusion in Huyssen, where we found
highlights the continuing standard of ethical the respondent (an employee of the Bureau of
conduct to be observed by government lawyers in Immigration and Deportation) liable under Rule
the discharge of their official tasks. In addition to 6.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility,
the standard of conduct laid down under R.A. No. based on the evidence showing that he demanded
6713 for government employees, a lawyer in the money from the complainant who had a pending
government service is obliged to observe the application for visas before his office.
18

standard of conduct under the Code of Professional

Responsibility. Similarly, in Igoy v. Soriano 19 we found the
respondent (a Court Attorney of this Court) liable
Since public office is a public trust, the ethical for violating Rule 6.02 of the Code of Professional
conduct demanded upon lawyers in the Responsibility, after considering the evidence
government service is more exacting than the showing that he demanded and received money
standards for those in private practice. Lawyers in from the complainant who had a pending case
the government service are subject to constant before this Court.
public scrutiny under norms of public
accountability. They also bear the heavy burden of
Applying these legal precepts to the facts of the reference to the alleged pressure or force exerted
case, we find the absence of any concrete proof by the respondent over Miguel Olazo. The
that the respondent abused his position as a documents merely showed that the respondent
Congressman and as a member of the Committee helped Miguel Olazo in having his farm lots
on Awards in the manner defined under Rule 6.02 (covered by the proclaimed areas) surveyed. They
of the Code of Professional Responsibility. also showed that the respondent merely acted as a
witness in the Sinumpaang Salaysay dated July 17,
First, the records do not clearly show if the 1996. To our mind, there are neutral acts that may
complainants sales application was ever brought be rendered by one relative to another, and do not
before the Committee on Awards. By the show how the respondent could have influenced
complaints own account, the complainant filed a the decision of Miguel Olazo to contest the
sales application in March 1990 before the Land complainants sales application. At the same time,
Management Bureau. By 1996, the complainants we cannot give any credit to the Sinumpaang
sales application was pending before the Office of Salaysay, dated January 20, 2000, of Manuel. They
the Regional Director, NCR of the DENR due to the are not only hearsay but are contrary to what
conflicting claims of Miguel Olazo, and, Miguel Olazo states on the record. We note that
subsequently, of Joseph Jeffrey Rodriguez. The Manuel had no personal knowledge, other than
records show that it was only on August 2, 2000 what Miguel Olazo told him, of the force allegedly
that the Office of the Regional Director, NCR of the exerted by the respondent against Miguel Olazo.
DENR rendered its decision, or after the term of
the respondents elective public office and In turn, the respondent was able to provide a
membership to the Committee on Awards, which satisfactory explanation - backed by corroborating
expired in 1997. evidence - of the nature of the transaction in which
he gave the various sums of money to Miguel
These circumstances do not show that the Olazo and Francisca Olazo in the year 1995. In her
respondent did in any way promote, advance or affidavits dated May 25, 2003 and July 21,
24

use his private interests in the discharge of his 2010, Francisca

25
Olazo corroborated the
official duties. To repeat, since the sales respondents claim that the sums of money he
application was not brought before the Committee extended to her and Miguel Olazo were loans used
on Awards when the respondent was still a for their medical treatment. Miguel Olazo, in his
member, no sufficient basis exists to conclude that Sinumpaang Salaysay dated May 25, 2003,
he used his position to obtain personal benefits. asserted that some of the money borrowed from
We note in this regard that the denial of the the respondent was used for his medical treatment
complainants sales application over the subject and hospitalization expenses.
land was made by the DENR, not by the
Committee on Awards. The affidavit of Joseph Jeffrey Rodriguez further
corroborated the respondents claim that the
Second, the complainants allegation that the latters involvement was limited to being paid the
respondent "orchestrated" the efforts to get the loans he gave to Miguel Olazo and Francisca Olazo.
subject land does not specify how the According to Joseph Jeffrey Rodriguez, he and
orchestration was undertaken. What appears clear Miguel Olazo agreed that a portion of the loan
in the records is the uncorroborated Sinumpaang would be directly paid by Joseph Jeffrey Rodriguez
Salaysay of Miguel Olazo, dated May 25, to the respondent and the amount paid would be
2003,20 categorically stating that the respondent considered as part of the purchase price of the
had no interest in the subject land, and neither subject land.
26

was he a contracting party in the transfer of his

rights over the subject land. In the absence of any It also bears stressing that a facial comparison of
specific charge, Olazos disclaimer is the nearest the documentary evidence, specifically the dates
relevant statement on the respondents alleged when the sums of money were extended by the
participation, and we find it to be in the respondent on February 21, 1995, September 2,
respondents favor. 1995 and October 17, 1995, and the date when
the Deed of Conveyance27 over the subject land
Third, the other documents executed by Miguel was executed or on October 25, 1995, showed that
Olazo, that the complainant presented to support the sums of money were extended prior to the
his claim that the respondent exerted undue transfer of rights over the subject land. These
pressure and influence over his father (namely: the pieces of evidence are consistent with the
letter, dated June 22, 1996, to the DENR Regional respondents allegation that Miguel Olazo decided
Director-NCR;21 the Sinumpaang Salaysay dated to sell his rights over the subject land to pay the
July 12, 1996;22 and the Sinumpaang Salaysay loans he obtained from the respondent and, also,
dated July 17, 199623), do not contain any to finance his continuing medical treatment.
Private practice of law after separation from public of subparagraph (b) (2) above, but the professional
office concerned cannot practice his profession in
connection with any matter before the office he
As proof that the respondent was engaged in an used to be with, in which case the one-year
unauthorized practice of law after his separation prohibition shall likewise apply.
from the government service, the complainant
presented the Sinumpaang Salaysay, dated As a rule, government lawyers are not allowed to
January 20, 2000, of Manuel and the document engage in the private practice of their profession
entitled "Assurance" where the respondent legally during their incumbency.29 By way of exception, a
represented Ramon Lee and Joseph Jeffrey government lawyer can engage in the practice of
Rodriguez. Nevertheless, the foregoing pieces of his or her profession under the following
evidence fail to persuade us to conclude that there conditions: first, the private practice is authorized
was a violation of Rule 6.03 of the Code of by the Constitution or by the law; and second, the
Professional Responsibility. practice will not conflict or tend to conflict with his
or her official functions.30 The last paragraph of
In Cayetano v. Monsod,28 we defined the practice Section 7 provides an exception to the exception.
of law as any activity, in and out of court, that In case of lawyers separated from the government
requires the application of law, legal procedure, service who are covered under subparagraph (b)
knowledge, training and experience. Moreover, we (2) of Section 7 of R.A. No. 6713, a one-year
ruled that to engage in the practice of law is to prohibition is imposed to practice law in
perform those acts which are characteristics of the connection with any matter before the office he
profession; to practice law is to give notice or used to be with.
render any kind of service, which device or service
requires the use in any degree of legal knowledge Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
or skill. echoes this restriction and prohibits lawyers, after
leaving the government service, to accept
Under the circumstances, the foregoing definition engagement or employment in connection with
should be correlated with R.A. No. 6713 and Rule any matter in which he had intervened while in the
6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility said service. The keyword in Rule 6.03 of the Code
which impose certain restrictions on government of Professional Responsibility is the term
lawyers to engage in private practice after their "intervene" which we previously interpreted to
separation from the service. include an act of a person who has the power to
influence the proceedings.31 Otherwise stated, to
Section 7(b)(2) of R.A. No. 6713 reads: fall within the ambit of Rule 6.03 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, the respondent must
Section 7. Prohibited Acts and have accepted engagement or employment in a
Transactions. In addition to acts and matter which, by virtue of his public office, he had
previously exercised power to influence the
outcome of the proceedings.1avvphi1
omissions of public officials and employees now
prescribed in the Constitution and existing laws,
the following shall constitute prohibited acts and As the records show, no evidence exists showing
transactions of any public official and employee that the respondent previously interfered with the
and are hereby declared to be unlawful: sales application covering Manuels land when the
former was still a member of the Committee on
Awards. The complainant, too, failed to sufficiently
xxxx
establish that the respondent was engaged in the
practice of law. At face value, the legal service
(b) Outside employment and other activities
rendered by the respondent was limited only in the
related thereto. Public officials and employees
preparation of a single document. In Borja, Sr. v.
during their incumbency shall not:
Sulyap, Inc.,32 we specifically described private
practice of law as one that contemplates a
xxxx succession of acts of the same nature habitually or
customarily holding ones self to the public as a
(2) Engage in the private practice of their lawyer.
profession unless authorized by the Constitution or
law, provided, that such practice will not conflict or In any event, even granting that respondents act
tend to conflict with their official functions; x x x fell within the definition of practice of law, the
available pieces of evidence are insufficient to
These prohibitions shall continue to apply for a show that the legal representation was made
period of one (1) year after resignation, retirement, before the Committee on Awards, or that the
or separation from public office, except in the case
Assurance was intended to be presented before it.
These are matters for the complainant to prove
and we cannot consider any uncertainty in this
regard against the respondents favor.
Violation of Rule 1.01
Court, per our Minute Resolution, dated October
11, 2006, in G.R. No. 173453. In our Resolution, we
dismissed the petition for review on certiorari filed
by the complainant after finding, among others,
that no reversible error was committed by the
Court of Appeals in its decision.36

Rule 1.01 prohibits a lawyer from engaging in All told, considering the serious consequences of
unlawful, immoral or deceitful conduct. From the the penalty of disbarment or suspension of a
above discussion, we already struck down the member of the Bar, the burden rests on the
complainants allegation that respondent engaged complainant to present clear, convincing and
in an unauthorized practice of law when he satisfactory proof for the Court to exercise its
appeared as a lawyer for Ramon Lee and Joseph disciplinary powers.37 The respondent generally is
Jeffrey Rodriguez before the Committee on Awards. under no obligation to prove his/her defense, 38until
the burden shifts to him/her because of what the
We find that a similar treatment should be given to complainant has proven. Where no case has in the
the complainants claim that the respondent first place been proven, nothing has to be rebutted
violated paragraph 4(1)33 of Memorandum No. 119 in defense.
39

when he encouraged the sales application of

Joseph Jeffrey Rodriguez despite his knowledge With this in mind, we resolve to dismiss the
that his nephew was not a qualified applicant. The administrative case against the respondent for the
matter of Joseph Jeffrey Rodriguezs qualifications complainants failure to prove by clear and
to apply for a sales application over lots covered convincing evidence that the former committed
by the proclaimed areas has been resolved in the unethical infractions warranting the exercise of the
affirmative by the Secretary of the DENR in the Courts disciplinary power.
decision dated April 3, 2004, 34 when the DENR
gave due course to his sales application over the WHEREFORE, premises considered, we DISMISS
subject land. We are, at this point, bound by this the administrative case for violation of Rule 6.02,
finding. Rule 6.03 and Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, filed against retired Supreme Court
As pointed out by the respondent, the DENR Associate Justice Dante O. Tinga, for lack of merit.
decision was affirmed by the Office of the
President, the Court of Appeals35 and, finally, the SO ORDERED.