TERESITA P. FAJARDO, Complainant, v. ATTY.
NICANOR C. ALVAREZ, Respondent. A.C. No. 9018, April 20,
2016.
“x x x.
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.76Respondent
violated the oath he took when he proposed to gain a favorable outcome for
complainant's case by resorting to his influence among staff in the Office
where the case was pending.77
Thus, respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibility. Canon 1, Rules 1.01, and 1.0278prohibit 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."
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:
The
highly immoral implication of a lawyer approaching a judge—or a judge evincing
a willingness—to discuss, in private, a matter related to a case pending in
that judge's sala cannot be over-emphasized. The fact that Atty. Singson did
talk on different occasions to Judge Reyes, initially through a mutual friend,
Atty. Sevilla, leads us to conclude that Atty. Singson was indeed trying to
influence the judge to rule in his client's favor. This conduct is not
acceptable in the legal profession.83
In Jimenez v. Verano, Jr.,84 we
disciplined the respondent for preparing a release order for his clients using
the letterhead of the Department of Justice and the stationery of the
Secretary:
The way
respondent conducted himself manifested a clear intent to gain special
treatment and consideration from a government agency. This is precisely the
type of improper behavior sought to be regulated by the codified norms for the
bar. Respondent is duty-bound to actively avoid any act that tends to
influence, or may be seen to influence, the outcome of an ongoing case, lest
the people's faith in the judicial process is diluted.
The
primary duty of lawyers is not to their clients but to the administration of
justice. To that end, their clients' success is wholly subordinate. The conduct
of a member of the bar ought to and must always be scrupulously observant of
the law and ethics. Any means, not honorable, fair and honest which is resorted
to by the lawyer, even in the pursuit of his devotion to his client's cause, is
condemnable and unethical.
x x x.
x x x.
Zeal and
persistence in advancing a client's cause must always be within the bounds of
the law. A self-respecting independence in the exercise of the profession is
expected if an attorney is to remain a member of the bar. In the present case,
we find that respondent fell short of these exacting standards. Given the
import of the case, a warning is a mere slap on the wrist that would not serve
as commensurate penalty for the offense.85
Similar to the present case,
in Bueno v. Rañeses,86 we disbarred a lawyer who
solicited bribe money from his client in violation of Canon 13 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility:
Rather
than merely suspend Atty. Rañeses as had been done in Bildner, the Court
believes that Atty. Rañeses merits the ultimate administrative penalty of
disbarment because of the multi-layered impact and implications of what he did;
by his acts he proved himself to be what a lawyer should not be, in a lawyer's
relations to the client, to the court and to the Integrated Bar.
First, he
extracted money from his client for a purpose that is both false and
fraudulent. It is false because no bribery apparently took place as Atty.
Rañeses in fact lost the case. It is fraudulent because the professed purpose
of the exaction was the crime of bribery. Beyond these, he maligned the judge
and the Judiciary by giving the impression that court cases are won, not on the
merits, but through deceitful means—a decidedly black mark against the
Judiciary. Last but not the least, Atty. Rañeses grossly disrespected the IBP
by his cavalier attitude towards its disciplinary proceedings.
From these perspectives, Atty. Rañeses wronged his client, the judge allegedly on the "take," the Judiciary as an institution, and the IBP of which he is a member. The Court cannot and should not allow offenses such as these to pass unredressed. Let this be a signal to one and all—to all lawyers, their clients and the general public—that the Court will not hesitate to act decisively and with no quarters given to defend the interest of the public, of our judicial system and the institutions composing it, and to ensure that these are not compromised by unscrupulous or misguided members of the Bar.87 (Emphasis supplied)
From these perspectives, Atty. Rañeses wronged his client, the judge allegedly on the "take," the Judiciary as an institution, and the IBP of which he is a member. The Court cannot and should not allow offenses such as these to pass unredressed. Let this be a signal to one and all—to all lawyers, their clients and the general public—that the Court will not hesitate to act decisively and with no quarters given to defend the interest of the public, of our judicial system and the institutions composing it, and to ensure that these are not compromised by unscrupulous or misguided members of the Bar.87 (Emphasis supplied)
In the interest of ridding itself
of corrupt personnel who encourage influence peddling, and in the interest of
maintaining the high ethical standards of employees in the judiciary, this
Court did not hesitate in dismissing its own employee from government service
when she peddled influence in the Court of Appeals:88
What
brings our judicial system into disrepute are often the actuations of a few
erring court personnel peddling influence to party-litigants, creating the
impression that decisions can be bought and sold, ultimately resulting in the
disillusionment of the public. This Court has never wavered in its vigilance in
eradicating the so-called "bad eggs" in the judiciary. And whenever
warranted by the gravity of the offense, the supreme penalty of dismissal in an
administrative case is meted to erring personnel.89
X x x.”
