Unauthorized law practice, influence peddling by government lawyer - 1 year suspension.

TERESITA P. FAJARDO, Complainant, v. ATTY. NICANOR C. ALVAREZ, Respondent. A.C. No. 9018, April 20, 2016.

“x x x.

The Investigating Commissioner found that complainant was "forced to give . . . Respondent the amount of P1,400,000.00 because of the words of Respondent that he ha[d] friends in the Office of the Ombudsman who c[ould] help with a fee."⁹⁰ It is because of respondent's assurances to complainant that she sent him money over the course of several months.⁹¹ These assurances are seen from the text messages that respondent sent complainant: X x x.

X x x.

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

In cases involving influence peddling or bribery, "[t]he transaction is always done in secret and often only between the two parties concerned."⁹⁶ Nevertheless, as found by the Investigating Commissioner and as shown by the records, we rule that there is enough proof to hold respondent guilty of influence peddling.

We agree with the penalty recommended by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Board of Governors. We find respondent's acts of influence peddling, coupled with unauthorized practice of law, merit the penalty of suspension of one (1) year from the practice of law. To be so bold as to peddle influence before the very institution that is tasked to prosecute 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 P500,000.00—the 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.

x x x.”