Atty. Nicanor Alvarez was a legal officer at the National Center for Mental Health under the Department of Health. He was authorized by the NCMH head to engage in private practice of law provided that such practice will not conflict with the interest of the NCMH nor that of the Philippine Government.
In 2009, Alvarez was hired by Teresita Fajardo, the Municipal Treasurer of San Leonardo, Nueva Ecija, in several malversation cases pending before the Ombudsman. Allegedly, Alvarez demanded a total of Php1.4 million from Fajardo in those cases. Part of the amount will be used to bribe certain officials of the Ombudsman.
However, two weeks after retaining the services of Alvarez, Fajardo received a resolution from the Ombudsman recommending her dismissal from the service. Fajardo then demanded Alvarez to return at least a portion of her money but Alvarez failed to return the same hence, Fajardo filed a disbarment case against Alvarez.
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Alvarez is administratively liable.
HELD: Yes. Even though Alvarez was allowed to engage in private practice of law, he still cannot represent a government employee or official being investigated by the Ombudsman. There is basic conflict of interest here. Alvarez is a public officer, an employee of government. The Office of the Ombudsman is part of government. By appearing against the Office of the Ombudsman, Alvarez is going against the same employer he swore to serve. A conflict of interest exists when an incumbent government employee represents another government employee or public officer in a case pending before the Office of the Ombudsman. The incumbent officer ultimately goes against government’s mandate under the Constitution to prosecute public officers or employees who have committed acts or omissions that appear to be illegal, unjust, improper, or inefficient. Alvarez was suspended for one year.
ISSUE 2: Nevertheless, is Alvarez entitled to compensation?
HELD: Yes. The IBP considered the actual work (except that part involving bribery) done by Alvarez for Fajardo and recommended that out of the Php1.4 million, Alvarez should return Php700k to Fajardo. The SC did not agree to the recommendation. It ruled that only Php500k should be returned to Fajardo which was the amount that Alvarez allegedly paid to the Ombudsman as bribe.
