lorenzana vs. fajardo

7/18/2019 Lorenzana vs. Fajardo

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/lorenzana-vs-fajardo 1/3

A.C. No. 5712 June 29, 2005

FRANCISCO LORENZANA, complainant,vs.ATTY. CESAR G. FAJARDO, respondent.

COMPLAINANT Francisco Lorenzana, complainant, charges respondent Atty. Cesar G. Fajardo withviolation of the Civil Service Law and Canon 6 of the Code of rofessional !esponsi"ility and see#s hisdis"arment from the practice of the law profession.

Complainant alleged that respondent, while employed as Legal $fficer % at the &r"an Settlement $ffice in

'anila, (ntil his retirement on 'ay )*, ++, was a mem"er of the eople’s Law -nforcement oard /L-0

of 1(ezon City, receiving a monthly honorari(m of 2,.. 3e was also a mem"er of the Lupong Tagapamayapa of arangay 4ovaliches roper, also receiving a monthly allowance5 honorari(m.Complainant also alleged that respondent was engaged in the private practice of law, receiving acceptance

fees ranging from +,. to *,.. 3e lives in a ho(se and lot owned "y complainant’s family

witho(t paying any rental and ref(ses to leave the place despite the latter ’s demands.

RESPONDENT Complainant also alleged that respondent was engaged in the private practice of law,receiving acceptance fees ranging from +,. to *,.. 3e lives in a ho(se and lot owned "y

complainant’s family witho(t paying any rental and ref(ses to leave the place despite the latter ’s demands.

As regards his designation as a mem"er of the Lupong Tagapamayapa, the same is a(thorized (nder Section 26 of the Local Government Code of )77)8 and his monthly allowance5honorari(m is allowed (nder Section 979.

:hile he received allowances, honoraria and other emol(ments as mem"er of the L- and of the Lupong Tagapamayapa, even as he is in the government service, the same is a(thorized "y law. 3ence, there wasno do("le compensation. 3e admitted having appeared as private co(nsel in several cases. 3owever, his

clients were his relatives and friends, among them were complainant’s father and "rother !icardo. 3e

emphasized that his services were pro bono.

!espondent denied that the lot on which his ho(se is "(ilt "elongs to complainant’s family. ;n fact, it is now

the s("ject of an < Accion Publiciana< filed against him "y one =ionisio delos !eyes "efore the !egional >rialCo(rt of 1(ezon City, ranch ).

I!P fo(nd that respondent’s appointment as a mem"er of the Lupong Tagapamayapa of arangay >own

roper, 4ovaliches, 1(ezon City, while conc(rrently employed as a legal officer of the 'anila &r"anSettlements $ffice is not (nlawf(l. S(ch appointment is in accordance with the Local Government Code of )77). 4or co(ld respondent "e fo(nd lia"le for receiving honoraria as a Lupon mem"er, since the LocalGovernment Code of )77) a(thorizes Lupon mem"ers to receive honoraria, allowances, and other

emol(ments. :ith respect to respondent’s appointment as L- mem"er, ; Commissioner Ag(ila stated

that the same is not an e?ception to the prohi"ition against d(al appointments or employment of governmentofficials or employees.

; Commissioner Ag(ila fo(nd that respondent’s co(rt appearances as co(nsel for litigants do not

constit(te private practice of law since complainant failed to show that he received compensation. 3owever,respondent sho(ld still "e held lia"le for violation of Civil Service !(les and !eg(lations since he failed toshow that he was permitted "y his $ffice to appear as co(nsel for his clients.

the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner of the above-entitled case, herein made part of this Resolution!ecision as Anne" #A#, and finding the recommendation fully supported by the

evidence on record and the applicable la$s and rules and in vie$ of respondent ’s accepting appointment as

%oard &ember of the People’s La$ 'nforcement %oard of (ue)on City $hile he $as still employed as Legal

*fficer + of the &anila rban ettlement *ffice, Atty. Cesar . /a0ardo is hereby P'1!'! from the practice of la$ for one (1) month and hereby R'PRI&A1!'! $ith stern 2AR1I1 for failing to obtain$ritten permission from his superiors to appear as counsel to certain relatives and friends as re3uired by ec. 45, Rule 6+III of the Revised Civil ervice Rules.



"ELD !espondent also failed to esta"lish that his primary f(nctions as Legal $fficer of the 'anila &r"anSettlements $ffice allow his appointment as L- mem"er, an e?ception to d(al appointment prohi"ited "ythe Constit(tion and the stat(tes. ;ndeed, respondent, in accepting s(ch appointment, has transgressed theConstit(tion, the Administrative Code of )7@, and the Local Government Code of )77). eing contra leges,

respondent also violated the Code of rofessional !esponsi"ility and the Attorney’s $ath.

Canon ) of the Code of rofessional !esponsi"ility statesCA4$4 ). A LA:B-! S3ALL #P"OLD T"E CONSTIT#TION, O!EY T"E LA$S OF T"E LAND,!$'$>- !-S-C> F$! LA: A4= L-GAL !$C-SS-S.

>hese d(ties are f(rther enshrined in the Attorney’s $ath, which every lawyer in this j(risdiction has to ta#e

"efore he is allowed to practice law. >he Attorney’s $ath states in part that every lawyer %&'()) &u**o+ 'e

Con&-u-on (n o/e 'e )(& (& e)) (& 'e )e() o+e+& o3 'e u) 4on&-ue (u'o+--e&…”

T'e )(e+ ’& *(+(oun u o &o4-e -& o o/e 'e )(. For of all classes and professions, it is the

lawyer who is most sacredly "o(nd to (phold the laws, for he is their sworn servant. 6 Sadly, respondentfailed to f(lfill this e?acting d(ty.

$n respondent’s appointment as a mem"er of the Lupong Tagapamayapa of arangay 4ovaliches roper,while serving as Legal $fficer % of the 'anila &r"an Settlements $ffice, we agree with the ; ;nvestigating

Commissioner that the same is in order, "eing allowed "y law.

ISS#E whether respondent engaged in the practice of law while employed as Legal $fficer % in the 'anila&r"an Settlement $ffice.

"ELD YES. rivate practice of law contemplates a s(ccession of acts of the same nat(re ha"it(ally or

c(stomarily holding one’s self to the p("lic as a lawyer. ractice is more than an isolated appearance for it

consists in fre(ent or c(stomary action a s(ccession of acts of the same #ind. >he practice of law "yattorneys employed in the government, to fall within the prohi"ition of stat(tes has "een interpreted as

c(stomarily ha"it(ally holding one’s self o(t to the p("lic, as a lawyer and demanding payment for s(ch

services.

;n the case at "ar, respondent’s appearance as co(nsel is not merely isolated. -vidence presented "y

complainant shows that he had an e?tensive practice of law. :hile employed as a Legal $fficer in the &r"an!esettlement $ffice of 'anila, he maintained a law office. >he pleadings he signed as <co(nsel< for hisclients filed with the co(rts indicate his office address as <!oom +) DA (ilding, +22 Gen. L(is St.,4ovaliches, 1(ezon City.< Following is the letter head appearing on the letters and envelopes 7 sent to hisclients

<Cesar G. Fajardo Attorney and Co(nsellorEatELaw!oom +) D A (ilding+22 Gen. L(is St., 4ovaliches

1(ezon City.<

!espondent cannot j(stify his practice of law "y claiming that his office /the 'anila &r"an !esettlement0 is<not really strict when it comes to appearing in some private cases as they /employees0 were sometimescalled to render service even on holidays witho(t additional compensation.< At most, he sho(ld have as#edwritten permission from his chief as re(ired "y Section )+, !(le %;;; of the !evised Civil Service !(les that</n0o officer or employee shall engage directly in any private "(siness, vocation or profession or "econnected with any commercial, credit, agric(lt(ral or ind(strial (nderta#ing witho(t a written permissionfrom the head of the =epartment.<

As to respondent’s alleged un)(3u) stay on complainant’s property affecting his cond(ct as a mem"er of

the ar, s(ffice it to state that any disc(ssion on this iss(e is premat(re since the case is still pending in the!>C, ranch ), 1(ezon City.

Anent the penalty to "e imposed, as mentioned earlier, the ; oard of Governors recommended thatrespondent "e s(spended for one /)0 month for accepting a prohi"ited appointment as a mem"er of the



L- of 1(ezon City and "e reprimanded for failing to o"tain a written permission from his <s(periors< toappear as co(nsel <for certain friends and relatives.< :e "elieve that a heavier penalty sho(ld "e imposed(pon him for he transgressed not only the stat(tes "(t the very f(ndamental law itself, in violation of his

Attorney’s $ath and Canon ) of the Code of rofessional !esponsi"ility.

Section +, !(le )9@ of the !evised !(les of Co(rt reads

S-C. +. !isbarment or suspension of attorneys by upreme Court, grounds therefore.–

A mem"er of the"ar may "e dis"arred or s(spended from his office as attorney "y the S(preme Co(rt for any deceit,malpractice, or other gross miscond(ct in s(ch office, grossly immoral cond(ct, or "y reason of his convictionof a crime involving moral t(rpit(de, or 3o+ (n 6-o)(-on o3 'e o(' '-4' -& 'e -& +eu-+e o (8e/e3o+e (-&&-on o *+(4-4e, for a willf(l diso"edience of any lawf(l order of a s(perior co(rt or for corr(ptly and willf(lly appearing as an attorney for a party to a case witho(t a(thority to do &o. >he practiceof soliciting cases at law for the p(rpose of gain, either personally or thro(gh paid agents or "ro#ers,constit(tes malpractice /Stress s(pplied0.

$"EREFORE, for accepting employment as a mem"er of the L- of 1(ezon City while conc(rrentlyemployed as Legal $fficer % of the 'anila &r"an Settlement $ffice, in violation of the Constit(tion and the

stat(tes, which in t(rn contravene his Attorney’s $ath and Code of rofessional !esponsi"ility8 and "y

engaging in the illegal practice of law, Atty. Cesar G. Fajardo is here"y S&S-4=-= from the practice of law

for a period of si? /60 months effective from notice and is !-!;'A4=-= and :A!4-= that any repetitionof similar acts wo(ld "e dealt with more severely.

lorenzana vs. fajardo

Documents