View full case

FRANCISCO LORENZANA v. ATTY. CESAR G. FAJARDO

FACTS:

Complainant Francisco Lorenzana filed a complaint against respondent Atty. Cesar G. Fajardo, seeking to have him disbarred for violating the Civil Service Law and Canon 6 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The complaint alleged that Fajardo, while employed as Legal Officer V and a member of the PLEB in Quezon City, received monthly honorariums. Lorenzana also claimed that Fajardo engaged in private practice, received acceptance fees, resided in a house owned by Lorenzana's family without paying rent, and refused to vacate despite demands.

Fajardo, in his defense, asserted that his membership in the PLEB and Lupong Tagapamayapa was authorized by law. He denied engaging in private practice and disputed the alleged ownership of the house where he resided.

An investigation conducted by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) found Fajardo liable for violating Civil Service Rules and Regulations by failing to obtain written permission to appear as counsel for his clients. Subsequently, the IBP Board of Governors issued a resolution suspending Fajardo from the practice of law for one month and reprimanded him.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether or not the respondent violated the Civil Service Law and Canon 6 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

  2. Whether or not the respondent should be disbarred from the practice of law.

RULING:

  1. The respondent is found liable for violation of Civil Service Rules and Regulations for failing to obtain written permission from his superiors to appear as counsel for certain relatives and friends.

  2. The respondent is suspended from the practice of law for one (1) month and reprimanded with a stern warning.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The prohibition against government officials and employees from concurrently holding any other office or position in the government is contained in Section 7, Article IX-B of the Constitution.

  • The compensation of People's Law Enforcement Board (PLEB) members does not exempt them from the prohibition against dual or multiple appointments of appointive public employees.

  • Court appearances as counsel for litigants do not constitute private practice of law if there is no evidence of receiving compensation. However, government employees still need written permission from their superiors to appear as counsel.