5/3/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly services, we could not give legal imprimatur to the agreement. The service rendered by respondent contemplated the exploitation of personal influence and solicitation on a public officer. Respondent said that petitioners sought out his services because they “needed somebody who can help them ‘penetrate’ and establish goodwill” with the government. [34] Petitioners found it difficult to arrange a meeting with Postmaster General Angelito Banayo because of petitioners’ reputation of engaging in questionable transactions.[35] Suddenly, through the intervention of respondent, the postmaster general became accessible to petitioners. This became possible because of respondent’s close personal relationship with the postmaster general, his trusted and long-time friend.[36] Respondent testified, to wit: “Q: In other words you are saying that Marubeni and San Ritsu representatives had a conference with the Post Master General Banayo in connection with this Project? “A: Yes and I was the one who made the arrangement.”[37] In another instance, respondent said, thus: “WITNESS: What we have done by that… first, Mr. Banayo went to Tokyo and when he was in Tokyo we were able to arrange the Marubeni representative in Tokyo to meet and talk with Mr. Banayo in Tokyo… “COURT: Mr…? “A. …Banayo, the Post Master General and representatives of Marubeni in Tokyo - this was done because of my intervention.”[38] Any agreement entered into because of the actual or supposed influence which the party has, engaging him to influence executive officials in the discharge of their duties, which contemplates the use of personal influence and solicitation rather than an appeal to the judgment of the official on the merits of the object sought is contrary to public policy.[39] Consequently, the agreement, assuming that the parties agreed to the consultancy, is null and void as against public policy.[40] Therefore, it is unenforceable before a court of justice.[41] In light of the foregoing, we rule that the preponderance of evidence established no consultancy agreement between petitioners and respondent from which the latter could https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/52501 7/10