SABURNIDO VS MADRONO

FACTS:

1.
2.
3.
4.

Spouses Venustiano and Rosalia Saburnido filed an administrative

complaint for disbarment against Atty. Florante Madro
Complainants allege that respondent has been harassing them by
filing numerous complaints against them, in addition to
committing acts of dishonesty.
The cases filed were:
Adm. Case No. 90-0755, for serious irregularity, filed by
respondent against Venustiano Saburnido.
Adm. Case No. 90-0758, for falsification, filed by respondent
against Venustiano Saburnido and two others.
Crim. Case No. 93-67, for evasion through negligence under Article
224 of the Revised Penal Code, filed by respondent against
Venustiano Saburnido.
Adm. Case No. 95-33, filed by respondent against Rosalia
Saburnido for violation of the Omnibus Election Code.
Previous to this case, complainants (spouses Saburnido) also filed
3 separate administrative cases against respondent, which led to
the latters dismissal from the judiciary and forfeiture of his
retirement benefits.
SC referred this case to the IBP, the latter concluded hat
complainants submitted convincing proof that respondent indeed
committed acts constituting gross misconduct that warrant the
imposition of administrative sanction.
The IBP recommends that respondent be suspended from the
practice of law for one year.

Issue: Whether or not Atty. Madronos act of filling multiple complaints

constitute gross misconduct that will warrant the imposition of
administrative sanctions.
Held: YES.

A lawyer may be disciplined for any conduct, in his professional or

private capacity, that renders him unfit to continue to be an officer
of the court.
Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility commands all
lawyers to at all times uphold the dignity and integrity of the legal
profession.
Clearly, respondents act of filing multiple complaints against
herein complainants reflects on his fitness to be a member of the
legal profession.
His act evinces vindictiveness, a decidedly undesirable trait
whether in a lawyer or another individual, as complainants were
instrumental in respondents dismissal from the judiciary.

We see in respondents tenacity in pursuing several cases against

complainants not the persistence of one who has been grievously
wronged but the obstinacy of one who is trying to exact revenge.
Respondents action erodes rather than enhances public
perception of the legal profession.
It constitutes gross misconduct for which he may be suspended,
following Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court.
We find that suspension from the practice of law is sufficient to
discipline respondent.
The supreme penalty of disbarment is meted out only in clear
cases of misconduct that seriously affect the standing and
character of the lawyer as an officer of the court.
While we will not hesitate to remove an erring attorney from the
esteemed brotherhood of lawyers, where the evidence calls for it,
we will also not disbar him where a lesser penalty will suffice to
accomplish the desired end.
In this case, we find suspension to be a sufficient sanction against
respondent. Suspension, we may add, is not primarily intended as
a punishment, but as a means to protect the public and the legal
profession.
ACCORDINGLY, Judge Florante E. Madrono is found guilty of
conduct unbecoming of a member of the judiciary and is hereby
ordered DISMISSED from the service, without forfeiture of
retirement benefits, but with prejudice to reinstatement in any
branch of the government or any of its agencies or
instrumentalities.

LINSANGAN vs. TOLENTINO

Facts:

A complaint for disbarment was filed by Pedro Linsangan against

Atty. Nicomedes Tolentino for solicitation of clients and
encroachment of professional services.
Complaint alleged that respondent, with the help of paralegal Fe
Marie Labiano, convinced his clients to transfer legal
representation.
Respondent promised them financial assistance and expeditious
collection on their claims.
To induce them to hire his services, he persistently called them
and sent them text messages.
To support his allegations, complainant presented the sworn
affidavit of James Gregorio attesting that Labiano tried to prevail
upon him to sever his lawyer-client relations with complainant and
utilize respondents services instead, in exchange for aloan of P50,
000.00.
Complainant
also
attached
respondents
calling
card.
Respondent, in his defense, denied knowing Labiano and
authorizing the printing and circulation of the said calling card.

Issue: Whether or not Tolentinos actions warrant disbarment.

Held: Yes.

Rule 2.03 of the CPR provides that a lawyer shall not do or permit
to be done any act designed primarily to solicit legal business.
Hence, lawyers are prohibited from soliciting cases for the purpose
of gain, either personally or through paid agents or brokers.
Such actuation constitutes malpractice, a ground for disbarment.
Rule 2.03 should be read in connection with Rule 1.03 of the CPR
which provides that lawyer, shall not for any corrupt motive or
interest, encourage any suit or proceeding or delay any mans
cause.
This rule proscribes ambulance chasing (the solicitation of
almost any kind of legal business by an attorney, personally or
through an agent in order to gain employment) as a measure to
protect the community from barratry and champerty.
In the case at bar, complainant presented substantial evidence
(consisting of the sworn statements of the very same persons
coaxed by Labiano and referred to respondents office) to prove
that respondent indeed solicited legal business as well as profited
from referrals suits.
Through Labianos actions, respondents law practice was
benefited. Hapless seamen were enticed to transfer representation
on the strength of Labianos word that respondent could produce a
more favorable result.
Based on the foregoing, respondent clearly solicited employment
violating Rule 2.03, and Rule 1.03 and Canon 3 of the CPR and
section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court.
Any act of solicitations constitutes malpractice which calls for the
exercise of the Courts disciplinary powers.
Violation of anti-solicitation statues warrants serious sanctions for
initiating contact with a prospective client for the purpose of
obtaining employment.
Thus in this jurisdiction, the Court adheres to the rule to protect
the public from the Machiavellian machinations of unscrupulous
lawyers and to uphold the nobility of the legal profession.
Canon 2: A lawyer shall make his legal services available in an
efficient
and
convenient
manner
compatible
with
the
independence, integrity and effectiveness of the profession.
Rule 2.03: A lawyer shall not do or permit to be done any act
designed primarily to solicit legal business
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Nicomedes Tolentino for violating
Rules 1.03, 2.03, 8.02 and 16.04 and Canon 3 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility and Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of
Court is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a
period of one year effective immediately from receipt of this
resolution. He is STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same
or similar acts in the future shall be dealt with more severely.

YSASI VS NLRC
FACTS:

Jon De Ysasi and Jon De Ysasi III are father and sons respectively.
The elder Ysasi owns a hacienda in Negros Occidental. De Ysasi III
is employed in the hacienda as the farm administrator.
In November 1982, De Ysasi III underwent surgery and so he
missed work.
He was confined and while hes nursing from his infections he was
terminated, without due process, by his father.
De Ysasi III filed against his father for illegal dismissal before the
National Labor Relations Commission. His father invoked that his
son actually abandoned his work.

ISSUE: Whether or not De Ysasi III abandoned his work.

HELD: No.

His absence from work does not constitute abandonment.

To constitute abandonment, there must be
1. failure to report for work or absence without valid or
justifiable reason, and
2. a clear intention to sever the employer-employee
relationship, with the second element as the more
determinative factor and being manifested by some overt
acts.
No such intent was proven in this case.
The Supreme Court, in making its decision, noted that the lawyers
for both camps failed to exert all reasonable efforts to smooth over
legal conflicts, preferably out of court and especially in
consideration of the direct and immediate consanguineous ties
between their clients especially considering that the parties
involved are father and son.
This case may have never reached the courts had there been an
earnest effort by the lawyers to have both parties find an off court
settlement but records show that no such effort was made.
The useful function of a lawyer is not only to conduct litigation but
to avoid it whenever possible by advising settlement or
withholding suit.
He is often called upon less for dramatic forensic exploits than for
wise counsel in every phase of life.
He should be a mediator for concord and a conciliator for
compromise, rather than a virtuoso of technicality in the conduct
of litigation.
Rule 1.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility explicitly
provides that (a) lawyer shall encourage his client to avoid, end
or settle the controversy if it will admit of a fair settlement.
Both counsel fell short of what was expected of them, despite their
avowed duties as officers of the court. In the same manner, the

labor arbiter who handled this regrettable case has been less than
faithful to the letter and spirit of the Labor Code mandating that a
labor arbiter shall exert all efforts towards the amicable
settlement of a labor dispute within his jurisdiction.
If he ever did so, or at least entertained the thought, the copious
records of the proceedings in this controversy are barren of any
reflection of the same.
WHEREFORE, the decision of respondent National Labor Relations
Commission is hereby SET ASIDE. Private respondent is ORDERED
to pay petitioner back wages for a period not exceeding three (3)
years, without qualification or deduction, 58 and, in lieu of
reinstatement, separation pay equivalent to one (1) month for
every year of service, a fraction of six (6) months being considered
as one (1) whole year.

CASTANEDA VS AGO
FACTS:

Castaneda and Henson filed a replevin suit against Ago in the CFI
of Manila to recover certain machineries.
judgment in favor of Castaneda and Henson
SC affirmed the judgment;
trial court issued writ of execution;
Agos motion denied, levy was made on Agos house and lots;
sheriff advertised the sale,
Ago moved to stop the auction;
CA dismissed the petition;
SC affirmed dismissal
Ago thrice attempted to obtain writ of preliminary injunction to
restrain sheriff from enforcing the writ of execution; his motions
were denied
sheriff sold the house and lots to Castaneda and Henson; Ago
failed to redeem sheriff executed final deed of sale; CFI issued writ
of possession to the properties
Ago filed a complaint upon the judgment rendered against him in
the replevin suit saying it was his personal obligation and that his
wife share in their conjugal house could not legally be reached
by the levy made;
CFI of QC issued writ of preliminary injunction restraining
Castaneda the Registed of Deeds and the sheriff from registering
the final deed of sale;
the battle on the matter of lifting and restoring the restraining
order continued
Agos filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition to enjoin sheriff
from enforcing writ of possession; SC dismissed it;
Agos filed a similar petition with the CA which also dismissed the
petition;

Agos appealed to SC which dismissed the petition

Agos filed another petition for certiorari and prohibition with the
CA which gave due course to the petition and granted preliminary
injunction.

ISSUE: WON the Agos lawyer, encourage his clients to avoid controversy
HELD: No.

Despite the pendency in the trial court of the complaint for the
annulment of the sheriffs sale, justice demands that the
petitioners, long denied the fruits of their victory in the replevin
suit, must now enjoy them, for, the respondents Agos abetted by
their lawyer Atty. Luison, have misused legal remedies and
prostituted the judicial process to thwart the satisfaction of the
judgment, to the extended prejudice of the petitioners.
Forgetting his sacred mission as a sworn public servant and his
exalted position as an officer of the court, Atty. Luison has allowed
himself to become an instigator of controversy and a predator of
conflict instead of a mediator for concord and a conciliator for
compromise, a virtuoso of technicality in the conduct of litigation
instead of a true exponent of the primacy of truth and moral
justice.
A counsels assertiveness in espousing with candor and honesty
his clients cause must be encouraged and is to be commended;
what the SC does not and cannot countenance is a lawyers
insistence despite the patent futility of his clients position.
It is the duty of the counsel to advice his client on the merit or lack
of his case. If he finds his clients cause as defenseless, then he is
his duty to advice the latter to acquiesce and submit rather than
traverse the incontrovertible. A lawyer must resist the whims and
caprices of his client, and temper his clients propensity to litigate.
ACCORDINGLY, the decision of the Court of Appeals under review
is set aside. Civil case Q-7986 of the Court of First Instance of Rizal
is ordered dismissed, without prejudice to the re-filing of the
petitioners' counterclaim in a new and independent action. Treble
costs are assessed against the spouses Pastor Ago and Lourdes Yu
Ago, which shall be paid by their lawyer, Atty. Jose M. Luison. Let a
copy of this decision be made a part of the personal file of Atty.
Luison in the custody of the Clerk of Court.

SANTIAGO VS RAFANAN
FACTS:

This is a disbarment case filed by BJMP employee Jonar Santiago

against Atty.Edison Rafanan.
Santiago, in his complaint, alleged among others that Rafanan, in
notarizing several documents on different dates failed and/or
refused to

1.

Make the proper notation regarding the cedula or

community tax certificate of the affiants (*one making
the affidavit);
2. Enter the details of the notarized documents in the
notarial register;
3. Make and execute the certification and enter his PTR and
IBP numbers in the documents he notarized
Santiago also alleged that Rafanan executed an Affidavit in favor
of his client and offered it as evidence (Rafanan stood as counsel
and as witness of hisclient) and Rafanan, as alleged by Santiago,
waited for him together with his men and disarmed Santiago and
uttered insulting words at him.

HELD:
1

ATTY. RAFANANS CONTENTIONS:

Admitted having administered the oath to the affiants whose

Affidavits were attached to the Complaint of Santiago. But Rafanan
believed that the non-notation of their Residence Certificates in
the Affidavits and Counter-Affidavits were allowed because:
Notation of residence certificates applied only to documents
acknowledged by a notary public, and Was not mandatory for
affidavits related to cases pending before courts and other
government offices (
He also pointed out that older practitioners in Nueva Ecija also do
what he did
they do not indicate affiants residence certificates on documents
they notarized, or have entries in the notaria lregister for these
documents.
As to his alleged failure to comply with Sec.3 Rule 112 of the Rules
of Criminal Procedure: as counsel to the affiants, he had the option
not comply or not with the certification.
As to his alleged violation of Rule 12.08 of CPR: lawyers could
testify on behalf of their clients on substantial matters, in cases
where [their] testimony is essential to the ends of justice.
Santiago charged Rafanans clients with attempted murder.
Rafanan said that since his clients were in his house during the
alleged crime, thats why he said his testimony is very essential.
He also contends that the case filed by Santiago was only to
harass Rafanan since he is the counsel of the parties who filed
cases against him before the ombudsman (Brgy. Capt. Ernesto
Ramos and BJMP)

ISSUES:
1.
2.

Whether or not Rafanan is guilty in violating the Notarial Law. YES

Whether or not a lawyer (in this case, Rafanan) can stand as
witness in favor of his clients. YES

The Notarial Law is explicit on the obligations and duties of

notaries public.And these formalities are mandatory and cannot be
simply neglected.
They are required to certify that the party to every document
acknowledged before them has presented the proper residence
certificate (or exemption from the residence tax); and to enter its
number, place of issue and the date as partof such certification.
They are also required to keep a notarial register; to enter therein
all instruments notarized by them; etc.
As to Rafanans defense that its a common practice in Nueva
Ecija, SC says: It is appalling and inexcusable that he did away
with the basics of notaria lprocedure allegedly because others
were doing so.
Being swayed by the bad example of others is not an acceptable
justification for breaking the law.

A lawyer is not disqualified from being a witness, except only in

certain cases pertaining to privileged communication arising from
an attorney-client relationship.
Reason: The difficulty posed upon lawyers by the task of
dissociating their relationship to their clients as witnesses from
that as an advocate (Note: A witness must only say what
happened. Only the truth. As compared with the task of a lawyer
who will use all the available remedies and actions in his arsenal
for his client to win the case.)
It is difficult to distinguish the fairness and impartiality of a
disinterested witness from the zeal of an advocate.
The preference is for lawyers to REFRAIN from testifying as
witnesses, unless sthey absolutely have to; and should they do so,
to withdraw from active management of the case.
In the case at bar:
Atty. Rafanan cannot be administratively liable because:
Its a duty of the lawyer to assert every remedy and defense that
is authorized by law for the benefit of the client. (Remember, there
is a criminal case of attempted murder against his client which will
deprive his client of his life and liberty, if they fail to display a
good defense.)

On the Side Issues:

There is no harassment of the part of Rafanan against Santiago

because there were no pieces of evidence presented.

Mere allegation is never equivalent to proof, and a bare charge

cannot be equated with liability.
Atty. Rafanan is GUILTY of violating the Notarial Law and Canon 5
of the CPR. He is fined P3,000.00 with a warning that similar
infractions will be dealt more severely

KHAN VS SIMBILLO
FACTS:

Atty. Rizalino Simbillo publicized his legal services in the July 5,

2000 issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer via a paid advertisement
which read: Annulment of Marriage Specialist 532-4333/5212667.
A staff member of the Public Information Office of the Supreme
Court took notice and called the number posing as an interested
party.
She spoke to Mrs. Simbillo, who said that her husband was an
expert in handling annulment cases and can guarantee a court
decree within four to six months, and that the fee was P48,000.
Further research by the Office of the Court Administrator and the
Public Information Office revealed that similar ads were published
in the August 2 and 6, 2000 issues of the Manila Bulletin and
August 5, 2000 issue of the Philippine Star.
Atty. Ismael Khan, Jr., in his capacity as Assistant Court
Administrator and Chief of the Public Information Office filed an
administrative complaint against Atty. Simbillo for improper
advertising and solicitation in violation of Rule 2.03 and Rule 3.01
of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Rule 138, Section 27
of the Rules of Court.
The case was referred to the IBP for investigation, report and
recommendation.
IBP found respondent guilty
Respondent filed an Urgent Motion for Reconsideration, which was
denied
Hence, this petition for certiorari

ISSUE: WON Atty. Rizalino Simbillo is guilty of violating Rule 2.03 and Rule
3.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Rule 138, Section 27 of
the Rules of Court
HELD: Yes.

Petitioner was suspended from the practice of law for one year and
was sternly warned that a repetition of the same or similar offense
will be dealt with more severely.
The practice of law is not a business. It is a profession in which
duty to public service, not money is the primary consideration.
Rule 2.03 - A lawyer shall not do or permit to be done any act
designed primarily to solicit legal business.

Rule 3.01 - A lawyer shall not use or permit the use of any false,
fraudulent, misleading, deceptive, undignified, self laudatory or
unfair statement or claim regarding his qualifications or legal
services.
Rule 138, Sec 27 of the Rules of Court states: Disbarment and
suspension of attorneys by Supreme Court, grounds therefore.
A member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended from his
office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit,
malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such office, grossly
immoral conduct or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving
moral turpitude, or for any violation of the oath which he is
required to take before the admission to practice, or for a willful
disobedience appearing as attorney for a party without authority
to do so.
The following elements distinguish legal profession from business:
1. A duty of public service
2. A relation as an officer of the court to the
administration of justice involving thorough sincerity,
integrity and reliability
3. A relation to clients in the highest degree of fiduciary
4. A relation to colleagues at the bar characterized by
candor, fairness, and unwillingness to resort to current
business methods of advertising and encroachment on
their practice, or dealing directly with their clients.
Respondent advertised himself as an Annulment Specialist, and
by this he undermined the stability and sanctity of marriage
encouraging people who might have otherwise been disinclined
and would have refrained form dissolving their marriage bonds, to
do so.
Solicitation of legal business sis not altogether proscribed,
however, for solicitation to be proper, it must be compatible with
the dignity of the legal profession.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, respondent RIZALINO T.
SIMBILLO is found GUILTY of violation of Rules 2.03 and 3.01 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility and Rule 138, Section 27 of the
Rules of Court. He is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for ONE
(1) YEAR effective upon receipt of this Resolution. He is likewise
STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar offense
will be dealt with more severely.

ULEP V LEGAL CLINIC

FACTS

Petitioner prays that respondent cease and desist from issuing ads
similar to annexes A and B and to prohibit them from making ads
pertaining to the exercise of the law professions other than those
allowed by law
Annex A

SECRET MARRIAGE?
P560 for a valid marriage
Info on DIVORCE. ABSENCE. ANNULMENT. VISA.
THE LEGAL CLINIC, INC.
Pls call: 5210767, 5217232, 5222041
8:30am-6pm
7F Victoria Bldg, UN Ave, Mla

Annex B

GUAM DIVORCE
DON PARKINSON
An Atty in Guam, is giving FREE BKS on Guam Divorce thru the Leg Clinic
beg Mon-Fri during office hours
Guam divorce. Annulment of Marriage. Immigration Probs, Visa ext.
Quota/Non-quota Res and Special Retirees Visa.
Declaration of Absence. Remarriage to Filipina Fiancees. Adoption.
Investment in the Phil. US/Foreign Visa for Filipina
Sp/Shil. Call Marivic
THE LEGAL CLINIC, etc
Petitioners Claim:

Ads are unethical and demeaning of the law profession and

destructive of the confidence of the community in the integrity of
the members of the bar.
As a member of the legal profession, he is ashamed and offended
by the ads

Respondents Comment:

They are not engaged in the practice of law but in the rendering of
leg support services thru paralegals with the use of modern
computers and electronic machines
Even if they are leg services, the act of advertising them should be
allowed under Bates v. State bar of Arizona

ISSUES
1.
2.

WON the services offered by The Legal Clinic constitutes practice

of law? YES
WON their services can be advertised? NO

HELD
1.

The Practice of law involves any activity, in or out of the court,

which requires the application of law, legal procedures, knowledge,
training and expertise

To engage in the practice is to perform those acts which are

characteristic of the profession; to give advice or render any kind
of service that involves legal knowledge/skill
Not limited to the conduct of cases in court; includes legal advice
and counsel and preparation of legal instruments and contracts by
which legal rights are secured regardless of WON theyre pending
in court
3 types of legal profession activity:
1. legal advice and instructions to clients to inform them of
their rights and obligations
2. preparation for clients of documents requiring knowledge
of legal principles not possessed by ordinary layman
3. appearance for clients before public tribunals which
possess power and authority to determine rights of life,
liberty and property according to law, in order to assist in
proper inter and enforcement of law
Respondents description of its services shows it falls within the
practice of law:
1. Giving info by paralegals to laymen and lawyers thru the
use of comps and modern info tech
2. computerized legal research, document search, evidence
gathering, locating parties/witnesses to a case, fact
finding investigations, assistance to laymen in need of
services from agencies like birth, marriage, prop, bus
registrations, etc.
*even if some of the services offered merely involve mechanical
and technical know how like installing computer system for law
offices, this doesnt make it an exception to the general rule
gives out leg info to laymen and lawyersnot non-advisory
andnon-diagnostic ex. foreign laws on marriage, divorce and
adoption have to explain to client the intricacies of the law and
advise him on the proper course of action
what its ads represent and what it will be paid for
It doesnt matter that they dont represent clients in court since
practice of law isnt limited to ct appearances but also leg
research, leg advice and drafting contracts
Phil Star Art Rx for Leg Probs, int by proprietor Atty Nogales:
Takes care of probs as complicated as the Cuneta-Concepcion
domestic sit
lawyers, who like drs, are specialists in various fields and can take
care of it (taxation, crim law, medico-leg probs, labor, litigation,
fam law), backed up by paralegals, counselors and attys, caters to
clients who cant afford big firms, can prepare a simple deed of
sale or affidavit of loss and also those w/ more extensive
treatment
The fact that they employ paralegals to carry out its services
doesnt matter; whats important is that its engaged in the
practice of law cause of the nature of the services it renders,

which brings it within the statutory prohibitions against ads only a

person duly admitted as a member of the bar and whos in good
and regular standing is entitled to the practice of law
public policy requires that the practice of law be limited to those
individuals found duly qualified in education and character to
protect
the
public,
court,
client
and
bar
from
incompetence/dishonesty of those unlicensed to the practice and
not subject to the discipline of court

2.

1.

The Code of Professional Responsibility provides that a lawyer, in

making known his legal services, shall use only true, honest, fair,
dignified and objective info/statement of facts
not supposed to use any false, fraudulent, misleading, deceptive,
undignified,
self-laudatory
or
unfair
statement
re
his
qualifications/legal services
not supposed to pay representatives of the mass media in return
for publicity to attract legal business
Canons of professional Ethics (before CPR) provides that lawyers
shouldnt resort to indirect ads for professional employment like
furnishing newspaper comments, publishing his pictures with
causes the lawyers been engaged in, importance of his position
and other self-laudation
Stands of legal profession condemn lawyers advertisement of his
talents like a merchant does of his goods because of the fact that
law is a profession.
The canons of profession tell us that the best advertising possible
for a lawyer is a well-merited reputation for professional capacity
and fidelity to trust which must be earned as the outcome of
character and conduct
Good and efficient service to a client and the community has a
way of publicizing itself and catching public attention; this
shouldnt be done thru propaganda
EXCEPTIONS:
expressly allowed publication in reputable law lists of informative
data thats not misleading and may include only:

name, professional assoc, adds, nos, branches of law

practiced, date and place of birth and admission to the bar,
schools attended w/ dates of grad, degrees , public offices,
posts of honor, legal authorships, legal teaching positions,
membership and offices in bar association, legal and scientific
societies and legal fraternities, listings in other reputable law
lists, names and adds of references with written consent and
clients regularly represented

cant be mere supplemental feature of paper, magazine, trade

journal or periodical thats published for other purposes

never in a law list that are calculated or likely to

deceive/injure the public/the bar or lower the dignity/standing
of the profession
ordinary simple professional card allowed name, law firm,
add, no and special branch of law practiced
publication of simple announcement of the opening of a law
firm or change in partnership, assoc, firm name or office add,
for the convenience of the profession
have name listed in phone directory but not under designation
of special branch of law

2. necessarily implied from the restrictions

Bates v. State Bar of Arizona: allowed lawyer to publish a

statement of leg fees for an initial consultation or give, upon
request, a written schedule of fees or estimate for spec services as
an exception to the prohibition against advertisements by lawyers
none expressly/impliedly provided for in the Canons of Professional
Ethics or Code of Professional Responsibility
survey conducted by the American Bar Assoc on the attitude of
the public about lawyers after viewing TC commercials pub
opinion dropped significantly:
Trustworthy 71-14%
Professional 71-14%
Honest 65-14%
Dignified 45-14%

With the present situation of our legal and judicial system, to allow
the publication of like advertisements would aggravate whats
already a deteriorating pub of the legal profession whose
integritys been under attack by media and the community in
general
all efforts should be made to regain the high esteem formerly
accorded to the leg profession
Atty Nograles (prime incorporator, major stockholder and
proprietor of the Leg Clinic) is REPRIMANDED w/ a warning that a
repetition will be dealt w/ more severely for misbehavior in
advertising his servIces and aid a layman in the unauthorized
practice of law
ACCORDINGLY, the Court Resolved to RESTRAIN and ENJOIN herein
respondent, The Legal Clinic, Inc., from issuing or causing the
publication or dissemination of any advertisement in any form
which is of the same or similar tenor and purpose as Annexes "A"
and "B" of this petition, and from conducting, directly or indirectly,
any activity, operation or transaction proscribed by law or the
Code of Professional Ethics as indicated herein. Let copies of this
resolution be furnished the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, the

Office of the Bar Confidant and the Office of the Solicitor General
for appropriate action in accordance herewith.
IN RE: TAGORDA
FACTS
Luis Tagorda, a practicing lawyer and a member of the Provincial Board of
Isabela admits that the previous election he used a card which states what
he can do for the people as a lawyer and a notary public (he can execute
deed of sales, etc).
He also admits that he wrote a letter to a lieutenant of his barrio asking him
to inform the people in any town meetings that despite his election as
member of the Board, he will still exercise his profession as a lawyer and
notary public, even adding that he will only charge three pesos for
registration of their land titles.
ISSUES
1.
2.

WON Tagorda is guilty of malpractice for soliciting employment.

YES
WON Tagorda should be disbarred. NO

DACANAY VS BAKER MCKENZIE

FACTS:

HELD

practices upon the part of any practitioner immediately to inform

thereof to the end that the offender may be disbarred.
The law is a profession and not a business.
The lawyer may not seek or obtain employment by himself or
through others for to do so would be unprofessional.
With the admitted facts, the respondent stands convicted of
having solicited cases in defiance of the law and those canons.
The commission of offenses of this nature would amply justify
permanent elimination from the bar.
But as mitigating circumstances working in favor of the
respondent there are: first, his intimation that he was unaware of
the impropriety of his acts, second, his youth and inexperience at
the bar, and third, his promise not to commit a similar mistake in
the future.
In view of all the circumstances of this case, the judgment of the
court is that the respondent Luis B. Tagorda be and is hereby
suspended from the practice as an attorney-at-law for the period
of one month from April 1, 1929,

Sec 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure (as amended by Act 2828)

states that "The practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose
of gain, either personally, or through paid agents or brokers,
constitutes malpractice."
Canons 27 and 28 of the Code of Ethics provide:
27- The publication or circulation of ordinary simple business
cards, being a matter of personal taste or local custom, and
sometimes of convenience, is not per se improper. But solicitation
of business by circulars or advertisements, or by personal
communications or interviews not warranted by personal relations,
is unprofessional... Indirect advertisement for business by
furnishing or inspiring newspaper comments concerning the
manner of their conduct, the magnitude of the interests involved,
the importance of the lawyer's position, and all other like selflaudation, defy the traditions and lower the tone of our high
calling, and are intolerable.
28 -It is unprofessional for a lawyer to volunteer advice to bring a
lawsuit, except in rare cases where ties of blood, relationship or
trust make it his duty to do so. Stirring up strife and litigation is
not only unprofessional, but it is indictable at common law. It is
disreputable to hunt up defects in titles or other causes of action
and inform thereof in order to be employed to bring suit, or to
breed litigation by seeking out those with claims for personal
injuries or those having any other grounds of action in order to
secure them as clients A duty to the public and to the profession
devolves upon every member of the bar having knowledge of such

Atty. Vicente Torres sent a letter to one Rosie Clurman, represented

by Atty. Adriano Dacanay, asking Clurman to release some shares
to Torres client.

The letterhead contained the name Baker & McKenzie.

Dacanay denied Clurmans liability and at the same time he asked

why is Torres using the letterhead Baker & McKenzie, a foreign
partnership established in Chicago, Illinois.

No reply was received so Dacanay filed an administrative

complaint enjoining Torres from using Baker & McKenzie.

Later, Torres said that he is an associate of the law firm Guerrero &
Torres;

that their law firm is a member of Baker & McKenzie;

that the said foreign firm has members in 30 cities all over the
world;

that they associated with them in order to make a representation

that they can render legal services of the highest quality to
multinational business enterprises and others engaged in foreign
trade and investment.
ISSUE: Whether or not the use of a foreign law office name is allowed.
HELD: No.

Baker & McKenzie, being an alien law firm, cannot practice law in
the Philippines.

Such use of foreign law firm name is unethical therefore Torres and
his law firm are enjoined from using Baker & McKenzie in their
practice of law.
Baker & McKenzie, being an alien law firm, cannot practice law in
the Philippines.
The respondents, members of the Philippine Bar and practicing
under the firm name of Guerrero & Torres, are members or
associates of Baker & McKenzie.
Respondents use of the firm name constitutes a representation
that they could render legal services of the higher quality to

multinational business enterprises and others engaged in foreign

trade and investment.
This is unethical, as Baker & McKenzie is unauthorized to practice
here.
WHEREFORE, the respondents are enjoined from practising law
under the firm name Baker & McKenzie.