Atty. Ismael Khan v.

Atty, Rizalino Simbillo

● Paid ad in PH Daily Inquirer was published: Annulment of Marriage Specialist [number]. 7/5/0
● Espeleta, SC staff, called up the number but it was Mrs. Simbillo who answered.
○ Claims her husband, Atty. Simbillo was an expert in handling annulment cases & can guarantee a court decree within 4-6mos
provided case will not involve separation of property & custody of children.
○ Similar advertisements were also published. Manila bulletin 8/2&6/0 & 8/5/0 PH Star
● Administrative complaint was filed - referred to IBP for investigation - Suspend 1year.
● Atty. Simbillo: although his name of did not appear in the advertisement, admitted acts imputed against him but argued
that he should not be charged.
○ time to lift the absolute prohibition against advertisement because the interest of the public isn’t served in any way by the
prohibition.
○ MR Denied
ISSUE: Simbillo violated Rule2.03 & Rule3.01.
● Respondent committed the acts - admits he caused the publication of the advertisements.
○ While he professes repentance and begs for the Court’s indulgence, his contrition rings hollow considering the fact that he
advertised his legal services again after he pleaded for compassion and after claiming that he had no intention to violate the
rules.
● 8 months after filing his answer, he again advertised his legal services in8/14/01 issue of Buy & Sell Free Ads Newspaper
○ 10 months later, he caused the same advertisement to be published in 10/5/001 issue of Buy & Sell - acts are a deliberate
and contemptuous affront on Court’s authority.
● Adds gravity: advertising as a self-styled "Annulment of Marriage Specialist," he wittingly or unwittingly erodes and undermines
not only the stability but also the sanctity of an institution still considered sacrosanct despite the contemporary climate of
permissiveness in our society.
○ In assuring prospective clients that an annulment may be obtained in four to six months from time of filing of the case, he in
fact encourages people, who might have otherwise been disinclined and would have refrained from dissolving marriage bonds,
to do so.
● Practice of law not a business -profession in which the primary duty is public service & money.
○ Gaining livelihood is a secondary consideration while duty to public service & administration of justice should be primary.
○ Lawyers should subordinate their primary interest.
● Worse, advertising himself as an “annulment of marriage specialist” he erodes & undermines the sanctity of an institution still
considered as sacrosanct - he in fact encourages people otherwise disinclined to dissolve their marriage bond.
○ Solicitation of business is not altogether proscribed but for it to be proper it must be compatible with the dignity of the legal
profession.
○ Note that the law list where the lawyer’s name appears must be a reputable law list only for that purpose --- a lawyer may not
properly publish in a daily paper, magazine…etc.,
○ nor may a lawyer permit his name to be published the contents of which are likely to deceive or injure the public or the bar.