Joselle Mariano | Legal Ethics | DLSU College of Law

Khan v Simbillo
A.C. No.5299
August 19, 2003

Dacanay v. Baker &

McKenzie – Adm. Case No.
2131
Facts:
Atty. Adriano Dacanay
received a letter from
respondent Atty. Vicente
Torres, using the
letterhead of Baker &
McKenzie with the names of
nine other lawyers, asking
for the release of
shares of a particular client
in one company. Atty.
Joselle Mariano | Legal Ethics | DLSU College of Law

Dacanay then requested

that he be informed
whether the lawyer of said
client is Baker & McKenzie
and if not, the purpose of
using their
letterhead. Not having
received any reply, he then
sought to enjoin Atty.
Torres and nine other
lawyers from practicing law
under the name of Baker &
McKenzie, a law firm
organized in
Illinois. The respondents
aside from being a member
Joselle Mariano | Legal Ethics | DLSU College of Law

of the firm Guerrero &

Torres are also
members and/or associates
of Baker & McKenzie.
Issue: Whether or not the
respondents can use the
firm name of an alien law
firm.
Held: No. Baker & McKenzie
being an alien firm cannot
practice law in the
Philippines, hence,
its name cannot be used
and the use of such is
unethical.
TOPIC: Practice of law, concept

FACTS:
Joselle Mariano | Legal Ethics | DLSU College of Law

 Respondent, Rizalino Simbillo, published advertisements on different news publications on different dates
regarding his services as an “Annulment of Marriage specialist”
 Petitioner, Ismael Khan, in his capacity as an assistant court administrator and chief of the public information
office filed an administrative complaint against respondent for improper advertising and solicitations of his
legal services, in violations of Rule 2.03 and Rule 3.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Rule 138,
Section 27 of the Rules of Court.
 Respondent admitted acts imputed to him but argued that his acts for advertising and solicitation are not
prohibited acts. Respondent prays for his acquittal because of the court’s ruling that advertisement of legal
services offered by a lawyer is not contrary to law, public policy and public order.
 The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) investigated the acts of the petitioner and found the respondent
guilty of the administrative complaint filed by the petitioner.

ISSUE(S):
1. W/N petitioners published advertisement is a valid act and does not violate the Rules of Court or the Code of
Professional Responsibility.

RULING: Respondent Simbillo is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one year.
1. NO
 Pursuant to Rule 2.03 and Rule 3.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Rule 138, Section 27 of
the Rules of Court, the practice of law is not a business but a profession which duty to public service, not
money, is the prime consideration. The duty to public service and to the administration of justice should
be the primary consideration of lawyers.
 Elements that distinguish the legal profession from a business
- A duty of public service, of which the emolument is a by-product, and in which one may attain the
highest eminence without making much money
- A relation as an “officer of the court” to the administration of justice involving thorough sincerity,
integrity and reliability;
- A relation to clients in the highest degree of fiduciary
- 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.
 In advertising himself as an “Annulment of Marriage Specialist” he undermines to sanctity of marriage. A
lawyer may not properly publish biographical and informative data in a daily paper, magazine, trade
journal or society program. A lawyer is not permitted to publish any contents which are likely to deceive
or injure the public or the bar, or to lower dignity or standing of the profession.

NOTE!: Save file format should be

 Digests
o Format: [Case # - refer to the digest assignment excel sheet; must have 0’s up to the hundreds
level] [Case title] (Last name of the one who digested)
 e.g. 016 Cruz v. Mijares (Resurreccion)
o Save the digest file under the “Digests” google drive folder
 Full text
o Format: [Case # - refer to the digest assignment excel sheet; must have 0’s up to the hundreds
level] [Case title]
 e.g. 016 Cruz v. Mijares
o The full text of the case must also be saved under the “Full Text” google drive folder at the same
time or earlier than the Digest
Joselle Mariano | Legal Ethics | DLSU College of Law

 Written digest format reminders

o Must have a margin on both sides (1 in on the left and 1 in or smaller on the right)
o May be written in short or long hand
o May be in paragraph or bullet points format
o Do not write back to back
o Use a blotter book for the digest notebook