2nd batch legal ethics.pdf

8/9/2019 2nd batch legal ethics.pdf

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/2nd-batch-legal-ethicspdf 1/23

FIRST DIVISION

[A.C. No. 5299. August 19, 2003]

ATTY. ISMAEL G. KHAN, JR., Assistant Court Administrator andChief, Public Information Office, complainant , vs. ATTY.RIZALINO T. SIMBILLO, respondent .

[G.R. No. 157053. August 19, 2003]

ATTY. RIZALINO T. SIMBILLO, pet i t ioner, vs . IBP COMMISSION ONBAR DISCIPLINE and ATTY. ISMAEL G. KHAN, JR., in hiscapacity as Assistant Court Administrator and Chief, PublicInformation Office, respondents .

R E S O L U T I O N

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J .:

This administrative complaint arose from a paid advertisement thatappeared in the July 5, 2000 issue of the newspaper, Philippine DailyInquirer, which reads: “ANNULMENT OF MARRIAGE Specialist 532-4333/521-2667.”[1]

Ms. Ma. Theresa B. Espeleta, a staff member of the Public InformationOffice of the Supreme Court, called up the published telephone number andpretended to be an interested party. She spoke to Mrs. Simbillo, who claimedthat her husband, Atty. Rizalino Simbillo, was an expert in handling annulmentcases and can guarantee a court decree within four to six months, providedthe case will not involve separation of property or custody of children. Mrs.Simbillo also said that her husband charges a fee of P48,000.00, half of whichis payable at the time of filing of the case and the other half after a decisionthereon has been rendered.

Further research by the Office of the Court Administrator and the PublicInformation Office revealed that similar advertisements were published in the

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/aug2003/ac_5299.htm#_ftn1






August 2 and 6, 2000 issues of the Manila Bulletin and August 5, 2000 issueof The Philippine Star .[2]

On September 1, 2000, Atty. Ismael G. Khan, Jr., in his capacity as Assistant Court Administrator and Chief of the Public Information Office, filed

an administrative complaint against Atty. Rizalino T. Simbillo for improperadvertising and solicitation of his legal services, in violation of Rule 2.03 andRule 3.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Rule 138, Section 27of the Rules of Court.[3]

In his answer, respondent admitted the acts imputed to him, but arguedthat advertising and solicitation per se are not prohibited acts; that the timehas come to change our views about the prohibition on advertising andsolicitation; that the interest of the public is not served by the absoluteprohibition on lawyer advertising; that the Court can lift the ban on lawyeradvertising; and that the rationale behind the decades-old prohibition shouldbe abandoned. Thus, he prayed that he be exonerated from all the chargesagainst him and that the Court promulgate a ruling that advertisement of legalservices offered by a lawyer is not contrary to law, public policy and publicorder as long as it is dignified.[4]

The case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines forinvestigation, report and recommendation.[5] On June 29, 2002, the IBPCommission on Bar Discipline passed Resolution No. XV-2002-306,[6] findingrespondent guilty of violation of Rules 2.03 and 3.01 of the Code ofProfessional Responsibility and Rule 138, Section 27 of the Rules of Court,

and suspended him from the practice of law for one (1) year with the warningthat a repetition of similar acts would be dealt with more severely. The IBPResolution was noted by this Court on November 11, 2002.[7]

In the meantime, respondent filed an Urgent Motion forReconsideration,[8] which was denied by the IBP in Resolution No. XV-2002-606 dated October 19, 2002 [9]

Hence, the instant petition for certiorari , which was docketed as G.R. No.157053 entitled, “ Atty. Rizalino T. Simbillo, Petitioner versus IBP Commissionon Bar Discipline, Atty. Ismael G. Khan, Jr., Asst. Court Administrator and

Chief, Public Information Office, Respondents.” This petition wasconsolidated with A.C. No. 5299 per the Court’s Resolution dated March 4,2003.

In a Resolution dated March 26, 2003, the parties were required tomanifest whether or not they were willing to submit the case for resolution onthe basis of the pleadings.[10] Complainant filed his Manifestation on April 25,






































2003, stating that he is not submitting any additional pleading or evidence andis submitting the case for its early resolution on the basis of pleadings andrecords thereof. [11] Respondent, on the other hand, filed a SupplementalMemorandum on June 20, 2003.

We agree with the IBP’s Resolutions Nos. XV-2002-306 and XV-2002-606.

Rules 2.03 and 3.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility read:

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, Section 27 of the Rules of Court states:

SEC. 27. Disbarment and suspension of attorneys by Supreme Court, grounds

therefor. – 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.

It has been repeatedly stressed that the practice of law is not abusiness.[12] It is a profession in which duty to public service, not money, is theprimary consideration. Lawyering is not primarily meant to be a money-making venture, and law advocacy is not a capital that necessarily yieldsprofits.[13] The gaining of a livelihood should be a secondaryconsideration.[14] The duty to public service and to the administration of justiceshould be the primary consideration of lawyers, who must subordinate theirpersonal interests or what they owe to themselves.[15] The following elementsdistinguish the legal profession from a business:

1. 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;

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.[16]

There is no question that respondent committed the acts complainedof. He himself admits that he caused the publication of theadvertisements. While he professes repentance and begs for the Court’sindulgence, his contrition rings hollow considering the fact that he advertisedhis legal services again after he pleaded for compassion and after claimingthat he had no intention to violate the rules. Eight months after filing hisanswer, he again advertised his legal services in the August 14, 2001 issue ofthe Buy & Sell Free Ads Newspaper .[17] Ten months later, he caused the sameadvertisement to be published in the October 5, 2001 issue of Buy &

Sell.[18] Such acts of respondent are a deliberate and contemptuous affront onthe Court’s authority.

What adds to the gravity of respondent’s acts is that in advertising himselfas a self-styled “Annulment of Marriage Specialist,” he wittingly or unwittinglyerodes and undermines not only the stability but also the sanctity of aninstitution still considered sacrosanct despite the contemporary climate ofpermissiveness in our society. Indeed, in assuring prospective clients that anannulment may be obtained in four to six months from the time of the filing ofthe case,[19] he in fact encourages people, who might have otherwise been

disinclined and would have refrained from dissolving their marriage bonds, todo so.

Nonetheless, the solicitation of legal business is not altogetherproscribed. However, for solicitation to be proper, it must be compatible withthe dignity of the legal profession. If it is made in a modest and decorousmanner, it would bring no injury to the lawyer and to the bar .[20] Thus, the use ofsimple signs stating the name or names of the lawyers, the office andresidence address and fields of practice, as well as advertisement in legalperiodicals bearing the same brief data, are permissible. Even the use ofcalling cards is now acceptable.[21] Publication in reputable law lists, in amanner consistent with the standards of conduct imposed by the canon, ofbrief biographical and informative data is likewise allowable. As explicitlystated in Ulep v. Legal Clinic, Inc.:[22]

Such data must not be misleading and may include only a statement of the lawyer’s

name and the names of his professional associates; addresses, telephone numbers,

cable addresses; branches of law practiced; date and place of birth and admission to































the bar; schools attended with dates of graduation, degrees and other educational

distinctions; public or quasi-public offices; posts of honor; legal authorships; legal

teaching positions; membership and offices in bar associations and committees

thereof, in legal and scientific societies and legal fraternities; the fact of listings in

other reputable law lists; the names and addresses of references; and, with their

written consent, the names of clients regularly represented.

The law list must be a reputable law list published primarily for that purpose; it

cannot be a mere supplemental feature of a paper, magazine, trade journal or

periodical which is published principally for other purposes. For that reason, a

lawyer may not proper ly publi sh h is br ief biographical and inf ormative data in a

daily paper, magazine, trade journal or society program. Nor may a lawyer permit

his name to be published in a law list the conduct, management, or contents of which

are calculated or likely to deceive or injure the public or the bar, or to lower dignity

or standing of the profession.

The use of an ordinary simple professional card is also permitted. The card may

contain only a statement of his name, the name of the law firm which he is connected

with, address, telephone number and special branch of law practiced. The publication

of a simple announcement of the opening of a law firm or of changes in the

partnership, associates, firm name or office address, being for the convenience of the

profession, is not objectionable. He may likewise have his name listed in a telephone

directory but not under a designation of special branch of law. (emphasis and italics

supplied)

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 ofProfessional Responsibility and Rule 138, Section 27 of the Rules ofCourt. He is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for ONE (1) YEAReffective upon receipt of this Resolution. He is likewise STERNLY WARNEDthat a repetition of the same or similar offense will be dealt with moreseverely.

Let copies of this Resolution be entered in his record as attorney and befurnished the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and all courts in the country for

their information and guidance.

SO ORDERED.

Vitug, (Acting Chairman),Carpio, and Azcuna, JJ., concur .Davide, Jr., C.J., (Chairman ), abroad, on official business.



SECOND DIVISION

[A. C. No. 5485. March 16, 2005]

ELMER CANOY, complainant , vs. ATTY. JOSE MAXORTIZ, respondent .

D E C I S I O N

TINGA, J .:

There are no good reasons that would justify a lawyer virtually abandoningthe cause of the client in the midst of litigation without even informing the

client of the fact or cause of desertion. That the lawyer forsook his legalpractice on account of what might be perceived as a higher calling, election topublic office, does not mitigate the dereliction of professional duty.Suspension from the practice is the usual penalty, and there is no reason todeviate from the norm in this case.

A Complaint [1] dated 10 April 2001 was filed with the Office of the BarConfidant by Elmer Canoy (Canoy) accusing Atty. Jose Max Ortiz (Atty. Ortiz)of misconduct and malpractice. It was alleged that Canoy filed a complaint forillegal dismissal against his former employer, Coca Cola Bottlers Philippines.

The complaint was filed with the National Labor Relations Commission(NLRC) Regional Arbitration Board VI in Bacolod City.[2] Atty. Ortiz appearedas counsel for Canoy in this proceeding. In 1998, the labor arbiter hearing thecomplaint ordered the parties to submit their respective position papers.Canoy submitted all the necessary documents and records to Atty. Ortiz forthe preparation of the position paper. Thereafter, he made several unfruitfulvisits to the office of Atty. Ortiz to follow-up the progress of the case. After afinal visit at the office of Atty. Ortiz in April of 2000, during which Canoy wastold to come back as his lawyer was not present, Canoy decided to follow-upthe case himself with the NLRC. He was shocked to learn that his complaint

was actually dismissed way back in 1998, for failure to prosecute, the partiesnot having submitted their position papers.[3] The dismissal was withoutprejudice. Canoy alleged that Atty. Ortiz had never communicated to himabout the status of the case, much less the fact that he failed to submit theposition paper.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/mar2005/ac_5485.htm#_ftn1













The Comment [4] filed by Atty. Ortiz is the epitome of self-hagiography. Heinforms the Court that since commencing his law practice in 1987, he hasmostly catered to indigent and low-income clients, at considerable financialsacrifice to himself. Atty. Ortiz claims that for more than ten years, his lawoffice was a virtual adjunct of the Public Attorney’s Office with its steady

stream of non-paying clients in the “hundreds or thousands.”[5] At the sametime, he hosted a legal assistance show on the radio, catering to far-flungmunicipalities and reaching “the people who need legal advice andassistance.”[6] Atty. Ortiz pursued on with this lifestyle until his election asCouncilor of Bacolod City, a victory which he generously attributes to the help“of the same people whom he had helped by way of legal assistancebefore.”[7]

Canoy was among those low-income clients whom Atty. Ortiz deigned torepresent. The lawyer was apparently confident that the illegal dismissal case

would eventually be resolved by way of compromise. He claims havingprepared the position paper of Canoy, but before he could submit the same,the Labor Arbiter had already issued the order dismissing the case.[8] Atty.Ortiz admits though that the period within which to file the position paper hadalready lapsed. He attributes this failure to timely file the position paper to thefact that after his election as Councilor of Bacolod City, “he was franklypreoccupied with both his functions as a local government official and as apracticing lawyer.” Eventually, “his desire to help was beyond physicallimitations,” and he withdrew from his other cases and his “free legalservices.”[9]

According to Atty. Ortiz, “Mr. Canoy should have at least understood thatduring all that time, he was free to visit or call the office and be entertained bythe secretary as [he] would normally report to the office in the afternoon as hehad to attend to court trials and report to the Sanggunian office.”[10] He statesthat it was his policy to inform clients that they should be the ones to follow-uptheir cases with his office, as it would be “too difficult and a financial burden toattend making follow-ups with hundreds of clients, mostly ind igents” with onlytwo office personnel.[11]

Nonetheless, Atty. Ortiz notes that the dismissal of Canoy’s complaint was

without prejudice, thus the prescriptive period had been tolled. He claims notbeing able to remember whether he immediately informed Canoy of thedismissal of the case, though as far as he could recall, Canoy had conveyed amessage to him that he had a lawyer to handle the case, thus his office didnot insist on refiling the same.[12]







































The matter was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) forinvestigation, report and recommendation.[13] Canoy eventually submitted amotion withdrawing the complaint, but this was not favorably acted upon bythe IBP in view of the rule that the investigation of a case shall not beinterrupted or terminated by reason of withdrawal of the

charges.[14] Eventually, the investigating commissioner concluded that “clearly,the records show that [Atty. Ortiz] failed to exercise that degree ofcompetence and diligence required of him in prosecuting his clients’ (sic)claim,” and recommended that Atty. Ortiz be reprimanded.[15] The IBPCommission on Discipline adopted the recommendation, with the slightmodification that Atty. Ortiz be likewise warned that a repetition of the samenegligence shall be dealt with more severely in the future.

The Court is sensitive to the difficulties in obtaining legal representation forindigent or low-income litigants. Apart from the heroic efforts of government

entities such as the Public Attorney’s Office, groups such as the IBP Na tionalCommittee on Legal Aid and the Office of Legal Aid of the UP College of Lawhave likewise been at the forefront in the quest to provide legal representationfor those who could not otherwise afford the services of lawyers. The efforts ofprivate practitioners who assist in this goal are especially commendable,owing to their sacrifice in time and resources beyond the call of duty andwithout expectation of pecuniary reward.

Yet, the problem of under-representation of indigent or low-income clientsis just as grievous as that of non-representation. Admirable as the apparent

focus of Atty. Ortiz’s legal practice may have been, his particularrepresentation of Canoy in the latter’s illegal dismissal case leaves much to bedesired.

Several of the canons and rules in the Code of Professional Responsibilityguard against the sort of conduct displayed by Atty. Ortiz with respect to thehandling of Canoy’s case.

CANON 17 – A LAWYER OWES FIDELITY TO THE CAUSE OF HIS CLIENT

AND HE SHALL BE MINDFUL OF THE TRUST AND CONFIDENCE REPOSED

IN HIM.

CANON 18 – A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT WITH COMPETENCE

AND DILIGENCE.

. . .















Rule 18.03 – A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his

negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.

Rule 18.04 – A lawyer shall keep the client informed of the status of his case and shall

respond within a reasonable time to the client’s request for information.

. . .

CANON 22 – A LAWYER SHALL WITHDRAW HIS SERVICES ONLY FOR

GOOD CAUSE AND UPON NOTICE APPROPRIATE IN THE

CIRCUMSTANCES.

. . .

Rule 22.02 – A lawyer who withdraws or is discharged shall, subject to a retainer lien,

immediately turn over all papers and property to which the client is entitled, and shallcooperate with his successor in the orderly transfer of the matter, including all

information necessary for the proper handling of the matter.

Atty. Ortiz should have filed the position paper on time, owing to his dutyas counsel of Canoy to attend to this legal matter entrusted to him. His failureto do so constitutes a violation of Rule 18.03 of the Code of ProfessionalResponsibility.

Once he agrees to take up the cause of a client, a lawyer owes fidelity to such cause

and must always be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him. He must servethe client with competence and diligence and champion the latter's cause with

wholehearted fidelity, care and devotion. Elsewise stated, he owes entire devotion to

the interest of the client, warm zeal in the maintenance and defense of his client's

rights, and the exertion of his utmost learning and ability to the end that nothing be

taken or withheld from his client, save by the rules of law, legally applied. This

simply means that his client is entitled to the benefit of any and every remedy and

defense that is authorized by the law of the land and he may expect his lawyer to

assert every such remedy or defense. If much is demanded from an attorney, it is

because the entrusted privilege to practice law carries with it the correlative duties not

only to the client but also to the court, to the bar and to the public. A lawyer who performs his duty with diligence and candor not only protects the interest of his client;

he also serves the ends of justice, does honor to the bar and helps maintain the respect

of the community to the legal profession.[16]

If indeed Atty. Ortiz’s schedule, workload, or physical condition was suchthat he would not be able to make a timely filing, he should have informed







Canoy of such fact. The relationship of lawyer-client being one of confidence,there is ever present the need for the client to be adequately and fullyinformed of the developments of the case and should not be left in the dark asto the mode and manner in which his/her interests are being defended.[17]

There could have been remedies undertaken to this inability of Atty. Ortizto file on time the position paper had Canoy been told of such fact, such as arequest for more time to file the position paper, or maybe even the hiring ofcollaborating counsel or substitution of Atty. Ortiz as counsel. Since Atty. Ortizdid not exercise the necessary degree of care by either filing the positionpaper on time or informing Canoy that the paper could not be submittedseasonably, the ignominy of having the complaint dismissed for failure toprosecute could not be avoided.

That the case was dismissed without prejudice, thus allowing Canoy torefile the case, hardly serves to mitigate the liability of Atty. Ortiz, as the failureto file the position paper is per se a violation of Rule 18.03.[18]

Neither is the Court mollified by the circumstance of Atty. Ortiz’s electionas a City Councilor of Bacolod City, as his adoption of these additional dutiesdoes not exonerate him of his negligent behavior. The Code of ProfessionalResponsibility does allow a lawyer to withdraw his legal services if the lawyeris elected or appointed to a public office.[19] Statutes expressly prohibit theoccupant of particular public offices from engaging in the practice of law, suchas governors and mayors,[20] and in such instance, the attorney-clientrelationship is terminated.[21] However, city councilors are allowed to practice

their profession or engage in any occupation except during session hours, andin the case of lawyers such as Atty. Ortiz, subject to certain prohibitions whichare not relevant to this case.[22] In such case, the lawyer nevertheless has thechoice to withdraw his/her services.[23] Still, the severance of the relation ofattorney-client is not effective until a notice of discharge by the client or amanifestation clearly indicating that purpose is filed with the court or tribunal,and a copy thereof served upon the adverse party, and until then, the lawyercontinues to be counsel in the case.[24]

Assuming that Atty. Ortiz was justified in terminating his services, he,

however, cannot just do so and leave complainant in the coldunprotected.[25] Indeed, Rule 22.02 requires that a lawyer who withdraws or isdischarged shall, subject to a lien, immediately turn over all papers andproperty to which the client is entitled, and shall cooperate with his successorin the orderly transfer of the matter. Atty. Ortiz claims that the reason why hetook no further action on the case was that he was informed that Canoy had







































acquired the services of another counsel. Assuming that were true, there wasno apparent coordination between Atty. Ortiz and this new counsel.

In fact, it took nearly two years before Canoy had learned that the positionpaper had not been filed and that the case had been dismissed. This was

highly irresponsible of Atty. Ortiz, much more so considering that Canoy wasone of the indigent clients whom Atty. Ortiz proudly claims as his favoredclientele. It does not escape the Court’s attention that Atty. Ortiz faults Canoyfor not adequately following up the case with his office.[26] He cannot now shiftthe blame to complainant for failing to inquire about the status of the case,since, as stated above, it was his duty as lawyer to inform his clients of thestatus of cases entrusted to him.[27]

The appropriate sanction is within the sound discretion of this Court. Incases of similar nature, the penalty imposed by the Court consisted of either areprimand, a fine of five hundred pesos with warning, suspension of threemonths, six months, and even disbarment in aggravated cases.[28] Given thecircumstances, the Court finds the penalty recommended by the IBP toolenient and instead suspends Atty. Ortiz from the practice of law for one (1)month. The graver penalty of suspension is warranted in lieu of an admonitionor a reprimand considering that Atty. Ortiz’s undisputed negligence in failing totimely file the position paper was compounded by his failure to inform Canoyof such fact, and the successive dismissal of the complaint.

Lawyers who devote their professional practice in representing litigantswho could ill afford legal services deserve commendation. However, this

mantle of public service will not deliver the lawyer, no matter how well-meaning, from the consequences of negligent acts. It is not enough to say thatall pauper litigants should be assured of legal representation. They deservequality representation as well.

WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Jose Max S. Ortiz is orderedSUSPENDED from the practice of law for one (1) month from notice, with thewarning that a repetition of the same negligence will be dealt with moreseverely. Let a copy of this decision be attached to respondent's personalrecord in the Office of the Bar Confidant and copies be furnished to all

chapters of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and to all the courts in theland.

SO ORDERED.

Puno, (Chairman), Austria-Martinez, Callejo, Sr., and Chico-Nazario,JJ., concur .















FIRST DIVISION

PEDRO L. LINSANGAN, A.C. No. 6672

Complainant, Present:

PUNO, C.J ., Chairperson, CARPIO,

- v e r s u s - CORONA, LEONARDO-DE CASTRO and

BERSAMIN, JJ.

ATTY. NICOMEDES TOLENTINO,

Respondent. Promulgated:

September 4, 2009

x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

R E S O L U T I O N

CORONA, J .:

This is a complaint for disbarment[1] filed by Pedro Linsangan

of the Linsangan Linsangan & Linsangan Law Office against Atty.

Nicomedes Tolentino for solicitation of clients and encroachment of

professional services.

Complainant alleged that respondent, with the help of

paralegal Fe Marie Labiano, convinced his clients[2] to transfer legal

representation. Respondent promised them financial

assistance[3] and expeditious collection on their claims.[4] To induce

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/september2009/6672.htm#_ftn1















them to hire his services, he persistently called them and sent them

text messages.

To support his allegations, complainant presented the sworn

affidavit[5] of James Gregorio attesting that Labiano tried to prevail

upon him to sever his lawyer-client relations with complainant and

utilize respondent’s services instead, in exchange for a loan

of P50,000. Complainant also attached “respondent’s” calling

card:[6]

Front

NICOMEDES TOLENTINO LAW OFFFICE

CONSULTANCY & MARITIME SERVICES W/ FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE

Fe Marie L. Labiano Paralegal

1st MIJI Mansion, 2nd Flr. Rm. M-01 Tel: 362-7820 6th Ave., cor M.H. Del Pilar Fax: (632) 362-7821 Grace Park, Caloocan City Cel.: (0926) 2701719

Back SERVICES OFFERED:

CONSULTATION AND ASSISTANCE

TO OVERSEAS SEAMEN

REPATRIATED DUE TO ACCIDENT, INJURY, ILLNESS, SICKNESS, DEATH

AND INSURANCE BENEFIT CLAIMS

ABROAD.

(emphasis supplied)

Hence, this complaint.











Respondent, in his defense, denied knowing Labiano and

authorizing the printing and circulation of the said calling card.[7]

The complaint was referred to the Commission on Bar

Discipline (CBD) of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for

investigation, report and recommendation.[8]

Based on testimonial and documentary evidence, the CBD, in

its report and recommendation,[9] found that respondent had

encroached on the professional practice of complainant, violating

Rule 8.02[10] and other canons[11] of the Code of Professional

Responsibility (CPR). Moreover, he contravened the rule against

soliciting cases for gain, personally or through paid agents or

brokers as stated in Section 27, Rule 138[12] of the Rules of Court.

Hence, the CBD recommended that respondent be reprimanded

with a stern warning that any repetition would merit a heavier

penalty.

We adopt the findings of the IBP on the unethical conduct of

respondent but we modify the recommended penalty.

The complaint before us is rooted on the alleged intrusion by

respondent into complainant’s professional practice in violation of

Rule 8.02 of the CPR. And the means employed by respondent in

furtherance of the said misconduct themselves constituted distinct

violations of ethical rules.
























Canons of the CPR are rules of conduct all lawyers must

adhere to, including the manner by which a lawyer’s services are to

be made known. Thus, Canon 3 of the CPR provides:

CANON 3 - A LAWYER IN MAKING KNOWN HIS LEGALSERVICES SHALL USE ONLY TRUE, HONEST, FAIR,DIGNIFIED AND OBJECTIVE INFORMATION OR STATEMENTOF FACTS.

Time and time again, lawyers are reminded that the practice of

law is a profession and not a business; lawyers should not advertise

their talents as merchants advertise their wares.[13] To allow a

lawyer to advertise his talent or skill is to commercialize the

practice of law, degrade the profession in the public’s estimation

and impair its ability to efficiently render that high character of

service to which every member of the bar is called.[14]

Rule 2.03 of the CPR provides:

RULE 2.03. A LAWYER SHALL NOT DO OR PERMIT TO BEDONE ANY ACT DESIGNED PRIMARILY TO SOLICIT LEGALBUSINESS.

Hence, lawyers are prohibited from soliciting cases for the purpose

of gain, either personally or through paid agents or

brokers.[15] Such actuation constitutes malpractice, a ground for

disbarment.[16]

Rule 2.03 should be read in connection with Rule 1.03 of the

CPR which provides:



















RULE 1.03. A LAWYER SHALL NOT, FOR ANY CORRUPTMOTIVE OR INTEREST, ENCOURAGE ANY SUIT ORPROCEEDING OR DELAY ANY MAN’S 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)[17] as a measure to protect the

community from barratry and champerty .[18]

Complainant presented substantial evidence[19] (consisting of

the sworn statements of the very same persons coaxed by Labianoand referred to respondent’s office) to prove that respondent indeed

solicited legal business as well as profited from referrals’ suits.

Although respondent initially denied knowing Labiano in his

answer, he later admitted it during the mandatory hearing.

Through Labiano’s actions, respondent’s law practice wasbenefited. Hapless seamen were enticed to transfer representation

on the strength of Labiano’s 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.

With regard to respondent’s violation of Rule 8.02 of the CPR,

settled is the rule that a lawyer should not steal another lawyer’s

client nor induce the latter to retain him by a promise of better














service, good result or reduced fees for his services.[20] Again the

Court notes that respondent never denied having these seafarers in

his client list nor receiving benefits from Labiano’s “referrals.”

Furthermore, he never denied Labiano’s connection to his

office.[21] Respondent committed an unethical, predatory overstep

into another’s legal practice. He cannot escape liability under Rule

8.02 of the CPR.

Moreover, by engaging in a money-lending venture with his

clients as borrowers, respondent violated Rule 16.04:

Rule 16.04 – A lawyer shall not borrow money from his clientunless the client’s interests are fully protected by the nature of thecase or by independent advice. Neither shall a lawyer lendmoney to a client except, when in the interest of justice, he has toadvance necessary expenses in a legal matter he is handling forthe client.

The rule is that a lawyer shall not lend money to hisclient. The only exception is, when in the interest of justice, he has

to advance necessary expenses (such as filing fees, stenographer’s

fees for transcript of stenographic notes, cash bond or premium for

surety bond, etc.) for a matter that he is handling for the client.

The rule is intended to safeguard the lawyer’s independence of

mind so that the free exercise of his judgment may not be adversely

affected.[22] It seeks to ensure his undivided attention to the case he

is handling as well as his entire devotion and fidelity to the client’s

cause. If the lawyer lends money to the client in connection with

the client’s case, the lawyer in effect acquires an interest in the















subject matter of the case or an additional stake in its

outcome.[23] Either of these circumstances may lead the lawyer to

consider his own recovery rather than that of his client, or to accept

a settlement which may take care of his interest in the verdict to the

prejudice of the client in violation of his duty of undivided fidelity to

the client’s cause.[24]

As previously mentioned, any act of solicitation constitutes

malpractice[25] which calls for the exercise of the Court’s disciplinary

powers. Violation of anti-solicitation statutes warrants serious

sanctions for initiating contact with a prospective client for the

purpose of obtaining employment.[26] Thus, in this jurisdiction, we

adhere to the rule to protect the public from the Machiavellian

machinations of unscrupulous lawyers and to uphold the nobility of

the legal profession.

Considering the myriad infractions of respondent (including

violation of the prohibition on lending money to clients), the

sanction recommended by the IBP, a mere reprimand, is a wimpy

slap on the wrist. The proposed penalty is grossly incommensurate

to its findings.

A final word regarding the calling card presented in evidence

by petitioner. A lawyer’s best advertisement is a well-merited

reputation for professional capacity and fidelity to trust based on

his character and conduct.[27] For this reason, lawyers are only






















allowed to announce their services by publication in reputable law

lists or use of simple professional cards.

Professional calling cards may only contain the following

details:

(a) lawyer’s name; (b) name of the law firm with which he is connected; (c) address; (d) telephone number and

(e) special branch of law practiced.[28]

Labiano’s calling card contained the phrase “with financial

assistance.” The phrase was clearly used to entice clients (who

already had representation) to change counsels with a promise of

loans to finance their legal actions. Money was dangled to lure

clients away from their original lawyers, thereby taking advantage of

their financial distress and emotional vulnerability. This crasscommercialism degraded the integrity of the bar and deserved no

place in the legal profession. However, in the absence of substantial

evidence to prove his culpability, the Court is not prepared to rule

that respondent was personally and directly responsible for the

printing and distribution of Labiano’s calling cards.

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.

Let a copy of this Resolution be made part of his records in the

Office of the Bar Confidant, Supreme Court of the Philippines, and

be furnished to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and the Office

of the Court Administrator to be circulated to all courts.

SO ORDERED.

RENATO C. CORONA

Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

REYNATO S. PUNO Chief Justice

Chairperson

ANTONIO T. CARPIO TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO

Associate Justice Associate Justice

LUCAS P. BERSAMIN

Associate Justice



SECOND DIVISION

[A.C. No. 1261. December 29, 1983.]

TAN TEK BENG, Complainant , v. TIMOTEO A. DAVID, Respondent .

Basilio Lanoria for complainant.

Timoteo A. David for and in his own behalf.

SYLLABUS

1. LEGAL ETHICS; MEMBER OF THE BAR; SOLICITING CASES AT LAW FOR THE PURPOSE OF GAIN;CONSTITUTES MALPRACTICE. — Where in the agreement lawyer David not only agreed to give one-half ofhis professional fees to an intermediary or commission agent but he also bound himself not to deal directlywith the clients, the Court held that the said agreement is void because it was tantamount to malpracticewhich is "the practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either personally or through paid

agents or brokers" (Sec. 27, Rule 138, Rules of Court). Malpractice ordinarily refers to any malfeasance or

dereliction of duty committed by a lawyer. Section 27 gives a special and technical meaning to the term"malpractice" (Act No. 2828, amending Sec. 21 of Act No. 190). That meaning is in consonance with theelementary notion that the practice of law is a profession, not a business. "The lawyer may not seek orobtain employment by himself or through others for to do so would be unprofessional" (2 R.C.L. 1097 citedin In re Tagorda, 33 Phil. 37, 42).

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; UNPROFESSIONAL CONDUCT; CAUSE FOR CENSURE. — The commercialization of lawpractice is condemned in certain canons of professional ethics adopted by the American Bar Association."Unprofessional conduct in an attorney is that which violates the rules or ethical code of his profession orwhich is unbecoming a member of that profession" (Note 14, 7 C.J.S. 743). We censure lawyer David forhaving entered and acted upon such void and unethical agreement. We discountenance his conduct, not

because of the complaint of Tan Tek Beng (who did not know legal ethics) but because David should haveknown better.

D E C I S I O N

AQUINO, J.:

The issue in this case is whether disciplinary action should be taken against lawyer Timoteo A. David(admitted to the bar in 1945) for not giving Tan Tek Beng, a nonlawyer (alleged missionary of the SeventhDay Adventists), one-half of the attorney’s fees received by David from the clients supplied by Tan TekBeng. Their agreement reads: jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"December 3, 1970

"Mr. Tan Tek Beng

"Manila

"Dear Mr. Tan: chanrob1esvirtual1aw library

In compliance with your request, I am now putting into writing our agreement which must be followed inconnection with the accounts that you will entrust to me for collection. Our terms and conditions shall be asfollows: jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"1. On all commission or attorney’s fees that we shall receive from our clients by virtue of the collection thatwe shall be able to effect on their accounts, we shall divide fifty-fifty. Likewise you are entitled to



commission, 50/50 from domestic, inheritance and commercial from our said clients or in any criminal caseswhere they are involved.

"2. I shall not deal directly with our clients without your consent.

"3. You shall take care of collecting our fees as well as advances for expenses for the cases referred to us by

our clients and careful in safeguarding our interest.

"4. It is understood that legal expenses that we shall recover from the debtors shall be turned over to ourclients. Other clients who directly or indirectly have been approached or related (sic) to you as a result ofyour labor are your clients.

"I hereby pledge in the name of God, our Heavenly Father, that I will be sincere, honest and fair with you inconnection with our transactions with our clients. Likewise you must be sincere, honest and fair with me.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) Illegible

TIMOTEO A. DAVID

"P.S.

I will be responsible for all documents entrusted me by our clients.

(Sgd.) Initial

"CONFORME to the above and likewise will reciprocate my sincerity to Atty. David as stated in the lastparagraph of this letter.

(Sgd.) Tan Tek Beng

MR. TAN TEK BENG"

The foregoing was a reiteration of an agreement dated August 5, 1969. Note that in said agreement lawyerDavid not only agreed to give one-half of his professional fees to an intermediary or commission agent buthe also bound himself not to deal directly with the clients.

The business relationship between David and Tan Tek Beng did not last. There were mutual accusations ofdoublecross. For allegedly not living up to the agreement, Tan Tek Beng in 1973 denounced David toPresidential Assistant Ronaldo B. Zamora, to the Office of Civil Relations at Camp Crame and to this Court.

He did not file any civil action to enforce the agreement.

In his 1974 comment, David clarified that the partnership was composed of himself as manager, Tan TekBeng as assistant manager and lawyer Pedro Jacinto as president and financier. When Jacinto became ill andthe costs of office maintenance mounted, David suggested that Tan Tek Beng should also invest somemoney or shoulder a part of the business expenses but Tan Tek Beng refused. chanrobles.com : virtuallaw library

This case was referred to the Solicitor General for investigation, report and recommendation. Hearings were

scheduled from 1974 to 1981. It was proposed that respondent should submit a stipulation of facts but thatdid not materialize because the scheduled hearings were not held due to the nonavailability of Tan Tek Bengand his counsel.

On September 16, 1977 Tan Tek Beng died at the Philippine Union Colleges Compound, Baesa, CaloocanCity but it was only in the manifestation of his counsel dated August 10, 1981 that the Solicitor General’sOffice was informed of that fact. A report on this case dated March 21, 1983 was submitted by the SolicitorGeneral to this Court.

We hold that the said agreement is void because it was tantamount to malpractice which is "the practice ofsoliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either personally or through paid agents or brokers" Sec. 27,Rule 138, Rules of Court). Malpractice ordinarily refers to any malfeasance or dereliction of duty committedby a lawyer. Section 27 gives a special and technical meaning to the term "malpractice" (Act No. 2828,



amending sec. 21 of Act No. 190).

That meaning is in consonance with the elementary notion that the practice of law is a profession, not abusiness. "The lawyer may not seek or obtain employment by himself or through others for to do so wouldbe unprofessional" (2 R.C.L. 1097 cited in In re Tagorda, 53 Phil. 37, 42; Malcolm, J., Jayme v. Bualan, 58Phil. 422; Arce v. Philippine National Bank, 62 Phil. 569). The commercialization of law practice is

condemned in certain canons of professional ethics adopted by the American Bar Association: jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"34. Division of Fees. — No division of fees for legal services is proper, except with another lawyer, basedupon a division of service or responsibility." cralaw virtua1aw library

"35. Intermediaries. — The professional services of a lawyer should not be controlled or exploited by any lawagency, personal or corporate, which intervenes between client and lawyer. A lawyer’s responsibilities andqualifications are individual. He should avoid all relations which direct the performance of his duties by or in

the interest of such intermediary. A lawyer’s relation to his client should be personal, and the responsibilityshould be direct to the client. . . ." cralaw virtua1aw library

"38. Compensation, Commissions and Rebates. — A lawyer should accept no compensation, commissions,

rebates or other advantages from others without the knowledge and consent of his client after fulldisclosure." (Appendix, Malcolm, Legal Ethics).

We censure lawyer David for having entered and acted upon such void and unethical agreement. We

discountenance his conduct, not because of the complaint of Tan Tek Beng (who did not know legal ethics)but because David should have known better. chanrobleslaw library

"Unprofessional conduct in an attorney is that which violates the rules or ethical code of his profession orwhich is unbecoming a member of that profession" (Note 14, 7 C.J.S. 743).

WHEREFORE, respondent is reprimanded for being guilty of malpractice. A copy of this decision should be

attached to his record in the Bar Confidant’s office.

SO ORDERED.

Concepcion, Jr., Guerrero, Abad Santos, De Castro and Escolin, JJ., concur.

2nd batch legal ethics.pdf

Documents

Transcript of 2nd batch legal ethics.pdf