Ethics Digest

ATTY. ALIMURUNG DIZON | LORESCA | LUMINARIAS | SANTOS, K. | SY | TY | VILCHES 2-D || Ateneo Law School

1 Ad astra per alia fideles

Cayetano vs. Monsod (09/03/1991)

Ponente: Paras D: The practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases or litigation in court; it embraces the preparation of pleadings and other papers incident to actions and special proceedings, the management of such actions and

proceedings on behalf of clients before judges and courts, and in addition, conveying. In general, all advice to clients, and all action taken for them in matters connected with the law incorporation services, assessment and

condemnation services contemplating an appearance before a judicial body, the foreclosure of a mortgage, enforcement of a creditor's claim in bankruptcy and insolvency proceedings, and conducting proceedings in attachment, and in matters of estate and guardianship have been held to

constitute law practice, as do the preparation and drafting of legal instruments, where the work done involves the determination by the

trained legal mind of the legal effect of facts and conditions. Facts:

1. Christian Monsod was nominated by President Corazon C. Aquino to the position of Chairman of the COMELEC

2. Rene Cayetano opposed the nomination because allegedly Monsod does not possess the required qualification of having been engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years.

3. On June 5, 1991, the Commission on Appointments confirmed the nomination of Monsod as Chairman of the COMELEC. On June 18, 1991, he took his oath of office. On the same day, he assumed office as Chairman of the COMELEC.

4. Challenging the validity of the confirmation by the Commission on Appointments of Monsod's nomination, petitioner as a citizen and taxpayer, filed the instant petition for certiorari and Prohibition praying that said confirmation and the consequent appointment of Monsod as Chairman of the Commission on Elections be declared null and void.

Issue: WON Monsod was engaged in practice law for the past 10 years rendering his appointment as valid? Held and Ratio:

1. Yes, interpreted in the light of the various definitions of the term Practice of law1, particularly the modern concept of law practice, and taking into consideration the liberal construction intended by the framers of the Constitution, Atty. Monsod's past work experiences as a lawyer-economist, a lawyer-manager, a lawyer-entrepreneur of industry, a lawyer-negotiator of contracts, and a lawyer-legislator of both the rich and the poor — verily more than satisfy the constitutional requirement — that he has been engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years.

Some of Monsod’s professional experience:

After graduating from UP College of Law in 1960, he worked in the law office of his father

He also worked for World Bank as an operations officer (which involved getting acquainted with the laws of member-countries negotiating loans and coordinating legal, economic, and project work of the Bank)

In Meralco Group as chief executive officer of an investment bank and subsequently of a business conglomerate

Also rendered services to various companies as a legal and economic consultant or chief executive officer.

1 Practice of Law in Paras’ ponencia: The rendition of services requiring the knowledge and the application

of legal principles and technique to serve the interest of another with his consent. It is not limited to appearing in court, or advising and assisting in the conduct of litigation, but embraces the preparation of pleadings, and other papers incident to actions and special proceedings, conveyancing, the preparation of legal instruments of all kinds, and the giving of all legal advice to clients. It embraces all advice to clients and all actions taken for them in matters connected with the law. An attorney engages in the practice of law by maintaining an office where he is held out to be-an attorney, using a letterhead describing himself as an attorney, counseling clients in legal matters, negotiating with opposing counsel about pending litigation, and fixing and collecting fees for services rendered by his associate. (Black's Law Dictionary, 3rd ed.)

Nature and Scope of the Legal Profession (“Practice of Law”)

Legal Ethics (Set 1: First 7 cases)



Secretary-General (1986) and National Chairman (1987) of NAMFREL

Former Co-Chairman of the Bishops Businessmen's Conference for Human Development

Member of the Davide Commission

Member of the Constitutional Commission (1986-1987)

SEPARATE OPINIONS: Padilla’s dissent:

While it may be granted that Monsod performed tasks and activities which could be considered activities peculiar to the practice of law, like the drafting of legal documents and the rendering of legal opinion or advice, such were isolated transactions or activities which do not qualify his past endeavors as "practice of law." To become engaged in the practice of law, there must be continuity, or a succession of acts.

Cruz’s dissent:

The effect of the definition given in the ponencia is to consider virtually every lawyer to be engaged in the practice of law even if he does not earn his living, or at least part of it, as a lawyer. It is enough that his activities are incidentally (even if only remotely) connected with some law, ordinance, or regulation. The possible exception is the lawyer whose income is derived from teaching ballroom dancing or escorting wrinkled ladies with pubescent pretensions.

Gutierrez’s dissent:

An attorney, in the most general sense, is a person designated or employed by another to act in his stead; an agent; more especially, one of a class of persons authorized to appear and act for suitors or defendants in legal proceedings. Strictly, these professional persons are attorneys at law, and non-professional agents are properly styled "attorney's in fact;" but the single word is much used as meaning an attorney at law. A person may be an attorney in facto for another, without being an attorney at law. Abb. Law Dict. "Attorney." A public attorney, or attorney at law, says Webster, is an officer of a court of law, legally qualified to prosecute and defend actions in such court on the retainer of clients. "The principal duties of an attorney are (1) to be true to the court and to his client; (2) to manage the business of his client with care, skill, and integrity; (3) to keep his client informed as to the state of his business; (4) to keep his secrets confided to him as such. ... His rights are to be justly compensated for his services." Bouv. Law Dict. tit. "Attorney." The transitive verb "practice," as defined by Webster, means 'to do or perform frequently, customarily, or habitually; to perform by a succession of acts, as, to practice gaming, ... to carry on in practice, or repeated action; to apply, as a theory, to real life; to exercise, as a profession, trade, art. etc.; as, to practice law or medicine,' etc.

In the Matter of Petition for Authority To continue use of the Firm name “Ozaeta, Romulo, etc. (7/30/1979)

D: A partnership for the practice of law cannot be likened to partnerships formed by other professionals or for business. It is not a legal entity as it is a mere relationship or association for a particular purpose. It is not a

partnership formed for the purpose of carrying on a trade or business or of holding property. Thus, it has been stated that the use of a nom de plume,

assumed or trade name in law practice is improper D: The law is a “profession” – a group of men pursuing a learned art as a common calling in the spirit of public service which may incidentally be a

means of livelihood D: The right to practice law is not a natural or constitutional right but is in

the nature of a privilege or franchise. It is limited to persons of good moral character with special qualifications duly ascertained and certified. The right does not only presuppose in its possessor integrity, legal standing

and attainment, but also the exercise of a special privilege, highly personal and partaking of the nature of a public trust

Facts:

1. Two separate petitions were filed in SC by the surviving partners of Atty. Sycip and by the surviving partners of Atty. Ozaeta praying that they be allowed to continue using the name, in their firms, of their partners who passed away

2. Petitioners arguments are as follows: a. That under the law, (Art 1840) partnership is not prohibited from

continuing its business under a firm name which includes the name of the deceased partner

b. No fundamental policy is offended by the continued use by a firm of professionals (law) of a firm name which includes the name of a deceased partner, at least where such firm name has acquired the characteristics of a “trade name” as commonly practiced by other professions such as accountancy and engineering

c. That such use is not considered unethical under the Canons of Professional Ethics

d. There is no deception or possibility of it because the deaths of the partners were well-publicized

e. No local customs prohibits the continued use of a deceased partner’s name



f. That the continued use of a deceased partner’s name in the firm name of law partnership has been consistently allowed by US courts which is an accepted principle in the legal profession of most countries in the world

Issue: WON petitioners can still use the deceased partner’s name Held: No Ratio:

1. It is tacit in Art 1815 that names in a firm name of a partnership must either be those of living partners and, in case of non-partners, should be living persons who can be subjected to liability

2. There could be practical objections to allowing the use by law firms of the names of the deceased partners. The public relations value of the use of an old firm name can tend to create undue advantages and disadvantages in the practice of the profession. An able lawyer without connections will have to make a name for himself starting from scratch. Another able lawyer, who can join an old firm, can initially ride on that old firm’s reputation established by deceased partners

3. (For fact no. 2a, SC held that): Art 1840 refers to commercial partnership which is not applicable in this case as this case involves “professional partnership” – the reputation of which depends on the individual skill of the members

4. (For fact no. 2b, SC held that): A partnership for the practice of law cannot be likened to partnerships formed by other professionals or for business. It is not a legal entity as it is a mere relationship or association for a particular purpose. It is not a partnership formed for the purpose of carrying on a trade or business or of holding property. Thus, it has been stated that the use of a nom de plume, assumed or trade name in law practice is improper

5. The law is a “profession” – a group of men pursuing a learned art as a common calling in the spirit of public service which may incidentally be a means of livelihood

6. The right to practice law is not a natural or constitutional right but is in the nature of a privilege or franchise. It is limited to persons of good moral character with special qualifications duly ascertained and certified. The right does not only presuppose in its possessor integrity, legal standing and attainment, but also the exercise of a special privilege, highly personal and partaking of the nature of a public trust

7. It is intimately and peculiarly related to administration of justice and should not be considered like an ordinary “money-making trade”

8. (For fact no. 2c,2d, & 2e, SC held that): It is true that the Canon does not considered as an unethical the continued use of the name, but the same warns that care should be taken that no imposition or deception is practiced through this use. Also, it is true that no local custom in Phil. permits or allows the use of a deceased partner’s name, nevertheless, it has likewise been held that the use of a firm name after death of partner is only proper where SUSTAINED by local custom (which is not the case here). Furthermore, the possibility of deception cannot be ruled out

9. (For fact no. 2f, SC held that): The use of a deceased partner’s name is considered a custom in the US but not in the Phil.

Bates v. State Bar of Arizona (6/27/1977) D: It is not legally unethical for lawyers to advertise the prices at which certain routine services will be performed because such advertisement

serves individual and societal interests in assuring informed and reliable decision-making; it benefits the administration of justice; it will reduce the cost of legal services to the consumer; and it may well aid new attorneys

in entering the market

Facts: (Discussions on the Sherman Act, the First Amendment, and the separate opinions will not be tackled here)

1. John R. Bates and Van O’Steen are licensed attorneys and members of the Arizona State Bar. When they opened a “legal clinic,” their aim was to provide legal services at modest fees to persons of moderate income who did not qualify for governmental legal aid. However, in order to achieve that aim, they only accepted routine matters (uncontested divorces, adoption, change of name, etc.) because their costs could be kept down by extensive use of paralegals, automatic typewriting equipment, and standardized forms and office procedures

Advertising and Solicitation (Rule 2.03; 3.01; 3.02; 3.04)



2. After two years of doing this, they figured that they should advertise the availability of their legal services at low cost to attract clients so their practice and legal concept can survive

3. They placed an advertisement in the Arizona Republic, a daily newspaper of general circulation in the Phoenix metropolitan area, which stated that petitioners were offering “legal services at very reasonable fees,” and listed their fees for certain services

4. The President of the State Bar of Arizona filed a complaint against petitioners for violation of the Arizona Supreme Court’s Disciplinary Rule (Rule) —

(B) A lawyer shall not publicize himself, or his partner, or association, or any other lawyer affiliated with him or his firm, as a lawyer through newspaper or magazine advertisements, radio or television announcements, display advertisements in the city or telephone directories or other means of commercial publicity, nor shall he authorize or permit others to do so in his behalf.

Issue: WON lawyers may advertise the prices at which certain routine services will be performed Held: Yes Ratio:

1. The Court agreed that the petitioners are agents of the court and must be under its continuous supervision. It is important to regulate the activities of the Bar to protect the public. Controls over solicitation and advertising by attorneys have long been subject to the state’s oversight

2. The court addressed the arguments of respondent (regarding advertisement and the law profession) one by one

a. Advertisement has an adverse effect on professionalism

– Arizona State Bar: The key to professionalism, it is argued, is the sense of pride that involvement in the discipline generates. It is claimed that price advertising will bring about commercialization, which will

undermine the attorney’s sense of dignity and self-worth. The hustle of the marketplace will adversely affect the profession’s service orientation, and irreparably damage the delicate balance between the lawyer’s need to earn and his obligation selflessly to serve. Advertising is also said to erode the client’s trust in his attorney: once the client perceives that the lawyer is motivated by profit, his confidence that the attorney is acting out of a commitment to the client’s welfare is jeopardized. And advertising is said to tarnish the dignified public image of the profession.

– Federal Supreme Court:

The postulated connection between advertising and the erosion of true professionalism is severely strained. The client always expects that he will pay for the services of the lawyer. The American Bar Association even advises that a lawyer should reach “a clear agreement with his client as to the basis of the fee charges to be made”

It appears that the ban on advertising originated as a rule of etiquette and not as a rule of ethics

b. Attorney advertising is misleading

– Arizona State Bar: It is argued that advertising of legal services inevitably will be misleading (a) because such services are so



individualized with regard to content and quality as to prevent informed comparison on the basis of an advertisement, (b) because the consumer of legal services is unable to determine in advance just what services he needs, and (c) because advertising by attorneys will highlight irrelevant factors and fail to show the relevant factor of skill


The services advertised by petitioners are routine services, which are not unique

Lawyers are likely to be employed to perform specific tasks. Although the client may not know the detail involved in performing the task, he knows the service he desires at the level of generality to which advertising lends itself

The third argument underestimates the public. “If the naivete of the public will cause advertising by attorneys to be misleading, then it is the bar’s role to assure that the populace is sufficiently informed as to enable it to place advertising in its proper perspective”

c. Advertising has an adverse effect on the administration of justice

– Arizona State Bar: “Advertising is said to have the undesirable effect of stirring up litigation. ... There is even a suggestion of barratry [the offense of frequently exciting and stirring up lawsuits and quarrels]”


Advertising can help to solve this acknowledged problem: advertising is the traditional mechanism in a free-market economy for a supplier to inform a potential purchaser of the availability and terms of exchange. The disciplinary rule at issue likely has served to burden access to legal services, particularly for the not-quite-poor and the unknowledgeable. A rule allowing restrained advertising would be in accord with the bar’s obligation to “facilitate the process of intelligent selection of lawyers, and to assist in making legal services fully available”

d. Advertising has undesirable economic effects

– Arizona State Bar: It is claimed that advertising will increase the overhead costs of the profession, and that these costs then will be passed along to consumers in the form of increased fees. Moreover, it is claimed that the additional cost of practice will create a substantial entry barrier, deterring or preventing young attorneys from penetrating the market and entrenching the position of the bar’s established members


Prices are actually lower when there’s advertising because of the competition



New lawyers will not be deterred. In fact, advertising will work to their advantage because without it, they must develop contacts. The advertisement ban actually perpetuates the market position of established lawyers and works to the disadvantage of new ones

e. Advertising has an adverse effect on the quality of the service

– Arizona State Bar: The State Bar argues that “the attorney may advertise a given ‘package’ of service at a set price, and will be inclined to provide, by indiscriminate use, the standard package regardless of whether it fits the client’s needs”

– Federal Supreme Court: “An attorney who is inclined to cut quality will do so regardless of the rule on advertising. And the advertisement of a standardized fee does not necessarily mean that the services offered are undesirably standardized”

f. Overseeing advertisements by lawyers is difficult to enforce

– Arizona State Bar: Because of the number of lawyers, it will be difficult to oversee their advertisements

– Federal Supreme Court: With advertising, most lawyers will behave as they always have: they will abide by their solemn oaths to uphold the integrity and honor of their profession and of the legal system. For every attorney who overreaches through advertising, there will be thousands of others who will be candid and honest and straightforward. And, of course, it

will be in the latters’ interest, as in other cases of misconduct at the bar, to assist in weeding out those few who abuse their trust

3. Although advertisement by lawyers may not be subjected to a blanket suppression like what the Rule does), it can be regulated

Ulep v Legal Clinic, Inc. (06/17/1993) D: A lawyer cannot advertise his talents or skills as in a manner similar to a merchant advertising his goods. The proscription against advertising of legal services or solicitation of legal business rests on the fundamental

postulate that the practice of law is a profession. The law is a profession and not a trade. The lawyer degrades himself and his profession who stoops to and adopts the practices of mercantilism by advertising his services or offering them to the public. The most worthy and effective

advertisement is the establishment of a well-merited reputation for professional capacity and fidelity to trust

Facts:

1. Ulep filed a complaint against The Legal Clinic (TLC) and asked the Court to order TLC to stop from issuing advertisements similar to the tenor of TLC advertisements already published in newspapers2

2. Ulep alleges that the advertisements are champertous3, unethical, demeaning of the law profession, and as a member of the legal profession he is offended by the said advertisements

2 The first advertisement reads: Secret Marriage? P560 for valid marriage. Info on DIVORCE. ABSENCE. ANNULMENT. Visa. Further, advertisement contained the address of The Legal Clinic, its office hours and phone number. The second advertisement is an advertisement on a so-called “Guam Divorce”. It states that an attorney in Guam is giving free books on Guam Divorce through The Legal Clinic during Mondays to Fridays. Just like the first advertisement, it also provided for the address of TLC, its office hours, and phone number. 3 This word is in memory of our great Legal Profession teacher, Dean Roy. Wherever he is, may there be Malteesers and Coke Zero. Amen.



3. In answering the petition, TLC admits the fact of publication of said advertisements but claims that it is not engaged in the practice of law but in rendering of “legal support services” through paralegals with the use of modern computers and electronic machines

4. Further, they argue that the act of advertising these services should be allowed pursuant to the ruling in Bates v Arizona

5. The SC then required several bar associations4 to submit a memoranda and position papers on the said controversy

Issue: WON the services offered and advertised by the Legal Clinic constitutes practice of law Held: Yeeeeeees Ratio:

1. When a person participates in a trial and advertises himself as a lawyer, he is in the practice of law. One who confers with clients, advises them as to their legal rights and then takes the business to an attorney and asks the latter to look after the case in court is also practicing law

2. Giving advice for compensation regarding the legal status and rights of another and the conduct with respect thereto constitutes a practice of law

3. Thus, the activities and services offered by TLC5 fall squarely within the definition of “practice of law”. Similarly, the defense that they do not represent clients in court is untenable since the practice of law is not limited to strictly appearing in court

4. Further, the intention of Nogales is to create a one-stop-shop for various legal problems where a client may avail of legal services from simple documentation to complex litigation and corporate undertakings. Such work is beyond the domain of paralegals, and are exclusive functions of lawyers engaged in the practice of law

4 The associations are as follows: (1) Integrated Bar of the Philippines (2) Philippine Bar Association (3) Philippine Lawyer’s Association (4) UP Women Lawyers’ Circle (5) Women Lawyers Association of the Philippines (6) Federacion Internacional de Abogadas. The position papers and memoranda of the following associations will not be discussed in this digest.

5 In an interview with Atty. Nogales for The Philippine Star, he claims that The Legal Clinic is similar to a medical clinic wherein lawyers would analyze, “diagnose”, and thereafter give legal advice to walk-in clients. Nogales admitted that most of their clients are “walk-ins” who could not afford the services of big law firms. This admission alone renders their defense that they only give “legal support services” through paralegals as untenable since such duties can only be performed by persons duly admitted to the bar. It is beyond the domain of paralegals.

Issue: WON TLC can advertise their services through newspapers and other mediums Held: No Ratio:

1. Prior to the adoption of the Code of Professional Responsibility, the Canons of Ethics also warned lawyers that they should not resort to indirect advertisements for professional employment, such as furnishing or inspiring newspaper comments or procuring his photograph to be published in connection with causes in which the lawyer has been engaged in

2. A lawyer cannot advertise his talents or skills as in a manner similar to a merchant advertising his goods. The proscription against advertising of legal services or solicitation of legal business rests on the fundamental postulate that the practice of law is a profession

3. The law is a profession and not a trade. The lawyer degrades himself and his profession who stoops to and adopts the practices of mercantilism by advertising his services or offering them to the public

4. The most worthy and effective advertisement is the establishment of a well-merited reputation for professional capacity and fidelity to trust. This cannot be forced and must be the outcome character and conduct

5. But not all types of advertising are prohibited. The canons of the profession allows the following:

a. Publication in a reputable law list. The list should be brief and informative and should only contain the lawyer’s name, his address, telephone number, branches of law practiced, school attended etc

b. The use of an ordinary simple professional card

In Re Tagorda (03/23/29)

Justice Malcolm

D: Lawyers are prohibited from directly or indirectly advertising their services either through themselves or through agents. 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.

Facts:



1. Luis B. Tagorda, a practising attorney and a member of the provincial board of Isabela, admits that previous to the last general elections he made use of a card written in Spanish and Ilocano, which, in translation, reads as follows:

2. Atty. Tagorda also admits of writing a letter (written in Ilocano) to the lieutenant of the barrio of his municipality requesting the lieutenant to advise the people of their municipality that he, Atty. Tagorda, will continue serving as a lawyer and notary public of their municipality in spite of his residence in Echague Issue: WON Atty. Tagorda should be sanctioned for his solicitations Held: Yeeeeeees Ratio: Canons 27 and 28 of the Code of Ethics proscribe lawyers from directly or indirectly advertising their services either through themselves or through agents.6 The law is a profession and not a business. The lawyer may not seek

6 CANON 27: ADVERTISING, DIRECT OR INDIRECT. — The most worthy and effective advertisement possible, even for a young lawyer, and especially with his brother lawyers, is the establishment of a well-merited reputation for professional capacity and fidelity to trust. This cannot be forced, but must be the outcome of character and conduct. 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 interview not warranted by personal relations, is unprofessional. It is equally unprofessional to procure business by indirection through touters of any kind, whether allied real estate firms or trust companies advertising to secure the drawing of deeds or wills or offering retainers in exchange for executorships or trusteeships to be influenced by the lawyer. Indirect advertisement for business by furnishing or inspiring newspaper comments concerning the manner of their conduct, the magnitude of the interest involved, the importance of the lawyer's position, and all other like self-laudation, defy the traditions and lower the tone of our high calling, and are intolerable.

or obtain employment by himself or through others for to do so would be unprofessional.

It is the duty of the court to condemn in no uncertain terms the ugly practice of solicitation of cases by lawyers. It is destructive of the honor of a great profession. It lowers the standards of that profession. It works against the confidence of the community in the integrity of the members of the bar. It results in needless litigation and in incenting to strife otherwise peacefully inclined citizens. The solicitation of employment by an attorney is a ground for disbarment or suspension. That should be distinctly understood.

The usual punishment for violating this rule is disbarment. However, there were mitigating circumstances, which led the court to merely impose a 1-month suspension from practicing law (starting April 1, 1929)

Director of Religious Affairs v Bayot (03/20/1944) Justice Ozaeta

D: Section 25 of Rule 127 expressly provides among other things that "the practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either personally

or thru paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice." D: It is highly unethical for an attorney to advertise his talents or skill as a merchant advertises his wares. Law is a profession and not a trade. The

lawyer degrades himself and his profession who stoops to and adopts the practices of mercantilism by advertising his services or offering them to

the public.

CANON 28: STIRRING UP LITIGATION, DIRECTLY OR THROUGH AGENTS. — 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 the 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, or to employ agents or runners for like purposes, or to pay or reward directly or indirectly, those who bring or influence the bringing of such cases to his office, or to remunerate policemen, court or prison officials, physicians, hospital attaches or others who may succeed, under the guise of giving disinterested friendly advice, in influencing the criminal, the sick and the injured, the ignorant or others, to seek his professional services. A duty to the public and to the profession devolves upon every member of the bar having knowledge of such practices upon the part of any practitioner immediately to inform thereof to the end that the offender may be disbarred.

LUIS B. TAGORDA

Attorney

Notary Public

CANDIDATE FOR THIRD MEMBER

Province of Isabela

(NOTE. — As notary public, he can execute for you a deed of sale for the purchase of land as

required by the cadastral office; can renew lost documents of your animals; can make your

application and final requisites for your homestead; and can execute any kind of affidavit. As a lawyer, he can help you collect your loans although long overdue, as well as any complaint for or

against you. Come or write to him in his town, Echague, Isabela. He offers free consultation, and is willing to help and serve the poor.)



Facts: 1. Estanislao Bayot, who is an attorney-at-law, is charged with malpractice

for having published on advertisement in the Sunday Tribune of June 13, 1943, which reads as follows:

Marriage license promptly secured thru our assistance & the annoyance

of delay or publicity avoided if desired, and marriage arranged to wishes of parties. Consultation on any matter free for the poor.

Everything confidential.

Legal assistance service 12 Escolta, Manila, Room, 105 Tel. 2-41-60.

2. Bayot at first denied having published the said advertisement; but subsequently, thru his attorney, he admitted having caused its publication and prayed for "the indulgence and mercy" of the Court, promising "not to repeat such professional misconduct in the future and to abide himself to the strict ethical rules of the law profession." In further mitigation he alleged that the said advertisement was published only once in the Tribune and that he never had any case at law by reason thereof.

Issue: WON Bayot violated the rule against advertising and solicitation of services as a lawyer. Held: Yes Ratio: 1. It is undeniable that the advertisement in question was a flagrant violation

by Bayot of the ethics of his profession, it being a brazen solicitation of business from the public.

3. Section 25 of Rule 127 expressly provides among other things that "the practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either personally or thru paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice."

4. It is highly unethical for an attorney to advertise his talents or skill as a merchant advertises his wares. Law is a profession and not a trade. The lawyer degrades himself and his profession who stoops to and adopts the practices of mercantilism by advertising his services or offering them to the public. As a member of the bar, he defiles the temple of justice with mercenary activities as the money-changers of old defiled the temple of Jehovah.

5. "The most worth and effective advertisement possible, even for a young lawyer, . . . is the establishment of a well-merited reputation for

professional capacity and fidelity to trust. This cannot be forced but must be the outcome of character and conduct." (Canon 27, Code of Ethics.)

6. In In re Tagorda, 53 Phil., the respondent attorney was suspended from the practice of law for the period of one month for advertising his services and soliciting work from the public by writing circular letters. That case, however, was more serious than this because there the solicitations were repeatedly made and were more elaborate and insistent.

7. Considering his plea for leniency and his promise not to repeat the misconduct, the Court is of the opinion and so decided that Bayot should be, as he hereby is, reprimanded.

Khan, Jr. v Simbillo (8/19/2003) Ponente: Justice Ynares-Santiago

D: the practice of law is not a business. It is a profession in which duty to public service and not money is the primary consideration. The duty to public service and to the administration of justice should be the primary

consideration of lawyers who must subordinate their personal interests or what they owe to themselves.

Petition filed for the Cause of Action: Administrative complaint for improper advertising and solicitation of legal services in violation of Rule 2.03 and Rule 3.01 of the Code for Professional Responsibility and Rule 138, Sec27 of Rules of Court Petition filed When the Case Reached S.C: Petition for Certiorari

Facts:

1. On the July 5, 2000 issue of Philippine Inquirer, there appeared a paid advertisement which reads: “Annulment of Marriage Specialist”

2. Ma. Theresa Espeleta, staff member of the Public Information Office of the S.C called up the number indicated and pretended to be an interested party.

3. Espeleta was able to talk to Mrs. Simbillo who claimed that her husband was an expert in handling annulment cases and can guarantee a court decision within 6 months. For such services, Atty. Simbillo would be charging P48k

4. Further research by the Public Information Office revealed that similar advertisements were published in the Manila Bulletin (August 2 and 6, 2000 issues) and the Philippine Star (August 5, 2000 issue)



5. Thus, Assistant Court Administrator Atty. Ismael Khan, Jr. filed an administrative case against Atty. Simbillo for improper advertising and solicitation of his legal services in violation of Rule 2.03 and Rule 3.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Rule 138, Sec. 27 of the Rules of Court.

6. In his Answer, Atty. Simbillo admitted acts alleged but argued that a) advertising and soliciting per se are not prohibited acts; b)that the rationale behind prohibition should be abandoned as such acts are not contrary to law, public policy and public order.

7. Case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for investigation, report and recommendation. IBP found that Atty. Simbillo was guilty and was ordered to be suspended from practice of law for 1 year with the warning that a repetition of similar acts would be dealt with more severely

8. Atty. Simbillo filed a motion to reconsider but was denied. Issue: WON decision of IBP was proper Held: Yes Ratio:

1. REPEATEDLY STRESSED: the practice of law is not a business. It is a profession in which duty to public service and not money is the primary consideration. The duty to public service and to the administration of justice should be the primary consideration of lawyers who must subordinate their personal interests or what they owe to themselves. A. The following elements distinguish 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 through 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 clients

2. CASE: Atty. Simbillo himself admitted that he committed the acts which were complained of

A. Though Atty. Simbillo begs for repentance and court’s indulgence, his subsequent acts of advertising his legal services again (8 months after filing his answer) in August 14, 2001 issue of the Buy and sell Free Ads Newspaper BELIES his contrition.

B. What adds gravity to Atty. Simbillo’s action was that his advertising himself as an “Annulment of Marriage Specialist.” He destroys the stability and sanctity of marriage as an institution. He in fact, encourages people to dissolve marriage bonds

3. RULE: Solicitation of legal business is not altogether proscribed. However, for solicitation to be proper, it must be compatible with the dignity of the legal profession. A. Use of simple signs stating the name(s) of lawyers is permissible B. Even the use of calling cards is now acceptable.

Ethics Digest

Documents

Transcript of Ethics Digest