Lee vs Tambago 544 SCRA 393 (2008) 8.

      The IBP Board of Governors adopted and

approved, with modifications, the
recommendation of the CBD and ruled that
FACTS: Atty. Tambago is suspended from the practice
1.      Complainant, Manuel L. Lee, charged of law for one year and his notarial
respondent, Atty. Regino B. Tambago, with commission is Revoked and Disqualified from
violation of Notarial Law and the Ethics of the reappointment as Notary Public for two years.
legal profession for notarizing a wil.
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Tambago acted
2.      The will was alleged to be spurious in negligently in exercising his duties as Notary
nature in containing forged signatures of his Public.
father, the decedent, Vicente Lee Sr. and two
other witnesses, which were also questioned RULING: No. Respondent, as notary public,
for the absence of notation of the Residence evidently failed in the performance of the
Certificates that are known to be a copy of elementary duties of his office. The Court
their respective voter's affidavit. finds that he acted very irresponsibly in
notarizing the will in question. Such
3.      In addition to such, the contested will was recklessness warrants the less severe
executed and acknowledged before punishment of suspension from the practice of
respondent on June 30, 1965 but bears a law. It is, as well, a sufficient basis for the
Residence Certificate by the Testator dated revocation of his commission and his
January 5, 1962, which was never submitted perpetual disqualification to be commissioned
for filing to the Archives Division of the as a notary public. 
Records Management and Archives Office of
the National Commission for Culture and Arts The Civil Code requires that a will must be
(NCAA). acknowledged before a notary public by the
testator and the witnesses. The importance of
4.      Respondent refuted that all allegations this requirement is highlighted by the fact that
were falsely given because he allegedly it was segregated from the other
exercised his duties as Notary Public with due requirements under Article 805 and embodied
care and with due regards to the provision of in a distinct and separate provision. 
existing law and had complied with
elementary formalities in the performance of An acknowledgment is the act of one who has
his duties and that the complaint was filed executed a deed in going before some
simply to harass him based on the result of a competent officer or court and declaring it to
criminal case against him filed by complainant be his act or deed. It involves an extra step
in the Ombudsman that did not prosper.  undertaken whereby the signatory actually
declares to the notary public that the same is
5.      However, he did not deny the contention of he intends it to be done.
non-filing a copy to the Archives Division of
NCAA.  A cursory examination of the acknowledgment
of the will in question shows that this
6.      In a resolution, the court referred the case particular requirement was neither strictly
to the IBP and the decision of which found nor substantially complied with.
respondent guilty of violations of pertinent
provisions of the old Notarial Law as found in For one, there was the conspicuous absence
the Administrative Code. The violation of a notation of the residence certificates
constituted an infringement of legal ethics, of the notarial witnesses Noynay and Grajo
particularly Canon 1 and Rule 1.01of the Code in the acknowledgment.
of Professional Responsibility (CPR).
Similarly, the notation of the testators old
7.      Thus, the investigating commissioner of the residence certificate in the same
IBP Commission on Bar Discipline acknowledgment was a clear breach of the
recommended the suspension of respondent law. These omissions by respondent
for a period of three months. invalidated the will.
Notaries public must observe with utmost complaint was filed simply to harass him
care and utmost fidelity the basic based on the result of a criminal case against
requirements in the performance of their him in the Ombudsman that did not prosper.
duties, otherwise, the confidence of the public However, he did not deny the contention of
in the integrity of notarized deeds will be non-filing a copy to the Archives Division of
undermined. NCAA. In resolution, the court referred the
case to the IBP and the decision of which was
Defects in the observance of the solemnities affirmed with modification against the
prescribed by law render the entire will respondent and in favor of the complainant.
invalid. This carelessness cannot be taken
lightly in view of the importance and delicate Issue: Did Atty. Regino B. Tambago
nature of a will, considering that the testator committed a violation in Notarial Law and the
and the witnesses, as in this case, are no Ethics of Legal Profession for notarizing a
longer alive to identify the instrument and to spurious last will and testament?
confirm its contents. Accordingly, respondent
must be held accountable for his acts. The Held: Yes. As per Supreme Court, Atty.
validity of the will was seriously compromised Regino B. Tambago is guilty of professional
as a consequence of his breach of duty.  misconduct as he violated the Lawyer's Oath,
   Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, Canon 1 and
Rule 1.01nof the Code of Professional
These gross violations of the law also made Responsibility, Article 806 of the Civil Code
respondent liable for violation of his oath as a and provision of the Notarial Law. Thus, Atty.
lawyer and constituted transgressions of Tambago is suspended from the practice of
Section 20 (a), Rule 138 of the Rules of law for one year and his Notarial commission
Court and Canon 1 and Rule 1.01of the CPR. revoked. In addition, because he has not lived
up to the trustworthiness expected of him as
a notary public and as an officer of the court,
Lee vs Tambago, 544 SCRA 393, February 12, he is perpetually disqualified from
2008 reappointments as a Notary Public.
digested by Ms. Charo L. Bayani
Roberto Bernardino vs. Atty. Victor Rey
Facts: Complainant, Manuel L. Lee, charged Santos
respondent, Atty. Regino B. Tambago, with A.C. No. 10583 [Formerly CBD 09-2555],
violation of Notarial Law and the Ethics of the February 18, 2015
legal profession for notarizing a will that is Violation of Canon 10, Rule 10.01 and Canon
alleged to be spurious in nature in containing 15, Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional
forged signatures of his father, the decedent, Responsibility.
Vicente Lee Sr. and two other witnesses, FACTS:
which were also questioned for the unnotated Atty. Santos drafted Mariano Turla’s Affidavit
Residence Certificates that are known to be a of Self-Adjudication which states that Mariano
copy of their respective voter's affidavit. In Turla is the sole heir of Rufina Turla knowing
addition to such, the contested will was this to be false. Mariano and Rufina Turla had
executed and acknowledged before a daughter.
respondent on June 30, 1965 but bears a Years later Atty. Santos, on behalf of Marilu
Residence Certificate by the Testator dated Turla, daughter of Rufina and Mariano Turla,
January 5, 1962, which was never submitted filed a Complaintfor sum of money with prayer
for filing to the Archives Division of the for Writ of Preliminary Injunction and
Records Management and Archives Office of temporary restraining order against the
the National Commission for Culture and Arts complainant, Bernardino. The Complaint
(NCAA). Respondent, on the other hand, alleged that Marilu Turla is an heir of Mariano
claimed that all allegations are falsely given Turla, which allegedly contradicts the Affidavit
because he allegedly exercised his duties as of Self-Adjudication that Atty. Santos drafted.
Notary Public with due care and with due
regards to the provision of existing law and
had complied with elementary formalities in
the performance of his duties and that the
ISSUE:
WON Atty. Santos represented clients with ATTY. JOSE MANGASER CARINGAL v.
conflicting interests thereby violating the Code ATTY. VICTOR REY SANTOS
of Professional Responsibility. A.C. NO. 10584, 18 February 2015,
RULING: SECOND DIVISION (Leonon, J.)
YES. Respondent violated Canon 15, Rule
15.03. There is conflict of interest when a
lawyer represents inconsistent interests of two DOCTRINE OF THE CASE
or more opposing parties. The test is “whether
or not in behalf of one client, it is the lawyer’s A lawyer owes candor, fairness, and good
duty to fight for an issue or claim, but it is his faith to the court (Canon 10). A lawyer shall
duty to oppose it for the other client. In brief, not do any falsehood, nor consent to the
if he argues for one client, this argument will doing of any in Court; nor shall he mislead, or
be opposed by him when he argues for the allow the Court to be misled by any artifice
other client.” This rule covers not only cases (Rule 10.01). A lawyer shall observe candor,
in which confidential communications have fairness, and loyalty in all his dealings and
been confided, but also those in which no transactions with his clients (Canon 15). A
confidence has been bestowed or will be used. lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests
Also, there is conflict of interests if the except by written consent of all concerned
acceptance of the new retainer will require the given after a full disclosure of the facts
attorney to perform an act which will (Canon 15.03).
injuriously affect his first client in any matter
in which he represents him and also whether FACTS
he will be called upon in his new relation to
use against his first client any knowledge In the first administrative case,
acquired through their connection. Another complainant Roberto C. Bernardino
test of the inconsistency of interests is (Bernardino) filed a complaint against Atty.
whether the acceptance of a new relation will Victor Rey Santos (Atty. Santos) before the
prevent an attorney from the full discharge of Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) praying
his duty of undivided fidelity and loyalty to his for the latter’s investigation and subjection to
client or invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or disciplinary action. It was alleged by
double dealing in the performance thereof. Bernardino that Atty. Santos falsified the
However, Rule 15.03 provides for an death certificate of his Aunt Rufina—making it
exception, specifically, “by written consent of appear that Rufina died in 1992 when it fact
all concerned given after a full disclosure of she died in 1990. Atty. Santos apparently
the facts.” The respondent failed to present used such falsified document to support the
evidence that he obtained the written consent Affidavit of Self-Adjudication executed by the
of Mariano Turla and Marilu Turla. husband of Rufina (Mariano). Years later,
Atty. Santos, on behalf the daughter of Rufina
He also violated Canon 10, Rule 10.01 of the and Mariano (Marilu), filed a Complaint for
Code of Professional Responsibility by failing sum of money with prayer for a Writ of
to thwart his client Mariano Turla from filing Preliminary Injunction and TRO against
the Affidavit of Adjudication despite his Bernardino, alleging that Marilu is an heir of
knowledge of the existence of Marilu Turla as Mariano, which allegedly contradicts the
a possible heir to the estate of Rufina Turla. Affidavit of Self-Adjudication that Atty. Santos
As officers of the court, lawyers have the duty drafted. Thus, Atty. Santos represented
to uphold the rule of law. The respondent clients with conflicting interests.
failed to uphold his obligation as a member of
the bar to be the stewards of justice and Another complaint was filed against
protectors of what is just, legal and proper. Atty. Santos by Atty. Jose Mangaser Caringal
(Atty. Caringal). Similar to the earlier
complaint, the latter alleged that the former
ROBERT BERNARDIO v. ATTY. VICTOR represented clients with conflicting interests.
REY SANTOS The same alleged that in representing Marilu,
A.C. NO. 10583, 18 February 2015, Atty. Santos would necessarily go against the
SECOND DIVISION (Leonon, J.) claims of Mariano. Because of this, Atty.
 Santos was allegedly violating the so-called With full knowledge that Rufina had
“Dead Man’s Statute” because he would be another heir, he acceded to Mariano’s request
utilizing information or matters of fact to prepare the Affidavit of Self-Adjudication.
occurring before the death of his deceased
client. Similarly, he would be unscrupulously Applying the test to determine whether
utilizing information acquired during his conflict of interest exists, respondent would
professional relation with his said client that necessarily refute Mariano’s claim that he is
would constitute a breach of trust or of Rufina’s sole heir when he agreed to represent
privileged communication. It was also alleged Marilu. Worse, he knew that Mariano was not
that he engaged in forum-shopping; that he the only heir. As stated in the Report of the
violated Canon 10 and Rule 10.01 of the Code Commission on Bar Discipline:
of Professional Responsibility (Code) because
he drafted an affidavit which states that Worse, the respondent himself on the witness
Mariano is the sole heir of Rufina when he stand during his April 14, 2009 testimony in
knew this to be false. Moreover, Atty. Santos the Civil Case for Sum of Money with Prayer of
allegedly converted funds belonging to the Writ of Preliminary Injunction and Temporary
heirs of Mariano for his own benefit. The funds Restraining Order docketed as Civil Case No.
involved were rental income from Mariano’s 09-269 filed with the RTC of Makati City
properties that were supposed to be admitted as follows: “I called the attention of
distributed to the heirs. Instead, Atty. Santos Mr. Mariano Turla. I . . . asked him what
received the rental income. about Lulu she is entitled to a share of
properties and he told me, ‘Ako na ang bahala
ISSUE: kay Lulu, hindi ko pababayaan yan.’ So he
asked me to proceed with the Affidavit of
1. Did Atty. Santos violate the above-cited Adjudication wherein he claimed the whole
canons and rules from the Code? properties for himself.”
2. Does the IBP have the authority to impose
sanctions on lawyers? This very admission proves that the
respondent was privy to Marilu’s standing as a
RULING: legal and rightful heir to Rufina Turla’s estate.

1. YES. He violated Canon 10, Rule 10.01, Canon However, Rule 15.03 provides for an
15, and Rule 15.03. exception, specifically, “by written consent of
all concerned given after a full disclosure of
The Commission, by virtue of the doctrine the facts.” Respondent had the duty to inform
res ipsa loquitor, finds that the respondent’s Mariano and Marilu that there is a conflict of
act of failing to thwart his client Mariano from interest and to obtain their written consent.
filing the Affidavit of Adjudication despite his Mariano died on February 5, 2009, while
knowledge of the existence of Marilu as a respondent represented Marilu in March 2009.
possible heir to the estate of Rufina, the It is understandable why respondent was
respondent failed to uphold his obligation as a unable to obtain Mariano’s consent. Still,
member of the bar to be the stewards of respondent did not present evidence showing
justice and protectors of what is just, legal that he disclosed to Marilu that he previously
and proper. Thus in failing to do his duty and represented Mariano and assisted him in
acting dishonestly, not only was he in executing the Affidavit of Self-Adjudication.
contravention of the Lawyer’s Oath but was Thus, the allegation of conflict of interest
also in violation of Canon 10, Rule 10.01 of against respondent was sufficiently proven.
the Code of Professional Responsibility.
As officers of the court, lawyers have the 2. NO. The authority to discipline members of
duty to uphold the rule of law. In doing so, the Bar is vested in the Supreme Court under
lawyers are expected to be honest in all their the 1987 Constitution.
dealings. Unfortunately, respondent was far
from being honest. Art. 8, Sec. 5 of the 1987 Constitution
states that the Supreme Court has the power
to promulgate rules concerning the protection
and enforcement of constitutional rights,
pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts, vendors, while the name of Celino Paran, Jr.
the admission to the practice of law, the (Paran) appeared as the vendee.
integrated bar, and legal assistance to the - Jimmy and Juanita claimed that the Deed of
underprivileged. Absolute Sale was falsified.  They alleged that
they did not sign the Deed of Absolute Sale. 
The authority to discipline lawyers stems Moreover, they did not sign it before Atty.
from the Court’s constitutional mandate to Cefra. This is contrary to Atty. Cefra’s
regulate admission to the practice of law, acknowledgment over the document.
which includes as well authority to regulate - In addition to the forgery of their signatures,
the practice itself of law. Quite apart from this Jimmy and Juanita stated that it was
constitutional mandate, the disciplinary physically impossible for their brothers and
authority of the Supreme Court over members sister, Johnny, Alfonso, and Benita, to sign
of the Bar is an inherent power incidental to the Deed of Absolute Sale.  Johnny and Benita
the proper administration of justice and were in the United States on the day the Deed
essential to an orderly discharge of judicial of Absolute Sale was executed, while Alfonso
functions. The disciplinary authority of the was in Cavite.
Court over members of the Bar is but - On August 6, 2001, Jimmy and Juanita
corollary to the Court’s exclusive power of initiated a disciplinary action by filing a
admission to the Bar. A lawyer is not merely a Complaint to the SC questioning the propriety
professional but also an officer of the court of Atty. Cefra’s conduct as lawyer and notary
and as such, he is called upon to share in the public.
task and responsibility of dispensing justice - The SC required Atty. Cefra to comment on
and resolving disputes in society. This was the administrative complaint.  Atty. Cefra filed
restated in Sec. 27 of Rule 138—Attorneys multiple Motions for Extension of Time.
and Admission to the Bar. Despite the allowance for extension of time,
Atty. Cefra did not comply with this court’s
The Resolutions of the Integrated Bar of order to file a Comment.  Atty. Cefra’s
the Philippines are, at best, recommendatory, continued refusal to file his Comment caused
and its findings and recommendations should the court to order his arrest and commitment.
not be equated with Decisions and Resolutions ISSUE/S:
rendered by this court. 1) Whether Atty. Cefra’s act in
notarizing the Deed of Sale constitutes a
violation of the 2004 Rules on Notarial
Practice
A.C. No. 5482, February 10, 2015
JIMMY ANUDON AND JUANITA 2) Whether Atty. Cefra is guilty of
ANUDON, Complainants,  violating the Code of Professional
v.  Responsibility in ignoring the court’s
ATTY. ARTURO B. CEFRA order directing him to comment on the
Whoever acts as Notary Public must ensure complaint against him
that the parties executing the document be
present.  Otherwise, their participation with RULING:
respect to the document cannot be - The 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice
acknowledged.  Notarization of a document in reiterates that acknowledgments require the
the absence of the parties is a breach of duty. affiant to appear in person before the notary
FACTS: public. 
- Complainants and Jimmy’s brothers and - The rules require the notary public to assess
sister co-own a 4,446-square-meter parcel of whether the person executing the document
land located in Sison, Pangasinan. voluntarily affixes his or her signature. 
- On August 12, 1998, Atty. Cefra notarized a Without physical presence, the notary public
Deed of Absolute Sale over the land owned by will not be able to properly execute his or her
Jimmy and his siblings.  The names of Johnny duty under the law. 
Anudon (Johnny), Alfonso Anudon (Alfonso), - Notarization is the act that ensures the
Benita Anudon-Esguerra (Benita), and public that the provisions in the document
complainants Jimmy and Juanita appeared as express the true agreement between the
parties.  Transgressing the rules on notarial
 practice sacrifices the integrity of notarized Canons in the Code of Professional
documents.  It is the notary public who Responsibility.
assures that the parties appearing in the
document are the same parties who executed
it.  This cannot be achieved if the parties are OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR
not physically present before the notary public
acknowledging the document. vs
- Atty. Cefra claims that Jimmy and JUDGE ELIZA B. YU, METROPOLITAN
Juanita wanted to sell their land.  Even if this
TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 47, PASAY CITY
is true, Jimmy and Juanita, as vendors, were
not able to review the document given for
notarization.  The Deed of Absolute Sale was [ AM No. MTJ-12-1813, Nov 22, 2016 ]
brought to Atty. Cefra by Paran’s
representatives, who merely informed Atty. FACTS:
Cefra that the vendors signed the document. 
Atty. Cefra should have exercised vigilance
and not just relied on the representations of Judge Eliza Yu’s noncompliance with A.O. No.
the vendee. 19-2011, refusal to honor the appointments of
court personnel, issuance of a show-
Aside from Atty. Cefra’s violation of his duty
as a notary public, Atty. Cefra is also guilty of cause order against fellow Judges and court
violating Canon 1 of the Code of Professional personnel, disrespectful attitude towards SC
Responsibility.  This canon requires “[a]
lawyer [to] uphold the Constitution, obey the officers and offices, order of presentation of
laws of the land and promote respect for law ex parte evidence before the OCA who was
and legal processes.”  He contumaciously
not a member of the Bar, refusal to sign the
delayed compliance with the court’s order to
file a Comment.  As early as September 19, application for leave of absence, inappropriate
2001, this court already required Atty. Cefra messages to her fellow Judge, authorization to
to comment on the Complaint lodged against
allow criminal proceedings without the actual
him.  Atty. Cefra did not comply with this
order until he was arrested by the National participation of the public prosecutor, her
Bureau of Investigation.  manner of disposing cases, and other
- Atty. Cefra only filed his Comment on allegations of oppressions resulted to the
January 15, 2008, more than seven years
several complaints filed against her.
after this court’s order.  Atty. Cefra’s actions
show utter disrespect for legal processes.
ISSUE:
WHEREFORE, this court finds respondent
Atty. Arturo B. Cefra GUILTY of notarizing W/N disbarment should also be imposed on
the Deed of Absolute Sale dated August the respondent.
12, 1998 in the absence of the affiants,
as well as failure to comply with an order RULING:
from this court.  Accordingly, this The foregoing findings may already warrant
court SUSPENDS him from the practice of
law for two (2) years, REVOKES his Judge Yu's disbarment.
incumbent notarial commission, if any,
and PERPETUALLY DISQUALIFIES him
from being commissioned as a notary A.M. No. 02-9-02-SC, dated September 17,
public.  Respondent is also STERNLY 2002 relevantly states:
WARNED that more severe penalties will
be imposed for any further breach of the Some administrative cases against Justices of
the Court of Appeals and the Sandiganbayan;
judges of regular and special courts; and The object of disbarment is not so much to
court officials who are lawyers are based on punish the attorney herself as it is to
grounds which are likewise grounds for the safeguard the administration of justice, the
disciplinary action of members of the Bar for courts and the public from the misconduct of
violation of the Lawyer's Oath, the Code of officers of the court. Also, disbarment seeks
Professional Responsibility, and the Canons of to remove from the Law Profession attorneys
Professional Ethics, or for such other forms of who have disregarded their Lawyer's Oath and
breaches of conduct that have been thereby proved themselves unfit to continue
traditionally recognized as grounds for the discharging the trust and respect given to
discipline of lawyers. them as members of the Bar.

In any of the foregoing instances, the The administrative charges against

administrative case shall also be respondent Judge Yu based on grounds that
considered a disciplinary action against were also grounds for disciplinary actions
the respondent Justice, judge or court against members of the Bar could easily be
official concerned as a member of the treated as justifiable disciplinary initiatives
Bar. The respondent may forthwith be against her as a member of the Bar. This
required to comment on the complaint treatment is explained by the fact that her
and show cause why he should not also membership in the Bar was an integral aspect
be suspended, disbarred or otherwise of her qualification for judgeship. Also, her
disciplinarily sanctioned aa member of moral and actual unfitness to remain as a
the Bar. Judgment in both respects may Judge, as found in these cases, reflected her
be incorporated in one decision or indelible unfitness to remain as a member of
resolution. the Bar. At the very least, a Judge like her
who disobeyed the basic rules of judicial
Under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of conduct should not remain as a member of
Court, an attorney may be disbarred on the the Bar because she had thereby also violated
ground of gross misconduct and willful her Lawyer's Oath.
disobedience of any lawful order of a
superior court. Given her wanton defiance of Indeed, respondent Judge Yu's violation of the
the Court's own directives, her open fundamental tenets of judicial conduct
disrespect towards her fellow judges, her embodied in the New Code of Judicial Conduct
blatant abuse of the powers appurtenant to for the Philippine Judiciary would constitute a
her judicial office, and her penchant for breach of the following canons: 1, 6, and 11.
threatening the defenseless with legal actions The Court does not take lightly the
to make them submit to her will, we should ramifications of Judge Yu's misbehavior and
also be imposing the penalty of disbarment. misconduct as a judicial officer. By penalizing
her with the supreme penalty of dismissal
from the service, she should not anymore be as attorneys should be competent, honorable
allowed to remain a member of the Law and reliable to enable the courts and the
Profession. clients they serve to rightly repose their
confidence in them.
However, this rule of fusing the dismissal
of a Judge with disbarment does not in
PHILIPPINE INVESTMENT ONE (SPV-
any way dispense with or set aside the
AMC), INC. v. ATTY. AURELIO JESUS V.
respondent's right to due process. As
LOMEDA
such, her disbarment as an offshoot of
A.C. No. 11351, August 14, 2019
A.M. No. 02-9-02-SC without requiring
PER CURIAM:
her to comment on the disbarment would
be violative of her right to due process.
DOCTRINE:
To accord due process to her, therefore,
Of all classes and professions, the
she should first be afforded the
lawyer is most sacredly bound to uphold
opportunity to defend her professional
the laws. For a lawyer to override the
standing as a lawyer before the Court
laws by committing falsity, is unfaithful
would determine whether or not to
to his office and sets a detrimental
disbar her.
example to the society. Thus, any resort
Note:
to falsehood or deception evinces an
Judge Eliza B. Yu filed a Motion for
unworthiness to continue enjoying the
Reconsideration with Explanation for the
privilege to practice law and highlights
Show Cause Order  filed vis-a-vis the decision
the unfitness to remain a member of the
promulgated on November 22, 2016.
law profession.
On March 14, 2017, SC ruled:
Accordingly, gross misconduct, violation of the
RULING:
Lawyer's Oath, and willful disobedience of any
Yes, there is. Time and again, this
lawful order by the Court constitute grounds
Court has ruled that any misconduct or
to disbar an attorney. In the respondent's
wrongdoing of a lawyer, indicating unfitness
case, she was herein found to have committed
for the profession justifies disciplinary action
all of these grounds for disbarment,
because good character is an essential and
warranting her immediate disbarment as a
continuing qualification for the practice of law.
consequence.
Further, the lawyer's oath enjoins every
We deem it worthwhile to remind that the
lawyer not only to obey the laws of the land
penalty of disbarment being hereby imposed
but also to refrain from doing any falsehood in
does not equate to stripping the respondent of
or out of court. In this case, respondent
the source of her livelihood. Disbarment is
patently transgressed the lawyer's oath and
intended to protect the administration of
the CPR by knowingly misrepresenting himself
justice by ensuring that those taking part in it
as the corporate secretary of Big "N", Eventually, respondent allegedly sought to
litigate as counsel for the opposing parties who
executing a Secretary's Certificate containing
are occupants in the lot owned by
false statements, and knowingly allowing complainant's family.
himself to be used in perpetrating fraud to the
Suffice to state that notarization is different
prejudice of Big "N", which likewise resulted from representation.
to the prejudice of herein complainant.
A notary public simply performs the notarial
acts authorized by the Rules on Notarial
Practice, namely, acknowledgments, oaths and
What is more, respondent's culpability affirmations, jurats, signature witnessings, and
is further aggravated by the fact that, when copy certifications.

he was still serving in the Judiciary as a Legal representation, on the other hand, refers
Judge, he was severely sanctioned by the to the act of assisting a party as counsel in a
court action.
Court in A.M. No. MTJ-90-400 entitled Moroño
v. Judge Lomeda. Indeed, by his acts, As regards complainant's serious accusations
against respondent of conniving with Judge
respondent proved himself to be what a Asis and conspiring with the latter to render
lawyer should not be. Thus, he shall be judgments favorable to respondent's clients,
such are bare allegations, without any proof.
disbarred. Complainant simply narrated the outcomes of
MALABED VS. DELA PEÑA , A.C. No. the proceedings in Civil Case Nos. 1017, 860
7594,  and 973, which were filed by the Estrellers in
the MCTC and reversed by the RTC.
Complainant also alleged that respondent was
guilty of conflict of interest when he Complainant conveniently failed to present any
represented the occupants of the lot owned by concrete evidence proving her grave
complainant's family, who previously donated a accusation of conspiracy between respondent
parcel of land to the Roman Catholic Church, and Judge Asis. Moreover, charges of bias and
which deed of donation respondent notarized. partiality on the part of the presiding judge
should be filed against the judge, and not
against the counsel allegedly favored by the
Complainant further accused respondent of
judge.
conniving with Regional Trial Court (RTC),
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

Naval, Biliran, Branch 16 Judge Enrique C.

Asis, who was his former client in an
administrative case, to rule in his clients' favor.

Complainant narrated the outcomes in the

"cases of Estrellers which were filed in the
[Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC)] and
reversed by the RTC, in the exercise of its
appellate jurisdiction to favor respondent x x x
and his client[s] x x x."

Conflict of interest

Complainant accuses respondent of conflict of

interest when the latter allegedly notarized a
deed of donation of a parcel of land executed
by complainant's family in favor of the Roman
Catholic Church.
  Atty. De La Pena was found guilty for gross
MALABED VS. DELA PEÑA , A.C. No. 7594, misconduct for misrepresenting that he
February 9, 2016 submitted certificate to file action, using foul
FACTS:
language in pleadings and defying the
Adelpha E. Malabed filed an
administrative complaint charging Atty. accessory penalty for his dismissal as judge.
Meljohn De La Peña with dishonesty and grave  Gross misconduct is defined as improper or
misconduct for misrepresenting that he filed a wring conduct, the transgression of some
Certificate to File Action which turns out to be established and definite rule of action, a
for a different complaint, failure to furnish the forbidden act, a dereliction of duty, willful in
opposing counsel with a copy of free patent character, and implies a wrongful intent and
title, conflict of interest by representing the
not a mere error in judgment. It is a ground
occupants of the lot owned by the
complainant’s family in a case when he for disbarment and suspension. The
previously notarized a deed of donation by the respondent’s repeated and numerous
complainant’s family, conniving with an RTC misconducts convinced the court to increase
judge to rule in his client’s favor, and lastly, his suspension to 2 years.
for violation of the accessory penalty of
perpetual disqualification from reemployment
in any government office for his dismissal as a
judge. The IBP also noted his use of foul
language against the complainant and her
counsel in his pleadings. The respondent
denied the charges against him. REBECCA PALM V. ATTY. FELIPE ILEDAN
The IBP ruled that Atty. De La Peña is JR.
guilty of dishonesty and grave misconduct and A.C. No. 8242| October 2, 2009| Carpio. J.
recommended a one year suspension from the
practice of law. The case before the Court is a disbarment
ISSUES: proceeding filed by Rebecca J. Palm
1. Whether or not misrepresenting to file a (complainant) against Atty. Felipe Iledan, Jr.
Certificate to file action is an act of dishonesty (respondent) for revealing information
and grave misconduct. obtained in the course of an attorney-client
relationship and for representing an interest
2. Whether or not Atty. De La Pena is guilty of
which conflicted with that of his former client,
dishonesty and grave misconduct.
Comtech Worldwide Solutions Philippines, Inc.
(Comtech)
RULING:
1. Yes, misrepresenting to file a Certificate to file
FACTS
action is an act of dishonesty and grave
misconduct. From February 2003 to November 2003,
 Certificate to file Action issued by the Lupon respondent served as Comtech’s (where
Tagapamayapa is a pre-condition for filing a petitioner is the President) retained corporate
complaint in court. It is an evidence for the counsel.
non-conciliation between the parties in the
In a meeting, respondent suggested that
barangay and a case filed without compliance
Comtech amend its corporate by-laws to allow
with the condition may be dismissed. The participation during board meetings, through
respondent not only failed to submit such but teleconference, of members of the Board of
misrepresented that he filed a certificate to Directors who were outside the Philippines.
file action when there was none when he
submitted a certificate for a different Prior to the completion of the amendments of
complaint. the corporate by-laws, complainant became
uncomfortable with the close relationship
2. Yes, Atty. De La Pena is guilty of dishonesty
between respondent and Elda Soledad
and grave misconduct. (Soledad), a former officer and director of
Comtech, who resigned and who was
suspected of releasing unauthorized records to show that a delegation was made
disbursements of corporate funds. Thus, in the present case.
Comtech decided to terminate its retainer Further, whenever any amendment or
agreement with respondent effective adoption of new by-laws is made, copies of
November 2003. the amendments or the new by-laws are filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission
Comtech filed a complaint for Estafa against (SEC) and attached to the original articles of
Soledad before the Makati Prosecutors Office. incorporation and by-laws. The documents are
In the proceedings before the City Prosecution public records and could not be considered
Office of Makati, respondent appeared as confidential.
Soledads counsel. It is settled that the mere relation of
attorney and client does not raise a
Respondent alleged that there was no conflict presumption of confidentiality. The client
of interest when he represented Soledad in must intend the communication to be
the case for Estafa filed by Comtech. He confidential.
alleged that Soledad was already a client Since the proposed amendments must be
before he became a consultant for Comtech. approved by at least a majority of the
He alleged that the criminal case was not stockholders, and copies of the amended by-
related to or connected with the limited laws must be filed with the SEC, the
procedural queries he handled with Comtech. information could not have been intended to
be confidential. Thus, the disclosure made by
The IBPs Report and Recommendation: respondent during the stockholders meeting
Respondent guilty of violation of Canon 211 of could not be considered a violation of his
the Code of Professional Responsibility and of clients secrets and confidence within the
representing interest in conflict with that of contemplation of Canon 21 of the Code of
Comtech as his former client and Professional Responsibility.
recommended that respondent be suspended
from the practice of law for one year, We find no conflict of interest when
respondent represented Soledad in a case
ISSUE(S) filed by Comtech. The case where respondent
represents Soledad is an Estafa case filed by
W/N respondent is guilty of violation of the Comtech against its former officer. There was
Confidentiality nothing in the records that would show that
of Lawyer-Client Relationship – NO respondent used against Comtech any
confidential information acquired while he was
RULING still Comtechs retained counsel.

Although the information about the necessity Further, respondent made the representation
to amend the corporate by-laws may have after the termination of his retainer
been given to respondent, it could not be agreement with Comtech. A lawyer’s
considered a confidential information. immutable duty to a former client does not
cover transactions that occurred beyond the
The amendment, repeal or adoption of new lawyers employment with the client. The
by-laws may be effected by the board of intent of the law is to impose upon the lawyer
directors or trustees, by a majority vote the duty to protect the clients interests only
thereof, and the owners of at least a majority on matters that he previously handled for the
of the outstanding capital stock, or at least a former client and not for matters that arose
majority of members of a non-stock after the lawyer-client relationship has
corporation. terminated.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION
It means the stockholders are aware of the WHEREFORE, we DISMISS the complaint
proposed amendments to the by-laws. While against Atty. Felipe Iledan, Jr. for lack of
the power may be delegated to the board of merit.
directors or trustees, there is nothing in the
1
Canon 21. A lawyer shall preserve the confidence and secrets of his client
Castro-Justo v Galing
even after the attorney-client relationship is terminated.
 The prohibition attaches from the moment the
FACTS: attorney-client relationship is established and
Complainant Justo alleged that she extends beyond the duration of the
engaged the services of respondent Atty. professional relationship.
Galing in connection with dishonored checks
issued by Manila City Councilor Arlene W. Koa. Under Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of the
After she paid his professional fees, the Code of Professional Responsibility, " a lawyer
respondent drafted and sent a letter to Ms. shall not represent conflicting interests except
Koa demanding payment of the checks. On by written consent of all concerned given after
July 10, 2003, complainant filed a criminal a full disclosure of the facts."
complaint against Ms. Koa for estafa and
violation of BP 22 before the Office of the City Respondent was therefore bound to refrain
Prosecutor of Manila. On August 8, 2003, from representing parties with conflicting
respondent appeared as counsel for Ms. Koa interests in a controversy. By doing so,
before the prosecutor of Manila. without showing any proof that he had
obtained the written consent of the conflicting
Complainant submits that by parties, respondent should be sanctioned.
representing conflicting interests, respondent
violated the Code of Professional There is conflict of interest when a
Responsibility. Respondent denied the lawyer represents inconsistent interests of two
allegations against him. He admitted that he or more opposing parties. The test is ‘whether
drafted a demand letter for complainant but or not in behalf of one client, it is the lawyer’s
argued that it was made only in deference to duty to fight for an issue or claim, but it is his
their long standing friendship and not by duty to oppose it for the other client. In brief,
reason of a professional engagement as if he argues for one client, this argument will
professed by complainant. He denied receiving be opposed by him when he argues for the
any professional fee for the services he other client.’ Also, there is conflict of interests
rendered. It was allegedly their understanding if the acceptance of the new retainer will
that complainant would have to retain the require the attorney to perform an act which
services of another lawyer. will injuriously affect his first client in any
matter in which he represents him and also
ISSUE: whether he will be called upon in his new
Whether or not respondent is guilty of relation to use against his first client any
violating Canon 15, Rule 15.03 of the Code of knowledge acquired through their connection.
Professional Responsibility by representing Another test of the inconsistency of interests
conflicting interests is whether the acceptance of a new relation
will prevent an attorney from the full
HELD: discharge of his duty of undivided fidelity and
loyalty to his client or invite suspicion of
Yes. A lawyer-client relationship can exist unfaithfulness or double dealing in the
notwithstanding the close friendship between performance thereof.
complainant and respondent. The relationship
was established the moment complainant
sought legal advice from respondent
regarding the dishonored checks. By drafting
the demand letter respondent further affirmed
such relationship.
JOSEFINA M. ANIÑON, COMPLAINANT,
The non-payment of professional fee will not VS. ATTY. CLEMENCIO SABITSANA, JR.,
exculpate respondent from liability. RESPONDENT.

Absence of monetary consideration does not Facts:

exempt lawyers from complying with the Josefina M. Aniñon (complainant) had
prohibition against pursuing cases with previously engaged the legal services of Atty.
conflicting interests. Sabitsana in the preparation and execution in
her favor of a Deed of Sale over a parcel of
land owned by her late common-law husband, the client’s most confidential information to
Brigido Caneja, Jr. his/her lawyer for an unhampered exchange
of information between them.
Atty. Sabitsana allegedly violated her
confidence when he subsequently filed a civil Needless to state, a client can only entrust
case against her for the annulment of the confidential information to his/her lawyer
Deed of Sale in behalf of Zenaida L. Cañete, based on an expectation from the lawyer of
the legal wife of Brigido Caneja, Jr. utmost secrecy and discretion; the lawyer, for
The complainant accused Atty. Sabitsana of his part, is duty-bound to observe candor,
using the confidential information he obtained fairness and loyalty in all dealings and
from her in filing the civil case. transactions with the client.

Atty. Sabitsana admitted having advised the Part of the lawyer’s duty in this regard is to
complainant in the preparation and execution avoid representing conflicting interests, a
of the Deed of Sale. However, he denied matter covered by Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of
having received any confidential information. the Code of Professional Responsibility

Atty. Sabitsana asserted that the present

disbarment complaint was instigated by one Jurisprudence has provided three tests in
Atty. Gabino Velasquez, Jr., the notary of the determining whether there is a violation of
disbarment complaint who lost a court case Rule 15. 03 against representing conflicting
against him (Atty. Sabitsana) and had interests is present in a given case.
instigated the complaint for this reason.
One test is whether a lawyer is duty-bound to
In a resolution dated February 27, 2004, the fight for an issue or claim in behalf of one
IBP Board of Governors resolved to adopt and client and, at the same time, to oppose that
approve the Report and Recommendation of claim for the other client. Thus, if a lawyer’s
the IBP Commissioner after finding it to be argument for one client has to be opposed by
fully supported by the evidence on record and that same lawyer in arguing for the other
Respondent was suspended from the practice client, there is a violation of the rule.
of law for a period of one year.
Another test of inconsistency of interests is
Atty. Sabitsana moved to reconsider the whether the acceptance of a new relation
above resolution, but the IBP Board of would prevent the full discharge of the
Governors denied his motion. lawyer’s duty of undivided fidelity and loyalty
to the client or invite suspicion of
The Issue unfaithfulness or double-dealing in the
Whether Atty. Sabitsana is guilty of performance of that duty.
misconduct for representing conflicting
interests. Still another test is whether the lawyer would
be called upon in the new relation to use
against a former client any confidential
The Court’s Ruling information acquired through their connection
or previous employment
The SC agreed with the findings and
recommendations of the IBP Commissioner On the basis of the attendant facts of the
and the IBP Board of Governors. case, substantial evidence proved to support
Atty. Sabitsana’s violation of the above rule:
The SC rules that the relationship between a
lawyer and his/her client should ideally be first, he filed a case against the complainant
imbued with the highest level of trust and in behalf of Zenaida Cañete;
confidence.
second, he impleaded the complainant as the
This is the standard of confidentiality that defendant in the case; and
must prevail to promote a full disclosure of
third, the case he filed was for the annulment
of the Deed of Sale that he had previously
prepared and executed for the complainant.

By his acts, not only did Atty. Sabitsana agree

to represent one client against another client
in the same action;

he also accepted a new engagement that

entailed him to contend and oppose the
interest of his other client in a property in
which his legal services had been previously
retained.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court

resolves to ADOPT the findings and
recommendations of the Commission on Bar
Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines. Atty. Clemencio C. Sabitsana, Jr.
is found GUILTY of misconduct for
representing conflicting interests in violation
of Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. He is hereby
SUSPENDED for one (1) year from the
practice of law.
 to bring a lawsuit, except in rare cases where ties of
In re Luis B. TAGORDA  blood, relationship or trust make it his duty to do
so. 
March 23, 1929 Tagorda’s liability is however mitigated by the fact
that he is a young inexperienced lawyer and that he
was unaware of the impropriety of his acts. So
FACTS  instead of being disbarred, he was suspended from
In 1928, Luis Tagorda was a provincial board the practice of law for a month. 
member of Isabela. He admits that during his
campaign, he made use of a card written in Spanish DECISION 
and Ilocano which, in translation means that he is a Respondent Luis B. Tagorda be and is hereby
lawyer and a notary public; and that as a notary suspended from the practice as an attorney-at-law
public he can do notarial acts such as execution of for the period of one month from April 1, 1929.
deeds of sale, can renew lost documents, and etc.;
that as a lawyer, he can help clients collect debts;
that he offers free consultation; and that he is
willing to serve the poor. The respondent further FACTS:The respondent Atty. Luis Tagorda, a
admits that he is the author of a letter addressed to member of the provincial board of Isabela, admits
a lieutenant of barrio in his home municipality
advising the latter that even though he was elected that in the last general elections he made use of a
as a provincial board member, he can still practice card written in Spanish and Ilocano, which in
law; that he wants the lieutenant to tell the same to
his people; that he is willing to receive works translation, read as follows:
regarding preparations of sales contracts and
affidavits etc.; that he is willing to receive land “LUIS B. TAGORDA” Attoney; Notary Public;
registration cases for a charge of three pesos.  CANDIDATE FOR BOARD MEMBER, Province
of Isabela. (NOTE.- as notaty public, he can execute
ISSUE Whether or not Tagorda is guilty of
malpractice.  for a deed of sale for the purchase of land as
required by the cadastral office, can renew lost
HELD 
Yes. Tagorda admitted doing the foregoing acts. documents of your animals; can make your
The practice of soliciting cases at law for the application and final requisites for your homestead;
purpose of gain, either personally or through paid
agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice.  and can execute any kind of affidavit.  As a lawyer
The most worthy and effective advertisement he can help you collect your loans although long
possible, even for a young lawyer, and especially
with his brother lawyers, is the establishment of a
overdue, as well as any complaint for or against
well- merited reputation for professional capacity you.  Come or write to him in his town Echague,
and fidelity to trust. This cannot be forced, but Isabela.  He offers free consultation, and is willing
must be the outcome of character and conduct.
Solicitation of business by circulars or to help and serve the poor.)
advertisements, or by personal communications or
interviews not warranted by personal relations, is The respondent further admits that he is the author
unprofessional. It is equally unprofessional to of a letter addressed to a lieutenant of barrio in his
procure business by indirection through touters of
any kind, whether allied real estate firms or trust home municipality written in Ilocano, which letter
companies advertising to secure the drawing of reads as follow:
deeds or wills or offering retainers in exchange for
executorships or trusteeships to be influenced by “ I would like you all to be informed of this matter
the lawyer. Indirect advertisement for business by
furnishing or inspiring newspaper comments for the reason that some people are in the belief that
concerning the manner of their conduct, the my residence as member of the Board will be in
magnitude of the interests involved, the importance
Iligan and that I would then be disqualified to
of the lawyer’s position, and all other like self-
laudation, defy the traditions and lower the tone of exercise my profession as lawyer and as notary
our high calling, and are intolerable.  public.  Such is not the case and I would make it
It is unprofessional for a lawyer to volunteer advice
 Info on DIVORCE. ABSENCE.
clear that I am free to exercise my profession as
ANNULMENT. VISA.
formerly and that I will have my residence here in Please call: 521-0767,
LEGAL5217232, 5222041
Echague,  I would request your kind favor to
CLINIC, INC.8:30 am-6:00 pm
transmit this information to your barrio people in 7-Flr. Victoria Bldg. UN Ave., Mla.
any of your meeting or social gatherings so that they Annex B
GUAM DIVORCE
may be informed of my desire to live and to serve DON PARKINSON
with you in my capacity as lawyer and notary an Attorney in Guam, is giving FREE BOOKS on Guam
Divorce through The Legal Clinic beginning Monday to
public.  If the people in your locality have not as yet Friday during office hours.
contracted the services of other lawyers in Guam divorce. Annulment of Marriage. Immigration
Problems, Visa Ext.
connection with the registration of their land titles, I Quota/Non-quota Res. & Special Retiree's Visa.
would be willing to handle the work in court and Declaration of Absence. 
Remarriage to Filipina Fiancees. Adoption. Investment in
would charge only three pesos for every the Phil. US/Foreign 
registration.” Visa for Filipina Spouse/Children. Call Marivic.
THE 7 F Victoria Bldg. 429 UN Ave.
LEGALErmita, Manila nr. US Embassy
CLINIC, INC. Tel. 521-7232521-7251522-2041; 521-0767
HELD:Application is give to se. 21 of the Code of
Civil Procedure, as amended by Act NO. 2828, It is the submission of petitioner that the advertisements
providing “ The practice of soliciting cases at law above reproduced are champertous, unethical, demeaning
of the law profession, and destructive of the confidence of
for the purpose of gain, either personally or through the community in the integrity of the members of the bar
paid agents or brokets, constitutes malpractice, “ and that, as a member of the legal profession, he is ashamed
and offended by the said advertisements, hence the reliefs
and to Canon 27 and 28 of the Code of Ethics sought in his petition as herein before quoted.
adopted by the American Bar Association in 1908
and by the Philippines Bar Association in 1917, to In its answer to the petition, respondent admits the fact of
the case of the respondent lawyer.  The law is a publication of said advertisements at its instance, but claims
that it is not engaged in the practice of law but in the
profession and not a business.  The solicitation of rendering of "legal support services" through paralegals
employment by an attorney is a ground for with the use of modern computers and electronic machines.
Respondent further argues that assuming that the services
disbarment or suspension. advertised are legal services, the act of advertising these
services should be allowed supposedly in the light of the
Ulep vs. Legal Clinic, Inc., 223 SCRA caseof John R. Bates and Van O'Steen vs. State Bar of
378 Arizona, reportedly decidedby the United States Supreme
Court on June 7, 1977.

FACTS: Issue: 

Mauricio C. Ulep, petitioner, prays this Court "to order the Whether or not the services offered by respondent, The
respondent, The Legal Clinic, Inc., to cease and desist from Legal Clinic, Inc., as advertised by it constitutes practice of
issuing advertisements similar to or of the same tenor as law and, in either case, whether the same can properly be
that of Annexes `A' and `B' (of said petition) and to the subject of the advertisements herein complained of.
perpetually prohibit persons or entities from making
advertisements pertaining to the exercise of the law Held: 
profession other than those allowed by law.” The
advertisements complained of by herein petitioner are as Yes. The Supreme Court held that the services offered by
follows: the respondent constitute practice of law. The definition of
Annex A “practice of law” is laid down in the case of Cayetano vs.
SECRET MARRIAGE? Monsod, as defined:Black defines "practice of law" as:"The
P560.00 for a valid marriage. rendition of services requiring the knowledge and the
application of legal principles and technique to serve the a way of publicizing itself and catching public attention.
interest of another with his consent. It is not limited to That publicity is a normal by-product of effective service
appearing in court, or advising and assisting in the conduct which is rightand proper. A good and reputable lawyer
of litigation, but embraces the preparation of pleadings, and needs no artificial stimulus to generate it and to magnify his
other papers incident to actions and special proceedings, success. He easily sees the difference between a normal by-
conveyancing, the preparation of legal instruments of all product of able service and the unwholesome result of
kinds, and the giving of all legal advice to clients. It propaganda.
embraces all advice to clients and all actions taken for them
in matters connected with thelaw." The contention of
respondent that it merely offers legal support services can
neither be seriously considered nor sustained. Said
proposition is belied by respondent's own description of the
services it has been offering. While some of the services A.C. No. 5299               August 19, 2003
being offered by respondent corporation merely involve
mechanical and technical know-how, such as the ATTY. ISMAEL G. KHAN JR. vs.ATTY. RIZALINO T.
installation of computer systems and programs for the SIMBILLO
efficient management of law offices, or the computerization
of research aids and materials, these will not suffice to FACTS:
justify an exception to the general rule. What is palpably This administrative complaint arose from a paid
clear is that respondent corporation gives out legal advertisement that appeared in the issue of the
information to laymen and lawyers. Its contention that such newspaper, Philippine Daily Inquirer, which reads:
function is non-advisory and non-diagnostic is more "ANNULMENT OF MARRIAGE Specialist 532-
apparent than real. In providing information, for example, 4333/521-2667."Further research by the Office of the
about foreign laws on marriage, divorce and adoption, it Court Administrator and the Public Information Office
strains the credulity of this Court that all that respondent revealed that similar advertisements were published
corporation will simply do is look for the law, furnish a in the issues of the Manila Bulletin and issue of The
copy thereof to the client, and stop there as if it were Philippine Star.
merely a bookstore. With its attorneys and so called Atty. Ismael G. Khan, Jr., in his capacity as Assistant
paralegals, it will necessarily have to explain to the client Court Administrator and Chief of the Public
the intricacies of the law and advise him or her on the Information Office, filed an administrative complaint
proper course of action to be taken as may be provided for against Atty. Rizalino T. Simbillo for improper
by said law. That is what its advertisements represent and advertising and solicitation of his legal services, in
for which services it will consequently charge and be paid. violation of Rule 2.03 and Rule 3.01 of the Code of
That activity falls squarely within the jurisprudential Professional Responsibility and Rule 138, Section 27
definition of "practice of law." Such a conclusion will not of the Rules of Court.
be altered by the fact that respondent corporation does not
represent clients in court since law practice, as the weight the Integrated Bar of the Philippines finding
of authority holds, is not limited merely to court respondent guilty of violation of Rules 2.03 and 3.01
appearances but extends to legal research, giving legal of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Rule
advice, contract drafting, and so forth. That fact that the 138, Section 27 of the Rules of Court, and suspended
corporation employs paralegals to carry out its services is him from the practice of law for one (1) year with the
not controlling. What is important is that it is engaged in warning that a repetition of similar acts would be dealt
the practice of law by virtueof the nature of the services it with more severely.
renders which thereby brings it within the ambit of the
statutory prohibitions against the advertisements which it ISSUE:
has caused to be published and are now assailed in this
proceeding. The standards of the legal profession condemn
Whether or not respondent Atty. Simbillo committed
the lawyer's advertisement of his talents. (SEE CANON 2)
an act in violation of Rule 2.03 and Rule 3.01 of the
A lawyer cannot, without violating the ethics of his
Code of Professional Responsibility and Rule 138,
profession, advertise his talents or skills as in a manner
Section 27 of the Rules of Court.
similar to a merchant advertising his goods. The
proscription against advertising of legal services or
solicitation of legal business rests on the fundamental RULING:
postulate that the practice of law is a profession. The
canons of the profession tell us that the best advertising Yes. It has been repeatedly stressed that the practice
possible for a lawyer is a well-merited reputation for of law is not a business. It is a profession in which
professional capacity and fidelity to trust, which must be duty to public service, not money, is the primary
earned as the outcome of character and conduct. Good and consideration. The gaining of a livelihood should be a
efficient service to a client as well as to the community has secondary consideration.
The following elements distinguish the legal SEC. 27. Disbarment and suspension of attorneys by
profession from a business: Supreme Court, grounds therefor. – A member of the
bar may be disbarred or suspended from his office as
1. A duty of public service, of which the attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit,
emolument is a by-product, and in which one malpractice or other gross misconduct in such office,
may attain the highest eminence without grossly immoral conduct or by reason of his
making much money; conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, or for
any violation of the oath which he is required to take
2. A relation as an "officer of the court" to the before the admission to practice, or for a willful
administration of justice involving thorough disobedience appearing as attorney for a party
sincerity, integrity and reliability; without authority to do so.

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 KHAN v. SIMBILLO
A.C. No. 5299
There is no question that respondent committed the August 19, 2003
acts complained of. He himself admits that he caused
the publication of the advertisements. What adds to FACTS:
the gravity of respondent’s acts is that in advertising
himself as a self-styled "Annulment of Marriage • There was a paid advertisement in Philippine Daily
Specialist," he wittingly or unwittingly erodes and
undermines not only the stability but also the sanctity Inquirer: ANNULMENT OF MARRIAGE Specialist 532-
of an institution still considered sacrosanct despite the 4333/521-2667.
contemporary climate of permissiveness in our • • Atty. SIMBILLO claims that he was an expert in
society. Indeed, in assuring prospective clients that an handling annulment cases and can guarantee a court
annulment may be obtained in four to six months from decree within 4-6 months, provided the case will not
the time of the filing of the case, he in fact encourages involve separation of property or custody of children.
people, who might have otherwise been disinclined
and would have refrained from dissolving their
He charges ₱48,000.00.
marriage bonds, to do so. • • Similar advertisements were in Manila Bulletin
Therefore, respondent RIZALINO T. SIMBILLO is and The Philippine Star.
found GUILTY of violation of Rules 2.03 and 3.01 of • Atty. KHAN, Jr., in his capacity as Assistant Court
the Code of Professional Responsibility and Rule 138, Administrator and Chief of the Public Information
Section 27 of the Rules of Court. He is SUSPENDED Office, filed an administrative complaint against Atty.
from the practice of law for ONE (1) YEAR effective
SIMBILLO for:
upon receipt of this Resolution.
• • Improper advertising and solicitation of his legal
Rules 2.03 and 3.01 of the Code of Professional services, in violation of:
Responsibility read: • • • Rule 2.03, Code of Professional Responsibility
– A lawyer shall not do or permit to be done any act
Rule 2.03. – A lawyer shall not do or permit to be designed primarily to solicit legal business.
done any act designed primarily to solicit legal • • • Rule 3.01, Code of Professional Responsibility
business. – A lawyer shall not use or permit the use of any
false, fraudulent, misleading, deceptive, undignified,
Rule 3.01. – A lawyer shall not use or permit the use
self-laudatory or unfair statement or claim regarding
of any false, fraudulent, misleading, deceptive,
undignified, self-laudatory or unfair statement or claim his qualifications or legal services.
regarding his qualifications or legal services. • • • Rule 138, Sec. 27, Rules of Court
– Disbarment and suspension of attorneys by
Rule 138, Section 27 of the Rules of Court states: Supreme Court, grounds therefor. A member of the
bar may be disbarred or suspended from his office as 4. A relation to colleagues at the bar characterized by
attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit, candor, fairness, and unwillingness to resort to
malpractice or other gross misconduct in such office, current business methods of advertising and
grossly immoral conduct or by reason of his encroachment on their practice, or dealing directly
conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, or for with their clients.
any violation of the oath which he is required to take • For solicitation of legal business to be proper, it
before the admission to practice, or for a willful must be compatible with the dignity of the legal
disobedience appearing as attorney for a party profession. The use of simple signs stating the name
without authority to do so. or names of the lawyers, the office and residence
• Atty. SIMBILLO argued that advertising and address and fields of practice, as well as
solicitation per se are not prohibited acts and prayed advertisement in legal periodicals bearing the same
that he be exonerated from all the charges against brief data, are permissible. The use of calling cards is
him and that the Court promulgate a ruling that acceptable. Publication in reputable law lists, in a
advertisement of legal services offered by a lawyer is manner consistent with the standards of conduct
not contrary to law, public policy and public order as imposed by the canon, of brief biographical and
long as it is dignified. informative data is allowable. 
• The IBP Commission on Bar Discipline found Atty.
SIMBILLO guilty and suspended him from the practice
of law for 1 year.
• Atty. SIMBILLO filed an Urgent Motion for
Reconsideration, which was denied by the IBP.
• Atty. SIMBILLO filed a petition for certiorari.

ISSUE/S:

• W.O.N. Atty. SIMBILLO violated the ff.:

– Rule 2.03 and Rule 3.01, Code of Professional
Responsibility
– Rule 138, Sec. 27, Rules of Court

RULING:

• SC agrees with the IBP.

– The practice of law is not a business. It is a
profession in which duty to public service, 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.
– 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 thorough sincerity,
integrity and reliability;
3. A relation to clients in the highest degree of
fiduciary;