Chopsuey II digest

8/19/2019 Chopsuey II digest

1/30

23 Legal Ethics for Justice Hofilena by Jason Arteche

Feel free to use and share this digest with anyone who needs it

Royong vs Oblena FactsIn a verified complaint, complainant Josefina Royong charged the respondent Ariston J. Oblena, a member ofthe Philippine Bar, with rape allegedly committed on her person

*The gist of the story is Atty. Oblena maintained a common-law relationship with Angeles. Later, he also maintained arelationship with his common-law wife's niece, Royong.

IssueWhether or not the illicit relations with Royong and open cohabitation with Angeles are sufficient grounds todisbar Oblena.

HeldThe illicit relations are sufficient grounds.

It is an admitted and uncontroverted fact that the respondent had sexual relations with the complainant several times,and as a consequence she bore him a child; and that he likewise continuously cohabited with Briccia Angeles, in anadulterous manner.

It is true that respondent has not been convicted of rape, seduction, or adultery and that the grounds upon which thedisbarment proceeding is based are not among those enumerated by the Rules of Court for which a lawyer may bedisbarred. But it has already been held that this enumeration is not exclusive and that the power of the courts toexclude unfit and unworthy members of the profession is inherent. A member of the bar may be removed or suspendedfrom office as a lawyer for other than statutory grounds. Indeed, the rule is so phrased as to be broad enough to cover

practically any misconduct of a lawyer.

Here, the moral depravity of the respondent is most apparent. His pretension that before complainant completed hereighteenth birthday, he refrained from having sexual intercourse with her, so as not to incur criminal liability, as hehimself declared — and that he limited himself merely to kissing and embracing her and sucking her tongue, indicatesa scheming mind, which together with his knowledge of the law, he took advantage of, for his lurid purpose.Moreover, his act becomes more despicable considering that the complainant was the niece of his common-law wifeand that he enjoyed a moral ascendancy over her who looked up to him as her uncle.

Respondent's conduct though unrelated to his office and in no way directly bearing on his profession, has neverthelessrendered him unfit and unworthy of the privileges of a lawyer.

Next, one's own approximation of himself is not a gauge to his moral character. Moral character is not a subjectiveterm, but one that corresponds to objective reality. Moral character is what a person really is, and not what he or other

people think he is. Respondent did not possess a good moral character at the time he applied for admission to the bar.He lived an adulterous life with Briccia Angeles, and the fact that people who knew him seemed to have acquiesced tohis status, did not render him a person of good moral character. It is of no moment that his immoral state wasdiscovered then or now, as he is clearly not fit to remain a member of the bar.


2/30

LEGAL ETHICS DIGESTS JUSTICE HOFILENA ALS2014B

ALS2014B "# $% "#&

14 - St. Louis University v. Dela Cruz (2006) — disbarment, immoral conduct

Doctrine:

( Immoral conduct is “that conduct which is willful, flagrant, or shameless, and which shows a moral indifferenceto the opinion of the good and respectable members of the community” and what is “grossly immoral ,” that is, itmust be so corrupt and false as to constitute a criminal act or so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high

degree.( The power to disbar must be exercised with great caution, and may be imposed only in a clear case of misconduct

that seriously affects the standing and character of the lawyer as an officer of the Court. Disbarment should never be decreed where any lesser penalty could accomplish the end desire.

Facts:

This is a disbarment case filed by the Faculty members and Staff of the Saint Louis University-LaboratoryHigh School (SLU-LHS) against Atty. Rolando C. Dela Cruz , principal of SLU-LHS, predicated on the followinggrounds:

1. Gross Misconduct : (a) pending criminal case for child abuse allegedly committed by him against a highschool student; (b) pending administrative case for his alleged unprofessional and unethical acts of

misappropriating money supposedly for the teachers; and (c) pending labor case on alleged illegal deductionof salary by respondent.

2. Grossly Immoral Conduct : In contracting a second marriage (with Mary Jane Pascua) despite the existence ofhis first marriage (with Teresita Rivera); and

3. Malpractice : In notarizing (14) documents from 1988 to 1997 despite the expiration of his notarialcommission on December 31, 1987.

Issue:

1. W/N Dela Cruz should be disbarred?

Held/Ratio:

1. NO. A disbarment case is sui generis for it is neither purely civil nor purely criminal but is rather an investigation by the court into the conduct of its officers. Thus, if the acquittal of a lawyer in a criminal action is notdeterminative of an administrative case against him, or if an affidavit of withdrawal of a disbarment case does notaffect its course, then neither will the judgment of annulment of respondent”s second marriage also exonerate himfrom a wrongdoing actually committed. So long as the quantum of proof - clear preponderance of evidence - indisciplinary proceedings against members of the Bar is met, then liability attaches.

Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court cites grossly immoral conduct as a ground for disbarment.Undoubtedly, respondent”s act constitutes immoral conduct. But is it so gross as to warrant his disbarment?Indeed, he exhibited a deplorable lack of that degree of morality required of him as a member of the Bar. In

particular, he made a mockery of marriage, which is a sacred institution demanding respect and dignity.Respondent was already a member of the Bar when he contracted the bigamous second marriage in 1989, having

been admitted to the Bar in 1985. As such, he cannot feign ignorance of the mandate of the law that before a

second marriage may be validly contracted, the first and subsisting marriage must first be annulled by theappropriate court.

Moreover, notarization is not an empty, meaningless, routinary act. On the contrary, it is invested with substantive public interest, such that only those who are qualified or authorized may act as notaries public. A notarialdocument is by law entitled to full faith and credit upon its face and, for this reason, notaries public must observewith the utmost care the basic requirements in the performance of their duties.

The practice of law is not a right but a privilege bestowed by the State on those who show that they possess thequalifications required by law for the conferment of such privilege. It must be understood that the purpose of


3/30


4/30


5/30


ALS2014B "# $% &'(

criminal act, for she married a man who, in all appearances, was married to another and with whom he has afamily. Her actions were also unprincipled and reprehensible to a high degree; as the confidante of Atty. Garrido,she preyed on his vulnerability and engaged in a romantic relationship with him during the subsistence of his two

previous marriages.

3. NO

Laws dealing with double jeopardy or with procedure do not apply in the determination of a lawyer”squalifications and fitness for membership in the Bar because admission to the practice of law is a component ofthe administration of justice and is a matter of public interest.

4. NO

In light of the public service character of the practice of law, Maelotisea is considered more of a witness than acomplainant in these proceedings. She filed her affidavits of withdrawal only after she had presented herevidence; her evidence are now available for the Court”s examination and consideration, and their merits are notaffected by her desistance.


6/30

!"#$% '() *+,%-./

01234*564 7854 9) !52:;< -+=>/.",.,#< '()122?) @58A@1@8 B) *86;01C< DE(>+,FE,#)1)0) 6+) GHIH

AE>#E=JED K< LMMG

256;1< 7)N

O102AN

0.#PED",E 7+"E 9) !"#$% (+$%P# #PE (ED'"-E +Q DE(>+,FE,# 1##R) @"+(F.F+ B) *+,%-./SP+ S.( ",#D+F$-EF #+ PED JR . -+==+, QD"E,F) 0+=>/.",.,# .(TEF 1##R) *+,%-./ #+DE>DE(E,# PED ", #PE ($>>+D# -.(E (PE S.( %+",% #+ Q"/E .%.",(# PED Q+D=ED /+'ED<1D,$/Q+ 1U$",+) A++, .Q#ED< PEDE", -+=>/.",.,# .,F DE(>+,FE,# (#.D#EF P.'",%(EV$./ DE/.#"+,(P"> S"#P E.-P +#PED) 1--+DF",% #+ !"#$%< DE(>+,FE,# ./(+ %.'E PED

(SEE# ",F$-E=E,#( ($-P .( #PE >D+="(E +Q . W+J< Q",.,-"./ (E-$D"#R Q+D PED F.$%P#ED<.,F P"( (ED'"-E( .( -+$,(E/ Q+D #PE >D+(>E-#"'E -/."= Q+D ($>>+D# .%.",(# 1U$",+)

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

5AA:4N ]86 DE(>+,FE,# JE F"(J.DDEF Q+D "==+D./"#R)

*:C56;N

8,E +Q #PE -+,F"#"+,( >D"+D #+ .F="(("+, #+ #PE J.D "( #P.# ., .>>/"-.,# =$(# >+((E((%++F =+D./ -P.D.-#ED) A."F DEU$"DE=E,# >ED("(#( .( . -+,#",$",% -+,F"#"+, Q+D #PEE,W+R=E,# +Q #PE >D"'"/E%E +Q /.S >D.-#"-E< +#PEDS"(E< #PE /+(( #PEDE+Q "( . %D+$,F Q+D#PE DE'+-.#"+, +Q ($-P >D"'"/E%E)

86 A4^:1C *4C12586 16@ 86 *4A986@462_A A:ZA4[:462 B1**51;4NZR P"( +S, .F="(("+,< DE(>+,FE,# "( +J'"+$(/R %$"/#R +Q "==+D./"#R ", '"+/.#"+, +Q*$/E I)MI +Q #PE 0+FE SP"-P (#.#E( #P.# . /.SRED (P.// ,+# E,%.%E ", $,/.SQ$/<F"(P+,E(#< "==+D./ +D FE-E"#Q$/ -+,F$-#)


7/30

!" $%&' ()"'"&(" %& )"*+,&'"&-.* /**")-%,& -0/- %- 1/* %2+,**%34" $,) 0") &,- -,0/5" 6&,1& ,$ 0%* *73*%*-%&8 2/))%/8"9

!" 3"4%"5" -0/- (,2+4/%&/&-:* /44"8/-%,&* ,$ '"("%- 1")" &,- "*-/34%*0"' 3; (4"/)+)"+,&'")/&- "5%'"&(" )"


8/30



Tomas P. Tan vs Atty. Haide V. Gumba FactsComplainant narrated that respondent asked to borrow ! 350,000.00. Respondent assured him that she would pay the

principal plus interest after one year. She likewise offered by way of security a parcel of land registered in her father’sname, showing an SPA for the purpose. Thus, complainant agreed to lend money to respondent. With the help of Atty.Payte, respondent executed in complainant’s favor an “open” Deed of Absolute Sale over the said parcel of land.Complainant was made to believe that if respondent fails to pay the full amount of the loan with interest on due date,

the deed of sale may be registered. Accordingly, he gave the amount of ! 350,000.00 to respondent.

Respondent, however, defaulted on her loan obligation and failed to pay the same despite complainant’s repeateddemands. Left with no recourse, complainant went to the Register of Deeds to register the sale, only to find out thatrespondent deceived him since the SPA did not give respondent the power to sell the property but only empoweredrespondent to mortgage the property solely to banks.

IssueWhether or not Gumba’s action of deceiving Tan into thinking the former had proper authority to encumberthe property is a ground for disciplinary action.

Held

Such action is a ground for disciplinary action.A lawyer may be disciplined for misconduct committed either in his professional or private capacity. The test iswhether his conduct shows him to be wanting in moral character, honesty, probity, and good demeanor, or whether itrenders him unworthy to continue as an officer of the court.

Here, respondent’s actions clearly show that she deceived complainant into lending money to her through the use ofdocuments and false representations and taking advantage of her education and complainant’s ignorance in legalmatters. As manifested by complainant, he would have never granted the loan to respondent were it not forrespondent’s misrepresentation that she was authorized to sell the property and if respondent had not led him to

believe that he could register the “open” deed of sale if she fails to pay the loan. By her misdeed, respondent haseroded not only complainant’s perception of the legal profession but the public’s perception as well.

Further, after filing a Motion for Extension of Time to File a Responsive Pleading, respondent wantonly disregardedthe lawful orders of the IBP-CBD to file her answer and to appear for the mandatory conferences despite due notice.Respondent should bear in mind that she must acknowledge the orders of the IBP-CBD in deference to its authorityover her as a member of the IBP.


9/30

!"#$%" '() *+,%-" . /"," 0","#"1


10/30



Rodrigo Tapay vs Atty. Bancolo Facts

Nehimias Divinagracia, Jr. (Divinagracia) charged both Tapay and Rustia before the Ombudsman. Bancolo of theJarder Bancolo Law Office allegedly signed the Complaint on behalf of Divinagracia. However, Atty. Bancolo deniedthat he represented Divinagracia since he had yet to meet Divinagracia in person. Atty. Bancolo declared that thesignature naming him as counsel for Divinagracia was not his. Atty. Bancolo signed an affidavit denying his supposedsignature appearing on the Complaint filed with the Office of the Ombudsman. Using Atty. Bancolo’s affidavit and

other documentary evidence, Tapay and Rustia filed a counter-affidavit accusing Divinagracia of falsifying thesignature of his alleged counsel, Atty. Bancolo.

The Office of the Ombudsman provisionally dismissed the Complaint and ordered that separate cases for Falsificationof Public Document and Dishonesty be filed against Divinagracia, with Rustia and Atty. Bancolo as complainants.Thereafter, Divinagracia denied that he falsified the signature of Bancolo. Divinagracia presented as evidence anaffidavit by Richard A. Cordero, the legal assistant of Atty. Bancolo, that the Jarder Bancolo Law Office acceptedDivinagracia’s case and the office secretary per Atty. Bancolo’s instructions signed that the Complaint filed with theOffice of the Ombudsman.

Tapay and Rustia filed with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) a complaint to disbar Atty. Bancolo and Atty.Jarder, Atty. Bancolo’s law partner.

IssueWhether or not Bancolo’s actions of allowing his secretary to sign his name in the pleadings is a ground fordisciplinary action.

HeldSuch action is a ground for disciplinary action.

Atty. Bancolo admitted that the Complaint he filed for a former client before a secretary of his law office signed theOffice of the Ombudsman in his name. Clearly, this is a violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which

provides:

CANON 9 A LAWYER SHALL NOT, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, ASSIST IN THE UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW.

Rule 9.01 - A lawyer shall not delegate to any unqualified person the performance of any task which by law may only be

performed by a member of the Bar in good standing.

The lawyer’s duty to prevent, or at the very least not to assist in, the unauthorized practice of law is founded on publicinterest and policy. Public policy requires that the practice of law be limited to those individuals found duly qualifiedin education and character. The preparation and signing of a pleading constitute legal work involving the practice oflaw that is reserved exclusively for members of the legal profession. Atty. Bancolo’s authority and duty to sign a

pleading are personal to him. Although he may delegate the signing of a pleading to another lawyer, he may notdelegate it to a non-lawyer.

In the Answer, Atty. Bancolo categorically stated that because of some minor lapses, his secretary signed thecommunications and pleadings filed against Tapay and Rustia, albeit with his tolerance. Undoubtedly, Atty. Bancoloviolated the Code of Professional Responsibility by allowing a non-lawyer to affix his signature to a pleading.


11/30


ALS2014B "# $% &'#

39 - Camacho v. Pangulayan (2000)

Doctrine:• Canon 9 provides that “A lawyer should not in any way communicate upon the subject of controversy with a party

represented by counsel, much less should he undertake to negotiate or compromise the matter with him, butshould only deal with his counsel. It is incumbent upon the lawyer most particularly to avoid everything that may

tend to mislead a party not represented by counsel and he should not undertake to advise him as to law.”Facts:

Atty. Camacho filed a complaint against the lawyers of the Pangulayan and Associates Law Offices (Attys.Pangulayan, Balmores, Laurel, Bustos). Camacho, counsel of some expelled students from the AMA Computer College(AMACC), charged that the Pangulayan lawyers, as counsel for AMACC, procured separate occasions, without hisknowledge, compromise agreements (“Re-Admission Agreements”) with 4 of his clients which, in effect, required them towaive all kinds of claims they might have had against AMACC, terminating all civil, criminal and administrative

proceedings filed against it.

The students were all members of the Editorial Board of DATALINE and caused to be published someobjectionable features or articles in the paper. The 3-member Student Disciplinary Tribunal was immediately convenedfound the students guilty of the use of indecent language and unauthorized use of the student publication funds. The erringstudents were then expelled.

Atty. Pangulayan stated that none of his co-respondents had taken part in the various Re-Admission Agreementsand were, in fact, no longer connected at the time with the Pangulayan and Associates Law Offices. The Re-AdmissionAgreements had nothing to do with the dismissal of the civil case and were executed for the sole purpose of effecting thesettlement of an administrative case involving the 9 students of AMACC who were expelled.

After being furnished with execution of the letters of apology and Re-Admission Agreements, Judge Lopezdismissed the case.

Issue:

1. W/N Atty. Pangulayan acted in accordance with ethical standards for procuring said agreements

Held/Ratio:1. NO. It would appear that when the individual letters of apology and Re-Admission Agreements were formalized,

Camacho was by then already the retained counsel for the students in the civil case. Although aware that thestudents were represented by counsel, Pangulayan proceeded to negotiate with them and their parents without atthe very least communicating the matter to their lawyer who was counsel of record. The failure of Pangulayan,whether by design or because of oversight, is an inexcusable violation of the canons of professional ethics and inutter disregard of a duty owing to a colleague. He fell short of the demands required of him as a lawyer and as amember of the Bar.

The Court concurred with the IBP Investigating Commission and the IBP Board of Governors in their findings butfound the recommended 6-month suspension too harsh a penalty and shortened it to 3-months. The case againstthe other respondents is dismissed for insufficiency of evidence.


12/30


ALS2014B "# $% &'(

Held/Ratio:

1. NO. Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (see doctrine) instructs that Atty. Javier”s arguments inhis pleadings should be gracious to both the court and opposing counsel and be of such words as may be properlyaddressed by one gentleman to another. The language vehicle does not run short of expressions which areemphatic but respectful, convincing but not derogatory, illuminating but not offensive. (So since he violatedCanon 8 of the CPR, Atty. Javier should not only be reprimanded but must suspended for one month and warnedthat any future infraction of similar nature shall be dealt with more severely)

41 - Linsangan v. Tolentino (2009) (stealing clients)

Doctrines:• A lawyer should not steal another lawyer”s client, nor induce the latter to retain him by a promise of better

service, good result or reduced fees for his services.

Facts:

Pedro Linsangan of the Linsangan Linsangan & Linsangan Law Office filed a disbarment complaint against Atty.Tolentino. He alleged that Tolentino is guilty of solicitation of clients and encroachment of professional services.Linsangan claimed that Tolentino and his paralegal, Labiano, convinced his clients to transfer legal representation.Linsangan said that Tolentino promised them financial assistance and expeditious collection on their claims. Tolentinoapparently called and texted Linsangan”s clients.

To support his allegations, Linsangan presented the sworn affidavit of James Gregorio attesting that Labiano triedto convince him to sever his association with Linsangan and employ Tolentino”s services and even be able to get a loan ofP50,000. Linsangan also presented Labiano”s calling card which specifically states, “w/ financial assistance”.

Tolentino denied knowing Labiano and the printing and circulation of the said calling cared in his answer.However, he later admitted that he knew her during the mandatory hearing.

The Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) of the IBP found that Tolentino encroached on the professional practice of Linsangan, violating Rule 8.02. He also contravened the rule against soliciting cases for gain. The CBDrecommended that Tolentino be reprimanded with a stern warning that any repetition would merit a heavier penalty.

Issues:1. W/N the Tolentino should be disbarred?

Held/Ratio:

1. NO. HOWEVER, the SC held that he should be suspended from the practice of law for a period of one year and issternly warned that a repetition of the same or similar acts in the future shall be dealt with more severely.

Rule 8.02 requires that “A lawyer shall not, directly or indirectly, encroach upon the professional employment ofanother lawyer”. Tolentino violated such canon. The means employed by Tolentino in furtherance of suchmisconduct themselves constituted distinct violations of ethical rules. A lawyer should not steal another lawyer”sclient, nor induce the latter to retain him by a promise of better service, good result or reduced fees for hisservices. Tolentino never denied having Linsangan”s clients in his own client list. He also did not deny Labiano”s

connection to his office. Hence, Tolentino committed an unethical, predatory overstep in another”s legal practice.The SC also noted that Tolentino violated Rules 1.03, 2.03, 16.04 and Canon 3 of the CPR, and Section 27, Rule130 of the Rules of Court. The SC also reminded lawyers what professional cards should contain: (1) lawyer”sname, (2) name of firm with which he is connected, (3) address, (4) telephone number, and (5) special branch oflaw practiced.


13/30



B.M. 2540 FactsMedado graduated from UP with Bachelor of Laws in 1979 and passed the bar exams the same year. In 1980, he tookthe Attorney’s Oath at the PICC and was scheduled to sign the Roll of Attorneys but failed to do so because hemisplaced the Notice to Sign the Roll of Attorneys. He mistakenly thought the attendance record at the PICC was theRoll of Attorneys. Several years later, Medado found the Notice and only then did he realize he had not signed the roll.During this time, Medado was already working as a lawyer and he didn’t think signing in the Roll was important.

Later, in an MCLE seminar in 2005, he was required to provide his roll number but couldn’t provide any. In 2012,Medado filed this petition to be allowed to sign in the Roll.

IssueWhether or not Medado’s petition should be granted despite the long years of neglect to sign in the Roll.

HeldMedado’s petition is granted.

Medado has demonstrated good faith and good moral character when he filed the instant petition. He himself calledattention to his omission, although only after more than 30 years. Further, he hasn’t been subject to any action fordisqualification from the practice of law. Also, he appears to be a competent and able legal practitioner.

However, Medado can’t be fully exculpated for his years of inaction. Several years after taking the oath, he realized hedidn’t sign the Roll of Attorneys. Notwithstanding this, he continued to practice law and consequently, engaged in theunauthorized practice of law. Further, he doesn’t have any justifiable reason for delaying the signing in the Roll ofAttorneys. His only excuse being apprehension and fear of what might happen. Unauthorized practice of lawconstitutes indirect contempt of court and violates Canon 9 of the CPR.

However, Medado is suspended for 1 year and fined for delinquent IBP dues.


14/30

!"#$ &'( )*+,)! - .!/! $!/!"!


15/30

!"#$%&$'$ )*+ ,- .-'$

/!0123!&&4+ 5,6$',7 8- .-'$ 97% $ #$*- :7' ;7*$'$'%


16/30


17/30


ALS2014B "# $% &'(

While the circulation of business cards is not per se improper, solicitation through such business cards, as well asthrough personal communications is unprofessional. The law is a profession and not a business. Thus, a lawyermay not seek or obtain employment by himself or through others.

Due to Tagorda”s claim of ignorance and remorse, the Court merely ordered that he be suspended from the practice of law for a period of one month. It is worth noting that Justice Ostrand dissented, believing that areprimand would have been sufficient.

22 - Ulep v. The Legal Clinic, Inc. (1993) (Advertising, divorce/foreign marriage)

Doctrines:• A lawyer cannot, without violating the ethics of his profession. advertise his talents or skill as in a manner similar

to a merchant advertising his goods. The prescription against advertising of legal services or solicitation of legal business rests on the fundamental postulate that the that the practice of law is a profession.

Facts:

The Legal Clinic, Inc. had published the advertisements in annexes “A” and “B” shown below.

Annex A

SECRET MARRIAGE?P560.00 for a valid marriage.Info on DIVORCE. ABSENCE.ANNULMENT. VISA.

THEN Please call: 521-0767 LEGAL 5217232, 5222041 CLINIC, INC. 8:30 am— 6:00 pm 7-Flr. Victoria Bldg.,UN Ave., Mla.

Annex B

GUAM DIVORCE.

DON PARKINSON

an Attorney in Guam, is giving FREE BOOKS on Guam Divorce through The Legal Clinic beginning Monday toFriday during office hours.

Guam divorce. Annulment of Marriage. Immigration Problems, Visa Ext. Quota/Non-quota Res. & SpecialRetiree”s Visa. Declaration of Absence. Remarriage to Filipina Fiancees. Adoption. Investment in the Phil.US/Foreign Visa for Filipina Spouse/Children. Call Marivic.

THE 7F Victoria Bldg. 429 UN Ave., LEGAL Ermita, Manila nr. US Embassy CLINIC, INC. 1 Tel. 521-7232; 521-7251; 522-2041; 521-0767

Ulep, as a member of the bar, seeks to prevent The Legal Clinic, Inc. from publishing any more of theseadvertisements. Ulep asserts that such advertisements are unethical, demeaning of the law profession, and destructive ofthe confidence of the community in the integrity of the members of the bar. On the other hand, The Legal Clinic claimsthat it is not engaged in the practice of law but in the rendering of “legal support services” through paralegals with the useof modern computers and electronic machines and should not therefore be banned from advertising its services.

Issues:

1. W/N The Legal Clinic, Inc. is engaged in the practice of law

2. W/N its activities can properly be the subject of advertisements


18/30


ALS2014B " #$ "%&

INTRODUCTION

01 - Religious Affairs v. Bayot (1955) (advertisement)

Doctrines:• Law is a profession and not a trade.• Section 25 of Rule 127 provides that “the practice of soliciting cases at law for purpose of gain, either

personally or thru paid agents of brokers, constitutes malpractice.”

Facts:

Attorney Estanislao Bayot is charged with malpractice for publishing an advertisement in the Sunday Tribune onJune 13, 2943. It states that he provides the service of securing marriage licenses and performing marriage ceremonies.

Marriage license promptly secured thru our assistance & the annoyance of delay publicity avoidedif desired, and marriage arranged to wishes of parties. Consultation on any matter free for the

poor. Everything confidential.

Legal assistance service12 Escolta, Manila, Room, 105

Tel. 2-41-60.

Initially, he appeared in his own behalf and denied having the advertisement published. Subsequently, headmitted, through his attorney, that he caused its publication. He asked 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 thelaw profession.” He added that it was only published once and that he never had any case by reason of the advertisement.

Issues:

1. W/N the advertisement is a violation of legal ethics.

Held/Ratio:

1. YES.

Section 25 of Rule 127 provides that “the practice of soliciting cases at law for purpose of gain, either personallyor thru paid agents of brokers, constitutes malpractice.” It is highly unethical for an attorney to advertise histalents as a merchant advertises his wares. By advertising his services, the lawyer degrades himself and his

profession. “The most worth and effective advertisement possible, even for a young lawyer, ... is theestablishment of a well-merited reputation for professional capacity and fidelity to trust. This cannot be forced butmust be the outcome of character and conduct.” (Canon 27, Code of Ethics.)

In the Tagorda case, the attorney involved repeatedly made solicitations. As a result, he was suspended from the practice of law. This case is less serious in nature. Considering Bayot”s plea for leniency and his promise to notrepeat his actions, the Court merely reprimanded Bayot.


19/30



Director of Religious Affairs vs Bayot FactsThe respondent, who is an attorney at law, is charged with malpractice for having published an advertisement in theSunday Tribune that reads as follows:

Marriage license promptly secured thru our assistance & the annoyance of delay or publicity avoided if desired, and marriagearrange to wishes of parties. Consultation on any matter free for the poor. Everything confidential.

Legal assistance service 12 Escolta, Manila, Room 105

IssueWhether or not the disputed advertisement violates the ethical standards of the law profession.

HeldViolates ethical standards.

It's undeniable that the advertisement was a flagrant violation by Bayot of the ethics of his profession, it being a brazensolicitation of business from the public. The practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either

personally or thru paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice.

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 ofmercantilism by advertising his services or offering them to the public. The most worthy and effective advertisement

possible, even for a young lawyer, *** is the establishment of a well-merited reputation for professional capacity andfidelity to trust. This cannot be forced but must be the outcome of character and conduct.


20/30


ALS2014B "# $% #&'

23 - Khan v. Simbillo (2003) (annulment specialist)

Facts:

In the July 5, 2000 issue of the newspaper, Philippine Daily Inquirer, this ad appeared: ANNULMENT OFMARRIAGE Specialist 532-4333/521-2667. Ms. Ma. Theresa B. Espeleta called the number with Mrs. Simbilloanswering and claiming that her husband is an expert in handling annulment cases and can guarantee a court decree within

four to six months, provided the case will not involve separation of property or custody of children and that he chargesP48, 000. Moreover, this was not the first time that the respondent used this advertisement.

On September 1, 2000, Atty. Ismael G. Khan, Jr., in his capacity as Assistant Court Administrator and Chief of thePublic Information Office, filed an administrative complaint against Atty. Rizalino T. Simbillo for improper advertisingand solicitation of his legal services, in violation of Rule 2.03 and Rule 3.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibilityand Rule 138, Section 27 of the Rules of Court. This was referred to the IBP and they decided to suspended him from the

practice of law for one (1) year with the warning that a repetition of similar acts would be dealt with more severely. TheIBP Resolution was noted by this Court on November 11, 2002.

Issues:

1. W/N the suspension by the IBP is proper.

Held/Ratio:1. YES.

It has been repeatedly stressed that the practice of law is not a business.12 It is a profession in which duty to public service, not money, is the primary consideration. Lawyering is not primarily meant to be a money-makingventure, and law advocacy is not a capital that necessarily yields profits. The gaining of a livelihood should be asecondary consideration. The duty to public service and to the administration of justice should be the primaryconsideration of lawyers, who must subordinate their personal interests or what they owe to themselves. Thefollowing elements distinguish the legal profession from a business:

a. A duty of public service, of which the emolument is a by-product, and in which one may attain thehighest eminence without making much money;

b. A relation as an officer of the court to the administration of justice involving thorough sincerity, integrityand reliability;

c. A relation to clients in the highest degree of fiduciary;

d. 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.

The respondent clearly admitted to the acts. More so, what adds to the gravity of respondents acts is that inadvertising himself as a self-styled Annulment of Marriage Specialist, he wittingly or unwittingly erodes andundermines not only the stability but also the sanctity of an institution still considered sacrosanct despite thecontemporary climate of permissiveness in our society.

Nonetheless, the 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 and must not be misleading. If it is made in a modestand decorous manner, it would bring no injury to the lawyer and to the bar.


21/30


22/30


ALS2014B "# $% &'(

Held/Ratio:

1. YES, The Legal Clinic is engaged in the practice of law

Practice of law means any activity, in or out of court, which requires the application of law, legal procedures,knowledge, training and experience. Generally, to practice law is to give advice or render any kind of service thatinvolves legal knowledge or skill. The practice of law, therefore, covers a wide range of activities. While some of

the services being offered by The Legal Clinic merely involve mechanical and technical knowhow, such as theinstallation of computer systems and programs for the efficient management of law offices, or thecomputerization of research aids and materials, it is clear that it nonetheless gives out legal information to laymenand lawyers. In providing information, for example, about foreign laws on marriage, divorce and adoption with itsattorneys and so called paralegals, it will necessarily have to explain to the client the intricacies of the law andadvise him or her on the proper course of action to be taken.

2. NO, the advertisements are not allowed

As for the allowability (is this a word? hehe) of the advertisements, the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that a lawyer in making known his legal services shall use only true, honest, fair, dignified and objectiveinformation or statement of facts. He is not supposed to use or permit the use of any false, fraudulent, misleading,deceptive, undignified, self-laudatory or unfair statement or claim regarding his qualifications or legal services.

The standards of the legal profession condemn the lawyer”s advertisement of his talents. A lawyer cannot,without violating the ethics of his profession. advertise his talents or skill as in a manner similar to amerchant advertising his goods. The prescription against advertising of legal services or solicitation of legalbusiness rests on the fundamental postulate that the that the practice of law is a profession.

Atty. Rogelio P. Nogales, the prime incorporator, major stockholder and proprietor of The Legal Clinic, Inc., wasreprimanded by the Court, with a warning that running more advertisements similar to the ones above will bedealt with more severely. The Legal Clinic is prohibited from further advertising its services.

(There is a lengthy discussion on advertisements in this case but it is 95% similar to what was written in the book.)


23/30



Ulep vs Legal Clinic FactsPetitioner prays this Court "to order the respondent to cease and desist from issuing advertisements and to perpetually

prohibit persons or entities from making advertisements pertaining to the exercise of the law profession other thanthose allowed by law.”

(See case for actual advertisement)

IssueWhether or not the complained advertisements violate the code of professional responsibility and degrade thelawyering profession.

HeldThe advertisements violate the CPR and degrade the bar.

The standards of the legal profession condemn the lawyer's advertisement of his talents. A lawyer cannot, withoutviolating the ethics of his profession, advertise his talents or skill as in a manner similar to a merchant advertising hisgoods. The prescription against advertising of legal services or solicitation of legal business rests on the fundamental

postulate that the practice of law is a profession.

The canon of the profession tell us that the best advertising possible for a lawyer is a well-merited reputation for professional capacity and fidelity to trust, which must be earned as the outcome of character and conduct. Good andefficient service to a client as well as to the community has a way of publicizing itself and catching public attention.That publicity is a normal by-product of effective service that is right and proper. A good and reputable lawyer needsno artificial stimulus to generate it and to magnify his success. He easily sees the difference between a normal

by-product of able service and the unwholesome result of propaganda.

However, not all types of advertising or solicitation are prohibited. The canons of the profession enumerate exceptionsto the rule against advertising or solicitation and define the extent to which they may be undertaken. The exceptionsare of two broad categories, namely, those that are expressly allowed and those that are necessarily implied from therestrictions.

The first of such exceptions is the publication in reputable law lists, in a manner consistent with the standards ofconduct imposed by the canons, of brief biographical and informative data. The law list must be a reputable law list

published primarily for that purpose; it cannot be a mere supplemental feature of a paper, magazine, trade journal or periodical which is published principally for other purposes. The second is the use of an ordinary simple professionalcard.


24/30


25/30


ALS2014B "# $% &"#

Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which mandates lawyers to refrain from engaging inunlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. - He engaged in deceitful conduct by taking advantage of thecomplaint against CDO to advance his interest — to obtain funds for his Batas Foundation and seek sponsorshipsand advertisements for the tabloids and his television program.

Rule 13.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which mandates a lawyer to refrain from making publicstatements in the media regarding a pending case tending to arouse public opinion for or against a party. - Hecontinued with his attacks against Foodsphere despite the pendency of the civil case and the issuance of a statusquo order against him.

Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which mandates lawyers to “uphold the Constitution, obeythe laws of the land and promote respect for law and legal processes.” - He defied the said status quo order.

Canon 8 and Rule 8.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which mandates lawyers to conduct himselfwith courtesy, fairness and candor toward his professional colleagues, and shall avoid harassing tactics againstopposing counsel, and that a lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use language which is abusive,offensive or otherwise improper, by using intemperate language.

Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which directs a lawyer to “at all times uphold the integrityand the dignity of the legal profession”. - He failed to live up to his oath and to comply with the exacting

standards of the legal profession.

Annex A

“OK, at meron akong pa-contest, total magpapasko na o ha, meron pa-contest si Batas Mauricio ang Batas ng Bayan. Itoyung ating pa-contest, hulaan ninyo, tatawag kayo sa telepono, 433-7549 at 433-7553. Ang mga premyo babanggitin ponatin sa susunod pero ito muna ang contest, o, “ aling liver spread ang may uod ?” Yan kita ninyo yan, ayan malalamanninyo yan. Pagka-nahulaan yan ah, at sasagot kayo sa akin, aling liver spread ang may uod at anong companya anggumagawa nyan? Itawag po ninyo sa 433-7549 st 433-7553. Open po an[g] contest na ito sa lahat ng ating tagapakinig.Pipiliin natin ang mananalo, kung tama ang inyong sagot. Ang tanong, aling liver spread sa Pilipinas an[g] may uod?”

Annex B

Mauricio”s Entry of Appearance with Highly Urgent Motion to Elevate These Cases to the Department of Justice alleges:

...

2.N. The question here is this: What gives, Honorable (???) Prosecutors of the Office of the City Prosecutor of ValenzuelaCity?

...

2.R. Can an ordinary person like Villarez simply be tossed around, waiting for miracles to happen?

2.S. Why? How much miracle is needed to happen here before this Office would ever act on his complaint?

...

8. With a City Prosecutor acting the way he did in the case filed by Villarez, and with an investigating prosecutor

virtually kowtowing to the wishes of his boss, the Chief Prosecutor, can Respondents expect justice to be meted tothem?

9. With utmost due respect, Respondents have reason to believe that justice would elude them in this Office of theCity Prosecutor of Valenzuela City, not because of the injustice of their cause, but, more importantly, because ofthe injustice of the system;

10. Couple all of these with reports that many a government office in Valenzuela City had been the willing recipientof too many generosities in the past of the Foodsphere, and also with reports that a top official of the City had


26/30


ALS2014B "" #$ %"&

campaigned for his much coveted position in the past distributing products of the Foodsphere, what would oneexpect the Respondents to think?

11. Of course, not to be lost sight of here is the attitude and behavior displayed even by mere staff and underlings ofthis Office to people who dare complain against the Foodsphere in their respective turfs. Perhaps, top officials ofthis Office should investigate and ask their associates and relatives incognito to file, even if on a pakunwari basisonly, complaints against the Foodsphere, and they would surely be given the same rough and insulting treatmentthat Respondent Villarez got when he filed his kidnapping charge here;

Annex C

In Mauricio”s Motion to Dismiss, he alleged:

...

5. If the Foodsphere or its lawyer merely used even a little of whatever is inside their thick skulls, they wouldhave clearly deduced that this Office has no jurisdiction over this action. (Emphasis supplied)


27/30


ALS2014B "# $% &'(

24 - In Re: Sycip (1979)

Doctrines:• The continued use of a firm name after the death of one or more of the partners designated by it is proper only

where sustained by local custom and not where by custom this purports to Identify the active members.

Facts:

Two separate Petitions were filed before this Court 1) by the surviving partners of Atty. Alexander Sycip, and 2) by the surviving partners of Atty. Herminio Ozaeta, praying that they be allowed to continue using, in the names oftheir firms, the names of partners who had passed away.

Petitioners base their petitions on the following arguments:

1. A partnership is not prohibited from continuing its business under a firm name which includes the nameof a deceased partner as under Art 1840 of the Civil Code.

2. In regulating other professions , such as accountancy and engineering, the legislature has authorized theadoption of firm names without any restriction as to the use, in such firm name, of the name of a deceased

partner

3.

The Canons of Professional Ethics are not transgressed by the continued use of the name of a deceased partner in the firm name of a law partnership. Canon 33: The continued use of the name of a deceased orformer partner when permissible by local custom, is not unethical but care should be taken that noimposition or deception is practiced through this use

4. No possibility of imposition or deception because the deaths of their respective deceased partners werewell-publicized in all newspapers of general circulation for several days

5. No local custom prohibits the continued use of a deceased partner”s name in a professional firm”s name

6. Continued use of a deceased partner”s name in the firm name of law partnerships has been consistentlyallowed by U.S. Courts

Issues:

1. Whether the firms may continue to use of the partnership name despite the death of a partnerHeld/Ratio:

1. No. The public relations value of the use of an old firm name can tend to create undue advantages anddisadvantages in the practice of the profession . An able lawyer without connections will have to make a namefor himself starting from scratch. Another able lawyer, who can join an old firm, can initially ride on that oldfirm”s reputation established by deceased partners.

Secondly, Article 1840 treats more of a commercial partnership with a good will to protect rather than of aprofessional partnership.

A partnership for the practice of law cannot be likened to partnerships formed by other professionals orfor business. The difference between the practice of law from those pertaining to business is that the law is a

profession.Canon 33 does not consider as unethical the continued use of the name of a deceased or former partner in the firmname of a law partnership when such a practice is permissible by local custom but the Canon warns that careshould be taken that no imposition or deception is practiced through this use. However, in the Philippines, nolocal custom permits or allows the continued use of a deceased or former partner”s name in the firm namesof law partnerships. Firm names, under our custom, identify the more active and/or more senior members or

partners of the law firm.


28/30


ALS2014B "" #$ %&'

The possibility of deception upon the public, real or consequential, where the name of a deceased partnercontinues to be used cannot be ruled out. A person in search of legal counsel might be guided by the familiar ringof a distinguished name appearing in a firm title.

As for decisions in the United States, there is a custom allowing such . “Many firms in the city use the names ofdeceased members with the approval of other attorneys, bar associations and the courts.”

A local custom as a source of right cannot be considered by a court of justice unless such custom is properlyestablished by competent evidence like any other fact. There is no proof of the existence of a local custom, andof the elements requisite to constitute the same in the Philippines.

The member of a profession does not regard himself as in competition with his professional brethren. He is not bartering his services as is the artisan nor exchanging the products of his skilland learning as the farmer sells wheat or corn. There should be no such thing as a lawyers” or

physicians” strike. The best service of the professional man is often rendered for no equivalent orfor a trifling equivalent and it is his pride to do what he does in a way worthy of his professioneven if done with no expectation of reward, This spirit of public service in which the professionof law is and ought to be exercised is a prerequisite of sound administration of justice accordingto law. The other two elements of a profession, namely, organization and pursuit of a learned arthave their justification in that they secure and maintain that spirit.

Petitioners” desire to preserve the Identity of their firms in the eyes of the public must bow to legal and ethicalimpediment.

Justice Aquino dissent: petition may be granted with the condition that it be indicated in the letterheads of the two firms(as the case may be) that Alexander Sycip, former Justice Ozaeta and Herminio Ozaeta are dead or the period when theyserved as partners should be stated therein.

Obviously, the purpose of the two firms in continuing the use of the names of their deceased founders is to retain theclients who had customarily sought the legal services of Attorneys Sycip and Ozaeta and to benefit from the goodwillattached to the names of those respected and esteemed law practitioners. That is a legitimate motivation.

This is consistent with p. 16 of Comments of IBP Committee that drafted the Code and Rule 3.02, as found in p. 129 ofAgpalo book.


29/30



Dacanay vs Baker McKenzie FactsLawyer Adriano E. Dacanay, admitted to the bar in 1954, in his 1980 verified complaint, sought to enjoin Juan G.Collas, Jr. and nine other lawyers from practicing law under the name of Baker & McKenzie, a law firm organized inIllinois.

In a letter dated November 16, 1979 respondent Vicente A. Torres, using the letterhead of Baker & McKenzie, whichcontains the names of the ten lawyers, asked Rosie Clurman for the release of 87 shares of Cathay ProductsInternational, Inc. to H.E. Gabriel, a client.

Attorney Dacanay, in his reply dated December 7, 1979, denied any liability of Clurman to Gabriel. He requested thathe be informed whether the lawyer of Gabriel is Baker & McKenzie "and if not, what is your purpose in using theletterhead of another law office." Not having received any reply, he filed the instant complaint.

IssueWhether or not Respondents can continue practicing under the name of a foreign law firm.

HeldRespondents can’t continue such practice.

We hold that Baker & McKenzie, being an alien law firm, cannot practice law in the Philippines. As admitted by therespondents in their memorandum, Baker & McKenzie is a professional partnership organized in 1949 in Chicago,Illinois with members and associates in 30 cities around the world. Respondents, aside from being members of thePhilippine bar, practicing under the firm name of Guerrero & Torres, are members or associates of Baker & Mckenzie.

As pointed out by the Solicitor General, respondents' use of the firm name Baker & McKenzie constitutes arepresentation that being associated with the firm they could "render legal services of the highest quality tomultinational business enterprises and others engaged in foreign trade and investment". This is unethical becauseBaker & McKenzie is not authorized to practice law here.


30/30

!"#$"# &'( )"*+'

"#$%&'#(()* +,-./,0 12 32/. 405 . 6.72 80/ 907./:0 ;2/6.,0* 12 32/. .5? .660-5( 08(=2 0@@07:5< @./() >-( =2 ,:, 50( /2A:( (=2 7.A2 (0 ;2/6.,0B :57(2., =2 6C.:A2, (=.( =2 -72,(=2 7.A2 (0 @.) 088 (=2 D-,F:0-7 /2(.C:.(:05B =2 8:C2, F./:0-7 60A@C.:5(7 .:C:(:27 >2C05C:6 .5, (=072 6=./

Documents

Chopsuey II digest