MARIA ELENA MORENO VS. ATTY. ERNESTO ARANETAA.C. No. 1109. April 27, 2005

Facts: Ernesto Araneta issued two checks to Elena Moreno for his indebtedness, which amounts to P11, 000.00. The checks were dishonored because the account against which is drawn is closed. Thereafter the case was forwarded to the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline pursuant to Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court. The Commission recommended the suspension from the practice of law for three (3) months. On 15 October 2002, IBP Director for Bar Discipline Victor C. Fernandez, transmitted the records of this case back to this Court pursuant to Rule 139-B, Sec. 12(b) of the Rules of Court. Thereafter, the Office of the Bar Confidant filed a Report regarding various aspects of the case. The Report further made mention of a Resolution from this Court indefinitely suspending the respondent for having been convicted by final judgment of estafa through falsification of a commercial document.

Issue: Whether or not Araneta should be disbarred due to the issuance of checks drawn against a closed account.

Held: The Court held that the act of a person in issuing a check knowing at the time of the issuance that he or she does not have sufficient funds in, or credit with, the drawee bank for the payment of the check in full upon its presentment, is a manifestation of moral turpitude. In Co v. Bernardino and Lao v. Medel, we held that for issuing worthless checks, a lawyer might be sanctioned with one years suspension from the practice of law, or a suspension of six months upon partial payment of the obligation. In the instant case, however, herein respondent has, apparently been found guilty by final judgment of estafa thru falsification of a commercial document, a crime involving moral turpitude, for which he has been indefinitely suspended. Considering that he had previously committed a similarly fraudulent act, and that this case likewise involves moral turpitude, we are constrained to impose a more severe penalty. In fact, we have long held that disbarment is the appropriate penalty for conviction by final judgment of a crime involving moral turpitude. As we said in In The Matter of Disbarment Proceedings v. Narciso N. Jaramillo, the review of respondent's conviction no longer rests upon us. The judgment not only has become final but has been executed. No elaborate argument is necessary to hold the respondent unworthy of the privilege bestowed on him as a member of the bar. Suffice it to say that, by his conviction, the respondent has proved himself unfit to protect the administration of justice.

BONGALONTA vs CASTILLO and MARTIJACBD Case No. 176 January 20, 1995Facts: Complainant Bongalonta charged respondents Castillo and Martija, both members of the Philippine Bar, with unjust and unethical conduct, to wit: representing conflicting interests and abetting a scheme to frustrate the execution or satisfaction of a judgment which complainant might obtain.The letter-complaint stated that complainant filed with the Regional Trial Court of Pasig, for estafa, against the Sps. Abuel. She also filed a separate civil action, where she was able to obtain a writ of preliminary attachment and by virtue thereof, a piece of real property registered in the name of the Sps. Abuel under TCT No. 38374 was attached. Atty. Pablito Castillo was the counsel of the Sps. Abuel in the aforesaid criminal and civil cases.During the pendency of these cases, one Gregorio Lantin filed for collection of a sum of money based on a promissory note, also with the Pasig Regional Trial Court, against the Sps. Abuel. In the said case Gregorio Lantin was represented by Atty. Alfonso Martija. In this case, the Sps. Abuel were declared in default for their failure to file the necessary responsive pleading and evidenceex-partewas received against them followed by a judgment by default rendered in favor of Gregorio Lantin. A writ of execution was, in due time, issued and the same property previously attached by complainant was levied upon.Complainant further alleged that, in all the pleadings filed in the three (3) aforementioned cases, Atty. Pablito Castillo and Atty. Alfonso Martija placed the same address, the same PTR and the same IBP receipt number. The IBP Board of Governors dismissed the case against Martija, and recommended that Atty. Pablito M. Castillo be suspended from the practice of law for a period of six (6) months for using the IBP Official Receipt No. of his co-respondent Atty. Alfonso M. Martija. Issue: Whether the IBP Board of Governors recommendation of Castillos suspension be granted Held: Yes. The Supreme Court agreed with the IBP Board of Governors findings. The practice of law is not a right but a privilege bestowed by the State on those who show that they possess, and continue to possess, the qualifications required by law for the conferment of such privilege. One of these requirements is the observance of honesty and candor. Courts are entitled to expect only complete candor and honesty from the lawyers appearing and pleading before them. A lawyer, on the other hand, has the fundamental duty to satisfy that expectation. For this reason, he is required to swear to do no falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court.

Abella v. Barrios

FACTS: Complainant obtained a favorable judgment from the Court of Appeals involving a Labor Case. Complainant then filed a Motion for Issuance of a Writ of Execution before the Regional Arbitration Branch which the respondent was the Labor Arbiter. After the lapse of five (5) months, complainants motion remained un-acted, prompting him to file a Second Motion for Execution. However, still, there was no action until the complainant agreed to give respondent a portion of the monetary award thereof after the latter asked from the former how much would be his share. Thereafter, respondent issued a writ of execution but the employer of the complainant moved to quash the said writ. Eventually, issued a new writ of execution wherein complainants monetary awards were reduced to the effect that it modifies the DECISION of the CA. Complainant now filed the instant disbarment complaintbefore the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), averring that respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibility for (a) soliciting money from complainant in exchange for a favorable resolution; and (b) issuing a wrong decision to give benefit and advantage to PT&T, complainants employer.

ISSUE: Whether or not respondent is guilty of gross immorality for his violation of Rules 1.01 and 1.03, Canon 1, and Rule 6.02, Canon 6 of the Code.

HELD: YES. The above-cited rules, which are contained under Chapter 1 of the Code, delineate the lawyers responsibility to society: Rule 1.01 engraves the overriding prohibition against lawyers from engaging in any unlawful, dishonest, immoral and deceitful conduct; Rule 1.03 proscribes lawyers from encouraging any suit or proceeding or delaying any mans cause for any corrupt motive or interest; meanwhile, Rule 6.02 is particularly directed to lawyers in government service, enjoining them from using ones public position to: (1) promote private interests; (2) advance private interests; or (3) allow private interests to interfere with public duties.It is well to note that a lawyer who holds a government office may be disciplined as a member of the Bar only when his misconduct also constitutes a violation of his oath as a lawyer. The infractions of the respondent constitute gross misconduct. Jurisprudence illumines that immoral conduct involves acts that are willful, flagrant, or shameless, and that show a moral indifference to the opinion of the upright and respectable members of the community. It treads the line of grossness when it is so corrupt as to constitute a criminal act, or so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high degree, or when committed under such scandalous or revolting circumstances as to shock the communitys sense of decency.On the other hand, gross misconduct constitutes "improper or wrong conduct, the transgression of some established and definite rule of action, a forbidden act, a dereliction of duty, willful in character, and implies a wrongful intent and not mere error of judgment." In this relation, Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court states that when a lawyer is found guilty of gross immoral conduct or gross misconduct, he may be suspended or disbarred.However, the Court takes judicial notice of the fact that he had already been disbarred in a previous administrative case, entitled Sps. Rafols, Jr. v. Ricardo G. Barrios, Jr.,which therefore precludes the Court from duplicitously decreeing the same. In view of the foregoing, the Court deems it proper to, instead, impose a fine in the amount ofP40,000.00in order to penalize respondents transgressions as discussed herein and to equally deter the commission of the same or similar acts in the future.

MANUEL G. VILLATUYA v. ATTY. BEDE S. TABALINGCOS A.C. No. 6622, July 10, 2012 Case Digest FACTS:

Complainant, Manuel G. Villatuya filed a Complaint for Disbarment on December 06, 2004 against respondent, Atty. Bede S. Tabalingcos. In a resolution, the court required the respondent to file a comment, which the respondent did. The complaint was then referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for investigation.

In a mandatory conference called for by the Commission on Bar Discipline of the IBP, complainant and his counsel, and the respondent appeared and submitted issues for resolution. The commission ordered the parties to submit their verified position papers.

In the position paper submitted by the complainant on August 1, 2005, he averred that he was employed by the respondent as financial consultant to assist the respondent in a number of corporate rehabilitation cases. Complainant claimed that they had a verbal agreement whereby he would be entitled to 50,000 for every Stay Order issued by the court in the cases they would handle, in addition to ten percent (10%) of the fees paid by their clients. Notwithstanding, 18 Stay Orders that was issued by the courts as a result of his work and the respondent being able to rake in millions from the cases that they were working on together, the latter did not pay the amount due to him. He also alleged that respondent engaged in unlawful solicitation of cases by setting up two financial consultancy firms as fronts for his legal services. On the third charge of gross immorality, complainant accused respondent of committing two counts of bigamy for having married two other women while his first marriage was subsisting.

In his defense, respondent denied charges against him and asserted that the complainant was not an employee of his law firm but rather an employee of Jesi and Jane Management, Inc., one of the financial consultancy firms. Respondent alleged that complainant was unprofessional and incompetent in performing his job and that there was no verbal agreement between them regarding the payment of fees and the sharing of professional fees paid by his clients. He proffered documents showing that the salary of complainant had been paid. Respondent also denied committing any unlawful solicitation. To support his contention, respondent attached a Joint Venture Agreement and an affidavit executed by the Vice-President for operations of Jesi and Jane Management, Inc. On the charge of gross immorality, respondent assailed the Affidavit of a dismissed messenger of Jesi and Jane Management, Inc., as having no probative value, since it had been retracted by the affiant himself. Respondent did not specifically address the allegations regarding his alleged bigamous marriages with two other women

On January 9, 2006, complainant filed a Motion to Admit Copies of 3 Marriage Contracts of respondent wherein he attached the certified true copies of the Marriage Contracts referred to in the Certification issued by the NSO.

On January 16, 2006, respondent submitted his Opposition to the Motion to Admit filed by complainant, claiming that he was not given the opportunity to controvert them. He disclosed that criminal cases for bigamy were filed against him by the complainant before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Manila. He also informed the Commission that he filed Petition for Declaration of Nullity of the first two marriage contracts. In both petitions, he claimed that he had recently discovered that there were Marriage Contracts in the records of the NSO bearing his name and allegedly executed with Rowena Pion and Pilar Lozano on different occasions.

The Commission scheduled a clarificatory hearing on 20 November 2007.Respondent moved for the suspension of the resolution of the administrative case against him, pending outcome of petition for nullification he filed with RTC, but was denied. The Commission resolved that the administrative case against him be submitted for resolution.

On February 27, 2008, the Commission promulgated its Report and Recommendation addressing the specific charges against respondent. The first charge, for dishonesty for the nonpayment of certain shares in the fees, was dismissed for lack of merit. On the second charge, the Commission found respondent to have violated the rule on the solicitation of client for having advertised his legal services and unlawfully solicited cases. It recommended that he be reprimanded for the violation. As for the third charge, the Commission found respondent to be guilty of gross immorality for violating Rules 1.01 and 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Section 27 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court. Due to the gravity of the acts of respondent, the Commission recommended that he be disbarred, and that his name be stricken off the roll of attorneys.

On April 15, 2008, the IBP Board of Governors, through its Resolution No. XVIII-2008-154, adopted and approved the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner.

On August 1, 2008, respondent filed a Motion for Reconsideration, arguing that the recommendation to disbar him was premature.

On June 26, 2011, the IBP Board of Governors denied the Motions for Reconsideration and affirmed their Resolution dated April 15, 2008 recommending respondents disbarment.

ISSUES:

1. Whether respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibility by nonpayment of fees to complainant;

2. Whether respondent violated the rule against unlawful solicitation; and

3. Whether respondent is guilty of gross immoral conduct for having married thrice.

RULING:

First charge: Dishonesty for non-payments of share in the fees.

Supreme Court affirmed the IBPs dismissal of the first charge against respondent, but did not concur with the rationale behind it. The first charge, if proven to be true is based on an agreement that is violative of Rule 9.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. A lawyer is proscribed by the Code to divide or agree to divide the fees for legal services rendered with a person not licensed to practice law. In the case of Tan Tek Beng v. David, Supreme Court held that an agreement between a lawyer and a layperson to share the fees collected from clients secured by the layperson is null and void, and that the lawyer involved may be disciplined for unethical conduct. Considering that complainants allegations in this case had not been proven, the IBP correctly dismissed the charge against respondent on this matter.

Second charge: Unlawful solicitation of clients.

In its Report, the IBP established the truth of these allegations and ruled that respondent had violated the rule on the solicitation of clients, but it failed to point out the specific provision that was breached. Based on the facts of the case, he violated Rule 2.03 of the Code, which prohibits lawyers from soliciting cases for the purpose of profit.

A lawyer is not prohibited from engaging in business or other lawful occupation. Impropriety arises, though, when the business is of such a nature or is conducted in such a manner as to be inconsistent with the lawyers duties as a member of the bar. This inconsistency arises when the business is one that can readily lend itself to the procurement of professional employment for the lawyer; or that can be used as a cloak for indirect solicitation on the lawyers behalf; or is of a nature that, if handled by a lawyer, would be regarded as the practice of law.

It is clear from the documentary evidence submitted by complainant that Jesi & Jane Management, Inc., which purports to be a financial and legal consultant, was indeed a vehicle used by respondent as a means to procure professional employment; specifically for corporate rehabilitation cases.

Rule 15.08 of the Code mandates that the lawyer is mandated to inform the client whether the former is acting as a lawyer or in another capacity. This duty is a must in those occupations related to the practice of law.In this case, it is confusing for the client if it is not clear whether respondent is offering consultancy or legal services.

Considering, however, that complainant has not proven the degree of prevalence of this practice by respondent, the Supreme Court affirm the recommendation to reprimand the latter for violating Rules 2.03 and 15.08 of the Code.

Third charge: Bigamy.

The Supreme Court have consistently held that a disbarment case is sui generis. Its focus is on the qualification and fitness of a lawyer to continue membership in the bar and not the procedural technicalities in filing the case. Thus, in Garrido v. Garrido:Laws dealing with double jeopardy or with procedure such as the verification of pleadings and prejudicial questions, or in this case, prescription of offenses or the filing of affidavits of desistance by the complainant do not apply in the determination of a lawyer's qualifications and fitness for membership in the Bar. We have so ruled in the past and we see no reason to depart from this ruling. First, admission to the practice of law is a component of the administration of justice and is a matter of public interest because it involves service to the public. The admission qualifications are also qualifications for the continued enjoyment of the privilege to practice law. Second, lack of qualifications or the violation of the standards for the practice of law, like criminal cases, is a matter of public concern that the State may inquire into through this Court.In disbarment proceedings, the burden of proof rests upon the complainant. In this case, complainant submitted NSO-certified true copies to prove that respondent entered into two marriages while the latters first marriage was still subsisting. While respondent denied entering into the second and the third marriages, he resorted to vague assertions tantamount to a negative pregnant.

What has been clearly established here is the fact that respondent entered into marriages twice while his first marriage was still subsisting. In Bustamante-Alejandro v. Alejandro, 56 we held thus:[W]e have in a number of cases disciplined members of the Bar whom we found guilty of misconduct which demonstrated a lack of that good moral character required of them not only as a condition precedent for their admission to the Bar but, likewise, for their continued membership therein. No distinction has been made as to whether the misconduct was committed in the lawyers professional capacity or in his private life. This is because a lawyer may not divide his personality so as to be an attorney at one time and a mere citizen at another. He is expected to be competent, honorable and reliable at all times since he who cannot apply and abide by the laws in his private affairs, can hardly be expected to do so in his professional dealings nor lead others in doing so. Professional honesty and honor are not to be expected as the accompaniment of dishonesty and dishonor in other relations. The administration of justice, in which the lawyer plays an important role being an officer of the court, demands a high degree of intellectual and moral competency on his part so that the courts and clients may rightly repose confidence in him.

Respondent exhibited a deplorable lack of that degree of morality required of him as a member of the bar. He made a mockery of marriage, a sacred institution demanding respect and dignity.57 His acts of committing bigamy twice constituted grossly immoral conduct and are grounds for disbarment under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court.58

The Supreme Court adopted the recommendation of the IBP to disbar respondent and ordered that his name be stricken from the Roll of Attorneys.

B.M. No. 2012 February 10, 2009PROPOSED RULE ON MANDATORY LEGAL AID SERVICE FOR PRACTICING LAWYERSRESOLUTIONActing on the Memorandum dated January 27, 2009 of Justice Renato C. Corona re: Comment of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines on our Suggested Revisions to the Proposed Rule of Mandatory Legal Aid Service for Practicing Lawyers, the Court Resolved to APPROVE the same.This Resolution shall take effect on July 1, 2009 following publication of the said Rule and its implementing regulations in at least two (2) newpapers of general circulation.February 10, 2009

REYNATO S. PUNOChief Justice

LEONARDO A. QUISUMBINGAssociate JusticeCONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGOAssociate Justice

ANTONIO T. CARPIOAssociate JusticeMA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZAssociate Justice

RENATO C. CORONAAssociate JusticeCONCHITA CARPIO MORALESAssociate Justice

ADOLFO S. AZCUNAAssociate JusticeDANTE O. TINGAAssociate Justice

MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIOAssociate JusticePRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.Associate Justice

ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURAAssociate JusticeTERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTROAssociate Justice

ARTURO D. BRIONAssociate JusticeDIOSDADO M. PERALTAAssociate Justice

RULE ON MANDATORY LEGAL AID SERVICESECTION 1. Title. - This Rule shall be known as "The Rule on Mandatory Legal Aid Service."SECTION 2. Purpose. - This Rule seeks to enhance the duty of lawyers to society as agents of social change and to the courts as officers thereof by helping improve access to justice by the less privileged members of society and expedite the resolution of cases involving them. Mandatory free legal service by members of the bar and their active support thereof will aid the efficient and effective administration of justice especially in cases involving indigent and pauper litigants.SECTION 3. Scope. - This Rule shall govern the mandatory requirement for practicing lawyers to render free legal aid services in all cases (whether, civil, criminal or administrative) involving indigent and pauper litigants where the assistance of a lawyer is needed. It shall also govern the duty of other members of the legal profession to support the legal aid program of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.SECTION 4. Definition of Terms. - For purposes of this Rule:(a) Practicing lawyers are members of the Philippine Bar who appear for and in behalf of parties in courts of law and quasi-judicial agencies, including but not limited to the National Labor Relations Commission, National Conciliation and Mediation Board, Department of Labor and Employment Regional Offices, Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board and National Commission for Indigenous Peoples. The term "practicing lawyers" shall exclude:(i) Government employees and incumbent elective officials not allowed by law to practice;(ii) Lawyers who by law are not allowed to appear in court;(iii) Supervising lawyers of students enrolled in law student practice in duly accredited legal clinics of law schools and lawyers of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and peoples organizations (POs) like the Free Legal Assistance Group who by the nature of their work already render free legal aid to indigent and pauper litigants and(iv) Lawyers not covered under subparagraphs (i) to (iii) including those who are employed in the private sector but do not appear for and in behalf of parties in courts of law and quasi-judicial agencies.(b) Indigent and pauper litigants are those defined under Rule 141, Section 19 of the Rules of Court and Algura v. The Local Government Unit of the City of Naga (G.R. No.150135, 30 October 2006, 506 SCRA 81);(c) Legal aid cases are those actions, disputes, and controversies that are criminal, civil and administrative in nature in whatever stage wherein indigent and pauper litigants need legal representation;(d) Free legal aid services refer to appearance in court or quasi-judicial body for and in behalf of an indigent or pauper litigant and the preparation of pleadings or motions. It shall also cover assistance by a practicing lawyer to indigent or poor litigants in court-annexed mediation and in other modes of alternative dispute resolution (ADR). Services rendered when a practicing lawyer is appointed counsel de oficio shall also be considered as free legal aid services and credited as compliance under this Rule;(e) Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) is the official national organization of lawyers in the country;(f) National Committee on Legal Aid (NCLA) is the committee of the IBP which is specifically tasked with handling legal aid cases;(g) Committee on Bar Discipline (CBD) is the committee of the IBP which is specifically tasked with disciplining members of the Bar;(h) IBP Chapters are those chapters of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines located in the different geographical areas of the country as defined in Rule 139-A and(i) Clerk of Court is the Clerk of Court of the court where the practicing lawyer rendered free legal aid services. In the case of quasi-judicial bodies, it refers to an officer holding an equivalent or similar position.The term shall also include an officer holding a similar position in agencies exercising quasi-judicial functions, or a responsible officer of an accredited PO or NGO, or an accredited mediator who conducted the court-annexed mediation proceeding.SECTION 5. Requirements. -(a) Every practicing lawyer is required to render a minimum of sixty (60) hours of free legal aid services to indigent litigants in a year. Said 60 hours shall be spread within a period of twelve (12) months, with a minimum of five (5) hours of free legal aid services each month. However, where it is necessary for the practicing lawyer to render legal aid service for more than five (5) hours in one month, the excess hours may be credited to the said lawyer for the succeeding periods.For this purpose, a practicing lawyer shall coordinate with the Clerk of Court for cases where he may render free legal aid service. He may also coordinate with the IBP Legal Aid Chairperson of the IBP Chapter to inquire about cases where he may render free legal aid service. In this connection, the IBP Legal Aid Chairperson of the IBP Chapter shall regularly and actively coordinate with the Clerk of Court.The practicing lawyer shall report compliance with the requirement within ten (10) days of the last month of each quarter of the year.(b) A practicing lawyer shall be required to secure and obtain a certificate from the Clerk of Court attesting to the number of hours spent rendering free legal aid services in a case.The certificate shall contain the following information:(i) The case or cases where the legal aid service was rendered, the party or parties in the said case(s) for whom the service was rendered, the docket number of the said case(s) and the date(s) the service was rendered.(ii) The number of hours actually spent attending a hearing or conducting trial on a particular case in the court or quasi-judicial body.(iii) The number of hours actually spent attending mediation, conciliation or any other mode of ADR on a particular case.(iv) A motion (except a motion for extension of time to file a pleading or for postponement of hearing or conference) or pleading filed on a particular case shall be considered as one (1) hour of service.The Clerk of Court shall issue the certificate in triplicate, one (1) copy to be retained by the practicing lawyer, one (1) copy to be retained by the Clerk of Court and one (1) copy to be attached to the lawyer's compliance report.(c) Said compliance report shall be submitted to the Legal Aid Chairperson of the IBP Chapter within the courts jurisdiction. The Legal Aid Chairperson shall then be tasked with immediately verifying the contents of the certificate with the issuing Clerk of Court by comparing the copy of the certificate attached to the compliance report with the copy retained by the Clerk of Court.(d) The IBP Chapter shall, after verification, issue a compliance certificate to the concerned lawyer. The IBP Chapter shall also submit the compliance reports to the IBPs NCLA for recording and documentation. The submission shall be made within forty-five (45) days after the mandatory submission of compliance reports by the practicing lawyers.(e) Practicing lawyers shall indicate in all pleadings filed before the courts or quasi-judicial bodies the number and date of issue of their certificate of compliance for the immediately preceding compliance period. Failure to disclose the required information would cause the dismissal of the case and the expunction of the pleadings from the records.(f) Before the end of a particular year, lawyers covered by the category under Section 4(a)(i) and (ii), shall fill up a form prepared by the NCLA which states that, during that year, they are employed with the government or incumbent elective officials not allowed by law to practice or lawyers who by law are not allowed to appear in court.The form shall be sworn to and submitted to the IBP Chapter or IBP National Office together with the payment of an annual contribution of Two Thousand Pesos (P2,000). Said contribution shall accrue to a special fund of the IBP for the support of its legal aid program.(g) Before the end of a particular year, lawyers covered by the category under Section 4(a)(iii) shall secure a certification from the director of the legal clinic or of the concerned NGO or PO to the effect that, during that year, they have served as supervising lawyers in a legal clinic or actively participated in the NGOs or POs free legal aid activities. The certification shall be submitted to the IBP Chapter or IBP National Office.(h) Before the end of a particular year, lawyers covered by the category under Section 4(a)(iv) shall fill up a form prepared by the NCLA which states that, during that year, they are neither practicing lawyers nor covered by Section (4)(a)(i) to (iii). The form shall be sworn to and submitted to the IBP Chapter or IBP National Office together with the payment of an annual contribution of Four Thousand Pesos (P4,000) by way of support for the efforts of practicing lawyers who render mandatory free legal aid services. Said contribution shall accrue to a special fund of the IBP for the support of its legal aid program.(i) Failure to pay the annual contribution shall subject the lawyer to a penalty of Two Thousand Pesos (P2,000) for that year which amount shall also accrue to the special fund for the legal aid program of the IBP.SECTION 6. NCLA. -(a) The NCLA shall coordinate with the various legal aid committees of the IBP local chapters for the proper handling and accounting of legal aid cases which practicing lawyers can represent.(b) The NCLA shall monitor the activities of the Chapter of the Legal Aid Office with respect to the coordination with Clerks of Court on legal aid cases and the collation of certificates submitted by practicing lawyers.(c) The NCLA shall act as the national repository of records in compliance with this Rule.(d) The NCLA shall prepare the following forms: certificate to be issued by the Clerk of Court and forms mentioned in Section 5(e) and (g).(e) The NCLA shall hold in trust, manage and utilize the contributions and penalties that will be paid by lawyers pursuant to this Rule to effectively carry out the provisions of this Rule. For this purpose, it shall annually submit an accounting to the IBP Board of Governors.The accounting shall be included by the IBP in its report to the Supreme Court in connection with its request for the release of the subsidy for its legal aid program.SECTION 7. Penalties. -(a) At the end of every calendar year, any practicing lawyer who fails to meet the minimum prescribed 60 hours of legal aid service each year shall be required by the IBP, through the NCLA, to explain why he was unable to render the minimum prescribed number of hours. If no explanation has been given or if the NCLA finds the explanation unsatisfactory, the NCLA shall make a report and recommendation to the IBP Board of Governors that the erring lawyer be declared a member of the IBP who is not in good standing. Upon approval of the NCLAs recommendation, the IBP Board of Governors shall declare the erring lawyer as a member not in good standing. Notice thereof shall be furnished the erring lawyer and the IBP Chapter which submitted the lawyers compliance report or the IBP Chapter where the lawyer is registered, in case he did not submit a compliance report. The notice to the lawyer shall include a directive to pay Four Thousand Pesos (P4,000) penalty which shall accrue to the special fund for the legal aid program of the IBP.(b) The "not in good standing" declaration shall be effective for a period of three (3) months from the receipt of the erring lawyer of the notice from the IBP Board of Governors. During the said period, the lawyer cannot appear in court or any quasi-judicial body as counsel. Provided, however, that the "not in good standing" status shall subsist even after the lapse of the three-month period until and unless the penalty shall have been paid.(c) Any lawyer who fails to comply with his duties under this Rule for at least three (3) consecutive years shall be the subject of disciplinary proceedings to be instituted motu proprio by the CBD. The said proceedings shall afford the erring lawyer due process in accordance with the rules of the CBD and Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court. If found administratively liable, the penalty of suspension in the practice of law for one (1) year shall be imposed upon him.(d) Any lawyer who falsifies a certificate or any form required to be submitted under this Rule or any contents thereof shall be administratively charged with falsification and dishonesty and shall be subject to disciplinary action by the CBD. This is without prejudice to the filing of criminal charges against the lawyer.(e) The falsification of a certificate or any contents thereof by any Clerk of Court or by any Chairperson of the Legal Aid Committee of the IBP local chapter where the case is pending or by the Director of a legal clinic or responsible officer of an NGO or PO shall be a ground for an administrative case against the said Clerk of Court or Chairperson. This is without prejudice to the filing of the criminal and administrative charges against the malfeasor.SECTION 8. Credit for Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE). - A lawyer who renders mandatory legal aid service for the required number of hours in a year for the three year-period covered by a compliance period under the Rules on MCLE shall be credited the following: two (2) credit units for legal ethics, two (2) credit units for trial and pretrial skills, two (2) credit units for alternative dispute resolution, four (4) credit units for legal writing and oral advocacy, four (4) credit units for substantive and procedural laws and jurisprudence and six (6) credit units for such subjects as may be prescribed by the MCLE Committee under Section 2(9), Rule 2 of the Rules on MCLE.A lawyer who renders mandatory legal aid service for the required number of hours in a year for at least two consecutive years within the three year-period covered by a compliance period under the Rules on MCLE shall be credited the following: one (1) credit unit for legal ethics, one (1) credit unit for trial and pretrial skills, one (1) credit unit for alternative dispute resolution, two (2) credit units for legal writing and oral advocacy, two (2) credit units for substantive and procedural laws and jurisprudence and three (3) credit units for such subjects as may be prescribed by the MCLE Committee under Section 2(g), Rule 2 of the Rules on MCLE.SECTION 9. Implementing Rules. - The IBP, through the NCLA, is hereby given authority to recommend implementing regulations in determining who are "practicing lawyers," what constitute "legal aid cases" and what administrative procedures and financial safeguards which may be necessary and proper in the implementation of this rule may be prescribed. It shall coordinate with the various legal chapters in the crafting of the proposed implementing regulations and, upon approval by the IBP Board of Governors, the said implementing regulations shall be transmitted to the Supreme Court for final approval.SECTION 10. Effectivity. - This Rule and its implementing rules shall take effect on July 1,2009 after they have been published in two (2) newspapers of general circulation.

KHAN, JR. V SIMBILLOYNARES-SANTIAGO; August 19, 2003(apple maramba)

NATUREADMINISTRATIVE MATTER in the Supreme Court and SPECIALCIVIL ACTION in the Supreme Court. Certiorari.

FACTS- Atty. Rizalino Simbillo publicized his legal services in the July 5, 2000 issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer via a paidadvertisement which read: Annulment of Marriage Specialist 532-4333/521-2667.- A staff member of the Public Information Office of the Supreme Court took notice and called the number posing as an interested party. She spoke to Mrs. Simbillo, who said that her husband was an expert in handling annulment cases and can guarantee a court decree within four to six months, and that the fee was P48,000.- Further research by the Office of the Court Administrator and the Public Information Office revealed that similar ads were published in the August 2 and 6, 2000 issues of the Manila Bulletin and August 5, 2000 issue of the Philippine Star.- Atty. Ismael Khan, Jr., in his capacity as Assistant Court Administrator and Chief of the Public Information Office filed an administrative complaint against Atty. Simbillo for improper advertising and solicitation in violation of Rule 2.03 and Rule 3.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Rule 138, Section 27 of the Rules of Court.

- The case was referred to the IBP for investigation, report and recommendation.- IBP found respondent guilty- Respondent filed an Urgent Motion for Reconsideration, which was denied- Hence, this petition for certiorari

ISSUEWON Atty. Rizalino Simbillo is guilty of violating Rule 2.03 and Rule 3.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Rule 138, Section 27 of the Rules of Court

HELDYes. Petitioner was suspended from the practice of law for one year and was sternly warned that a repetition of the same or similar offense will be dealt with more severely.Ratio The practice of law is not a business. It is a profession in which duty to public.