Khan vs Simbillo

Nick: Advertising
Facts:
Respondent. Atty. Simbillo publicized his legal services in 3major newspapers, the Philippine
Daily Inquirer, Manila Bulletin, and the PhilStar, which read "Annulment of Marriage
Specialist," and claimed as an expert in handling annulment cases, and that he can guarantee courts
decree within 4 to 6 months time and that the fee was Php 48,000.
On September 1, 2000, Atty. Ismael G. Khan, Jr., in his capacity as Assistant Court Administrator
and Chief of the Public Information Office, filed an administrative complaint against Atty.
Rizalino T. Simbillo for improper advertising and solicitation of his legal services, in violation of
Rule 2.03 and Rule 3.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Rule 138, Section 27 of
the Rules of Court in which the IBP found the respondent guilty.
Issue:
Whether or not the respondent is guilty of violating Rule 2.03 and3.01 of CPR.
Ruling:
Yes. The practice of law is not a business. It is a profession in which duty to public service, not
money, is the primary consideration. Respondent was suspended from the practice of law for 1
year and was sternly warned that are petition of the same or similar offense will be dealt more
severely.
Rule 2.03. A lawyer shall not do or permit to be done any act designed primarily to
solicit legal business.
Rule 3.01. A lawyer shall not use or permit the use of any false, fraudulent,
misleading, deceptive, undignified, self-laudatory or unfair statement or claim regarding
his qualifications or legal services.
Rule 138, Section 27 of the Rules of Court states:
SEC. 27.Disbarment and suspension of attorneys by Supreme Court, grounds
therefore. A member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended from his office as
attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice or other gross misconduct in
such office, grossly immoral conduct or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving
moral turpitude, or for any violation of the oath which he is required to take before the
admission to practice, or for a willful disobedience appearing as attorney for a party
without authority to do so.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, respondent RIZALINO T. SIMBILLO is found
GUILTY of violation of Rules 2.03 and 3.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Rule
138, Section 27 of the Rules of Court. He is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for ONE (1)
YEAR effective upon receipt of this Resolution. He is likewise STERNLY WARNED that a
repetition of the same or similar offense will be dealt with more severely.
Linsangan vs Tolentino

Unethical Solicitation of Legal Business

Facts:
In 2005, Atty. Pedro Linsangan filed an administrative complaint against Atty. Nicomedes
Tolentino alleging that Atty. Tolentino, through his paralegal Fe Marie Labiano, pirated a client
of Atty. Linsangan. Said client later executed an affidavit in support of Atty. Linsangans
allegations.
Atty. Linsangan also questioned the propriety of Labianos calling card which appears as
follows:
FRONT
NICOMEDES TOLENTINO
LAW OFFICE
CONSULTANCY & MARITIME SERVICES
W/ FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE
Fe Marie L. Labiano
Paralegal
BACK
SERVICES OFFERED:
CONSULTATION AND ASSISTANCE
TO OVERSEAS SEAMEN
REPATRIATED DUE TO ACCIDENT,
INJURY, ILLNESS, SICKNESS, DEATH
AND INSURANCE BENEFIT CLAIMS
ABROAD.
In his defense, Atty. Tolentino denied knowing Labiano. He also denied authorizing the printing
of such calling cards.
ISSUES:
1. Whether or not Atty. Nicomedes Tolentino encroached upon the professional services of Atty.
Pedro Linsangan.
2. Whether or not Atty. Tolentino is liable for the improper calling card of Labiano.
HELD:
1. Yes. Atty. Tolentino violated Rule 8.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. A lawyer
should not steal another lawyers client nor induce the latter to retain him by a promise of better
service, good result or reduced fees for his services. By recruiting Atty. Linsangans clients, Atty.
Tolentino committed an unethical, predatory overstep into anothers legal practice.
2. Yes. Atty. Tolentino violated Rules 1.03, 2.03, and 16.04 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. Although Atty. Tolentino initially denied knowing Labiano, he admitted he

actually knew her later in the proceedings. It is thus clear that Labiano was connected to his law
office. Through Labianos actions, Atty. Tolentinos law practice was benefited. Hapless seamen
were enticed to transfer representation on the strength of Labianos word that Atty.
Tolentino could produce a more favorable result.
RULE 1.03. A LAWYER SHALL NOT, FOR ANY CORRUPT MOTIVE OR
INTEREST, ENCOURAGE ANY SUIT OR PROCEEDING OR DELAY ANY
MANS CAUSE.
RULE 2.03. A LAWYER SHALL NOT DO OR PERMIT TO BE DONE ANY
ACT DESIGNED PRIMARILY TO SOLICIT LEGAL BUSINESS.
Rule 16.04 A lawyer shall not borrow money from his client unless the clients interests
are fully protected by the nature of the case or by independent advice. Neither
shall a lawyer lend money to a client except, when in the interest of justice, he has
to advance necessary expenses in a legal matter he is handling for the client.

Labianos calling card is improper. The card made it appear that the law office will finance legal
actions for the clients. The rule is, a lawyer shall not lend money to a client except, when in the
interest of justice; he has to advance necessary expenses in a legal matter he is handling for the
client.
The rule is intended to safeguard the lawyers independence of mind so that the free exercise of
his judgment may not be adversely affected. It seeks to ensure his undivided attention to the case
he is handling as well as his entire devotion and fidelity to the clients cause. If the lawyer lends
money to the client in connection with the clients case, the lawyer in effect acquires an interest
in the subject matter of the case or an additional stake in its outcome. Either of these
circumstances may lead the lawyer to consider his own recovery rather than that of his client, or
to accept a settlement which may take care of his interest in the verdict to the prejudice of the
client in violation of his duty of undivided fidelity to the clients cause.
The phrase in the calling card which states w/ financial assistance, was clearly used to entice
clients (who already had representation) to change counsels with a promise of loans to finance
their legal actions.
However, since there is no substantial evidence to prove that Atty. Tolentino had a personal and
direct hand in the printing of said calling cards, he cannot be punished with severity. At any rate,
for all the infractions Atty. Tolentino committed, he was suspended by the Supreme Court for one
year.

MANUEL G. VILLATUYA v. ATTY. BEDE S. TABALINGCOS

Attorney; bigamy; gross immorality. 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. Respondents regard for marriage contracts as ordinary
agreements indicates either his wanton disregard of the sanctity of marriage or his gross
ignorance of the law on what course of action to take to annul a marriage under the old Civil
Code provisions. Respondent entered into marriage twice while his first marriage was still
subsisting. He 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.
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
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:
1. 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.
2. 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 affirms the recommendation to reprimand the latter for
violating Rules 2.03 and 15.08 of the Code.
3. 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 marriage
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 Attorney

Dacanay vs Baker and McKenzie

Use of Foreign Law Firm Name

FACTS:
In November 1979, Atty. Vicente Torres sent a letter to one Rosie Clurman, represented by Atty.
Adriano Dacanay, asking Clurman to release some shares to Torres client. The letterhead
contained the name Baker & McKenzie. Dacanay denied Clurmans liability and at the same
time he asked why is Torres using the letterhead Baker & McKenzie, a foreign partnership
established in Chicago, Illinois. No reply was received so Dacanay filed an administrative
complaint enjoining Torres from using Baker & McKenzie.
Later, Torres said that he is an associate of the law firm Guerrero & Torres; that their law firm is
a member of Baker & McKenzie; that the said foreign firm has members in 30 cities all over the
world; that they associated with them in order to make a representation that they can render legal
services of the highest quality to multinational business enterprises and others engaged in foreign
trade and investment.
ISSUE: Whether or not the use of a foreign law office name is allowed.
RULING:
No. Baker & McKenzie, being an alien law firm, cannot practice law in the Philippines (Sec. 1,
Rule 138, Rules of Court). As admitted by the respondents 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 the
Philippine 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 a representation that being associated with the firm they could "render legal services
of the highest quality to multinational business enterprises and others engaged in foreign trade
and investment" (p. 3, respondents' memo). This is unethical because Baker & McKenzie is not
authorized to practice law here. (See Ruben E. Agpalo, Legal Ethics, 1983 Ed., p. 115.)