CANON 3
by Ralph Agbisit HELD:
LINSANGAN v. TOLENTINO
(A.C. No. 6672, September 4, 2009)
FACTS:
A complaint for disbarment is filed by Pedro Linsangan against Atty. Nicomedes
Tolentino for solicitation of clients and encroachment of professional services. The complainant
alleged that respondent convinced his clients to transfer legal representation by promising
them financial assistance. The allegations of the complainant were supported by the sworn
affidavit of James Gregorio who attested to the respondent’s acts of trying to lure him to sever
his lawyer-client relationship with complainant Linsangan. An attached calling card of the
respondent further supported the complaint which advertised the respondent’s law firm with the
term “w/ financial assistance”.
ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent’s acts are iolative of Canon 3 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
HELD:
Yes, Canon 3 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states that “A lawyer
making known his legal services shall use only true, honest, fair, dignified and objective
information or statements of facts.” The practice of law is a professions and not a business.
Lawyers should not advertise their talents as merchants advertise their wares. The act of the
respondent in including the phrase “with financial assistance” in his calling card is a conduct of
advertising the legal profession with commercialism and with the purpose of enticing clients to
change counsels through the promise of loans to finance their legal action. A lawyer need not
to advertise the legal profession in such a manner similar to commercial businesses, a
lawyer’s best advertisement is a well-merited reputation for professional capacity and fidelity to
trust based on his character and conduct and not through promises of money.
CANON 4
by Nikki Nakhiska Macalino
DULALIA v. ATTY. CRUZ
(A.C. No, 6854, April 25, 2007)
FACTS:
Complainant’s wife Susan Dulalia filed an application for building permit for the
construction of a warehouse, but was not issued a the permit She attributes this fact to the
opposition of respondents who wrote a September 13, 2004 letter to Carlos J. Abacan,
Municipal Engineer and concurrent Building Official of Meycauayan, Bulacan The letter alleges
that high-rise building under construction of the said Mrs. Soriano-Dulalia is an unbearable
nuisance that causes imminent danger to the respondents and his family, they being the
immediate neighbors of this construction site. Complainant claims that respondent Atty Cruz
opposed the application for the permit, because of a personal grudge against his wife Susan
who objected to respondent’s marrying her first cousin Imelda Soriano, respondent’s marriage
with Carolina Agaton being still subsisting. The IBP recommended the dismissal of the
complaint, which was adopted and approved by the Board of Governors. Hence, this petition.
Complainant maintains that (1) Respondent violated Rule 1.01 when he contracted a second
marriage with Imelda Soriano on September 17, 1989 while his marriage with Carolina Agaton,
which was solemnized on December 17, 1967, is still subsisting; (2) respondent used his
influence as the Municipal Legal Officer of Meycauayan to oppose his wife’s application for
building permit, in violation of Rule 6.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and (3) And
for engaging in the practice of law while serving as the Municipal Legal Officer of Meycauayan,
complainant maintains that respondent violated Rule 7.03.
ISSUE:
Whether Atty. Cruz violated the CPR?
YES on first ground only, last two grounds dismissed. Respondent married Soriano
on September 17, 1989 at the Clark County, Nevada, USA, when the Family Code of the
Philippines had already taken effect. He invokes good faith, however, he claiming to have had
the impression that the applicable provision at the time was Article 83 of the Civil Code In
respondent’s case, he being out of the country since 1986, he can be given the benefit of the
doubt on his claim that Article 83 of the Civil Code was the applicable provision when he
contracted the second marriage abroad. From 1985 when allegedly his first wife abandoned
him, an allegation which was not refuted, until his marriage in 1989 with Imelda Soriano, there
is no showing that he was romantically involved with any woman. Respondent did not deny he
contracted marriage with Imelda Soriano. The community in which they have been living in fact
elected him and served as President of the IBP-Bulacan Chapter from 1997-1999 and has
been handling free legal aid cases. However, respondent may not go scot-free. The act of
contracting a second marriage while the first marriage was still in place is contrary to honesty,
justice, decency and morality
Also, respondent violated Canon 5 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He
claim that he was not aware that the Family Code already took effect on August 3, 1988 as he
was in the United States from 1986 and stayed there until he came back to the Philippines
together with his second wife on October 9, 1990 does not lie, as "ignorance of the law
excuses no one from compliance therewith.” The primary duty of lawyers is to obey the laws
of the land and promote respect for the law and legal processes. They are expected to be in
the forefront in the observance and maintenance of the rule of law. This duty carries with it the
obligation to be well-informed of the existing laws and to keep abreast with legal
developments, recent enactments and jurisprudence. It is imperative that they be conversant
with basic legal principles. Unless they faithfully comply with such duty, they may not be able to
discharge competently and diligently their obligations as members of the bar. Worse, they may
become susceptible to committing mistakes. He is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for
one year.
CANON 5
by Mayumi Yraola
DE ROY v. COURT OF APPEALS
(G.R. No. 80718, January 29, 1988)
FACTS:
The firewall of a burned out building owned by petitioners collapsed and destroyed
the tailoring shop occupied by the family of the private respondents resulting in injuries to
private respondents had been warned by petitioners to vacate their shop in view of its
proximity to the weakened wall but the former failed to do. In the RTC, petitioners were found
guilty of gross negligence. On the last day of the 15 days period to file an appeal, petitioners
filed a motion for reconsideration which was again denied. The Supreme Court finds that Court
of Appeal did not commit a grave abuse of discretion when it denied petitioner’s motion for
reconsideration. It correctly applied the rule laid down in Habulaya’s vs Japzon. Counsel for
petitioner contends that the said case should not be applied non-publication in the Official
Gazette.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Supreme Court decisions must be published in the Official Gazette
before they can be binding.
HELD:
There is no law requiring the publication of Supreme Court decision in the Official
Gazette before they can be binding and as a condition to their becoming effective. It is
bounden duty of counsel as lawyer in active law practice to keep abreast of decisions of the
Supreme Court as embedded in Canon 5 of the Code of Professional Responsibility,
particularly where issues have been clarified, consistently reiterated and published in the
advance reports of Supreme Court decisions and in such publications as the SCRA and law connection with any matter in which he had intervened while in said service.” Having been an
journals. executive of complainant bank, respondent sought to litigate as counsel for the opposite side,
a case against his former employer involving a transaction which he formerly handled while still
CANON 6 an employee of complainant, violated said Canon.
by Joshua Remollo

Re: Resolution Of The Court Dated 1 June 2004 In G.R. No. 72954 Against Atty. Avecilla
(A.C. No. 6683, July 21, 2011)

FACTS:
After the resolution of a petition questioning the constitutionality of B.P. 883,
Supreme Court through its JRO took custody of such rollo (where herein respondent Avecilla
was involved). Now, in order to check on the management of the Judicial Development Fund,
herein respondent Atty. Avecilla made a claim as through the abovementioned rollo. When the
Supreme Court asked the JRO to inquire, the said rollo was missing. Later on, such
whereabouts where found with Atty. Avecilla, having custody through his legal work with a
retired Supreme Court Justice. Through the report and recommendation of the Office of the
Chief Attorney (OCAT), it was found out that such rollo was used for a personal agenda (and
only returned after 12 years), but borrowed through a certain Atty. Banzon, another then legal
researcher with the same abovementioned Justice. However, respondent Atty. Avecilla
asserted that such was not through his fault and only found out that it was with him when he
was contacted to for retrieval. The Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC), for its report and
recommendation, agreed with the OCAT, making Atty. Avecilla liable.

ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent Atty. Avecilla be held administratively liable.

HELD:
SUSPENDED. According to Rule 6.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, “a
lawyer in the government service shall not use his public position to promote or advance his
private interests XXX”. Being a court employee, they should not to take any court records,
papers or documents outside the court premises. Also, the act of the respondent in borrowing
a rollo for unofficial business entailed the employment of deceit not becoming a member of the
bar.

CANON 6
by Joshua Remollo

PNB v. ATTY. CEDO

(A.C. No. 3701, March 28, 1995)

FACTS:
After having arranged the sale of steel sheets for Mrs Siy, the latter became
implicated in a civil case with the complainant PNB. After having stop employment with PNB,
respondent Atty. Cedo appeared as counsel for Mrs. Siy. A similar situation also happene when
spouses Almeda were implicated to a case with complainant PNB— counsel for Sps. Almeda
is the Cedo, Ferrer, Maynigo & Associates. Atty. Cedo was AVP of the Asset Management
group of complainant bank, where such loan transaction of Sps. Almeda came under his
purview. Respondent asserted that in the former case, he did not participate in the litigation
before the court, while the latter, it was another partner of the firm that handle the case. IBP
made its report and recommendation for suspension for having deliberate intent to devise
ways and means to attract as clients former borrowers of complainant bank since he was in
the best position to see the legal weaknesses of his former employer.

ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent Atty. Cedo be held administratively liable.

HELD:
SUSPENDED. According to Canon 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility,
“A lawyer shall not, after leaving government service, accept engagement or employment in
Code of Professional Responsibility
Chapter 1:
Lawyer and Society
CANON 1 – A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote
respect for law and for legal processes
• Duties of Attorneys:
1. to maintain allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines and to support the Constitution
and obey the laws of the Philippines;
2. to observe and maintain the respect due to the courts of justice and judicial officers;
3. to counsel or maintain such actions or proceedings only as appear to him as just, and
such defenses only as he believes to be honestly debatable under the laws;
4. to employ, for the purpose of maintaining the causes confided to him, such means only
as are consistent with truth and honor, and never seek to mislead the judge or any
judicial officer by an artifice or false statement of fact or law;
5. to maintain inviolate the confidence, and at every peril to himself, to preserve the
secrets of his client, and to accept no compensation in connection with his client’s
business except from him or with his knowledge and approval;
6. to abstain from all offensive personality and to advance no fact prejudicial to the honor
or reputation of a party or witness, unless required by the justice of the cause with
which he is charged;
7. not to encourage either the commencement or the continuance of an action or
proceeding, or delay any man’s cause for any corrupt motive or interest;
8. never to reject, for any consideration personal to himself, the cause of the defenseless
or oppressed;
9. in the defense of a person accused of a crime, by all fair and honorable means,
regardless of his personal opinion as to the guilt of the accused, to present every
defense that the law permits, to the end that no person may be deprived of life or
liberty, but by due process of law.
Rule 1.01 – A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
conduct.
• Conviction for crimes involving moral turpitude – a number of lawyers have been
suspended or disbarred for conviction of crimes involving moral turpitude such as:
10. estafa
11. bribery
12. murder
13. seduction
14. abduction
15. smuggling
16. falsification of public documents
• Morality as understood in law – This is a human standard based on natural moral law
which is embodied in man’s conscience and which guides him to do good and avoid
evil.
• Moral Turpitude: any thing that is done contrary to justice, honesty, modesty or good
morals.
• Immoral Conduct: that conduct which is willful, flagrant, or shameless and which
shows a moral indifference to the opinion of the good and respectable members of the
community (Arciga vs. Maniwag, 106 SCRA 591).
• Grossly Immoral Conduct: One that is so corrupt and false as to constitute a criminal
act or so unprincipled or disgraceful as to be reprehensible to a high degree; it is a
WILLFUL, FLAGRANT or SHAMELESS ACT which shows a MORAL INDIFFERENCE
to the opinion of respectable members of the community. (Narag vs. Narag, 1998)
Rule 1.02 – A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the law or at
lessening confidence in the legal system.
Rule 1.03 – A lawyer shall not, for any corrupt motive or interest, encourage any suit or
proceeding or delay any man’s cause.
Rule 1.04 – A lawyer shall encourage his clients to avoid, end or settle the controversy if
it will admit of a fair settlement.
• If a lawyer finds that his client’s cause is defenseless, it is his burden/duty to advise the
latter to acquiesce and submit, rather than traverse the incontrovertible.
• It is unprofessional for a lawyer to volunteer advice to bring a lawsuit, except in rare
cases where the blood, relationship or trust makes it his duty to do so.
• Temper client’s propensity to litigate.
• Should not be an instigator of controversy but a mediator for concord and conciliator for
compromise.
• The law violated need not be a penal law. “Moral Turpitude” – everything which is done
contrary to justice, honesty, modesty or good morals.
• Give advice tending to impress upon the client and his undertaking exact compliance
with the strictest principles of moral law.
• Until a statute shall have been construed and interpreted by competent adjudication, he
is free and is entitled to advise as to its validity and as to what he conscientiously
believes to be its just meaning and extent.
• A lawyer has the obligation not to encourage suits. This is so as to prevent barratry and
ambulance chasing.
• Barratry – offense of frequently exciting and stirring up quarrels and suits, either at law
or otherwise; Lawyer’s act of fomenting suits among individuals and offering his legal
services to one of them.
• Ambulance Chasing – Act of chasing victims of accidents for the purpose of talking to
the said victims (or relatives) and offering his legal services for the filing of a case
against the person(s) who caused the accident(s).
CANON 2 – A lawyer shall make his legal services available in an efficient and convenient
manner compatible with the independence, integrity and effectiveness of the profession.
Rule 2.01 – A lawyer shall not reject, except for valid reasons, the cause of the
defenseless or oppressed.
Rule 2.02 – In such a case, even if a lawyer does not accept a case, he shall not refuse
to render legal advise to the person concerned if only to the extent necessary to
safeguard latter’s rights.
Rule 2.03 – a lawyer shall not do or permit to be done any act designed primarily to
solicit legal business.
• Primary characteristics which distinguish the legal profession from business;
16. duty of service, of which the emolument is a by product, and in which one may attain
the highest eminence without making such money;
17. a relation as an ‘officer of court’ to the administration of justice involving thorough
sincerity, integrity and reliability;
18. a relation to clients in the highest degree of fiduciary;
19. 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 with their clients.
• Defenseless – not in the position to defend themselves due to poverty, weakness,
ignorance or other similar reasons.
• Oppressed – victims of acts of cruelty, unlawful exaction, domination or excessive use
of authority.
Rule on Advertisements
• General Rule: No advertisements allowed. The most worthy and effective
advertisement possible is the establishment of a well-merited reputation for
professional capacity and fidelity to trust.
Lawyers may not advertise their services or expertise nor should not resort to indirect
advertisements for professional employment, such as furnishing or inspiring newspaper
comments, or procuring his photograph to be published in connection with causes in which the
lawyer has been engaged or concerning the manner of their conduct, the magnitude of the
interest involved, the importance of the lawyer’s position, and all other self-laudation.
• Exceptions/ Permissible advertisements:
20. Reputable law lists, in a manner consistent with the standards of conduct imposed by
the canons, of brief biographical and informative data, are allowed.
21. Ordinary simple professional Card. It may contain only a statement of his name, the
name of the law firm which he is connected with, address, telephone number and the
special branch of law practiced.
 23. A simple announcement of the opening of a law firm or of changes in the partnership,
associates, firm name or office address, being for the convenience of the profession, is
not objectionable.
24. Advertisements or simple announcement of the existence of a lawyer or his law firm
posted anywhere it is proper such as his place of business or residence except
courtrooms and government buildings.
25. Advertisements or announcement in any legal publication, including books, journals,
and legal magazines.
Rule 2.04 – A lawyer shall not charge rates lower than those customarily or prescribed,
unless circumstances so warrant.
• A lawyer cannot delay the approval of a compromise agreement entered into between
parties, just because his attorney’s fees were not provided for in the agreement.
• Rule: A lawyer cannot compromise the case without client’s consent (special authority).
Exception: Lawyer has exclusive management of the procedural aspect of the litigation
(e.g. Submission for decision on the evidence so far presented. But in case where
lawyer is confronted with an emergency and prompt/urgent action is necessary to
protect clients interest and there’s no opportunity for consultation, the lawyer may
compromise.
• Rule: Refrain from charging rates lower than the customary rates.
Valid Justification: relatives, co-lawyers, too poor
CANON 3 – A lawyer in making known is legal services shall use only true, honest, fair
dignified and objective information or statement of facts.
Rule 3.01 – A lawyer shall not use or permit the use of any false, fraudulent, misleading,
deceptive, undignified, self-auditory or unfair statement or claim regarding his
qualifications or legal services.
• Violation of Rule 3.01 is unethical, whether done by him personally or through another
with his permission.
Rule 3.02 – In the choice of a firm name, no false, misleading, or assumed name shall be
used. The continued use of the name of a deceased partner is permissible provided
that the firm indicates in all its communication that said partner is deceased.
Rule 3.03 – Where a partner accepts public office, he shall withdraw from the firm and
his name shall be dropped from the firm name unless the law allows him to practice law
concurrently.
Rule 3.04 – A lawyer shall not pay or give anything of value to representatives of the
mass media in anticipation of, or in return for, publicity to attract legal business.
• It is unethical to use the name of a foreign firm.
• Death of a partner does not extinguish attorney-client relationship with the law firm.
• Negligence of a member in the law firm is negligence of the firm.
CANON 4 – A lawyer shall participate in the improvement of the legal system by
initiating or supporting efforts in law reform and in the administration of justice.
• Examples: Presenting position papers or resolutions for the introduction of pertinent
bills in congress; Petitions with the Supreme Court for the amendment of the Rules of
Court.
CANON 5 – A lawyer shall keep abreast of legal developments, participate in continuing
legal education programs, support efforts to achieve high standards in law schools as
well as in the practical training of students and assist in disseminating information
regarding the law and jurisprudence.
Objectives of integration of the Bar
• To elevate the standards of the legal profession
• To improve the administration of justice
• To enable the Bar to discharge its responsibility more effectively.
The three-fold obligation of a lawyer
• First, he owes it to himself to continue improving his knowledge of the laws;
• Second, he owes it to his profession to take an active interest in the maintenance of
high standards of legal education;
• Third, he owes it to the lay public to make the law a part of their social consciousness.
CANON 6 – These canons shall apply to lawyers in government service in the discharge
of their official tasks.
• Public Officials – include elective and appointive officials and employees, permanent or
temporary, whether in the career or non-career service, including military and police
personnel, whether or not they receive compensation, regardless of amount. (Sec. 3
(b), RA 6713).
• The law requires the observance of the following norms of conduct by every public
official in the discharge and execution of their official duties:
1. commitment to public interest
2. professionalism
3. justness and sincerity
4. political neutrality
5. responsiveness to the public
6. nationalism and patriotism
7. commitment to democracy
8. simple living (Sec. 4, RA 6713)
Rule 6.01 – The primary duty of a lawyer engaged in public prosecution is not to convict
but to see that justice is done. The suppression of facts or the concealment of
witnesses capable of establishing the innocence of the accused is highly reprehensible
and is cause of disciplinary action.
Rule 6.02 – A lawyer in the government service shall not use his public position to
promote or advance his private interest, nor allow the latter to interfere with his public
duties.
Rule 6.03 – A lawyer shall not, after leaving government service, accept engagements or
employment in connection with any matter in which he had intervened while in said
service.
• Various ways a government lawyer leaves government service:
9. retirement
10. resignation
11. expiration of the term of office
12. dismissal
13. abandonment
• Q: What are the pertinent statutory provisions regarding this Rule?
A: Sec. 3 (d) RA 3019 as amended and Sec. 7 (b), RA 6713
Sec 3. Corrupt practice of Public Officers. In addition to acts or omission of public officers
already penalized by existing law, the following shall constitute corrupt practice of any public
officer and are hereby declared to be unlawful:
(d) accepting or having any member of his family accept employment in a private enterprise
which has pending official business with him during the pendency thereof or within one year
after termination.
Section 7 (b) of RA 6713 prohibits officials from doing any of the following acts:
1. own, control, manage or accept employment as officer, employee, consultant, counsel,
broker, agent, trustee or nominee in any private enterprise regulated, supervised or
licensed by their office unless expressly allowed by law.
These prohibitions shall continue to apply for a period of one (1) year after resignation,
retirement, or separation from public office, except in the case of subparagraph (b) (2) above,
but the professional concerned cannot practice his profession in connection with any matter
before the office he used to be with, in which case the one year prohibition shall likewise apply.
• Lawyers in the government service are prohibited to engage in the private practice of
their profession unless authorized by the constitution or law, provided that such
practice will not conflict or tend to conflict with their official functions.
• Misconduct in office as a public official may be a ground for disciplinary action (if of
such character as to affect his qualification as lawyer or to show moral delinquency).
• Should recommend the acquittal of the accused whose conviction is on appeal, IF he
finds no legal basis to sustain the conviction.
• Includes restriction is representing conflicting interest (e.g. Accepting engagements vs.
former employer, PNB)
• The OSG is not authorized to represent a public official at any state of a criminal case.
 CANONS 2 & 3
IN RE: TAGORDA
Facts:
Luis Tagorda was a member of the provincial board of Isabela. Previous to
the last election, he admits that he made use of a card written in Spanish containing
the fact that he was a candidate for third member of the Province of Isabela &
offering services as notary public (such as free consultation, execution of deed of
sale, etc.). He also admits that he wrote a letter addressed to a lieutenant of a barrio
if his home municipality saying that he will continue his practice of law and for the
lieutenant to make known to the people of his desire to serve as lawyer & notary
public (including his services to handle land registration cases for P3/every
registration).
Issue: W/N acts of Tagorda constituted advertising
Held:
Yes, Tagorda is in a way advertising his services and is contrary to the
Canons of Professional Ethics. Solicitation of business by circulars or
advertisements, or by personal communications or interviews not warranted by
personal relations is unprofessional. His acts warrant disbarment, but because of
the mitigating circumstance of his youth and inexperience, he is therefore
suspended.
The law is a profession and not a business. The lawyer may not seek or
obtain employment by himself or through others for to do so would be
unprofessional. It is also unprofessional for a lawyer to volunteer advice to bring
lawsuit. Lastly, solicitation of cases result in the lowering of the confidence of the
community and integrity of the members of the bar (as it results in needless
litigations and in incenting to strife otherwise peaceful citizens).
ATTY. ISMAEL KHAN V. ATTY RIZALINO SIMBILLO
FACTS
A paid advertisement in the Philippine Daily Inquirer was published which
reads: “Annulment of Marriage Specialist [contact number]”. Espeleta, a staff of the
Supreme Court, called up the number but it was Mrs. Simbillo who answered. She
claims that her husband, Atty. Simbillo was an expert in handling annulment cases
and can guarantee a court decree within 4-6mos provided the case will not involve
separation of property and custody of children. It appears that similar
advertisements were also published.
An administrative complaint was filed which was referred to the IBP for
investigation and recommendation. The IBP resolved to suspend Atty. Simbillo for
1year. Note that although the name of Atty. Simbillo did not appear in the
advertisement, he admitted the acts imputed against him but argued that he should
not be charged. He said that it was time to lift the absolute prohibition against
advertisement because the interest of the public isn’t served in any way by the
prohibition.
ISSUE
Whether or not Simbillo violated Rule2.03 & Rule3.01.
HELD
Yes!
The practice of law is not a business --- it is a profession in which the
primary duty is public service and money. Gaining livelihood is a secondary
consideration while duty to public service and administration of justice should be
primary. Lawyers should subordinate their primary interest.
Worse, advertising himself as an “annulment of marriage specialist” he
erodes and undermines the sanctity of an institution still considered as sacrosanct
--- he in fact encourages people otherwise disinclined to dissolve their marriage
bond.
Solicitation of business is not altogether proscribed but for it to be proper it
must be compatible with the dignity of the legal profession. Note that the law list
where the lawyer’s name appears must be a reputable law list only for that purpose
--- a lawyer may not properly publish in a daily paper, magazine…etc., nor may a
lawyer permit his name to be published the contents of which are likely to deceive or
injure the public or the bar.
CANOY V. ORTIZ
Facts:
A complaint was filed on April 2001 by Canoy against Atty. Ortiz, accusing
him for misconduct and malpractice. It is alleged that Canoy filed a complaint for
illegal dismissal against Coca Cola Philippines. Atty. Ortiz appeared as counsel for
Canoy in this proceeding. Canoy submitted all the documents and records to Atty.
Ortiz for the preparation of the position paper. Thereafter, he made several unfruitful
visits to the office of Atty. Ortiz to follow-up the process of the case. On April 2000,
Canoy was shocked to learn that his complaint was actually dismissed way back in
1998 for failure to prosecute, the parties not having submitted their position papers.
Canoy alleged that Ortiz had never communicated to him about the status of the
case.
Atty. Ortiz informs the Court that he has mostly catered to indigent and low-
income clients, at considerable financial sacrifice to himself. Atty. Ortiz admits that
the period within which to file the position paper had already lapsed. He attributes
his failure to timely file the position paper to the fact that after his election as
Councilor of Bacolod City, “he was frankly preoccupied with both his functions as a
local government official and as a practicing lawyer.”
Issue: W/N Atty. Ortiz should be sanctioned?
Held:
 Yes. Atty. Ortiz is to be sanctioned, suspension for 1 month. SERVICES OFFERED:

CONSULTATION AND ASSISTANCE

Atty. Ortiz violated Canons 18 and 22. Under Canon 18.03, a lawyer owes TO OVERSEAS SEAMEN

fidelity to his client’s cause and must always be mindful of the trust and confidence REPATRIATED DUE TO ACCIDENT,

reposed to him. He owes his entire devotion to the interest of the client. His INJURY, ILLNESS, SICKNESS, DEATH

negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable. Under Canon 18.04, the AND INSURANCE BENEFIT CLAIMS

relationship of a lawyer-client being one of confidence, there is an ever present ABROAD.
need for the client to be adequately and fully informed of the developments of the
case and should not be left in the dark. A lawyer cannot shift the blame to In his defense, Tolentino denies knowing Labiano and authorizing the printing and
complainant for failing to inquire the status about the case as this is one of the circulating of said calling card.
lawyer’s duties.

The adoption of additional duties due to the election of Atty. Ortiz as

councilor does not exonerate him of his negligent behavior. The CPR allows a Issue:
lawyer to withdraw his legal service if the lawyer is elected or appointed to a public
office since councilors are not expressly prohibited to exercise their legal profession. W/N Atty. Tolentino is guilty of advertising his services

LINSANGAN V. TOLENTINO Held:

Facts:
A complaint of disbarment was filed by Pedro Linsangan of the Linsangan,
Linsangan & Linsangan Law Office against Atty. Nicomedes Tolentino for solicitation
of clients & encroachment of professional services. Linsangan alleges that Tolentino
with the help of paralegal Labiano convinced his clients to transfer legal
representation by promising financial assistance and expeditious collection of their
claims. To induce them, Tolentino allegedly texted and called them persistently. To
support his allegation, Linsangan presented the sworn affidavit of James Gregorio
attesting that Labiano tried to prevail over him to sever his client-atty relationship
with Linsangan. Also, he attached “respondent’s calling card”:
Yes. Atty. Tolentino suspended for violating Rules 1.03, 2.03, 8.02 and
16.04 and Canon 3 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
With regard to Canon 3, the practice of law is a profession and not a
business. Thus, lawyers should not advertise their talents as merchants advertise
their wares. To allow lawyers to advertise their talents/skill is a commercialization of
the practice of law (degrading the profession in the public’s estimation).
With regard to Rule 2.03, lawyers are prohibited from soliciting cases for
purpose of gain, either personally or through an agent. In relation to Rule 1.03,
which proscribes “ambulance chasing” (involving solicitation personally or through
an agent/broker) as a measure to protect community from barratry and champertry.

As a final note regarding the calling card presented as evidence by

Front
 Linsangan, a lawyer’s best advertisement is a well-merited. reputation for

 professional capacity and fidelity to trust based on his character and conduct. For
NICOMEDES TOLENTINO
 this reason, lawyers are only allowed to announce their services by publication in
LAW OFFFICE
 reputable law lists or use of simple professional cards.
CONSULTANCY & MARITIME SERVICES

W/ FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE
 Professional calling cards may only contain the following details:


Fe Marie L. Labiano
 (a) lawyer’s name;
Paralegal


 (b) name of the law firm with which he is connected;
1st MIJI Mansion, 2nd Flr. Rm. M-01 

Tel: 362-7820
 (c) address;
6th Ave., cor M.H. Del Pilar 

Fax: (632) 362-7821
 (d) telephone number and
Grace Park, Caloocan City 

Cel.: (0926) 2701719
 (e) special branch of law practiced.


Back
 Labiano’s calling card contained the phrase “with financial assistance.” The

 phrase was clearly used to entice clients (who already had representation) to
change counsels with a promise of loans to finance their legal actions. Money was
dangled to lure clients away from their original lawyers, thereby taking advantage of
their financial distress and emotional vulnerability. This crass commercialism
degraded the integrity of the bar and deserves no place in the legal profession.
CANONS 4, 5 & 6
SUAREZ V. PLATON
Facts:
Suarez was charged with sedition which was subsequently dismissed. He
in turn filed a case for arbitrary detention against Lieutenant Orais. After the case
was handed to Judge Platon following several changes in trial judge and several
refusals by fiscals to prosecute the case.
Issue:
Should mandamus issue to compel the fiscal to reinstate the case?
Held:
Yes. It is unquestionable that in the proper cases, the prosecutors must
reinvestigate in order to properly dispense justice. At the same time, it must be kept
in mind that a prosecutor is the representative of a sovereignty; he is interested only
in the fact that justice is served, and this also includes his refusing to prosecute if
the innocence of the accused is quite clear. He is a servant of the law, and his two-
fold aim is not to let the guilty escape nor let the innocent suffer. He is not at liberty
to strike foul blows because it is his duty to refrain from doing so as much as it is to
use legitimate methods of prosecution.
RAMOS V. IMBANG
FACTS
In 1992, the complainant Diana Ramos sought the assistance of
respondent Atty. Jose R. Imbang in filing civil and criminal actions against the
spouses Roque and Elenita Jovellanos. She gave respondent P8,500 as attorney's
fees but the latter issued a receipt for P5,000 only.
The complainant tried to attend the scheduled hearings of her cases
against the Jovellanoses. Oddly, respondent never allowed her to enter the
courtroom and always told her to wait outside. He would then come out after several
hours to inform her that the hearing had been cancelled and rescheduled. This
happened six times and for each “appearance” in court, respondent charged
her P350.
After six consecutive postponements, the complainant became suspicious.
She personally inquired about the status of her cases in the trial courts of Biñan and
San Pedro, Laguna. She was shocked to learn that respondent never filed any case
against the Jovellanoses and that he was in fact employed in the Public Attorney's
Office (PAO).
HELD
Attorney Imbang is disbarred and his name stricken from the roll of
attorneys.
Lawyers are expected to conduct themselves with honesty and
integrity. More specifically, lawyers in government service are expected to be more
conscientious of their actuations as they are subject to public scrutiny. They are not
only members of the bar but also public servants who owe utmost fidelity to public
service.
Government employees are expected to devote themselves completely to public
service. For this reason, the private practice of profession is prohibited. Section 7(b)
(2) of the Code of Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees provides:
Section 7. Prohibited Acts and Transactions. -- In addition to acts and
omissions of public officials and employees now prescribed in the Constitution and
existing laws, the following constitute prohibited acts and transactions of any public
official and employee and are hereby declared unlawful:
xxx xxx xxx
(b) Outside employment and other activities related thereto, public officials and
employees during their incumbency shall not:
xxx xxx xxx
(1) Engage in the private practice of profession unless authorized by the
Constitution or law, provided that such practice will not conflict with their official
function.
Thus, lawyers in government service cannot handle private cases for they
are expected to devote themselves full-time to the work of their respective offices.
In this instance, respondent received P5,000 from the complainant and
issued a receipt on July 15, 1992 while he was still connected with the PAO.
Acceptance of money from a client establishes an attorney-client
relationship. Respondent's admission that he accepted money from the complainant
and the receipt confirmed the presence of an attorney-client relationship between
him and the complainant. Moreover, the receipt showed that he accepted the
complainant's case while he was still a government lawyer. Respondent clearly
violated the prohibition on private practice of profession.
Aggravating respondent's wrongdoing was his receipt of attorney's fees.
The PAO was created for the purpose of providing free legal assistance to indigent
litigants. Section 14(3), Chapter 5, Title III, Book V of the Revised Administrative
Code provides:
 Sec. 14. xxx
The PAO shall be the principal law office of the Government in extending
free legal assistance to indigent persons in criminal, civil, labor, administrative and
other quasi-judicial cases.
As a PAO lawyer, respondent should not have accepted attorney's fees
from the complainant as this was inconsistent with the office's mission. Respondent
violated the prohibition against accepting legal fees other than his salary.
Every lawyer is obligated to uphold the law. This undertaking includes the
observance of the above-mentioned prohibitions blatantly violated by respondent
when he accepted the complainant's cases and received attorney's fees in
consideration of his legal services. Consequently, respondent's acceptance of the
cases was also a breach of Rule 18.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
because the prohibition on the private practice of profession disqualified him from
acting as the complainant's counsel.
Aside from disregarding the prohibitions against handling private cases and
accepting attorney's fees, respondent also surreptitiously deceived the complainant.
Not only did he fail to file a complaint against the Jovellanoses (which in the first
place he should not have done), respondent also led the complainant to believe that
he really filed an action against the Jovellanoses. He even made it appear that the
cases were being tried and asked the complainant to pay his “appearance fees” for
hearings that never took place. These acts constituted dishonesty, a violation of the
lawyer's oath not to do any falsehood.
Respondent's conduct in office fell short of the integrity and good moral
character required of all lawyers, specially one occupying a public office. Lawyers in
public office are expected not only to refrain from any act or omission which tend to
lessen the trust and confidence of the citizenry in government but also uphold the
dignity of the legal profession at all times and observe a high standard of honesty
and fair dealing. A government lawyer is a keeper of public faith and is burdened
with a high degree of social responsibility, higher than his brethren in private
practice.
There is, however, insufficient basis to find respondent guilty of violating
Rule 16.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Respondent did not hold the
money for the benefit of the complainant but accepted it as his attorney's fees. He
neither held the amount in trust for the complainant (such as an amount delivered by
the sheriff in satisfaction of a judgment obligation in favor of the client) nor was it
given to him for a specific purpose (such as amounts given for filing fees and bail
bond). Nevertheless, respondent should return the P5,000 as he, a government
lawyer, was not entitled to attorney's fees and not allowed to accept them.
1A lawyer shall not, after leaving government service, accept engagement or employment in connection with any matter in which he intervened while in
service
2 Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officers and Employees
3 Local Government Code of 1991
CATU V. RELLOSA
FACTS
Catu co-owns a lot and building and contested the possession of one of the
units in the said building by Elizabeth (sister in law of Catu) and Pastor, who ignored
demands to vacate the place. The parties went to the Lupon Tagapamayapa to try to
settle the issue amicably. Respodent Rellosa as Punong Barangay presided over
the conciliation proceedings. The parties failed to settle their case, and the
petitioner brought the case to court.
Surprisingly, Rellosa appeared in court as counsel for Elizabeth and
Pastor. This prompted Catu to file an administrative complaint against Rellosa for
his act of impropriety.
IBP committee on bar discipline, after investigation, ruled that Rellosa
violated Rule 6.031 and RA 67132 . The committee recommended Rellosa’s
suspension from practice for 1 month.
ISSUE
W/N Rellosa violated Rule 6.03
HELD
No.
Rule 6.03 applies only to a lawyer who has left government service.
Rellosa was an incumbent punong barangay at the time he committed the act
complained of.
As such incumbent, the proper law that governs him is RA 71603, which
actually allows him to practice his profession. However, being a public official, he is
also governed by Revised Civil Service Rules, which requires him first to obtain a
written permission from his department head who is the Sec. of DILG. This he failed
to do.
SC ruled that Rellosa violated the lawyer’s oath (to uphold and obey law),
Rule 1.01 (lawyer shall not engage in unlawful conduct), and Canon 7 (lawyer shall
uphold integrity and dignity of the profession), for a lawyer who disobeys law
disgraces the dignity of the legal profession.
SC punished Rellosa with 6 months suspension and strongly advised him
to look up and take to heart the meaning of the word delicadeza.
__________

Hofilena question: under RA 6713, are lawyers allowed to practice their
profession?
Answer: Yes, RA 6713 says “if the constitution or law allows it” Public officers
however are subject to Civil Service Rules which state that should they engage in
private practice of their profession, they should first secure a written permission from
their department head.
PCGG V. SANDIGANBAYAN
FACTS
General Bank and Trust Company (GENBANK) encountered financial
difficulties. Later on, Central Bank issued a resolution declaring GENBANK
insolvent.
Former Solicitor General Estelito P. Mendoza filed a petition with the then
Court of First Instance praying for the assistance and supervision of the court in
GENBANK's liquidation.
After EDSA 1, Pres. Aquino established the PCGG for the purpose of
recovering ill gotten wealth. The PCGG, on July 17, 1987, filed with the
Sandiganbayan a complaint for 'reversion, reconveyance, restitution, accounting
and damages against respondents Tan, et al. so PCGG issued several writs of
sequestration on properties allegedly acquired by the above-named persons by
taking advantage of their close relationship and influence with former President
Marcos. These respondents were represented by Mendoza.
PCGG filed motions to disqualify respondent Mendoza as counsel for
respondents. The motions alleged that respondent Mendoza, as then Solicitor
General and counsel to Central Bank, 'actively intervened in the liquidation of
GENBANK, which was subsequently acquired by respondents Tan, et al. and
became Allied Banking Corporation.
The motions to disqualify invoked Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. Rule 6.03 prohibits former government lawyers from accepting
'engagement or employment in connection with any matter in which he had
intervened while in said service.
ISSUE
W/N Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility applies to
respondent Mendoza?
HELD
NO, IT DOES NOT APPLY. The matter or the act of respondent Mendoza
as Solicitor General involved in the case at bar is 'advising the Central Bank, on how
to proceed with the said bank's liquidation and even filing the petition for its
liquidation with the CFI of . In fine, the Court should resolve whether his act of
advising the Central Bank on the legal procedure to liquidate GENBANK is included
within the concept of 'matter’ under Rule 6.03.
The 'matter’ where he got himself involved was in informing Central Bank
on the procedure provided by law to liquidate GENBANK thru the courts and in filing
the necessary petition. The subject 'matter of Sp. Proc. No. 107812, therefore, is not
the same nor is related to but is different from the subject 'matter in Civil Case No.
0096 which is about the sequestration of the shares of respondents Tan, et al.
The jurisdiction of the PCGG does not include the dissolution and
liquidation of banks. It goes without saying that Code 6.03 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility cannot apply to respondent Mendoza because his
alleged intervention while a Solicitor General in Sp. Proc. No. 107812 is an
intervention on a matter different from the matter involved in Civil Case No. 0096.
Secondly, the supposed intervention of Mendoza in the liquidation case is
not significant and substantial. We note that the petition filed merely seeks the
assistance of the court in the liquidation of GENBANK. The principal role of the court
in this type of proceedings is to assist the Central Bank in determining claims of
creditors against the GENBANK.
Also, The disqualification of respondent Mendoza has long been a dead
issue. For a fact, the recycled motion for disqualification in the case at bar was filed
more than four years after the filing of the petitions for certiorari, prohibition and
injunction with the Supreme Court which were subsequently remanded to the
Sandiganbayan. At the very least, the circumstances under which the motion to
disqualify in the case at bar were refiled put petitioner's motive as highly suspect.
It is also submitted that the Court should apply Rule 6.03 in all its strictness
for it correctly disfavors lawyers who 'switch sides. It is claimed that 'switching sides'
carries the danger that former government employee may compromise confidential
official information in the process. But this concern does not cast a shadow in the
case at bar. As afore-discussed, the act of respondent Mendoza in informing the
Central Bank on the procedure how to liquidate GENBANK is a different matter from
the subject matter of Civil Case No. 0005 which is about the sequestration of the
shares of respondents Tan, et al., in Allied Bank. There is no switching sides for
there were no sides.