OVERGAARD V.
VALDEZ
FACTS
Overgaard is a Dutch national who engaged the services of Atty. Valdez. They entered into a
retainer agreement, providing that for 900K, Valdez would represent Overgaard as counsel in 2 cases filed
by him (Estafa and a mandamus case) and 2 cases filed against him (Other Light threats and violation of
the Anti-Violation against women and their children act).
Overgaard sent $16, 854 to Atty. Valdez via telegraphic bank transfer. 4 months after, Overgaard
demanded for a report on the status of his cases. In spite of many phone calls and emails, Valdez couldn’t
be reached. Hence, Overgaard inquired on his own, and discovered that Valdez didn’t file his entry of
appearance in any of the cases, that a counter-affidavit was required from him, and that the criminal cases
against him have already been arraigned and warrants were issued for his arrest. He was constrained to
find a new lawyer.
Overgaard then wrote again and tried to locate Valdez to demand the return of documents
entrusted to the latter, as well as the $16K payment. No word was heard from Valdez. Overgaard filed a
case with the IBP for Valdez’s dismissal for gross malpractice, immoral character, dishonesty and deceitful
conduct.
The IBP required Valdez to file an answer, but he did not comply. He also failed to attend the
hearing and was declared in default. Later, a clarificatory hearing was set, but Valdez never showed. IBP
found him guilty of violating canons 1, 15, 16, 17, and 18 and his penalty was a 3-year suspension and he
was ordered to return Overgaard’s money.
Issue:
Whether or not Atty. Valdez violates Canon 18
HELD
Yes,
SC agrees with the findings of IBP, but declared that Valdez be disbarred for falling below the
standards required of lawyers.
Canon 18 provides that a lawyer must serve his client with competence and diligence. Rule 18.03
requires a lawyer to not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him and his negligence will make him liable.
Valdez should indeed be liable because he was not just incompetent, he was useless; not just negligent,
he was indolent; and rather than helping his client, he prejudiced him. He abandoned his client and left
him without any recourse. It was a clear evasion of duty. Also, his failure to act on the disbarment case
against him, without any explanation, is a clear evidence of negligence on his part.
Rule 18.04 requires that a lawyer keep his client informed of the status of his case and to respond
within reasonable time to the client’s request for information. Despite Overgaard’s efforts, Valdez avoided
his client and never bothered to reply. Clearly, the rule was violated.
A.C. No. 8319 [Formerly CBD Case No. 11-2887] September 16, 2015
SPOUSES DAVID and MARISA WILLIAMS, Complainants, vs. ATTY. RUDY T. ENRIQUEZ, Respondent.
Legal and Judicial Ethics; Practice of Law; Forum Shopping; Forum shopping exists when, as a result of an
adverse opinion in one forum, a party seeks a favorable opinion (other than by appeal or certiorari) in
another, or when he institutes two or more actions or proceedings grounded on the same cause, on the
gamble that one or the other court would make a favorable disposition. An important factor in determining
its existence is the vexation caused to the courts and the parties-litigants by the filing of similar cases to
claim substantially the same reliefs.
MENDOZA, J.:
FACTS: On December 2002, the heirs of Aurea Ventolero, represented by Atty. Enriquez, filed a complaint
for forcible entry against the Spouses Williams before the MCTC of Valencia-Bacong, Negros Oriental. The
MCTC ruled in favor of the heirs. On appeal, the RTC Branch 44 of Negros Oriental affirmed the decision
of MCTC. Pending the reconsideration of the case, Judge Gonzales of the RTC inhibited himself. Hence,
the case was re-raffled and handed over to RTC Branch 32. The latter reversed and set aside the MCTC
decision and dismissed the complaint against the spouses.
Atty. Enriquez allegedly drafted another complaint for forcible entry concerning the same lot and
urged a certain Paciano, also an alleged heir of Ventolero, to file such case against Spouses Williams. The
MCTC dismissed the subsequent suit on the ground of litis pendentia. MCTC found that this second
complaint is almost the same as the first complaint. Both involved the same subject matter and concerned
the same cause of action. Also, the parties in the two cases shared a community of interest.
The Spouses Williams filed a Complaint-Affidavit for disbarment against Atty. Enriquez for
violation of the rule on forum shopping and for purposely filing a groundless, false and unlawful suit.
According to the spouses, Atty. Enriquez was the head of usurpers, squatters and would be extortionists
who were castigating them for their refusal for a cash payoff. The spouses contended that even though
Atty. Enriquez did not sign the second complaint, there was evidence that he drafted it and that he took
part in it. The spouses averred that (1) Paciano was illiterate, spoke no English, and could not have drafted
the complaint without Atty. Enriquez’s assistance; (2) the two complaints were one and the same, (3) the
person who marked the annexes in both cases had the same handwriting with that of Atty. Enriquez; and
(4) the answer in the subsequent complaint was prepared, verified and filed by Atty. Enriquez. Also,
Spouses Williams notified the Court that they previously filed an administrative case against Atty. Enriquez
for intentionally giving false statements in the first civil case and that the IBP suspended him for one year.
However, the Court set aside the IBP Resolution and dismissed the administrative case.
Atty. Enriquez argued that he was simply representing the heirs of Aurea Ventolero who were
protecting their title over the lot in dispute.
The IBP-CBD found Atty. Enriquez guilty of forum shopping and recommended that he be
suspended from the practice of law and as a member of the Bar for six months.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Enriquez is liable for violating the rule on forum-shopping.
HELD:
Yes There is forum shopping when, as a result of an adverse opinion in one forum, a party seeks a
favorable opinion (other than by appeal or certiorari) in another, or when he institutes two or more
actions or proceedings grounded on the same cause, on the gamble that one or the other court would
make a favorable disposition. The vexation caused to the courts and the parties-litigants by the filing of
similar cases to claim substantially the same reliefs is an important factor in determining the existence of
forum shopping.
There was no denial from Atty. Enriquez that he engaged in forum-shopping. Atty. Enriquez knew
that in the first forcible entry case, the MCTC decision was reversed, set aside and dismissed on appeal.
However, he again drafted another complaint for forcible entry involving the same lot and urged Paciano
to file the case. Even if Atty. Enriquez did not sign the subsequent complaint, he is still held
administratively liable because he apparently wrote the subsequent complaint. There was similarity of
the words and phrases used in the two complaints. Furthermore, Atty. Enriquez prepared and verified the
answer to the counterclaim in the second case. This undoubtedly violated his oath as a member of the
Bar and contravened virtues and values the legal profession requires from its members. As a retired judge,
Atty. Enriquez should have known that a lawyer’s primary duty is to assist the courts in the administration
of justice.
In engaging in such malpractice, Atty. Enriquez violated Canon 12 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility which directs lawyers to obey the laws of the land and to promote respect for the law and
the legal processes. He also disregarded his duty to assist in the speedy and efficient administration
of justice, and the prohibition against unduly delaying a case by misusing court processes. Hence,
the Court suspended Atty. Enriquez from the practice of law for six months.
VDA. DE ROBOSA V. ATTY. MENDOZA, ET AL.
AC No. 6056, Sept. 9, 2015
By: Karen P. Lustica
FACTS:
On February 20, 1993, upon the behest of Atty. Mendoza, Felicisima signed a Contract for
Service3prepared by Atty. Mendoza. The said contract stipulated that in the event of a favorable CENRO
or LMB resolution, Felicisima shall convey to Atty. Mendoza one-fifth (1/5) of the lands subject of the
application or one-fifth (1/5) of the proceeds should the same property be sold.
The CENRO and the LMB proceedings resulted in the dismissal of Felicisima and her siblings’ application
for Lot No. 2489 and the partial grant of their application for Lot No. 3771. Subsequently, Felicisima and
her siblings sold the land to Greenfield Corporation (Greenfield) and received the amount of
P2,000,000.00 as down payment.
On October 15, 1998, Atty. Mendoza, joined by his wife Filomena S. Mendoza, filed in the RTC claiming
that except for the amount of P40,000.00, Felicisima and her siblings refused to pay his attorney’s fees
equivalent to 1/5 of the proceeds of the sale of the land as stipulated in the Contract for Service.
In their Answer with Counterclaim, Felicisima and her siblings denied the “existence and authenticity of
the x x x Contract of Service.”
The RTC rendered judgment in favor of Atty. Mendoza and against Felicisima and her siblings.
Since no opposition was filed by Felicisima and her siblings, the RTC granted the said motion and issued
a writ of execution, which resulted in the levy and eventual transfer of Felicisima’s properties in favor of
Atty. Mendoza as the highest bidder in the execution sale.
Felicisima filed a complaint-affidavit for disbarment before this Court against Atty. Mendoza for
allegedly deceiving her into signing the Contract for Service by taking advantage of her illiteracy, and
against Atty. Navarro for dereliction of duty in handling her case before the CA causing her properties to
be levied and sold at public auction.
Felicisima alleges that Atty. Mendoza made her sign a document at her house without the presence of
her siblings. Said document (Contract for Service) was written in English which she does not understand.
She claims that Atty. Mendoza told her the document will shield her from her siblings’ possible future
claims on the property because she alone is entitled to the property as her siblings did not help her in
processing the application for original registration. She was not given a copy of the said document and
she discovered only during the trial that Atty. Mendoza anchors his claim over Vs of proceeds from the
sale of the land awarded by the CENRO and LMB on the same document she had signed.
As to Atty. Navarro, Felicisima claims that her case before the CA was neglected despite repeated
follow-ups on her part. She also points out that Atty. Navarro abandoned her case before the RTC when
the latter failed to file an opposition to Atty. Mendoza’s motion for execution pending appeal, which
resulted in the loss of her properties.
In his Comment, Atty. Mendoza avers that he has been a lawyer since 1954 and retired sometime in
1983 due to partial disability.
Atty. Navarro pleads for mercy and compassion if he had somehow committed some lapses considering
that this is the first time he was charged administratively in his almost 39 years of law practice and that
he is too willing to take complainant’s cause if not for such apparent miscommunication between a
lawyer and his client.
IBP – Atty. Mendoza guilty of taking advantage of Felicisima’s ignorance just to have the Contract for
Service signed. Atty. Mendoza violated Canon 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) that a
lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and shall be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed
on him, as well as Rule 20.04, Canon 20 which exhorts lawyers to avoid controversies with clients
concerning matters of compensation and to resort to judicial action only to prevent imposition, injustice
or fraud.
As to Atty. Navarro, the Investigating Commissioner held that his participation in politics affected his law
practice and caused him to forget about Felicisima’s caseThe Investigating Commissioner further said
that Atty. Navarro’s acts showed lack of diligence in violation of Canon 18 of the CPR and his Lawyer’s
Oath.
Suspension for two (2) years from the practice of law.
Modified – suspension from two (2) years to six (6) months.
ISSUE:
WON disbarment or suspension for the two lawyers
HELD:
1. Dismissal of case against Attorney Mendoza
2. Suspension for Attorney Navarro
RATIO:
1. The Court has consistently held that in suspension or disbarment proceedings against lawyers, the
lawyer enjoys the presumption of innocence, and the burden of proof rests upon the complainant to
prove the allegations in his complaint. The evidence required in suspension or disbarment proceedings
is preponderance of evidence. In case the evidence of the parties are equally balanced, the equipoise
doctrine mandates a decision in favor of the respondent. For the Court to exercise its disciplinary
powers, the case against the respondent must be established by clear, convincing and satisfactory
proof.
Contract for Service with Atty. Mendoza
a contract for contingent fees
On the basis of the evidence, the Court finds no ground to support Felicisima’s claim that she did not
enter into any written agreement with the plaintiff, Juan Mendoza, for the latter to render legal
services and the corresponding compensation therefor as set forth in the Contract of Service.
However, the Court finds that the amounts received by the plaintiff Juan Mendoza from defendant
Felicisima Mendoza during the course of his legal services for the twenty hearings in the amount of
P1,300.00 per hearing or a total of P26,000.00 should also be deducted from his claim of
P1,384,000.00 leaving an unpaid balance of PI,258,000.00 due plaintiff Juan Mendoza for legal services
rendered the defendants.hanrobleslaw
Given the above finding of the RTC that Felicisima in fact entered into a contract for legal services with
Atty. Mendoza, thus debunking her defense in her Answer denying the existence and authenticity of the
said document, it appears that Felicisima raised the issue of voluntariness of her signing the Contract for
Service only during the hearing when she supposedly testified that, having reached only Grade IV and
trusting completely her lawyer cousin, Atty. Mendoza who told her that the document will protect her
from the claims of her siblings, she actually signed the Contract for Service The RTC, however, found the
evidence adduced by Felicisima as insufficient to defeat Atty. Mendoza’s claim for attorney’s fees. Said
judgment had attained finality and even pending appeal was already executed on motion by Atty.
Mendoza.
Apart from the allegations in her affidavit-complaint, Felicisima failed to establish by clear and
satisfactory proof of the deception allegedly committed by Atty. Mendoza when she agreed in writing
for the latter’s contingent fees. Fraud and irregularity in the execution of their contingency fee contract
cannot be deduced from the fact alone that Atty. Mendoza filed suit to enforce their contract.
2. Atty. Navarro ‘s Gross Negligence
With respect to Atty. Navarro, the facts on record clearly established his failure to live up to the
standards of diligence and competence of the legal profession.
In this case, Atty. Navarro agreed to represent Felicisima and her siblings in Civil Case No. T-1080 and
as their counsel he filed the Answer with Counterclaim. He likewise attended the hearings of the case
until the RTC rendered an adverse judgment. However, after filing the Notice of Appeal, nothing was
heard of again from him. He did not file any opposition when Atty. Mendoza moved for execution
pending appeal, which resulted in the sale of Felicisima’s properties at public auction and eventual
eviction of Felicisima and her children from the said premises. Worse, he failed to file an appellant’s
brief despite receipt of the order from the CA directing him to do so within the period specified
therein, and to file a motion for reconsideration when the appeal was dismissed due to non-filing of
such brief. His motion for extension of time to submit an appellant’s brief was filed 93days late and
was thus denied by the CA. Barely a week after, he filed a notice of withdrawal of appearance bearing
the conformity of his clients which was granted. It is evident from the foregoing that Atty. Navarro
failed to inform Felicisima of the status of the case so that the latter was surprised upon being served
the eviction order of the court and eventual dismissal by the CA of their appeal.
Canon 18 of the CPR mandates that a lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence. Rule
18.03 further provides that a lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him and his
negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.
A lawyer who performs his duty with diligence and candor not only protects the interest of his client; he
also serves the ends of justice, does honor to the bar and helps maintain the respect of the community
to the legal profession.aw
We have held that the failure of counsel to submit the appeal brief for his client within the reglementary
period constitutes inexcusable negligence39 an offense that entails disciplinary action.40The filing of a
brief within the period set by law is a duty not only to the client, but also to the court.41The failure to file
an appellate court brief without any justifiable reason thus deserves sanction.42
Cayetano vs. Monsod 201 SCRA 210 September 1991
Cayetano vs. Monsod
201 SCRA 210
September 1991
Facts: Respondent Christian Monsod was nominated by President Corazon C. Aquino to the position of
chairman of the COMELEC. Petitioner opposed the nomination because allegedly Monsod does not
posses required qualification of having been engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years. The
1987 constitution provides in Section 1, Article IX-C: There shall be a Commission on Elections composed
of a Chairman and six Commissioners who shall be natural-born citizens of the Philippines and, at the
time of their appointment, at least thirty-five years of age, holders of a college degree, and must not
have been candidates for any elective position in the immediately preceding elections. However, a
majority thereof, including the Chairman, shall be members of the Philippine Bar who have been
engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years.
Issue: Whether the respondent does not posses the required qualification of having engaged in the
practice of law for at least ten years.
Held: In the case of Philippine Lawyers Association vs. Agrava, stated: The practice of law is not limited
to the conduct of cases or litigation in court; it embraces the preparation of pleadings and other papers
incident to actions and special proceeding, the management of such actions and proceedings on behalf
of clients before judges and courts, and in addition, conveying. In general, all advice to clients, and all
action taken for them in matters connected with the law incorporation services, assessment and
condemnation services, contemplating an appearance before judicial body, the foreclosure of mortgage,
enforcement of a creditor’s claim in bankruptcy and insolvency proceedings, and conducting
proceedings in attachment, and in matters of estate and guardianship have been held to constitute law
practice. Practice of law means any activity, in or out court, which requires the application of law, legal
procedure, knowledge, training and experience.
The contention that Atty. Monsod does not posses the required qualification of having engaged in the
practice of law for at least ten years is incorrect since Atty. Monsod’s past work experience as a lawyer-
economist, a lawyer-manager, a lawyer-entrepreneur of industry, a lawyer-negotiator of contracts, and
a lawyer-legislator of both rich and the poor – verily more than satisfy the constitutional requirement
for the position of COMELEC chairman, The respondent has been engaged in the practice of law for at
least ten years does In the view of the foregoing, the petition is DISMISSED.
In Re: Letter of the UP Law Faculty
AM No. 10-10-4-SC
Leonardo-De Castro, J.:
FACTS:
On 28 April 2010, the decision of the case Vinuya v Executive Secretary was promulgated with Justice
Mariano del Castillo as its ponente. Motion for reconsideration was filed by the petitioner’s counsel on
various grounds but most notably on the ground that not only did the ponente of the case plagiarised at
least 3 books and articles in discussing the principles of jus cogens and erga omnes, but have also
twisted such quotations making it appear contrary to the intent of the original works. The authors and
their purportedly plagiarized articles are: 1) Evan J Criddle and Evan Fox-Decent’s A Fiduciary Theory of
Jus Cogens published in 2009 in the Yale Journal of International Law; 2) Christian J. Tams’ Enforcing
Erga Omnes Obligations in Internation Law published by the Cambridge University Press in 2005; and 3)
Mark Ellis’ Breaking the Silence: On Rape as an International Crime published in the Case Western
Reserve Journal of Internation Law in 2006. Thereafter, news regarding the plagiarism by the Supreme
Court spread over the media and the original authors wrote letters to the Chief Justice expressing
discontent by the questioned act of Justice del Castillo.
On 27 July 2010, the UP College of Law faculty members gave their opinion on the matter of plagiarism
by issuing an article titled “Restoring Integrity: A statement by the Faculty of the University of the
Philippines College of Law on the Allegations of Plagiarism and Misrepresentation in the Supreme Court”
signed overall 37 faculty members. In said article, the faculty expressly gave their dismay saying that
the court had the hopes of relief from those “comfort women” during the war “crushed by a singularly
reprehensible act of dishonesty and misrepresentation by the Highest Court of the Land.”
In the article, it was stated that plagiarism, as appropriation and misrepresentation of another person’s
work as one’s own, is considered as “dishonesty, pure and simple.” Hence, it was argued that since the
decision in the Vinuya case form part of the Philippine judicial system, the Court, in fine, is allowing
dishonesty to be promulgated. Furthermore, the plagiarism and misrepresentation in the Vinuya case
undermines the judicial system of our country and is a dirt on the honor and dignity of the Supreme
Court, the article sought for the resignation of Associate Justice Mariano del Castillo.
In response to the said article, the Court issued a resolution stating that the remarks and choice of
words used were such a great insult to the members of the Court and a threat to the independence of
the judiciary, a clear violation of Canons 1, 11 and 13 and the Rules 1.02 and 11.05 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. Thereafter, the Court ordered the signatories to show cause on why they
should not be disciplined as members of the Bar for such alleged violations.
In fulfillment of the directive by the Court, the signatories passed a Common Compliance stating therein
that their intention in issuing the article in question “was not to malign the Court but rather to defend
its integrity and credibility and to ensure continued confidence in the legal system” by the words used
therein as “focusing on constructive action.” Also, it was alleged that the respondents are correct in
seeking responsibility from Justice del Castillo for he, indeed, committed plagiarism thus, rectifying their
issuance of the article. Furthermore, the respondents argued that the article in question is a valid
exercise of the freedom of expression as citizens of a democracy, and an exercise of academic freedom.
ISSUES:
W/N the UP Law Faculty’s actions constitute violation of various Canons and Rules of the Code
of Professional Responsibility.
HELD:
Yes. The Court ruled that the Common Compliance given by the respondent-signatories in the
questioned article is not sufficient in reasoning why they should not be disciplined as members of the
Bar.
“…the adversarial nature of our legal system has tempted members of the bar to use strong language in
pursuit of their duty to advance the interests of their clients.
“However, while a lawyer is entitled to present his case with vigor and courage, such enthusiasm does
not justify the use of offensive and abusive language. Language abounds with countless possibilities for
one to be emphatic but respectful, convincing but not derogatory, illuminating but not offensive.
“On many occasions, the Court has reminded members of the Bar 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. In keeping with the dignity of the legal
profession, a lawyer’s language even in his pleadings must be dignified.
“Verily, the accusatory and vilifying nature of certain portions of the Statement exceeded the limits of
fair comment and cannot be deemed as protected free speech.”
“In a democracy, members of the legal community are hardly expected to have monolithic views on any
subject, be it a legal, political or social issue. Even as lawyers passionately and vigorously propound their
points of view they are bound by certain rules of conduct for the legal profession. This Court is certainly
not claiming that it should be shielded from criticism. All the Court demands is the same respect and
courtesy that one lawyer owes to another under established ethical standards. All lawyers, whether they
are judges, court employees, professors or private practitioners, are officers of the Court and have
voluntarily taken an oath, as an indispensable qualification for admission to the Bar, to conduct
themselves with good fidelity towards the courts. There is no exemption from this sworn duty for law
professors, regardless of their status in the academic community or the law school to which they
belong.”
The Court further reminded the respondent law professors “of their lawyerly duty, under Canons 1, 11
and 13 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, to give due respect to the Court and to refrain from
intemperate and offensive language tending to influence the Court on pending matters or to denigrate
the Court and the administration of justice and warned that the same or similar act in the future shall be
dealt with more severely.”
RODOLFO M. BERNARDO v ATTY. ISMAEL F. MEJIA Adm. Case No. 2984. August 31, 2007
FACTS:
Rodolfo M. Bernardo, Jr. accused his retained attorney, Ismael F. Mejia of several administrative
offenses such as misappropriating and converting to his personal use the money entrusted to him for
payment of real estate taxes on Bernardo’s property; falsification of documents such as the Special
Power of Attorney, Deed of Sale and Deed of Assignment and lastly, issuing a check knowing that he was
without funds in the bank, in payment of a loan obtained from the former in the amount of P50,000.00,
and thereafter, replacing said check with others known also to be insufficiently funded. The Supreme
Court En Banc rendered a Decision Per Curiam which found the respondent Atty. Mejia guilty of all the
charges against him and imposed on him the penalty of Disbarment. Respondent files a Petition praying
that he be allowed to reengage in the practice of law however, the Supreme Court En Banc denied his
petition for reinstatement. The respondent filed again this present petition for review of his
Administrative case with a plea for reinstatement in the practice of law. In the petition, Mejia
acknowledged his indiscretions in the law profession. At the age of seventy-one, he is begging for
forgiveness and pleading for reinstatement. According to him, he has long repented and he has suffered
enough. Through his reinstatement, he wants to leave a legacy to his children and redeem the indignity
that they have suffered due to his disbarment.
ISSUE:
WON the respondent shall be reinstated.
HELD:
Yes,. Fifteen years has passed since he was punished with the severe penalty of disbarment. Although
the Court does not lightly take the bases for Mejias disbarment, it also cannot close its eyes to the fact
that Mejia is already of advanced years. Since his disbarment in 1992, no other transgression has been
attributed to him, and he has shown remorse. Thus, while the Court is ever mindful of its duty to
discipline its erring officers, it also knows how to show compassion when the penalty imposed has
already served its purpose. After all, penalties, such as disbarment, are imposed not to punish but to
correct offenders. However, the petitioner is reminded that practice of law is a privilege burdened with
conditions. Adherence to the rigid standards of mental fitness, maintenance of the highest degree of
morality and faithful compliance with the rules of the legal profession are the continuing requirements
for enjoying the privilege to practice law.
Facts:
Eduardo M. Cojuangco, Jr. filed a complaint for disbarment against Atty. Leo J. Palma, alleging as
grounds “deceit, malpractice, gross misconduct in office, violation of his oath as a lawyer and grossly
immoral conduct.”
Respondent Palma [from ACCRA Law Office] was employed by petitioner as his personal counsel.
Respondent's excellence in managing petitioner's legal affairs, prompted petitioner to introduced
respondent to his family. Since respondent gained the trust of petitioner and his family, their relationship
became intimate. Respondent then was allowed to tutor the 22 year old daughter of Petitioner.
However, when his concern was supposed to be complainant’s legal affairs only, he sneaked at the
latter’s back and courted his daughter. Like the proverbial thief in the night, he attacked when nobody
was looking. He succeeded in misrepresenting himself to Hong Kong officials as a bachelor and
successfully married petitioner's daughter, eventhough he is legally married.
Respondent argued that, he cannot be punished since there is no allegation that he acted with “wanton
recklessness, lack of skill or ignorance of the law” in serving complainant’s interest. Anent the
charge of grossly immoral conduct, he stressed that he married complainant’s daughter with “utmost
sincerity and good faith” and that “it is contrary to the natural course of things for an immoral man to
marry the woman he sincerely loves.”
Issue:
Whether or not respondent's acts constitutes gross immoral conduct so as to warrant his disbarment
from the legal profession.
Ruling:
Yes, the Court ruled respondent's action constitutes gross immoral conduct. A gross immoral conduct,
the Court said, is a 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. Thus,
measured against this definition, respondent’s act is manifestly immoral. First, he abandoned his
lawful wife and three children. Second, he lured an innocent young woman into marrying him. And third,
he misrepresented himself as a “bachelor” so he could contract marriage in a foreign land.
In particular, adds the Court, "he made a mockery of marriage which is a sacred institution demanding
respect and dignity. His act of contracting a second marriage is contrary to honesty, justice, decency and
morality." Moreover, the circumstances here speak of a clear case of betrayal of trust and abuse of
confidence. It was respondent’s closeness to the complainant’s family as well as the latter’s complete
trust in him that made possible his intimate relationship with Lisa. When his concern was supposed to be
complainant’s legal affairs only, he sneaked at the latter’s back and courted his daughter. Like the
proverbial thief in the night, he attacked when nobody was looking. Moreover, he availed of
complainant’s resources by securing a plane ticket from complainant’s office in order to marry the latter’s
daughter in Hongkong. He did this without complainant’s knowledge.
The Court stressed again the principle that law profession does not prescribe a dichotomy of standards
among its members. There is no distinction as to whether the transgression is committed in the lawyer’s
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. Thus, not only his professional activities but
even his private life, insofar as the latter may reflect unfavorably upon the good name and prestige of the
profession and the courts, may at any time be the subject of inquiry on the part of the proper authorities.
Respondent cannot rely on complainant's admission that he is a good lawyer, because professional
competency alone does not make a lawyer a worthy member of the Bar. Good moral character is always
an indispensable requirement.
In sum, respondent committed grossly immoral conduct and violation of his oath as a lawyer. The
penalty of one (1) year suspension recommended by the IBP is not commensurate to the gravity of his
offense. The bulk of jurisprudence supports the imposition of the extreme penalty of disbarment.
19 KHAN V SIMBILLO
FACTS:
An advertisement in Philippine Daily Inquirer came out which reads: “ANNULMENT OF
MARRIAGE SPECIALIST 532-4333/521-2667.”
SC ordered its staff to call the number and ask some information.
Espeleta called the number and the wife of Atty. Rizalino Simbillo answered who said that his
husband was an expert in handling annulment cases and guarantees a court decree within 4-6
month. The services of Atty. Simbillo is for P48,000. half of which is payable at the filing of the case
and the balance after the decision has been rendered.
Similar advertisement also appeared in The Philippine Star and Manila Bulletin.
Khan, Assist. Court Administrator, filed a case against Simbillo for violating the Code of
Professional Responsibility, Rule 2.03 and 3.01.
Simbillo admitted that he caused the advertisement but he argued that solicitation and
advertisement is not prohibited per se and that it is about time to change our views about the
prohibition on advertising and solicitation. He also said that the interest of the public is not served
by the prohibition and suggested that the ban be lifted.
IBP recommended that Simbillo be suspended for 1 year and that repetition of similar act will be
dealt with more severely.
While the case was being investigated upon by the court, Simbillo again advertised his legal
services, for 2 times, in the Buy & Sell Free Ads Magazine.
ISSUE:
W/N Simbillo violated the Code of Professional Responsibility
HELD:
YES!
Rule 2.03 provides a lawyer shall not do or permit to be done any act designed primarily to solicit legal
business while Rule 3.01 states that 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.
It has been repeatedly stressed that the practice of law is not a business. It is a profession in which the
duty to public service, not money, is the primary consideration. The gaining of livelihood should be a
secondary consideration.
Aside from advertising himself as an “Annulment of Marriage Specialist,” his assurance of his clients that
an annulment may be obtained in 4-6 months from the filing of the case encourages people, who might
other have 2nd thought, to dissolve their marriage.
Solicitation of legal business is not proscribed. However, solicitation must be compatible with the dignity
of the legal profession. The use of simple signs stating the name/s of the lawyers, the office and
residence address and the fields of expertise, as well as advertisement in legal periodicals bearing the
same brief data, are permissible.
The use of calling cards is now acceptable.
Khan v Simbillo
A.C. No.5299
August 19, 2003
TOPIC: Practice of law, concept
FACTS:
Respondent, Rizalino Simbillo, published advertisements on different news publications on different
dates regarding his services as an “Annulment of Marriage specialist”
Petitioner, Ismael Khan, in his capacity as an assistant court administrator and chief of the public
information office filed an administrative complaint against respondent for improper advertising
and solicitations of his legal services, in violations of Rule 2.03 and Rule 3.01 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility and Rule 138, Section 27 of the Rules of Court.
Respondent admitted acts imputed to him but argued that his acts for advertising and solicitation
are not prohibited acts. Respondent prays for his acquittal because of the court’s ruling that
advertisement of legal services offered by a lawyer is not contrary to law, public policy and public
order.
The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) investigated the acts of the petitioner and found the
respondent guilty of the administrative complaint filed by the petitioner.
ISSUE(S):
1. W/N petitioners published advertisement is a valid act and does not violate the Rules of Court or the
Code of Professional Responsibility.
RULING: Respondent Simbillo is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one year.
1. NO
Pursuant to Rule 2.03 and Rule 3.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Rule 138,
Section 27 of the Rules of Court, the practice of law is not a business but a profession which duty
to public service, not money, is the prime consideration. The duty to public service and to the
administration of justice should be the primary consideration of lawyers.
Elements that distinguish the legal profession from a business
- A duty of public service, of which the emolument is a by-product, and in which one may
attain the highest eminence without making much money
- A relation as an “officer of the court” to the administration of justice involving thorough
sincerity, integrity and reliability;
- A relation to clients in the highest degree of fiduciary
- A relation to colleagues at the bar characterized by candor, fairness, and unwillingness to
resort to current business methods of advertising and encroachment on their practice, or
dealing directly with their clients.
In advertising himself as an “Annulment of Marriage Specialist” he undermines to sanctity of
marriage. A lawyer may not properly publish biographical and informative data in a daily paper,
magazine, trade journal or society program. A lawyer is not permitted to publish any contents
which are likely to deceive or injure the public or the bar, or to lower dignity or standing of the
profession.
