PEOPLE v.

TUANDA Facts; Respondent was suspended for practicing his profession until further notice from the Supreme Court finding her guilty of violating BP 22. Atty. Tuanda is now appealing to the Supreme Court for her suspension to be lifted arguing that her suspension was a penalty so harsh on top of the fines imposed to her in violation of the aforementioned law. Arguing further that she intends no damage to the plaintiff-appellee (Herminia A. Marquez)and she is not guilty of the offense charged. Issue; WON the suspension of Atty. Fe Tuanda be lifted. Ruling; The Supreme Court ruled to DENY the respondent of his Motion to Lift Order of Suspension and affirmed the ruling of the Court of Appeals regarding the suspension. The court found Atty. Fe Tuanda guilty of an offense involving moral turpitude citing Secs 27 and 28 of the Rules of Court and the Code of Professional Responsibility. ----------------------------------------------FACTS: Atty. Fe Tuanda was convicted by the Regional Trial Court of Manila in violation of B.P. 22 with a fine and subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency and to indemnify the complainant Herminia Marquez. Respondent appealed. The Court of Appeals affirmed in toto the decision of the trial court and imposed upon Atty. Fe Tuanda, in addition, the suspension from the practice of law until further orders from the Supreme Court. The respondent filed a Notice of Appeal with the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals noted respondents Notice of Appeal and advised her to address her Notice of Appeal to the Honorable Supreme Court, the proper forum. In the said motion, responded stated: that suspension from the practice of law is indeed a harsh if not a not painful penalty aggravating the lower courts penalty of fine considering that accused-appellants action on the case during the trial on the merits at the lower court has always been motivated purely by sincere belief that she is innocent of the offense charged nor of the intention to cause damage to the herein plaintiff-appellee. ISSUE: Whether or not the imposed suspension for Atty. Tuanda may be lifted. HELD: NO. Motion to Lift Order of Suspension denied.

RATIO: [T]he crimes of which respondent was convicted [also] import deceit and violation of her attorneys oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility under both of which she was bound to obey the laws of the land. Conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude might not (as in the instant case, viola tion of B.P. Blg. 22 does not) relate to the exercise of the profession of a lawyer; however, it certainly relates to and affects the good moral character of a person convicted of such offense. IN RE TAGORDA Facts: Luis Tagorda is a member of the provincial board of Isabela Previous to the last election, he used placards which in a way was advertising his services as a lawyer and notarypublic He also wrote a letter to a lieutenant of a barrio in Echague,Isabela. In essence he was informing the lieutenantthat he will be in Echague during the weekends and the lieutenant should convey this information to the otherpeople in his town. Issue: W/N the acts of Tagorda is advertising Held: Yes, Tagorda is in a way advertising his services and this is contrary to the Canons of Professional Ethics (wala payung code of professional responsibility, 1929 case to) The most worthy and effective advertising for a lawyer is a well-merited reputation for professional capacity. Solicitation of business by circulars or advertisements, or by personal communications or interviews notwarranted by personal relations, is unprofessional. It is unprofessional for a lawyer to volunteer advice to bring lawsuit. Solicitation of cases result in the lowering of the confidence of the community and integrity of the members of thebar. It results in needless litigations and in incenting to strife. Tagorda suspended for a month

In 1928, Luis Tagorda was a provincial board member of Isabela. Before his election, he campaigned that he is a lawyer and anotary public; that as a notary public he can do notarial acts such as execution of deeds of sale, etc.; that as a lawyer, he can help clients collect debts; that he offers free consultation; that he is willing to serve the poor. When he won, he wrote a letter to the barrio lieutenant of Echague, Isable advising the latter that even though he was elected as a provincial board member, he can still practice law; that he wants the lieutenant to tell the same to his people; that he is willing to receive works regarding preparations of sales contracts and affidavits etc.; that he is willing to receive land registration cases for a charge of three pesos. ISSUE: Whether or not Tagorda is guilty of malpractice.

HELD: Yes. Tagorda admitted doing the foregoing acts. The practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either personally or through paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice. The most worthy and effective advertisement possible, even for a young lawyer, and especially with his brother lawyers, is the establishment of a well- merited reputation for professional capacity and fidelity to trust. This cannot be forced, but must be the outcome of character and conduct. Solicitation of business by circulars or advertisements, or by personal communications or interviews not warranted by personal relations, is unprofessional. It is equally unprofessional to procure business by indirection through touters of any kind, whether allied real estate firms or trust companies advertising to secure the drawing of deeds or wills or offering retainers in exchange for executorships or trusteeships to be influenced by the lawyer. Indirect advertisement for business by furnishing or inspiring newspaper comments concerning the manner of their conduct, the magnitude of the interests involved, the importance of the lawyers position, and all other like self-laudation, defy the traditions and lower the tone of our high calling, and are intolerable. It is unprofessional for a lawyer to volunteer advice to bring a lawsuit, except in rare cases where ties of blood, relationship or trust make it his duty to do so. Tagordas liability is however mitigated by the fact that he is a young inexperienced lawyer and that he was unaware of the impropriety of his acts. So instead of being disbarred, he was suspended from the practice of law for a month.

Khan v. Simbillo Simbillo advertised himself as an Annulment of Marriage Specialist. These advertisements appeared in the July 5, 2000 issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer, and further research showed that similar advertisements were published in the Manila Bulletin in August 2 and 6, 2000 and in the Philippine Star in August 5, 2000. In September 1, 2000, Simbillo was charged for improper advertising and solicitation of legal services, filed by Assistant Court Administrator and Chief of Public Information Office, Atty. Ismael G, Khan. Simbillos advertisement undermined the stability and sanctity of marriage, and violated rules 2.03 and 3.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, and Rule 138, Sec. 27 of the Rules of Court. Simbillo professed repentance and beg for the Courts indulgence, this rings hollow as he again advertised his services in an issue of Buy and Sell Free Ads Newspaper in August 14, 2001, and again in October 5, 2001. Rulings: Rizalino Simbillo was found to have violated Rules 2.03 and 3.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibilty, and Rule 138, section 27 of the Rules of Court, and therefore, suspended from the practice of Law for One year. Repetition of the same or similar offense will be dealt with more severely.

FACTS: Atty. Rizalino Simbillo publicized his legal services in the July 5, 2000 issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer via a paid advertisement which read: Annulment of Marriage Specialist 532-4333/521-2667. A staff member of the Public Information Office of theSupreme Court took notice and called the number posing as an interested party. She spoke to Mrs. Simbillo, who said that her husband was an expert in handling annulment cases and can guarantee a court decree within four to six months, and that the fee was P48,000.Further research by the Office of the Court Administrator and the Public Information Office revealed that similar ads were published in the August 2 and 6, 2000 issues of the Manila Bulletin and August 5, 2000 issue of the Philippine Star. Atty. Ismael Khan, Jr., in his capacity as Assistant Court Administrator and Chief of the Public Information Office filed an administrative complaint against Atty. Simbillo for improper advertising and solicitation in violation of Rule 2.03 and Rule 3.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Rule 138, Section 27 of the Rules of Court. The case was referred to the IBP for investigation, report and recommendation. IBP found respondent guilty - Respondent filed an Urgent Motion for Reconsideration, which was denied. Hence, this petition for certiorari ISSUE:WON Atty. Rizalino Simbillo is guilty of violating Rule 2.03 and Rule 3.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Rule 138, Section 27 of the Rules of Court HELD Yes. Petitioner was suspended from the practice of law for one year and was sternly warned that a repetition of the same or similar offense will be dealt with more severely. Ratio The practice of law is not a business. It is a profession in which duty to public service, not money is the primary consideration. DACANY v. MC Kenzie Facts: Lawyer Adriano E. Dacanay sought to enjoin respondents from practicing law under the name of Baker & McKenize, a law firm organized in Illinois. A letter dated 16 November 1979, using the letterhead of the said firm and carrying the name of the respondents, requested Rosie Clurman to release 87 shares of Cathay Products International, Inc. to H.E. Gabriel, a client. Atty. Dacanay, in his reply dated 07 December 1979, denied any liability of Clurman to Gabriel. He asked whether Gabriel is represented by Baker & McKenzie, and if not, why they misrepresented themselves by using the letterhead of another law firm. Not receiving a reply, he filed this instant complaint. Issue: Whether or not respondents can make use of the firm name Baker & McKenzie Held: Baker & McKenzie, being an alien law firm, cannot practice law in the Philippines. The respondents, members of the Philippine Bar and practicing under the firm name of Guerrero & Torres, are members or associates of Baker & McKenzie. Respondents use of the firm name constitutes a representation that they could render legal services of the higher quality to multinational business enterprises and others engaged in foreign trade and investment. This is unethical, as Baker & McKenzie is unauthorized to practice here.

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 foreig n 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. HELD: No. Baker & McKenzie, being an alien law firm, cannot practice law in the Philippines. Such use of foreign law firm name is unethical therefore Torres and his law firm are enjoined from using Baker & McKenzie in their practice of law.

Facts: Pedro Linsangan (Linsangan) of the Linsangan Linsangan & Linsangan Law Office filed a complaint of disbarment against Atty. Nicomedes Tolentino (Tolentino) for solicitation of clients and encroachment of professional services alleging that respondent, with the help of paralegal Fe Marie Labiano, convinced his clients to transfer legal representation to said respondent with the promise of financial assistance andexpeditious collection on their claims. To induce them to hire his services, he persistently called them and sent them text messages. Complainant presented the sworn affidavit of James Gregorio attesting that Labiano convinced him to sever his lawyer-client relations with complainant and use respondents services instead, in exchange for a loan of P50,000.00. Issue: Whether or not, Tolentinos actions constitute disbarment. Held: The court adopted the findings of the IBP on unethical conduct of the respondent whereby it found the respondent to have encroached on the professional practice of complainant, violating Rule 2.03 of the CPR which provide; Rule 2.03. A LAWYER SHALL NOT DO OR PERMIT TO BE DONE ANY ACT DESIGNEDPRIMARILY TO SOLICIT LEGAL BUSINESS. Hence, lawyers are prohibited from soliciting cases for the purpose of gain, either personally or through paid agents or brokers. Such actuation constitutes malpractice, a ground for disbarment. Rule 2.03 should be read in connection with Rule 1.03 of the CPR which provides: Rule 1.03. A LAWYER SHALL NOT, FOR ANY CORRUPT MOTIVE OR INTEREST, ENCOURAGE ANY SUIT OR PROCEEDING OR DELAY ANY MANS CAUSE. This rule proscribes ambulance chasing (the solicitation of almost any kind of legal business by an attorney, personally or through an agent in order to gain employment) as a measure to protect the community from barratry and

champerty. Based on such, Atty. Nicomedes Tolentino is found to have violated Rules 1.03, 2.03, of the CPR and is suspended from the practice of law for a period of one year with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar acts in the future shall be dealt with more severely.