CANON 3

GUAM DIVORCE
DON PARKINSON

3 - A LAWYER IN MAKING KNOWN HIS 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, selflaudatory or unfair statement or claim regarding his
qualifications or legal services.
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 communications
that said partner is deceased.
Rule 3.03 - Where a partner accepts public office, he shall
withdrawal from the firm and his name shall be dropped
from the firm name unless the law allows him to practice
law currently.
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.

Ulep vs. Legal Clinic, 223 SCRA 378 (1993)

FACTS: The petitioner contends that the advertisements
reproduced by the respondents are champertous,
unethical, demeaning of the law profession, and destructive
of the confidence of the community in the integrity of the
members of the bar and that, to which as a member of the
legal profession, he is ashamed and offended by the
following advertisements:

Annex A
SECRET MARRIAGE?
P560.00 for a valid marriage.
Info on DIVORCE. ABSENCE.
ANNULMENT. VISA.
THE Please call:521-0767,
LEGAL 5217232,5222041
CLINIC, INC. 8:30 am-6:00 pm
7-Flr. Victoria Bldg., UN Ave., Mla.

Annex B

an Attorney in Guam, is giving FREE BOOKS on Guam

Divorce through The Legal Clinic beginning Monday to
Friday during office hours.
Guam divorce. Annulment of Marriage. Immigration
Problems, Visa Ext. Quota/Non-quota Res. & Special
Retiree's Visa. Declaration of Absence Remarriage to
Filipina Fiancees. Adoption. Investment in the Phil.
US/Force Visa for Filipina Spouse/Children. Call Marivic.

THE 7F Victoria Bldg. 429 UN Ave.,

LEGAL Ermita, Manila nr. US Embassy
CLINIC, INC. Tel. 521-7232; 521-7251;
522-2041; 521-0767

In its answer to the petition, respondent admits the fact of

publication of said advertisements at its instance, but
claims that it is not engaged in the practice of law but in the
rendering of "legal support services" through paralegals
with the use of modern computers and electronic
machines. Respondent further argues that assuming that
the services advertised are legal services, the act of
advertising these services should be allowed supposedly in
the light of the case of John R. Bates and Van O'Steen vs.
State Bar of Arizona, reportedly decided by the United
States Supreme Court on June 7, 1977. ISSUE:Whether or
not, the advertised services offered by the Legal Clinic,
Inc., constitutes practice of law and whether the same are
in violation of the Code of Professional responsibility
RULING: The advertisement of the respondent is covered
in the term practice of law as defined in the case of
Cayetano vs. Monsod. There is a restricted concept and
limited acceptance of paralegal services in the Philippines.
It is allowed that some persons not duly licensed to practice
law are or have been permitted with a limited
representation in behalf of another or to render legal
services, but such allowable services are limited in scope
and extent by the law, rules or regulations granting
permission therefore. Canon 3 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility provides that a lawyer in making known his
legal services shall use only true, honest, fair, dignified and
objective information or statement of facts. Canon 3.01
adds that he is not supposed to 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. Nor shall he pay or give
something of value to representatives of the mass media in
anticipation of, or in return for, publicity to attract legal
business (Canon 3.04). The Canons of Professional Ethics,
before the adoption of the CPR, had also warned that
lawyers 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
have been engaged of concerning the manner of the
conduct, the magnitude of the interest involved, the

importance the lawyer's position, and all other like selflaudation. There are existing exceptions under the law on
the rule prohibiting the advertisement of a lawyers
services. However, taking into consideration the nature and
contents of the advertisements for which respondent is
being taken to task, which even includes a quotation of the
fees charged by said respondent corporation for services
rendered, the court found and held that the same definitely
do not and conclusively cannot fall under any of the
exceptions. The respondents defense with the case of
Bates vs. State Bar applies only when there is an exception
to the prohibition against advertisements by lawyers, to
publish a statement of legal fees for an initial consultation
or the availability upon request of a written schedule of fees
or an estimate of the fee to be charged for the specific
services. No such exception is provided for, expressly or
impliedly whether in our former Canons of Professional
Ethics or the present Code of Professional Responsibility.
Besides, even the disciplinary rule in the Bates case
contains a proviso that the exceptions stand therein are
"not applicable in any state unless and until it is
implemented by such authority in that state. The Court
Resolved to RESTRAIN and ENJOIN The Legal Clinic,
Inc., from issuing or causing the publication or
dissemination of any advertisement in any form which is of
the same or similar tenor and purpose as Annexes "A" and
"B" of this petition, and from conducting, directly or
indirectly, any activity, operation or transaction proscribed
by law or the Code of Professional Ethics as indicated
herein.

Further research by the Office of the Court Administrator

and the Public Information Office revealed that similar
advertisements were published in the August 2 and 6, 2000
issues of the Manila Bulletin and August 5, 2000 issue of
The Philippine Star.2
Petitioner:
On September 1, 2000, Atty. Ismael G. Khan, Jr., in his
capacity as Assistant Court Administrator and Chief of the
Public Information Office, filed an administrative complaint
against Atty. Rizalino T. Simbillo for improper advertising
and solicitation of his legal services, in violation of Rule
2.03 and Rule 3.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility and Rule 138, Section 27 of the Rules of
Court.3

Respondent:

Khan vs Simbillo

In his answer, respondent admitted the acts imputed to

him, but argued that advertising and solicitation per se are
not prohibited acts; that the time has come to change our
views about the prohibition on advertising and solicitation;
that the interest of the public is not served by the absolute
prohibition on lawyer advertising; that the Court can lift the
ban on lawyer advertising; and that the rationale behind the
decades-old prohibition should be abandoned. Thus, he
prayed that he be exonerated from all the charges against
him and that the Court promulgate a ruling that
advertisement of legal services offered by a lawyer is not
contrary to law, public policy and public order as long as it
is dignified.4

AC # 5299

Issue:

8/19/2003

Whether or not Respondent violated the Canons?

CASE 33

Ruling:
Facts:

Yes.

This administrative complaint arose from a paid

advertisement that appeared in the July 5, 2000 issue of
the newspaper, Philippine Daily Inquirer, which reads:
"ANNULMENT OF MARRIAGE Specialist 532-4333/5212667."1

We agree with the IBPs Resolutions Nos. XV-2002-306

and XV-2002-606.

Ms. Ma. Theresa B. Espeleta, a staff member of the Public

Information Office of the Supreme Court, called up the
published telephone number and pretended to be an
interested party. She spoke to Mrs. Simbillo, who claimed
that her husband, Atty. Rizalino Simbillo, was an expert in
handling annulment cases and can guarantee a court
decree within four to six months, provided the case will not
involve separation of property or custody of children. Mrs.
Simbillo also said that her husband charges a fee of
P48,000.00, half of which is payable at the time of filing of
the case and the other half after a decision thereon has
been rendered.

Rules 2.03 and 3.01 of the Code of Professional

Responsibility read:

Rule 2.03. A lawyer shall not do or permit to be done any

act designed primarily to solicit legal business.

Rule 3.01. A lawyer shall not use or permit the use of any
false, fraudulent, misleading, deceptive, undignified, selflaudatory or unfair statement or claim regarding his
qualifications or legal services.

Rule 138, Section 27 of the Rules of Court states:

SEC. 27. Disbarment and suspension of attorneys by

Supreme Court, grounds therefor. A member of the bar
may be disbarred or suspended from his office as attorney
by the Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice or other
gross misconduct in such office, grossly immoral conduct
or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral
turpitude, or for any violation of the oath which he is
required to take before the admission to practice, or for a
willful disobedience appearing as attorney for a party
without authority to do so.

It has been repeatedly stressed that the practice of law is

not a business.12 It is a profession in which duty to public
service, not money, is the primary consideration. Lawyering
is not primarily meant to be a money-making venture, and
law advocacy is not a capital that necessarily yields
profits.13 The gaining of a livelihood should be a secondary
consideration.14 The duty to public service and to the
administration of justice should be the primary
consideration of lawyers, who must subordinate their
personal interests or what they owe to themselves.15 The
following elements distinguish the legal profession from a
business:

1. A duty of public service, of which the emolument is a byproduct, and in which one may attain the highest eminence
without making much money;

2. A relation as an "officer of the court" to the administration

of justice involving thorough sincerity, integrity and
reliability;

3. A relation to clients in the highest degree of fiduciary;

4. 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.16

There is no question that respondent committed the acts

complained of. He himself admits that he caused the
publication of the advertisements. While he professes
repentance and begs for the Courts indulgence, his
contrition rings hollow considering the fact that he
advertised his legal services again after he pleaded for
compassion and after claiming that he had no intention to
violate the rules. Eight months after filing his answer, he
again advertised his legal services in the August 14, 2001
issue of the Buy & Sell Free Ads Newspaper.17 Ten
months later, he caused the same advertisement to be
published in the October 5, 2001 issue of Buy & Sell.18

Such acts of respondent are a deliberate

contemptuous affront on the Courts authority.

and

What adds to the gravity of respondents acts is that in

advertising himself as a self-styled "Annulment of Marriage
Specialist," he wittingly or unwittingly erodes and
undermines not only the stability but also the sanctity of an
institution still considered sacrosanct despite the
contemporary climate of permissiveness in our society.
Indeed, in assuring prospective clients that an annulment
may be obtained in four to six months from the time of the
filing of the case,19 he in fact encourages people, who
might have otherwise been disinclined and would have
refrained from dissolving their marriage bonds, to do so.

Nonetheless, the solicitation of legal business is not

altogether proscribed. However, for solicitation to be
proper, it must be compatible with the dignity of the legal
profession. If it is made in a modest and decorous manner,
it would bring no injury to the lawyer and to the bar.20
Thus, the use of simple signs stating the name or names of
the lawyers, the office and residence address and fields of
practice, as well as advertisement in legal periodicals
bearing the same brief data, are permissible. Even the use
of calling cards is now acceptable.21 Publication in
reputable law lists, in a manner consistent with the
standards of conduct imposed by the canon, of brief
biographical and informative data is likewise allowable. As
explicitly stated in Ulep v. Legal Clinic, Inc.:22

Such data must not be misleading and may include only a

statement of the lawyers name and the names of his
professional associates; addresses, telephone numbers,
cable addresses; branches of law practiced; date and place
of birth and admission to the bar; schools attended with
dates of graduation, degrees and other educational
distinctions; public or quasi-public offices; posts of honor;
legal authorships; legal teaching positions; membership
and offices in bar associations and committees thereof, in
legal and scientific societies and legal fraternities; the fact
of listings in other reputable law lists; the names and
addresses of references; and, with their written consent,
the names of clients regularly represented.

The law list must be a reputable law list published primarily

for that purpose; it cannot be a mere supplemental feature
of a paper, magazine, trade journal or periodical which is
published principally for other purposes. For that reason, a
lawyer may not properly publish his brief biographical and
informative data in a daily paper, magazine, trade journal or
society program. Nor may a lawyer permit his name to be
published in a law list the conduct, management, or
contents of which are calculated or likely to deceive or
injure the public or the bar, or to lower dignity or standing of
the profession.

The use of an ordinary simple professional card is also

permitted. The card may contain only a statement of his
name, the name of the law firm which he is connected with,
address, telephone number and special branch of law
practiced. The publication of 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. He
may likewise have his name listed in a telephone directory
but not under a designation of special branch of law.
(emphasis and italics supplied)

against Atty. Nicomedes Tolentino for solicitation of clients

and encroachment of professional services.

Complainant alleged that respondent, with the help of

paralegal Fe Marie Labiano, convinced his clients2 to
transfer legal representation. Respondent promised them
financial assistance3 and expeditious collection on their
claims.4 To induce them to hire his services, he persistently
called them and sent them text messages. Further, in his
business card, dangles with financial assistance.

DECISION:
Issue:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, respondent
RIZALINO T. SIMBILLO is found GUILTY of violation of
Rules 2.03 and 3.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility and Rule 138, Section 27 of the Rules of
Court. He is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for ONE
(1) YEAR effective upon receipt of this Resolution. He is
likewise STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same
or similar offense will be dealt with more severely.

Whether or not respondent violated the Code of

Professional Responsibility deserving to be meted with the
penalty of disbarment.

Held:
Let copies of this Resolution be entered in his record as
attorney and be furnished the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines and all courts in the country for their information
and guidance.

SO ORDERED.

Time and time again, lawyers are reminded that the

practice of law is a profession and not a business; lawyers
should not advertise their talents as merchants advertise
their wares.13 To allow a lawyer to advertise his talent or
skill is to commercialize the practice of law, degrade the
profession in the publics estimation and impair its ability to
efficiently render that high character of service to which
every member of the bar is called.

Vitug, (Acting Chairman),Carpio, and Azcuna, JJ., concur.

Davide, Jr., C.J., (Chairman ), abroad, on official business
CASE 34
A.C. No. 6672

September 4, 2009

PEDRO
L.
LINSANGAN,
Complainant,
vs.
ATTY. NICOMEDES TOLENTINO, Respondent
A.C. No. 6672

With regard to respondents violation of Rule 8.02 of the

CPR, settled is the rule that a lawyer should not steal
another lawyers client nor induce the latter to retain him by
a promise of better service, good result or reduced fees for
his services.20 Again the Court notes that respondent never
denied having these seafarers in his client list nor receiving
benefits from Labianos "referrals." Furthermore, he never
denied Labianos connection to his office. 21 Respondent
committed an unethical, predatory overstep into anothers
legal practice. He cannot escape liability under Rule 8.02 of
the CPR.

September 4, 2009

PEDRO
L.
LINSANGAN,
Complainant,
vs.
ATTY. NICOMEDES TOLENTINO, Respondent

A final word regarding the calling card presented in

evidence by petitioner. A lawyers best advertisement is a
well-merited reputation for professional capacity and fidelity
to trust based on his character and conduct. 27 For this
reason, lawyers are only allowed to announce their
services by publication in reputable law lists or use of
simple professional cards.

Facts:

A complaint for disbarment was1filed by Pedro Linsangan

of the Linsangan Linsangan & Linsangan Law Office

WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Nicomedes Tolentino for

violating Rules 1.03, 2.03, 8.02 and 16.04 and Canon 3 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility and Section 27,
Rule 138 of the Rules of Court is hereby SUSPENDED
from the practice of law for a period of one year.

Facts:

A complaint for disbarment was1filed by Pedro Linsangan

of the Linsangan Linsangan & Linsangan Law Office
against Atty. Nicomedes Tolentino for solicitation of clients
and encroachment of professional services.

services by publication in reputable law lists or use of

simple professional cards.
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Nicomedes Tolentino for
violating Rules 1.03, 2.03, 8.02 and 16.04 and Canon 3 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility and Section 27,
Rule 138 of the Rules of Court is hereby SUSPENDED
from the practice of law for a period of one year.

Case 35
Complainant alleged that respondent, with the help of
paralegal Fe Marie Labiano, convinced his clients2 to
transfer legal representation. Respondent promised them
financial assistance3 and expeditious collection on their
claims.4 To induce them to hire his services, he persistently
called them and sent them text messages. Further, in his
business card, dangles with financial assistance.

Issue:

Whether or not respondent violated the Code of

Professional Responsibility deserving to be meted with the
penalty of disbarment.

Held:

Time and time again, lawyers are reminded that the

practice of law is a profession and not a business; lawyers
should not advertise their talents as merchants advertise
their wares.13 To allow a lawyer to advertise his talent or
skill is to commercialize the practice of law, degrade the
profession in the publics estimation and impair its ability to
efficiently render that high character of service to which
every member of the bar is called.

With regard to respondents violation of Rule 8.02 of the

CPR, settled is the rule that a lawyer should not steal
another lawyers client nor induce the latter to retain him by
a promise of better service, good result or reduced fees for
his services.20 Again the Court notes that respondent never
denied having these seafarers in his client list nor receiving
benefits from Labianos "referrals." Furthermore, he never
denied Labianos connection to his office. 21 Respondent
committed an unethical, predatory overstep into anothers
legal practice. He cannot escape liability under Rule 8.02 of
the CPR.
A final word regarding the calling card presented in
evidence by petitioner. A lawyers best advertisement is a
well-merited reputation for professional capacity and fidelity
to trust based on his character and conduct. 27 For this
reason, lawyers are only allowed to announce their

MANUEL G. VILLATUYA v. ATTY. BEDE S.

TABALINGCOS A.C. No. 6622, July 10, 2012 Case Digest
FACTS:

Complainant, Manuel G. Villatuya filed a Complaint for

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

In a mandatory conference called for by the Commission

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

In the position paper submitted by the complainant on

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

In his defense, respondent denied charges against him and

asserted that the complainant was not an employee of his
law firm but rather an employee of Jesi and Jane
Management, Inc., one of the financial consultancy firms.
Respondent alleged that complainant was unprofessional
and incompetent in performing his job and that there was
no verbal agreement between them regarding the payment

of fees and the sharing of professional fees paid by his

clients. He proffered documents showing that the salary of
complainant had been paid. Respondent also denied
committing any unlawful solicitation. To support his
contention, respondent attached a Joint Venture
Agreement and an affidavit executed by the Vice-President
for operations of Jesi and Jane Management, Inc. On the
charge of gross immorality, respondent assailed the
Affidavit of a dismissed messenger of Jesi and Jane
Management, Inc., as having no probative value, since it
had been retracted by the affiant himself. Respondent did
not specifically address the allegations regarding his
alleged bigamous marriages with two other women

On January 9, 2006, complainant filed a Motion to Admit

Copies of 3 Marriage Contracts of respondent wherein he
attached the certified true copies of the Marriage Contracts
referred to in the Certification issued by the NSO.

On January 16, 2006, respondent submitted his Opposition

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

The Commission scheduled a clarificatory hearing on 20

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

On February 27, 2008, the Commission promulgated its

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

On April 15, 2008, the IBP Board of Governors, through its

Resolution No. XVIII-2008-154, adopted and approved the
Report and Recommendation of the Investigating
Commissioner.

On August 1, 2008, respondent filed a Motion for

Reconsideration, arguing that the recommendation to
disbar him was premature.

On June 26, 2011, the IBP Board of Governors denied the

Motions for Reconsideration and affirmed their Resolution
dated April 15, 2008 recommending respondents
disbarment.

ISSUES:

1. Whether respondent violated the Code of Professional

Responsibility by nonpayment of fees to complainant;

2. Whether respondent violated the rule against unlawful

solicitation; and

3. Whether respondent is guilty of gross immoral conduct

for having married thrice.

RULING:

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

fees.

Supreme Court affirmed the IBPs dismissal of the first

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

Second charge: Unlawful solicitation of clients.

In its Report, the IBP established the truth of these

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

A lawyer is not prohibited from engaging in business or

other lawful occupation. Impropriety arises, though, when
the business is of such a nature or is conducted in such a
manner as to be inconsistent with the lawyers duties as a
member of the bar. This inconsistency arises when the
business is one that can readily lend itself to the
procurement of professional employment for the lawyer; or
that can be used as a cloak for indirect solicitation on the
lawyers behalf; or is of a nature that, if handled by a
lawyer, would be regarded as the practice of law.

It is clear from the documentary evidence submitted by

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

Rule 15.08 of the Code mandates that the lawyer is

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

Considering, however, that complainant has not proven the

degree of prevalence of this practice by respondent, the
Supreme Court affirm the recommendation to reprimand
the latter for violating Rules 2.03 and 15.08 of the Code.

Third charge: Bigamy.

The Supreme Court have consistently held that a

disbarment case is sui generis. Its focus is on the
qualification and fitness of a lawyer to continue
membership in the bar and not the procedural technicalities
in filing the case. Thus, in Garrido v. Garrido:
Laws dealing with double jeopardy or with procedure
such as the verification of pleadings and prejudicial
questions, or in this case, prescription of offenses or the
filing of affidavits of desistance by the complainant do
not apply in the determination of a lawyer's qualifications
and fitness for membership in the Bar. We have so ruled in
the past and we see no reason to depart from this ruling.

First, admission to the practice of law is a component of the

administration of justice and is a matter of public interest
because it involves service to the public. The admission
qualifications are also qualifications for the continued
enjoyment of the privilege to practice law. Second, lack of
qualifications or the violation of the standards for the
practice of law, like criminal cases, is a matter of public
concern that the State may inquire into through this Court.
In disbarment proceedings, the burden of proof rests upon
the complainant. In this case, complainant submitted NSOcertified true copies to prove that respondent entered into
two marriages while the latters first marriage was still
subsisting. While respondent denied entering into the
second and the third marriages, he resorted to vague
assertions tantamount to a negative pregnant.

What has been clearly established here is the fact that

respondent entered into marriage twice while his first
marriage was still subsisting. In Bustamante-Alejandro v.
Alejandro, 56 we held thus:

[W]e have in a number of cases disciplined members of the

Bar whom we found guilty of misconduct which
demonstrated a lack of that good moral character required
of them not only as a condition precedent for their
admission to the Bar but, likewise, for their continued
membership therein. No distinction has been made as to
whether the misconduct was committed in the lawyers
professional capacity or in his private life. This is because a
lawyer may not divide his personality so as to be an
attorney at one time and a mere citizen at another. He is
expected to be competent, honorable and reliable at all
times since he who cannot apply and abide by the laws in
his private affairs, can hardly be expected to do so in his
professional dealings nor lead others in doing so.
Professional honesty and honor are not to be expected as
the accompaniment of dishonesty and dishonor in other
relations. The administration of justice, in which the lawyer
plays an important role being an officer of the court,
demands a high degree of intellectual and moral
competency on his part so that the courts and clients may
rightly repose confidence in him.

Respondent exhibited a deplorable lack of that degree of

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

The Supreme Court adopted the recommendation of the

IBP to disbar respondent and ordered that his name be
stricken from the Roll of Attorneys.
Posted by gemendio at 11:44 PM