In Re: Luis Tagorda

53 Phil 37 Legal Ethics Malpractice Solicitation of Legal Business Advertisement in

the Legal Profession Stirring Up of Litigation
In 1928, Luis Tagorda was a provincial board member of Isabela. Before his election, he
campaigned that he is a lawyer and a notary 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 reputationfor
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.

Maelotisea S. Garrido v. Attys. Angel E. Garrido and Romana P. Valencia (2010)

Doctrine
Possession of good moral character is both a condition precedent and a
continuing requirement to warrant admission to the bar and to retain
membership in the legal profession. Admission to the practice only
creates the rebuttable presumption that the applicant has all the
qualifications to become a lawyer.
Facts:
Maelotisea Sipin Garrido filed a complaint-affidavit and a supplemental affidavit for
disbarment against Atty. Garrido and Atty. Valencia According to Maelotisea, She and
Atty. Garrido were married back in 1962. Subsequently, she found out that the two
lawyers got married in Hong Kong in 1978, while she and Garrido were still married.
She also found out that the two had a daughter. In 1993, Atty. Garrido left the
conjugal home and joined Atty. Valencia at their residence. Since he left the conjugal
home, he stopped giving Maelotisea and his family the needed financial support. In
his Counter-Affidavit, Atty. Garrido denied Maelotiseas charges and imputations. He
alleged that Maelotisea was not his legal wife, as he was already married to
Constancia David when he married Maelotisea. As he and Maelotisea grew apart
over the years due to financial problems, Atty. Garrido met Atty. Valencia. He
became close to Atty. Valencia to whom he confided his difficulties. Together, they
resolved his personal problems and his financial difficulties. He denied that he failed
to give financial support to his children with Maelotisea. Atty. Garrido emphasized
that all his marriages were contracted before he became a member of the bar, with
the third marriage contracted after the death of Constancia. Also, Atty Garrido
argues that the offenses charged have prescribed under the IBP rules. Maelotisea
filed a motion for the dismissal of the complaints she filed arguing that she wanted
to maintain friendly relations with Atty. Garrido.
Issues:
1. W/N the disbarment case against Atty. Garrido would prosper
2. W/N the disbarment case against Atty. Valencia would prosper.
3. W/N the offenses charged have prescribed.

4. W/N Maelotiseas motion for the dismissal of the complaints she filed against
the respondents will prosper.
Held/Ratio:
1. YES. He did not possess the good moral character required of a lawyer at the
time of his admission to the Bar. As a lawyer, he violated his lawyers
oath,Section 20(a) of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court,

and Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, all of which commonly

require him to obey the laws of the land. In marrying Maelotisea, he committed the
crime of bigamy. He violated ethical rules of the profession, specifically, Rule 1.01 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility, which commands that he shall not engage
in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct; Canon 7 of the same Code,
which demands that [a] lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of
the legal profession; Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which
provides that, [a] lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his
fitness to practice law, nor should he, whether in public or private life, behave in a
scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession.
2. YES Atty. Valencia violated Canon 7 and Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, as her behavior demeaned the dignity of and discredited the
legal profession. Her actions were so corrupt as to approximate a criminal act,
for she married a man who, in all appearances, was married to another and
with whom he has a family. Her actions were also unprincipled and
reprehensible to a high degree; as the confidante of Atty. Garrido, she preyed
on his vulnerability and engaged in a romantic relationship with him during
the subsistence of his two previous marriages.
3. NO Laws dealing with double jeopardy or with procedure do not apply in the
determination of a lawyers qualifications and fitness for membership in the
Bar because admission to the practice of law is a component of the
administration of justice and is a matter of public interest.
4. NO In light of the public service character of the practice of law, Maelotisea
is considered more of a witness than a complainant in these proceedings. She
filed her affidavits of withdrawal only after she had presented her evidence;
her evidence are now available for the Courts examination and
consideration, and their merits are not affected by her desistance.