CANON 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, self-laudatory 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.

ATTY. ISMAEL KHAN V. ATTY RIZALINO SIMBILLO

FACTS
A paid advertisement in the Philippine Daily Inquirer was published which reads: Annulment of Marriage
Specialist [contact number]. Espeleta, a staff of the Supreme Court, called up the number but it was Mrs. Simbillo
who answered. She claims that her husband, Atty. Simbillo was an expert in handling annulment cases and can
guarantee a court decree within 4-6mos provided the case will not involve separation of property and custody of
children. It appears that similar advertisements were also published.
An administrative complaint was filed which was referred to the IBP for investigation and recommendation.
The IBP resolved to suspend Atty. Simbillo for 1year. Note that although the name of Atty. Simbillo did not appear in
the advertisement, he admitted the acts imputed against him but argued that he should not be charged. He said that
it was time to lift the absolute prohibition against advertisement because the interest of the public isnt served in any
way by the prohibition.
ISSUE
Whether or not Simbillo violated Rule2.03 & Rule3.01.
HELD
Yes!

The practice of law is not a business --- it is a profession in which the primary duty is public service and
money. Gaining livelihood is a secondary consideration while duty to public service and administration of justice
should be primary. Lawyers should subordinate their primary interest.
Worse, advertising himself as an annulment of marriage specialist he erodes and undermines the sanctity
of an institution still considered as sacrosanct --- he in fact encourages people otherwise disinclined to dissolve their
marriage bond.
Solicitation of business is not altogether proscribed but for it to be proper it must be compatible with the dignity of the
legal profession. Note that the law list where the lawyers name appears must be a reputable law list only for that
purpose --- a lawyer may not properly publish in a daily paper, magazineetc., nor may a lawyer permit his name to
be published the contents of which are likely to deceive or injure the public or the bar.
IN RE: TAGORDA
Facts:
Luis Tagorda was a member of the provincial board of Isabela. Previous to the last election, he admits that
he made use of a card written in Spanish containing the fact that he was a candidate for third member of the Province
of Isabela & offering services as notary public (such as free consultation, execution of deed of sale, etc.). He also
admits that he wrote a letter addressed to a lieutenant of a barrio if his home municipality saying that he will continue
his practice of law and for the lieutenant to make known to the people of his desire to serve as lawyer & notary public
(including his services to handle land registration cases for P3/every registration).
Issue:
W/N acts of Tagorda constituted advertising
Held:
Yes, Tagorda is in a way advertising his services and is contrary to the Canons of Professional Ethics.
Solicitation of business by circulars or advertisements, or by personal communications or interviews not warranted by
personal relations is unprofessional. His acts warrant disbarment, but because of the mitigating circumstance of his
youth and inexperience, he is therefore suspended.
The law is a profession and not a business. The lawyer may not seek or obtain employment by himself or
through others for to do so would be unprofessional. It is also unprofessional for a lawyer to volunteer advice to bring
lawsuit. Lastly, solicitation of cases result in the lowering of the confidence of the community and integrity of the
members of the bar (as it results in needless litigations and in incenting to strife otherwise peaceful citizens).

In re Tagorda
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 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.

Ulep vs Legal Clinic

In 1984, The Legal Clinic was formed by Atty. Rogelio Nogales. Its aim, according to Nogales was to
move toward specialization and to cater to clients who cannot afford the services of big law firms. Now,
Atty. Mauricio Ulep filed a complaint against The Legal Clinic because of the latters advertisements which
contain the following:
SECRET MARRIAGE?
P560.00 for a valid marriage.
Info on DIVORCE. ABSENCE. ANNULMENT. VISA.
THE LEGAL CLINIC, INC.
Please call: 521-0767; 521-7232; 522-2041
8:30am 6:00pm
7th Flr. Victoria Bldg., UN Ave., Manila
GUAM DIVORCE
DON PARKINSON
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
Retirees Visa. Declaration of Absence. Remarriage to Filipina Fiancees. Adoption. Investment in the Phil.
US/Foreign Visa for Filipina Spouse/Children.
Call Marivic.
THE LEGAL CLINIC, INC.

7th Flr. Victoria Bldg., UN Ave., Manila nr. US Embassy

Tel. 521-7232, 521-7251, 522-2041, 521-0767
It is also alleged that The Legal Clinic published an article entitled Rx for Legal Problems in Star Week
of Philippine Star wherein Nogales stated that they The Legal Clinic is composed of specialists that can
take care of a clients problem no matter how complicated it is even if it is as complicated as the Sharon
Cuneta-Gabby Concepcion situation. He said that he and his staff of lawyers, who, like doctors, are
specialists in various fields, can take care of it. The Legal Clinic, Inc. has specialists in taxation and
criminal law, medico-legal problems, labor, litigation and family law. These specialists are backed up by a
battery of paralegals, counselors and attorneys.
As for its advertisement, Nogales said it should be allowed in view of the jurisprudence in the US which
now allows it (John Bates vs The State Bar of Arizona). And that besides, the advertisement is merely
making known to the public the services that The Legal Clinic offers.
ISSUE: Whether or not The Legal Clinic is engaged in the practice of law; whether such is allowed;
whether or not its advertisement may be allowed.
HELD: Yes, The Legal Clinic is engaged in the practice of law however, such practice is not allowed. The
Legal Clinic is composed mainly of paralegals. The services it offered include various legal problems
wherein a client may avail of legal services from simple documentation to complex litigation and corporate
undertakings. Most of these services are undoubtedly beyond the domain of paralegals, but rather, are
exclusive functions of lawyers engaged in the practice of law. Under Philippine jurisdiction however, the
services being offered by Legal Clinic which constitute practice of law cannot be performed by paralegals.
Only a person duly admitted as a member of the bar and who is in good and regular standing, is entitled
to practice law.
Anent the issue on the validity of the questioned advertisements, 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. The standards of the legal profession condemn the lawyers
advertisement of his talents. A lawyer cannot, without violating the ethics of his profession, advertise his
talents or skills as in a manner similar to a merchant advertising his goods. Further, the advertisements of
Legal Clinic seem to promote divorce, secret marriage, bigamous marriage, and other circumventions of
law which their experts can facilitate. Such is highly reprehensible.
The Supreme Court also noted which forms of advertisement are allowed. The best advertising possible
for a lawyer is a well-merited reputation for professional capacity and fidelity to trust, which must be
earned as the outcome of character and conduct. Good and efficient service to a client as well as to the
community has a way of publicizing itself and catching public attention. That publicity is a normal byproduct of effective service which is right and proper. A good and reputable lawyer needs no artificial
stimulus to generate it and to magnify his success. He easily sees the difference between a normal byproduct of able service and the unwholesome result of propaganda. The Supreme Court also
enumerated the following as allowed forms of advertisement:
Advertisement in a reputable law list
Use of ordinary simple professional card
Listing in a phone directory but without designation as to his specialization

Dacanay Baker vs McKenzie

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 foreign
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.

SAMONTE V GATDULA
GONZAGA-REYES; February 26, 1999
(athe odi)

NATURE
Administrative matter. Grave Misconduct.

FACTS
- The complainant, Julieta Borromeo Samonte charged Rolando R. Gatdula with
grave misconduct consisting in the alleged engaging in the private practice of law
which is in conflict with his official functions as Branch Clerk of Court.
- The complainant represents her sister as plaintiff in a civil case for ejectment.
Contrary to their expectation that execution will proceed, they instead received a
temporary restraining order. Santos contends that the order was hasty and irregular
as she was never notified of the application for preliminary injunction.
- Gatdula, when asked by the complainant of the reason of the decision, blamed
Santos lawyer for writing the address in the complaint for ejectment and told her
that if she wanted the execution to proceed, she should change her lawyer and
retain the law office of respondent, at the same time giving his calling card with the
name Baligod, Gatdula, Tacardon, Dimailig and Celera.
- The decision of the Court continued not to be favorable to Samonte, which cause
her to file administrative complaint against Gatdula.

ISSUE
WON Gatdula is guilty of infraction

HELD
Yes. The inclusion/retention of his name in the professional card constitutes an act
of solicitation which violates Section 7, sub-par. (b)(2) of RA 6713 (Code of Conduct
and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees) which declares it unlawful
for a public official or employees to, among others:
(2) Engage in the private practice of their profession unless authorized by
the Constituion or law, provided that such practice will not conflict with official
functions.
Disposition Respondent is reprimanded for engaging in the private practice of law.

He is further ordered to cause the exclusion of his name in the firm name of any
office engaged in the private practice of law.
CRUZ V SALVA
MONTEMAYOR; July 25, 1959
(chris capul)

NATURE
Original action in the Supreme Court. Certiorari and Prohibition with Preliminary
Injunction.

FACTS
- A certain Manuel Monroy was murdered. CFI Pasay found Castelo, de Jesus,
Bonifacio, Mendoza, Berdugo et al. guilty of murder. They all appealed and Castelo
sought new trial. Castelo was again found guilty.
- Pres Magsaysay ordered reinvestigation. Philippine Constabulary questioned
people and got confessions pointing to persons other than those convicted.
- Castelo et al wrote to Fiscal Salva to conduct reinvestigation on basis of new
confessions. Fiscal conferred w/ SolGen and the Justice Sec decided to have the
results of investigation made available to counsel for appellants.
- Chief of Phil Constabulary furnished Fiscal Salva copies of the affidavits and
confessions. Salva organized a committee for reinvestigation and subpoenaed
Timoteo Cruz, who was implicated as instigator and mastermind in the new
affidavits and confessions. Cruz counsel questioned jurisdiction of the committee
and of Salva to conduct preliminary investigation bec the case was pending appeal
in the SC. Counsel filed this present petition.
- Salva said he subpoenaed Cruz bec of Cruz oral and personal request to allow
him to appear at the investigation.
- SC issued writ of preliminary injunction stopping the prelim investigation.
ISSUES
1. WON Salva and his committee can push through with the investigation
2. WON Cruz can be compelled to appear and testify before Salva
3. WON Salva conducted the investigation property

HELD

1. Yes.
- SC believed Salva that it was Cruz who personally reqested to allow him to appear
at the investigation.
- Normally, when a criminal case handled by fiscal is tried and decided and
appealed to a higher court, functions of fiscal have terminated. However, Salva has
justified his reinvestigation bec in the orig case, one of the defendants (Salvador
Realista y de Guzman) was not included in the trial.
- The duty of a prosecuting attorney is not only to prosecute and secure conviction
of the guilty but also to protect the innocent.
- Writ of preliminary injunction dissolved. Investigation may continue.
- Petition for certiorari and prohibition granted in part, denied in part.
2. No
- Under the law, Cruz had right to be present at the investigation but he need not
be present. His presence is more of a right than a legal obligation.
3. No
- Salva shld have done investigation privately in his office and not publicly in the
session hall of Municipal Court of Pasay where microphones were installed and
media people were present. He should also not have made the media people ask
questions. SC was disturbed and annoyed by such publicity.
- Salva is publicly reprehended and censured.

CANON 4 - A LAWYER SHALL PARTICIPATE IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE

LEGAL SYSTEM BY INITIATING OR SUPPORTING EFFORTS IN LAW REFORM
AND IN THE IMPROVEMENT OF THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE.
CANON 5 - A LAWYER SHALL KEEP ABREAST OF LEGAL DEVELOPMENTS,
PARTICIPATE IN CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS, SUPPORT
EFFORTS TO ACHIEVE HIGH STANDARDS IN LAW SCHOOLS AS WELL AS IN
THE PRACTICAL TRAINING OF LAW STUDENTS AND ASSIST IN
DISSEMINATING THE LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE.
CANON 6 - THESE CANONS SHALL APPLY TO LAWYERS IN GOVERNMENT
SERVICES IN THE DISCHARGE OF THEIR TASKS.
Rule 6.01 - The primary duty of a lawyer engaged in public prosecution is not to
convict but to see that justice is done. The suppression of facts or the concealment
of witnesses capable of establishing the innocence of the accused is highly
reprehensible and is cause for disciplinary action.
Rule 6.02 - A lawyer in the government service shall not use his public position to
promote or advance his private interests, nor allow the latter to interfere with his
public duties.
Rule 6.03 - A lawyer shall not, after leaving government service, accept
engagement or employment in connection with any matter in which he had
intervened while in said service.

VITRIOLO V DASIG
PER CURIAM; April 1, 2003
(lora alamin)
NATURE
Administrative case for disbarment filed against Atty. Felina S. Dasig, an official of the Commission on Higher Education (CHED).
FACTS
- Almost all complainants are high-ranking officers of the CHED. They allege that while respondent was OIC of Legal Affairs
Service, CHED, committed acts that are grounds for disbarment under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court
- During her tenure as OIC, Legal Services, CHED, attempted to extort from Betty C. Mangohon, Rosalie B. Dela Torre, Rocella
G. Eje, and Jacqueline N. Ng sums of money as consideration for her favorable action on their pending applications or requests
before her office
- Complainants likewise aver that respondent violated her oath as attorney-at-law by filing eleven (11) baseless,
groundless, and unfounded suits before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City, which were subsequently
dismissed.
- Complainants charge respondent of transgressing subparagraph b (22), Section 36 of Presidential Decree No. 807, for her
willful failure to pay just debts owing to Borela Tire Supply and Novas Lining Brake & Clutch as evidenced by the dishonored
checks she issued, the complaint sheet, and the subpoena issued to respondent.
- Complainants also allege that respondent instigated the commission of a crime against complainant Celedonia R. Coronacion

and Rodrigo Coronacion, Jr., when she encouraged and ordered her son, Jonathan Dasig, a guard of the Bureau of Jail
Management and Penology, to draw his gun and shoot the Coronacions on the evening of May 14, 1997. As a result of this
incident, a complaint for grave threats against the respondent and her son, was lodged
- Complainants allege that respondent authored and sent to then President Joseph Estrada a libelous and unfair report, which
maligned the good names and reputation of no less than eleven (11) CHED Directors calculated to justify her ill motive of
preventing their re-appointment and with the end view of securing an appointment for herself.
- The IBP Commission on Bar Discipline concluded that respondent unlawfully used her public office in order to secure
financial spoils to the detriment of the dignity and reputation of the Commission on Higher Education. It was recommended
that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for the maximum period allowable of three (3) years with a further
warning that similar action in the future will be a ground for disbarment of respondent.
- The IBP Board of Governors passed Resolution No. XV-2002-393, adopting and approving the Report and
Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner and Respondent was SUSPENDED from the practice of law for three
(3) years.
ISSUE
WON respondent attorney-at-law, as Officer-in-Charge (OIC) of Legal Services, CHED, may be disciplined by this Court for her
malfeasance, considering that her position, at the time of filing of the complaint, was Chief Education Program Specialist,
Standards Development Division, Office of Programs and Standards, CHED.
HELD
YES.
Ratio Generally speaking, a lawyer who holds a government office may not be disciplined as a member of the Bar for
misconduct in the discharge of his duties as a government official. However, if said misconduct as a government official also
constitutes a violation of his oath as a lawyer, then he may be disciplined by this Court as a member of the Bar.
The Attorneys Oath is the source of the obligations and duties of every lawyer and any violation thereof is a ground for
disbarment, suspension, or other disciplinary action. The Attorneys Oath imposes upon every member of the bar the duty to
delay no man for money or malice. Said duty is further stressed in Rule 1.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Reasoning Respondents misconduct as a lawyer of the CHED is of such a character as to affect her qualification as a member
of the Bar, for as a lawyer, she ought to have known that it was patently unethical and illegal for her to demand sums of money
as consideration for the approval of applications and requests awaiting action by her office.
- Respondents demands for sums of money to facilitate the processing of pending applications or requests before her office
violates such duty, and runs afoul of the oath she took when admitted to the Bar. Such actions likewise run contrary to Rule 1.03
of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
- A member of the Bar who assumes public office does not shed his professional obligations. Hence, the Code of Professional
Responsibility, was not meant to govern the conduct of private practitioners alone, but of all lawyers including those in
government service. This is clear from Canon 6 of said Code.
- Respondents attempts to extort money from persons with applications or requests pending before her office are violative of
Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which prohibits members of the Bar from engaging or participating in any
unlawful, dishonest, or deceitful acts. Moreover, said acts constitute a breach of Rule 6.02 of the Code which bars lawyers in
government service from promoting their private interests. Promotion of private interests includes soliciting gifts or anything of
monetary value in any transaction requiring the approval of his office or which may be affected by the functions of his office.
Respondents conduct in office falls short of the integrity and good moral character required from all lawyers, specially from one
occupying a high public office. For a lawyer in public office is expected not only to refrain from any act or omission which might
tend to lessen the trust and confidence of the citizenry in government, she must also uphold the dignity of the legal profession at
all times and observe a high standard of honesty and fair dealing.
Disposition Respondent was found liable for gross misconduct and dishonesty in violation of the Attorneys Oath as well as the
Code of Professional Responsibility, and was ordered DISBARRED.
PEOPLE V PINEDA
SANCHEZ; July 21, 1967
(jojo mendoza)

FACTS
- On the night of July 29, 1965, the occupants of the home of the spouses Teofilo Mendoza and Valeriana Bontilao de Mendoza
in Pugaan City of Iligan, were asleep. It was then that guns (rifle, caliber 22) and paliuntod (homemade gun) were fired in rapid
succession from outside the house. Teofilo Mendoza fell dead. Thereafter, defendants below destroyed the door of the house,
entered therein, and let loose several shots killing Neceforo Mendoza, all minor children of the couple and wounding
Valeriana Bontilao de Mendoza.
- Tomas Narbasa, Tambac Alindo and Rufino Borres were indicted before the CFI of Lanao del Norte, as principals, in five (5)
separate cases for murder. The five informations were based on facts gathered by the prosecuting attorney from his
investigation.
- Two of the three defendants in the five criminal cases (Tomas Narbasa and Tambak Alindo) moved for a consolidation thereof
into one (1) criminal case. Their plea is that said cases arose out of the same incident and motivated by one impulse. The
respondent Judge approved the motion and directed the City Fiscal to unify all the five criminal cases, and to file one single
information and drop the other four cases. The City Fiscal sought reconsideration thereof. The respondent Judge denied the
motion to reconsider. He took the position that the acts complained of stemmed out of a series of continuing acts on the part of
the accused, not by different and separate sets of shots, moved by one impulse and should therefore be treated as one crime
though the series of shots killed more than one victim; and that only one information for multiple murder should be filed, to
obviate the necessity of trying five cases instead of one.
Hence, this appeal to the Court on certiorari with a prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction, and for other reliefs.

ISSUE
WON the City Fiscal shall file only one information

HELD
- YES, ruling Article 48 provides for two classes of crimes where a single penalty is to be imposed: first, where a single act
constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies (delito compuesto); and, second, when an offense is a necessary means for
committing the other (delito complejo). It is to be borne in mind, at this point, that apply the first half of Article 48, there must be
singularity of criminal act; singularity of criminal impulse is not written into the law.
The respondent Judge reasons out that consolidation of the five cases into one would have the salutary effect of obviating the
necessity of trying five cases instead of one. To save time, indeed, is laudable. Nonetheless, the statute confers upon the trial
judge the power to try these cases jointly, such that the fear entertained by respondent Judge could easily be remedied.
Upon the facts and the law, we hold that the City Fiscal of Iligan City correctly presented the five separate informations four for
murder and one for frustrated murder. A rule of presumption long familiar is that official duty has been regularly performed. A
prosecuting attorney, by the nature of his office, is under no compulsion to file a particular criminal information where he is not
convinced that he has evidence to prop up the averments thereof, or that the evidence at hand points to a different conclusion.
This is not to discount the possibility of the commission of abuses on the part of the prosecutor. But we must have to recognize
that a prosecuting attorney should not be unduly compelled to work against his conviction. In case of doubt, we should give him
the benefit thereof. A contrary rule may result in our courts being unnecessarily swamped with unmeritorious cases. Worse still, a
criminal suspect's right to due process the sporting idea of fair play may be transgressed. So it is, that in People vs. Sope,
the Court made the pronouncement that "it is very logical that the prosecuting attorney, being the one charged with the
prosecution of offenses, should determine the information to be filed and cannot be controlled by the off ended party."
- The impact of respondent Judge's orders is that his judgment is to be substituted for that of the prosecutor's on the matter of
what crime is to be filed in court. The question of instituting a criminal charge is one addressed to the sound discretion of the
investigating Fiscal. The information he lodges in court must have to be supported by facts brought about by an inquiry made by

him. It stands to reason then to say that in a clash of views between the judge who did not investigate and the fiscal who did, or
between the fiscal and the offended party or the defendant, those of the Fiscal's should normally prevail. In this regard, he cannot
ordinarily be subject to dictation. We are not to be understood as saying that criminal prosecution may not be blocked in
exceptional cases. A relief in equity "may be availed of to stop it purported enforcement of a criminal law where it is necessary (a)
for the orderly administration of justice; (b) to prevent the use of the strong arm of the law in an oppressive and vindictive
manner; (c) to avoid multiplicity of actions; (d) to afford adequate protection to constitutional rights; and (e) in proper cases,
because the statute relied upon is unconstitutional or was held invalid." Nothing in the record would as much as intimate that the
present case fits into any of the situations just recited.
Disposition The writ of certiorari is granted.