DIR OF LEGAL AFFAIRS V BAYOT

FACTS:
Bayot was charged with malpractice by publishing Marriagelicense promptly secured thru
our assistance & the annoyance of delay or publicity avoided if desired, and marriage arranged to
wishes of parties. Consultation on any matter free for the poor. Everything confidential. In the
Sunday Tribune
Bayot first denied the publication but later on admitted, and asked for mitigation saying: o I
only did it once. I wont repeat it again! o I never had any case by reason of the publication
Anastacio, Beron, Calinisan, Fernandez, Gana Lopez, Mendiola, Morada, Rivas, Sarenas 2C
LEGAL ETHICS 2 nd Sem 2005-2006
ISSUE: WoN Bayot can be charged with malpractice?
HELD: YES.
1. The publication is tantamount to a solicitation of business from the public. Section 25 of Rule
127 expressly provides among other things that "the practice of soliciting cases at law for the
purpose of gain, either personally or thru paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice." It is
highly unethical for an attorney to advertise his talents or skill as a merchant advertises his
wares. Law is a profession and not a trade.
2. In In re Tagorda, 53 Phil., the respondent attorney was suspended from the practice of law for
the period of one month for advertising his services and soliciting work from the public by
writing circular letters. That case, however, was more serious than this because there the
solicitations were repeatedly made and were more elaborate and insistent..Considering his plea
for leniency and his promise not to repeat the misconduct, the Court is of the opinion and so
decided that the respondent should be, as he hereby is, reprimanded. 3. "The most worth and
effective advertisement possible, even for a young lawyer is the establishment of a wellmerited
reputation for professional capacity and fidelity to trust. This cannot be forced but must be the
outcome of character and conduct." (Canon 27, Code of Ethics.)
ULEP V LEGAL CLINIC
FACTS:
Ulep prays the Supreme Court to order the Legal Clinic to cease, issuing advertisement similar
to or of the same tenor as that of annexes A and B (p381). Legal Clinic admits the facts of
publication of said advertisement that claims that it is not engage in the practice of law but in the
rendering of legal support services through paralegals with the use of modern computers and
electronic machine.
ISSUE: W/N the services offered by Legal Clinic as advertised by it constitutes practice of law
Whether the same can properly be the subject of the advertisement complained of

HELD:
According to the IBP, notwithstanding the manner by which respondent endeavored to
distinguish the 2 terms, legal support services and legal services, common sense would readily
dictate that the same are essentially without substantial distinction. The use of the name the
Legal Clinic gives the impression that the respondent corporation is being managed by lawyers
and that it renders legal services. The advertisement in question is meant to induce the
performance of acts contrary to law, morals, public order and public policy. This is in violation of
Canon 1 Rule 1.02 that is counseling illegal activities.
Practice of law means any activity, in or out of court which requires that application of law,
legal procedures, knowledge, training and experience. Applying the case Cayetano vs. Monsod,
the court agrees that the activities of the respondent Legal Clinic constitute the practice of law.
Such a conclusion will not be altered by the fact that respondent does not represent clients in
court since law practice is not limited merely to court appearances.
Regarding the issue on the validity of the questioned advertisements, the Code of Profession
Responsibility provides that a lawyer, in making known his legal services shall use only true,
honest, fair, and objective information or statement of facts. The proscription against advertising
of legal services rests on the fundamental postulate that the practice of law is a profession.
Exceptions: o Publication in reputable law lists, in a manner consistent with the standards of
conduct imposed by the canon o Ordinary, simple professional card. The card may contain only
the statement of his name, the law firm, address and branch of law practiced.
Considering that Atty. Nogales who is the prime incorporator, major stockholder and
proprietor of the legal clinic is a member of the Philippine Bar, he is hereby reprimanded with a
warning that the repetition of the same or similar acts which are involved in this proceeding will
be dealt with more severely.

IGOY v SORIANO
FACTS:
Igoy is one of the petitioners in the case of Heirs of Gavino Igoy, et al. vs. Mactan Shangrila
Hotel.
Eng. William Redoblado introduced Atty. Soriano to Igoy as a Justice of the CA.
According to Igoys friend, Atty. Soriano will be able to help him in his case which is pending
in the CA Atty. Soriano demanded from Igoy P20,000 but the former reminded the latter the he
will only be able to help in the case as soon as the case was lifted to the SC
Igoys case received an unfavorable decision in the CA and Atty. Soriano offered to prepare
the Petition for Review to be filed in the SC.

 Atty. Soriano asked for an additional P20,000

Igoy send the amount by courier to the address of Atty. Soriano which was received by his
son.
SC denied the petition for review of Igoy with finality
Igoy later found out that Atty. Soriano is not a CA Justice and filed this complaint against Igoy
in the SC Arguments of Atty. Soriano: o It is unnatural for a person to give money to someone
whom he does not know well and whom he met only for the first time o The money was offered
gratuitously by Igoy o it is impossible the Igoy handed the money to him on the SC parking lot
for many employees were passing in that place o it is not Eng. Redoblado who introduced him to
Igoy but Mr. Taneo o if the SC finds that he is guilty, he will retire from the service
Atty. Soriano filed his letter of resignation/retirement under RA 1616
ISSUE:
W/N Atty. Soriano violated Canon 6, Rule 6.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
HELD:
Yes! Atty. Soriano was dismissed from the service with forfeiture of all retirement benefits and
is suspended from the practice of law.
Atty. Sorianos offer to resign was obviously an attempt to evade whatever penalty may be
imposed on him. However, resignation will not extricate him form the consequences of his acts
Resignation should not be used either as an escape or an easy way out to evade administrative
liability by court personnel facing administrative sanctions
To accept the claim of Soriano that the money was offered gratuitously will open the
floodgates to fraud or graft and corruption.
Government lawyers who are public servants owe utmost fidelity to the public service for
public service is a public trust. Government lawyers should be more sensitive to their
professional obligations as their reputable conduct is more likely to be magnified in the public
eye.
The nature and responsibilities of public officers enshrined in the Constitution are not mere
rhetorical words to be taken lightly as idealistic sentiments but as working standards and
attainable goals that should be matched with actual deeds.

PHILIPPINE LAWYERS v AGRAVA

Facts:

 Agrava is the Director of the Philippines Patent Office (PPO).

Agrava issued a circular announcing that there will be an examination to determine who are
qualified to practice as patent attorneys before the PPO.
Phil. Lawyers Assoc. (PLA) filed this case for prohibition and injunction against Agrava.
PLA: one who passes the bar is licensed to practice law and is qualified to practice before the
PPO. Agrava is in excess of his jurisdiction in issuing the additional qualification
Agrava: prosecution of patent cases does not involve entirely or purely the practice of law but
includes the application of scientific and technical knowledge. That like his US counterpart, he
can require additional requirements to practice before the PPO.
Take note Agrava has been issuing examinations before but it was only now that this power
has been contended
Issue:
W/N appearance before the PPO constitutes or is included in the practice of law
Held:
Yes, it is still within the ambit practice of law. Agrava is in excess of his jurisdiction when
he requires an additional examination for lawyers.
The SC has the exclusive and constitutional power with respect to admission to the practice of
law in the Philippines.
The practice of law embraces any activity, in or out of court, which requires the application of
law, legal principle, practice or procedure and calls for legal knowledge, training and experience.
Although it is admitted that there is some technicality involved in the work for PPO, but
everything still goes back to the Patent law as well as other laws.
As to Agravas contention that he has the authority just like his US counterpart, this contention
is wrong. The Phil. Patent law and the US Patent law are different as to the sections involving the
powers of the director. Nowhere in the Philippine law is it provided for that the director has the
power to require additional examinations for attorneys.

ROSARIO DELOS REYES vs. ATTY. JOSE B. AZNAR (A.M. No. 1334 November 28, 1989)
FACTS:
Complainant is a second year medical student of the Southwestern University in which
respondent Atty. Aznar is the then Chairman of the College of Medicine. Complainant was
compelled to go to Manila with respondent for three days where he repeatedly had carnal

knowledge of her upon the threat of respondent that if she would not give in to his lustful desires,
she would flunk in all her subjects and she would never become a medical intern. After due
investigation, the Solicitor General found the respondent guilty of gross immoral conduct and
recommends that since the complainant is partly to blame for having gone with respondent to
Manila knowing fully well that respondent is a married man ,with children, a rich man and is not
practicing his profession before the court, he should merely be suspended from the practice of
law for not less than three (3) years.
ISSUE: Whether or not the imposition of the penalty is proper.
HELD: NO.
The fact that he is a rich man and does not practice his profession as a lawyer, does not
render respondent a person of good moral character. Evidence of good moral character precedes
admission to bar (Sec.2, Rule 138, Rules of Court) and such requirement is not dispensed with
upon admission thereto. Good moral character is a continuing qualification necessary to entitle
one to continue in the practice of law.

Under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court enumerates the grounds for disbarment
or suspension from his office as attorney, among others, by grossly immoral conduct. Immoral
conduct has been defined as that which is willful, flagrant, or shameless, and which shows a
moral indifference to the opinion of the good and respectable members of the community.
In the present case, it was highly immoral of respondent to have taken advantage of his
position in asking complainant to go with him under the threat that she would flunk in all her
subjects in case she refused.
Respondent Jose B. Aznar is DISBARRED.

LINSANGAN v. TOLENTINO
(A.C. No. 6672, September 4, 2009)
FACTS:A complaint for disbarment is filed by Pedro Linsangan against Atty. Nicomedes
Tolentino for solicitation of clients and encroachment of professional services. The complainant
alleged that respondent convinced his clients to transfer legal representation by promising them
financial assistance. The allegations of the complainant were supported by the sworn affidavit of
James Gregorio who attested to the respondents acts of trying to lure him to sever his lawyer client relationship with complainant Linsangan. An attached calling card of the respondent
further supported the complaint which advertised the respondents law firm with the term
w/financial assistance.
ISSUE: Whether or not respondents acts are violative of Canon 3 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
HELD:Yes,

Canon 3 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states that A lawyer making known his
legal services shall use only true, honest, fair, dignified and objective information or statements
of facts. The practice of law is a professions and not a business. Lawyers should not advertise
their talents as merchants advertise their wares. The act of the respondent in including the phrase
with financial assistance in his calling card is a conduct of advertising the legal profession
with commercialism and with the purpose of enticing clients to change counsels through the
promise of loans to finance their legal action. A lawyer need not to advertise the legal profession
in such a manner similar to commercial businesses, a lawyers best advertisement is a wellmerited reputation for professional capacity and fidelity to trust based on his character and
conduct and not through promises of money.
CORDOVA v. LABAYEN
(A.M. No. RTJ-93-1033, October 10, 1995)
FACTS:
On March 5, 1993, the Municipal Trial Court (branch II) of Batangas City
rendered judgment for petitioners with respect to four ordering the ejectment of private responde
nts andordering them to pay monthly rentals of P50,000.00 starting April 7, 1992 until they shall
have vacated the lots and surrendered their possession to petitioners and the sum of P20,000.00
as attorney's fees. On March 29, 1993, petitioners moved for the execution of the decision in
their favor, alleging that although private respondents had filed a notice of appeal, the latter had
not filed a supersede as bond nor make a deposit every month of the reasonable value of the use
and occupation of the properties as required by Rule 70, sec. 8.Private respondents opposed the
motion, claiming that they are co-owners of the lots from which they were ordered to be ejected
and that to grant immediate execution of the decision would render their appeal moot and
academic.
ISSUE: Whether there was a late filing of Supersede as Bond.
HELD:The petition is not meritorious. As a general rule, a judgment in favor of the plaintiff in an
ejectment suit is immediately executory, in order to prevent further damage to him arising from
the loss of possession of the property in question. The motion for execution was filedeighteen
days from the date the petitioners received a copy of the MTC's decision, after the appeal had
already been perfected. Because no supersede as bond had been filed within the period for
appeal, a writ of execution should have been issued as a matter of right. Petitioners manifestly
failed to adduce a compelling reason to justify a departure from the afore cited rule. Lawyers as
officers of the court must assist in the administration of justice.

COBB-PEREZ vs LANTIN
GR No. L-22320
Jul. 29, 1968
FACTS

A civil case was filed by Ricardo Hermoso against Damaso Perez for the latters failure to pay
a debt of Php 17,000.00. Hermoso won and a writ of execution was issued in his favor. The
sheriff was to conduct a public sale of a property owned by Perez worth Php 300,000.00.
This was opposed by Perez as he claimed the amount of said property was more than the
amount of the debt. Respondent Judge Lantin, issuing judge, found merit on this, hence he
amended his earlier decision and issued a second writ this time directing the sheriff to
conduct a public sale of Perez 210 shares of stock approximately worth Php 17,000.00
Subsequently, Perez and his wife filed five more petitions for injunction trying to enjoin the
public sale. The case eventually reached the Supreme Court where the SC ruled that the
petition of the Perez spouses are without merit; that their numerous petitions for injunction
are contemplated for delay. I n said decision, the Supreme Court ordered petitioners to pay
the cost of the suit but said cost should be paid by their counsels, Atty. Baizas and Atty.
Bolinao. The counsels now appeal said decision by the Supreme Court as they claimed that
such decision reflected adversely against their professionalism; that If there was delay, it
was because petitioners counsel happened to be more assertive a quality of the lawyers
(which) is not to be condemned.
ISSUE
WON the counsels for the Spouses Perez are excused.
HELD
No. A counsels assertiveness in espousing with candor and honesty his clients cause must
be encouraged and is to be commended; what is not tolerated is a lawyers insistence
despite the patent futility of his clients position, as in the case at bar. It is the duty of a
counsel to advise his client, ordinarily a layman to the intricacies and vagaries of the law, on
the merit or lack of merit of his case. If he finds that his clients cause is defenseless, then it
is his bounden duty to advise the latter to acquiesce and submit, rather than traverse the
incontrovertible. A lawyer must resist the whims and caprices of his client, and temper his
clients propensity to litigate. A lawyers oath to uphold the cause of justice is superior to his
duty to his client; its primacy is indisputable.
Atty. Baizas and Atty. Bolinao jointly and severally liable for the treble costs.

ENGR. GILBERT TUMBOKON vs. ATTY.

MARIANO R. PEFIANCO A.C. No. 6116, 1
August 2012
Facts:
According to complainant, respondent undertook to give him 20% commission, later red
uced to 10%, of the attorneys fees the latter would receive in representing Spouses Yap
whom he referred, in an action for partition of the estate of the spouses relative. Their ag

reement was reflected in a letter dated August 11, 1995. However, respondent failed to p
ay him the agreed commission notwithstanding receipt of attorneys fees amounting to 1
7% of the total estate or about P 40 million. Instead, he was informed through a letter da
ted July 16, 1997 that Sps. Yap assumed to pay the same after respondent had agreed to
reduce his attorneys fees from 25% to 17%. He then demanded the payment of his com
mission which respondent ignored.
Complainant further alleged that respondent has not lived up to the high moral standar
ds required of his profession for having abandoned his legal wife with whom he has two
children, and cohabited with another with whom he has four children. He also accused r
espondent of engaging in money-lending business without the required authorization fr
om the BangkoSentralngPilipinas
In his defense, he disputed the August 11, 1995 letter for being a forgery and claimed tha
t Sps. Yap assumed to pay.

Ruling:

Respondents defense that forgery had attended the execution of the August 11, 1995 lett
er was belied by his July 16, 1997 letter admitting to have undertaken the payment of co
mplainants commission but passing on the responsibility to Sps. Yap. Clearly, responde
nt has violated Rule 9.02, Canon 9 of the Code which prohibits a lawyer from dividing or
stipulating to divide a fee for legal services with persons not licensed to practice law, exc
ept in certain cases which do not obtain in the case at bar.
Furthermore, respondent did not deny the accusation that he abandoned his legal family
to cohabit with his mistress with whom he begot four children notwithstanding that his
moral character as well as his moral fitness to be retained in the Roll of Attorneys has be
en assailed. The settled rule is that betrayal of the marital vow of fidelity or sexual relati
ons outside marriage is considered disgraceful and immoral as it manifests deliberate di
sregard of the sanctity of marriage and the marital vows protected by the Constitution a
nd affirmed by our laws. Consequently, SC find no reason to disturb the IBPs finding th
at respondent violated the Lawyers Oath and Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code which pros
cribes a lawyer from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
However, SC finds the charge of engaging in illegal money lending not to have been suffi
ciently established.

ATTY. MARIANO R. PEFIANCO was found GUILTY of violation of the Lawyers Oath, R
ule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Rule 9.02, Canon 9 of th
e same Code and SUSPENDED from the active practice of law ONE (1) YEAR.