You are on page 1of 3

2/3/2017 KhanJr:Simbillo:AC5299:August19,2003:J.

YnaresSantiago:FirstDivision

FIRSTDIVISION

[A.C.No.5299.August19,2003]

ATTY. ISMAEL G. KHAN, JR., Assistant Court Administrator and Chief, Public
Information Office, complainant, vs. ATTY. RIZALINO T. SIMBILLO,
respondent.

[G.R.No.157053.August19,2003]

ATTY. RIZALINO T. SIMBILLO, petitioner, vs. IBP COMMISSION ON BAR


DISCIPLINE and ATTY. ISMAEL G. KHAN, JR., in his capacity asAssistant
CourtAdministratorandChief,PublicInformationOffice,respondents.

RESOLUTION
YNARESSANTIAGO,J.:

ThisadministrativecomplaintarosefromapaidadvertisementthatappearedintheJuly5,2000
issue of the newspaper, Philippine Daily Inquirer, which reads: ANNULMENT OF MARRIAGE
Specialist5324333/5212667.[1]
Ms. Ma. Theresa B. Espeleta, a staff member of the Public Information Office of the Supreme
Court,calledupthepublishedtelephonenumberandpretendedtobeaninterestedparty.Shespoke
to Mrs. Simbillo, who claimed that her husband, Atty. Rizalino Simbillo, was an expert in handling
annulmentcasesandcanguaranteeacourtdecreewithinfourtosixmonths,providedthecasewill
not involve separation of property or custody of children. Mrs. Simbillo also said that her husband
chargesafeeofP48,000.00,halfofwhichispayableatthetimeoffilingofthecaseandtheotherhalf
afteradecisionthereonhasbeenrendered.
Further research by the Office of the Court Administrator and the Public Information Office
revealedthatsimilaradvertisementswerepublishedintheAugust2and6,2000issuesoftheManila
BulletinandAugust5,2000issueofThePhilippineStar.[2]
OnSeptember1,2000,Atty.IsmaelG.Khan,Jr.,inhiscapacityasAssistantCourtAdministrator
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
Rule3.01oftheCodeofProfessionalResponsibilityandRule138,Section27oftheRulesofCourt.[3]
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
prohibitiononadvertisingandsolicitationthattheinterestofthepublicisnotservedbytheabsolute
prohibition on lawyer advertising that the Court can lift the ban on lawyer advertising and that the
rationale behind the decadesold prohibition should be abandoned. Thus, he prayed that he be
exoneratedfromallthechargesagainsthimandthattheCourtpromulgatearulingthatadvertisement
oflegalservicesofferedbyalawyerisnotcontrarytolaw,publicpolicyandpublicorderaslongasit
isdignified.[4]
The case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for investigation, report and
recommendation.[5]OnJune29,2002,theIBPCommissiononBarDisciplinepassedResolutionNo.
XV2002306,[6] finding respondent guilty of violation of Rules 2.03 and 3.01 of the Code of
ProfessionalResponsibilityandRule138,Section27oftheRulesofCourt,andsuspendedhimfrom
thepracticeoflawforone(1)yearwiththewarningthatarepetitionofsimilaractswouldbedealtwith
moreseverely.TheIBPResolutionwasnotedbythisCourtonNovember11,2002.[7]
Inthemeantime,respondentfiledanUrgentMotionforReconsideration,[8]whichwasdeniedby
theIBPinResolutionNo.XV2002606datedOctober19,2002[9]
Hence, the instant petition for certiorari, which was docketed as G.R. No. 157053 entitled, Atty.
Rizalino T. Simbillo, Petitioner versus IBP Commission on Bar Discipline, Atty. Ismael G. Khan, Jr.,
Asst. Court Administrator and Chief, Public Information Office, Respondents. This petition was
consolidatedwithA.C.No.5299pertheCourtsResolutiondatedMarch4,2003.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/aug2003/ac_5299.htm 1/3
2/3/2017 KhanJr:Simbillo:AC5299:August19,2003:J.YnaresSantiago:FirstDivision

InaResolutiondatedMarch26,2003,thepartieswererequiredtomanifestwhetherornotthey
werewillingtosubmitthecaseforresolutiononthebasisofthepleadings.[10] Complainant filed his
ManifestationonApril25,2003,statingthatheisnotsubmittinganyadditionalpleadingorevidence
and is submitting the case for its early resolution on the basis of pleadings and records thereof. [11]
Respondent,ontheotherhand,filedaSupplementalMemorandumonJune20,2003.
WeagreewiththeIBPsResolutionsNos.XV2002306andXV2002606.
Rules2.03and3.01oftheCodeofProfessionalResponsibilityread:

Rule2.03.Alawyershallnotdoorpermittobedoneanyactdesignedprimarilytosolicitlegalbusiness.

Rule3.01.Alawyershallnotuseorpermittheuseofanyfalse,fraudulent,misleading,deceptive,undignified,
selflaudatoryorunfairstatementorclaimregardinghisqualificationsorlegalservices.

Rule138,Section27oftheRulesofCourtstates:

SEC.27.DisbarmentandsuspensionofattorneysbySupremeCourt,groundstherefor.Amemberofthebar
maybedisbarredorsuspendedfromhisofficeasattorneybytheSupremeCourtforanydeceit,malpracticeor
othergrossmisconductinsuchoffice,grosslyimmoralconductorbyreasonofhisconvictionofacrime
involvingmoralturpitude,orforanyviolationoftheoathwhichheisrequiredtotakebeforetheadmissionto
practice,orforawillfuldisobedienceappearingasattorneyforapartywithoutauthoritytodoso.

Ithasbeenrepeatedlystressedthatthepracticeoflawisnotabusiness.[12]Itisaprofessionin
whichdutytopublicservice,notmoney,istheprimaryconsideration.Lawyeringisnotprimarilymeant
tobeamoneymakingventure,andlawadvocacyisnotacapitalthatnecessarilyyieldsprofits.[13]The
gainingofalivelihoodshouldbeasecondaryconsideration.[14]Thedutytopublicserviceandtothe
administrationofjusticeshouldbetheprimaryconsiderationoflawyers,whomustsubordinatetheir
personal interests or what they owe to themselves.[15] The following elements distinguish the legal
professionfromabusiness:

1.Adutyofpublicservice,ofwhichtheemolumentisabyproduct,andinwhichonemayattainthe
highesteminencewithoutmakingmuchmoney

2.Arelationasanofficerofthecourttotheadministrationofjusticeinvolvingthoroughsincerity,
integrityandreliability

3.Arelationtoclientsinthehighestdegreeoffiduciary

4.Arelationtocolleaguesatthebarcharacterizedbycandor,fairness,andunwillingnesstoresortto
currentbusinessmethodsofadvertisingandencroachmentontheirpractice,ordealingdirectly
withtheirclients.[16]

Thereisnoquestionthatrespondentcommittedtheactscomplainedof.Hehimselfadmitsthathe
causedthepublicationoftheadvertisements.WhileheprofessesrepentanceandbegsfortheCourts
indulgence,hiscontritionringshollowconsideringthefactthatheadvertisedhislegalservicesagain
afterhepleadedforcompassionandafterclaimingthathehadnointentiontoviolatetherules.Eight
monthsafterfilinghisanswer,heagainadvertisedhislegalservicesintheAugust14,2001issueof
theBuy & Sell FreeAdsNewspaper.[17]Ten months later, he caused the same advertisement to be
publishedintheOctober5,2001issueofBuy&Sell.[18]Suchactsofrespondentareadeliberateand
contemptuousaffrontontheCourtsauthority.
What adds to the gravity of respondents acts is that in advertising himself as a selfstyled
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
maybeobtainedinfourtosixmonthsfromthetimeofthefilingofthecase,[19]heinfactencourages
people, who might have otherwise been disinclined and would have refrained from dissolving their
marriagebonds,todoso.
Nonetheless, the solicitation of legal business is not altogether proscribed. However, for
solicitationtobeproper,itmustbecompatiblewiththedignityofthelegalprofession.Ifitismadeina
modestanddecorousmanner,itwouldbringnoinjurytothelawyerandtothebar.[20]Thus,theuseof
simplesignsstatingthenameornamesofthelawyers,theofficeandresidenceaddressandfieldsof
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
consistentwiththestandardsofconductimposedbythecanon,ofbriefbiographicalandinformative
dataislikewiseallowable.AsexplicitlystatedinUlepv.LegalClinic,Inc.:[22]

Suchdatamustnotbemisleadingandmayincludeonlyastatementofthelawyersnameandthenamesofhis
professionalassociatesaddresses,telephonenumbers,cableaddressesbranchesoflawpracticeddateand
placeofbirthandadmissiontothebarschoolsattendedwithdatesofgraduation,degreesandothereducational
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/aug2003/ac_5299.htm 2/3
2/3/2017 KhanJr:Simbillo:AC5299:August19,2003:J.YnaresSantiago:FirstDivision

distinctionspublicorquasipublicofficespostsofhonorlegalauthorshipslegalteachingpositions
membershipandofficesinbarassociationsandcommitteesthereof,inlegalandscientificsocietiesandlegal
fraternitiesthefactoflistingsinotherreputablelawliststhenamesandaddressesofreferencesand,withtheir
writtenconsent,thenamesofclientsregularlyrepresented.

Thelawlistmustbeareputablelawlistpublishedprimarilyforthatpurposeitcannotbeameresupplemental
featureofapaper,magazine,tradejournalorperiodicalwhichispublishedprincipallyforotherpurposes.For
thatreason,alawyermaynotproperlypublishhisbriefbiographicalandinformativedatainadailypaper,
magazine,tradejournalorsocietyprogram.Normayalawyerpermithisnametobepublishedinalawlistthe
conduct,management,orcontentsofwhicharecalculatedorlikelytodeceiveorinjurethepublicorthebar,or
tolowerdignityorstandingoftheprofession.

Theuseofanordinarysimpleprofessionalcardisalsopermitted.Thecardmaycontainonlyastatementofhis
name,thenameofthelawfirmwhichheisconnectedwith,address,telephonenumberandspecialbranchof
lawpracticed.Thepublicationofasimpleannouncementoftheopeningofalawfirmorofchangesinthe
partnership,associates,firmnameorofficeaddress,beingfortheconvenienceoftheprofession,isnot
objectionable.Hemaylikewisehavehisnamelistedinatelephonedirectorybutnotunderadesignationof
specialbranchoflaw.(emphasisanditalicssupplied)

WHEREFORE,inviewoftheforegoing,respondentRIZALINOT.SIMBILLOisfoundGUILTYof
violationofRules2.03and3.01oftheCodeofProfessionalResponsibilityandRule138,Section27
oftheRulesofCourt.HeisSUSPENDEDfromthepracticeoflawforONE(1)YEAReffectiveupon
receiptofthisResolution.HeislikewiseSTERNLYWARNEDthatarepetitionofthesameorsimilar
offensewillbedealtwithmoreseverely.
LetcopiesofthisResolutionbeenteredinhisrecordasattorneyandbefurnishedtheIntegrated
BarofthePhilippinesandallcourtsinthecountryfortheirinformationandguidance.
SOORDERED.
Vitug,(ActingChairman),Carpio,andAzcuna,JJ.,concur.
Davide,Jr.,C.J.,(Chairman),abroad,onofficialbusiness.

[1]Rollo,p.13.

[2]Id.,pp.1415.

[3]Id.,p.9.

[4]Id.,pp.2157.

[5]Id.,p.60.

[6]Id.,p.62.

[7]Id.,p.72.

[8]Id.,p.75.

[9]Id.,p.73.

[10]Id.,p.109.

[11]Id.,p.110.

[12]Cantillerv.Potenciano,A.C.No.3195,18December1989,180SCRA246,253.

[13]Canlasv.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.L77691,8August1988,164SCRA160,174.

[14]AgpaloR.,LEGALETHICS,p.12[1997].

[15]Burbev.Magulta,A.C.No.5713,10June2002.

[16] Agpalo, supra,at pp. 1314, citing In re Sycip, 30 July 1979, 92 SCRA 1, 10 Pineda E.L. LEGAL AND JUDICIAL
ETHICS,p.58[1999].
[17]Rollo,Vol.II,p.41.

[18]Id.,p.110.

[19]Rollo,Vol.I,p.3.

[20]Pineda,LegalandJudicialEthics,supra,atp.61.

[21]Id.,p.65.

[22]BarMatterNo.553,17June1993,223SCRA378,407.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/aug2003/ac_5299.htm 3/3

You might also like