IN RE: TAGORDA
calling, and are intolerable.
FACTS:
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
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.
LINSANGAN vs. TOLENTINO
Facts:
A complaint for disbarment was
filed by Pedro Linsangan against Atty.
Nicomedes Tolentino for solicitation of
clients and encroachment of professional
services. Complaint alleged that
respondent, with the help of paralegal Fe
Marie Labiano, convinced his clients to
transfer legal representation. Respondent
promised them financial assistance and
expeditious collection on their claims. To
induce them to hire his services, he
persistently called them and sent them
text messages. To support his allegations,
complainant presented the sworn affidavit
of James Gregorio attesting that Labiano
tried to prevail upon him to sever his
lawyer-client relations with complainant
and utilize respondents services instead,
in exchange for a loan of P50, 000.00.
Complainant also attached respondents
calling card. Respondent, in his defense,
denied knowing Labiano and authorizing
the printing and circulation of the said
calling card.
Issue:
Whether or not Tolentinos actions warrant
disbarment.
Held:
Yes. Rule 2.03 of the CPR provides
that a lawyer shall not do or permit to be
done any act designed primarily to solicit
legal business. Hence, lawyers are
prohibited from soliciting cases for the
purpose of gain, either personally or
through paid agents or brokers. Such
actuation constitutes malpractice, a
ground for disbarment. Rule 2.03 should
be read in connection with Rule 1.03 of the
CPR which provides that lawyer, shall not
for any corrupt motive or interest,
encourage any suit or proceeding or delay
any mans cause. This rule proscribes
ambulance chasing (the solicitation of
almost any kind of legal business by an
attorney, personally or through an agent
in order to gain employment) as a
measure to protect the community from
barratry and champerty. In the case at bar,
complainant presented substantial
evidence (consisting of the sworn
statements of the very same persons
coaxed by Labiano and referred to
respondents office) to prove that
respondent indeed solicited legal business
as well as profited from referrals suits.
Through Labianos actions, respondents
law practice was benefited. Hapless
seamen were enticed to transfer
representation on the strength of
Labianos word that respondent could
produce a more favorable result. Based on
the foregoing, respondent clearly solicited
employment violating Rule 2.03, and Rule
1.03 and Canon 3 of the CPR and section
27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court. Any act
of solicitations constitutes malpractice
which calls for the exercise of the Courts
disciplinary powers. Violation of anti-
solicitation statues warrants serious
sanctions for initiating contact with a
prospective client for the purpose of
obtaining employment. Thus in this
jurisdiction, the Court adheres to the rule
to protect the public from the
Machiavellian machinations of
unscrupulous lawyers and to uphold the
nobility of the legal profession.
Canon 2: A lawyer shall make his legal
services available in an efficient and
convenient manner compatible with the
independence, integrity and effectiveness
of the profession. Rule 2.03: A lawyer shall
not do or permit to be done any act
designed primarily to solicit 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
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 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
self-laudation. 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.