Republic of the Philippines Upon inquiry with the Bureau of Immigration, it was discovered
SUPREME COURT that Strongs arrest was made pursuant to an Interpol Red Notice;
Manila
FIRST DIVISION
A.C. No. 9259 August 23, 2012
JASPER JUNNO F. RODICA, Complainant,
vs.
ATTY. MANUEL "LOLONG" M. LAZARO, ATTY. EDWIN M.
ESPEJO, ATTY. ABEL M. ALMARIO, ATTY. MICHELLE B.
LAZARO, ATTY. JOSEPH C. TAN, and JOHN DOES,
Respondents.
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO,*
PERLAS-BERNABE,**
RESOLUTION
DEL CASTILLO, J.:
"The power to disbar or suspend ought always to be exercised on
the preservative and not on the vindictive principle, with great
caution and only for the most weighty reasons."1
This is a Complaint2 for disbarment filed by Jasper Junno F.
Rodica (Rodica) against Atty. Manuel "Lolong" M. Lazaro (Atty.
Manuel), Atty. Edwin M. Espejo (Atty. Espejo), Atty. Abel M.
Almario, (Atty. Almario), Atty. Michelle B. Lazaro (Atty. Michelle),
and Atty. Joseph C. Tan (Atty. Tan) for gross and serious
misconduct, deceit, malpractice, grossly immoral conduct, and
violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Factual Antecedents
On May 5, 2011, William Strong (Strong), an American, was
arrested and detained by the operatives of the Bureau of
Immigration. Strong sought the assistance of Philip3 G. Apostol
(Apostol), a friend and neighbor, to secure the services of a
lawyer. Apostol referred him to Atty. Manuel, who is a partner at
the M.M. Lazaro and Associates Law Office (Lazaro Law Office).
Atty. Manuel initially declined because his law office only handles
cases of its retained clients and those known to him or any of the
associate lawyers.4 However, he was eventually prevailed upon
by Apostol who would consider it as a special favor if Atty. Manuel
would handle Strongs case. Hence, Atty. Manuel, together with
Atty. Almario and Atty. Espejo, senior and junior associates,
respectively, at the Lazaro Law Office, agreed to meet Strong at
the Taguig Detention Center of the Bureau of Immigration.5
During the meeting, Atty. Manuel explained to Strong the terms of
the Lazaro Law Offices engagement as well as the fees. Strong
assured him of his capacity to pay and offered to pay a success
fee of US$100,000.00 should the said law office be able to
expedite his release from detention as well as his departure from
the Philippines.6 Finding Strong to be believable and trustworthy,
Atty. Manuel agreed to handle his case.7
During the course of their meeting, Strong casually mentioned
that he has a property in Boracay and that he suspected his
neighbors as the persons who caused his arrest. According to
Strong, his live-in partner Rodica filed a Complaint before the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Kalibo, Aklan, for recovery of
possession and damages8 (against Hillview Marketing
Corporation9 (Hillview), Stephanie Dornau (Dornau) as President
of Hillview, the Alargo Park Neighborhood Association, Inc. and
spouses Robert and Judy Gregoire) in connection with the 353-
square meter property they bought in Boracay. He disclosed that
he and Rodica had been trying to sell the Boracay property to rid
themselves of the problems but could not find buyers because of
the said case. They even offered the property to Apostol but the
latter was hesitant because of the said pending case. Atty.
Manuel averred that towards the end of the interview with Strong,
Rodica arrived. Strong described Rodica as his "handyman" who
will act as his liaison in the case.
PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS
and that Strong is wanted in Brazil for Conspiracy to Commit
Fraud, Setting Up a Gang and Other Related Crimes. Specifically,
Strong is being indicted for his alleged involvement in "an
international gang involved in shares fraud which led to the
creation of hundreds of millions of dollars in illegal securities."10
Strong denied any participation in the alleged crime. Strong then
pleaded with Atty. Manuel to expedite his deportation to any
country except Brazil and reiterated his willingness to pay the
success fee of US$100,000.00.
In her Complaint, Rodica alleged that in one of her meetings with
the lawyers of the Lazaro Law Office, she hinted that Atty. Tan, a
senior partner at the Marcos Ochoa Serapio Tan and Associates
(MOST Law) and who is also the lawyer of Hillview and Dornau,
was instrumental in the immigration case of Strong. According to
Rodica, Atty. Manuel called up Atty. Tan. Thereafter, Atty. Manuel
allegedly informed Rodica that Atty. Tan admitted having initiated
the immigration case resulting in the detention of Strong; that Atty.
Tan threatened to do something bad against Rodica and her
family; and that Atty. Tan demanded for Rodica to withdraw the
RTC case as part of a settlement package.
On May 25, 2011, the Bureau of Immigration, rendered its
Judgment11 granting the motion of Strong to voluntarily leave the
country. On May 31, 2011, Strong left the Philippines.
Subsequently, or on June 6, 2011, Rodica filed with the RTC a
motion effectively withdrawing her complaint.
Rodica alleged that after the deportation of Strong and the
withdrawal of the RTC case, she heard nothing from the Lazaro
Law Office. She also claimed that contrary to her expectations,
there was no "simultaneous over-all settlement of her grievances
x x x [with] the defendants [in the RTC] case. 12 Thinking that she
was deceived, Rodica filed the instant administrative case. In
sum, she claimed that:
21. RESPONDENT ATTORNEYS (MANUEL, MICHELLE, EDWIN
and ABEL) of M.M. LAZARO & ASSOCIATES, furthermore,
committed GRAVE MISCONDUCT & DECEIT to complainant and
the courts when (among other things):
(a.) they mis-represented to complainant that the
withdrawal of her case at the Regional Trial Court at
Kalibo (Branch VI-Civil Case No. 8987) was only the
first step in an over-all settlement package of all her
differences with her legal adversaries (i.e. Hillview
Marketing Corporation and the latters officials /
Stephanie Dornau / Atty. Joseph Tan etc.), which
respondent Manuel M. Lazaro had allegedly already
taken care of ;
(b.) they extorted from her more than P 7 MILLION for
alleged professional / legal fees and PENALTIES
involved in William Strongs immigration case, when
what actually happened was -
(c.) as complainant came to know later, almost all of
said amount was allegedly used as "pay-off" to
immigration, police and Malaca[]ang officials as well
as Atty. Joseph Tan, and as graft money/ kotong /
lagay / "tong-pats", for the expeditious approval of Mr.
William Strongs voluntary deportation plea with the
Bureau of Immigration ;
(d.) they even shamelessly denied the status of the
complainant as their client, just so that they can evade
their responsibility to her ;
(e.) they even submitted concocted stories (re Mr.
Apostols purchase bid for the Boracay villa of
complainant; Atty. Espejos attempt to cover-up for
Lolong Lazaro and accept sole responsibility for signing
the questioned manifestation and withdrawal
documents last May 24, 2011, and many others) with
the Regional Trial Court of Kalibo (Branch VI) just so
that they can hide the truth, hide their crimes and go
scot free ;
Agustin, E.P. | 1
22. RESPONDENT Atty. JOSEPH C. TAN on the other hand
performed as a willing partner of ATTY. MANUEL M. LAZARO by
acting as conduit to his Malacaang patron ("JOHN DOE") in
causing the arrest of William Strong last May 5, 2011, and in
packaging with Lolong Lazaro of the magic formula regarding
William Strongs voluntary deportation bid and the conditions
attached thereto as sufficiently explained ;
xxxx
23. RESPONDENTS also violated THEIR OATH AS x x x
ATTORNEYS, especially with the phrases ". . . I will obey the
laws . . . I will do no falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in
court ; . . . I will delay no man for money or malice . . . with all
good fidelity as well to the courts as to my clients . . . " ;13
Otherwise stated, Rodica claimed that she is a client of the
Lazaro Law Office and that she was deceived into causing the
withdrawal of the RTC case. Further, she claimed that the Lazaro
Law Office collected exorbitant fees from her.
In their Comment, Atty. Almario and Atty. Espejo admitted being
present in the May 13, 2011 meeting with Rodica. They denied,
however, that Atty. Manuel talked with Atty. Tan during the said
meeting, or conveyed the information that Atty. Tan and the group
of Dornau were the ones behind Strongs arrest and detention.
Atty. Almario and Atty. Espejo disputed Rodicas assertion that
the withdrawal of the RTC case was a condition sine qua non to
Strongs departure from the country. They pointed out that the
Manifestation with Motion to Withdraw Motion for
Reconsideration14 was filed only on June 3, 2011,15 or nine days
after the May 25, 2011 Judgment of the Bureau of Immigration
was issued, and three days after Strong left the country on May
31, 2011. They insisted that Rodica withdrew the RTC case
because it was one of the conditions set by Apostol before buying
the Boracay property.
As to the preparation of Rodicas Motion to Withdraw Motion for
Reconsideration relative to the RTC case, Atty. Espejo claimed
that the former begged him to prepare the said motion. Since the
two already became close friends, Atty. Espejo accommodated
Rodicas request. He admitted to acceding to Rodicas requests to
put the name of the Lazaro Law Office, the names of its partners,
as well as his name, in the motion and into signing the same,
without the prior knowledge and consent of the other senior
lawyers of the firm. Atty. Espejo claimed that he did all of these
out of his good intention to help and assist Rodica in making the
Boracay property more saleable by freeing it from any pending
claims.
In his Comment,16 Atty. Manuel contended that none of the
lawyers of the Lazaro Law Office communicated with Atty. Tan
relative to the deportation proceedings or the RTC case. He
claimed that it was highly improbable for the Lazaro Law Office to
impress upon Rodica that it will coordinate with Atty. Tan for the
withdrawal of the RTC case to expedite the deportation
proceedings as the RTC case was already dismissed as early as
March 29, 2011 for failure to state a cause of action. Atty. Manuel
averred that the two cases are incongruous with each other and
one cannot be used to compromise the other.
Atty. Joseph Tans Arguments
For his part, Atty. Tan asserted that the allegations against him
are "double hearsay" because the same were based on
information allegedly relayed to Rodica by Atty. Manuel, who, in
turn, allegedly heard it from Atty. Tan.17 He denied any
participation in the withdrawal of the RTC case and the arrest and
deportation of Strong.
Atty. Tan stressed that Strong was deported on May 31, 2011.
Three days thereafter, or on June 3, 2011, Rodica, with the
assistance of her counsel of record, Atty. Joan I. Tabanar-
Ibutnande (Atty. Ibutnande), filed the Manifestation with Motion to
Withdraw Motion for Reconsideration. He averred that if it is
indeed true, as Rodica alleged, that the filing of the said motion
was a pre-condition to Strongs voluntary deportation, then the
filing of the same should have preceded Strongs deportation.
However, it was the reverse in this case.
PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS
Atty. Tan also pointed out that it would be inconceivable for him to
participate in Strongs arrest as he had already obtained a
favorable ruling "on the merits" for his clients in the RTC case
even before Strong was arrested and incarcerated. Besides,
Strong is not a party and had nothing to do with the RTC case.
Atty. Tan likewise denied having any dealings with the rest of the
respondents insofar as the arrest and voluntary deportation of
Strong are concerned. Neither did he receive any phone call or
message from his co-respondents nor did he communicate with
them in any manner regarding Strongs case.
Issue
The sole issue to be resolved is whether the allegations in
Rodicas Complaint merit the disbarment or suspension of
respondents.
Our Ruling
In Siao v. Atty. De Guzman, Jr.,18 this Court reiterated its oft
repeated ruling that in suspension or disbarment proceedings,
lawyers enjoy the presumption of innocence, and the burden of
proof rests upon the complainant to clearly prove her allegations
by preponderant evidence. Elaborating on the required quantum
of proof, this Court declared thus:
Preponderance of evidence means that the evidence adduced by
one side is, as a whole, superior to or has greater weight than that
of the other. It means evidence which is more convincing to the
court as worthy of belief than that which is offered in opposition
thereto. Under Section 1 of Rule 133, in determining whether or
not there is preponderance of evidence, the court may consider
the following: (a) all the facts and circumstances of the case; (b)
the witnesses manner of testifying, their intelligence, their means
and opportunity of knowing the facts to which they are testifying,
the nature of the facts to which they testify, the probability or
improbability of their testimony; (c) the witnesses interest or want
of interest, and also their personal credibility so far as the same
may ultimately appear in the trial; and (d) the number of
witnesses, although it does not mean that preponderance is
necessarily with the greater number. (Citations omitted.)
In the absence of preponderant evidence, the presumption of
innocence of the lawyer continues and the complaint against him
must be dismissed.19
In the present case, the totality of evidence presented by Rodica
failed to overcome the said presumption of innocence.
Rodicas claim of "settlement package"
is devoid of merit.
Rodicas assertions that Atty. Tan orchestrated Strongs arrest
and that Atty. Manuel proposed the withdrawal of the RTC case to
facilitate the deportation of Strong, are mere allegations without
proof and belied by the records of the case. "The basic rule is that
mere allegation is not evidence, and is not equivalent to proof." 20
Aside from her bare assertions, Rodica failed to present even an
iota of evidence to prove her allegations. In fact, the records belie
her claims. The documents issued by the Bureau of Immigration
showed that Strong was the subject of the Interpol Red Notice for
being a fugitive from justice wanted for crimes allegedly
committed in Brazil.21 His warrant of arrest was issued sometime
in February 2008. Significantly, even before Strong was arrested
and eventually deported, Atty. Tan had already obtained a
favorable judgment for his clients.
We also agree that it is highly inconceivable for Atty. Tan and the
Lazaro Law Office to concoct the scheme of "pressuring" Rodica
to withdraw the RTC case for the purpose of expediting the
deportation proceedings of Strong. The following facts are
undisputed: (1) Rodicas counsel of record in the RTC is Atty.
Ibutnande; (2) the RTC case was already dismissed in the Order22
of March 29, 2011 for failure to state a cause of action; (3) on
April 18, 2011, Rodica through her counsel of record filed a
Motion for Reconsideration; (4) on May 5, 2011, Strong was
arrested and detained pursuant to an Interpol Red Notice; (5)
Strong hired the Lazaro Law Office to handle his deportation
case; (6) on May 19, 2011 Strong filed a Manifestation with
Omnibus Motion to voluntarily leave the country; (7) the Bureau of
Agustin, E.P. | 2
Immigration rendered a Judgment23 dated May 25, 2011 granting
Strongs motion to voluntarily leave the country; (8) Strong left the
country on May 31, 2011; (9) Rodicas Manifestation with Motion
to Withdraw the Motion for Reconsideration was filed on June 6,
2011; and, (8) acting on the said Manifestation with Motion, the
RTC on June 14, 2011 issued an Order24 granting the same.
Given the chronology of events, there appears no relation
between the deportation case and the withdrawal of the RTC
case. Thus, it would be specious if not far-fetched to conclude
that the withdrawal of the RTC case was a pre-condition to
Strongs deportation.
As regards the alleged participation of Atty. Manuel in the
"settlement package" theory of Rodica, suffice it to say that Atty.
Manuel has in his favor "the presumption that, as an officer of the
court, he regularly performs the duties imposed upon him by his
oath as a lawyer and by the Code of Professional
Responsibility."25 Hence, absent any competent evidence to the
contrary, Atty. Manuel, as Strongs counsel, is presumed to have
worked out the release and subsequent deportation of his client in
accordance with the proper procedures.
Preponderance of evidence shows that
Rodica caused the withdrawal of the
RTC case to facilitate the sale of the
Boracay property to Apostol.
We cannot lend credence to Rodicas allegation that she was
deceived by Atty. Manuel, Atty. Espejo, Atty. Almario and Atty.
Michelle, another senior associate at the Lazaro Law Office, into
believing that the withdrawal of the RTC case was part of a
settlement package to settle her differences with her legal
adversaries. We accord more credence to the explanation of the
respondents, particularly Atty. Espejo, that in the course of
rendering legal services to Strong, he had become close to
Rodica so much so that he accommodated Rodicas request to
cause the withdrawal of the RTC case to facilitate the sale of the
Boracay property to Apostol.
In their Joint Comment,26 respondents Attys. Almario, Espejo and
Michelle debunked the opinion of Rodicas "well-meaning lawyer
friends" that the withdrawal of the RTC case "absolve[d] all
defendants from any wrong-doing" and made "the contents of her
original complaint practically meaningless." Atty. Almario and Atty.
Espejo opined that since the dismissal of Rodicas complaint was
based on her failure to state a cause of action and without
prejudice, the same may simply be re-filed by revising her
complaint and ensuring that it states a cause of action.
As argued by Atty. Manuel, he and his lawyers only acted in the
best interest of their client Strong and rendered services in
accordance with the latters objective of leaving the country and
not being deported to Brazil. The Lazaro Law Office cannot be
faulted for the dismissal of the RTC case because it had already
been dismissed even before the Lazaro Law Office was engaged
to handle Strongs immigration case. Besides, Rodica admittedly
agreed to withdraw her RTC case to meet Apostols condition and
to make the property marketable.
Apostol corroborated Atty. Manuels statement in his Affidavit 27 of
July 21, 2011. He affirmed that he told Rodica that he would only
consider purchasing the Boracay property if it is cleared of any
pending case so that he can protect himself, as a buyer, from any
possible issues that may crop up involving the said property.
According to him, Rodica assured him that she would work for the
termination of the RTC case and consult her lawyers in Boracay
on the matter so she could already sell the property.
It is difficult to imagine that Rodica was deceived by some of the
respondent lawyers into believing that the withdrawal of the RTC
case was only the initial step in the settlement of her differences
with her adversaries.28 We went over the said Manifestation with
Motion to Withdraw the Motion for Reconsideration29 and we note
that paragraph 6 thereof specifically states:
6. However, the Plaintiff respectfully manifests that after much
serious thought and deliberation, and considering the anxieties
caused by the pendency of the instant case, Plaintiff is no longer
interested in pursuing the case. Accordingly, Plaintiff respectfully
moves for the withdrawal of the Motion for Reconsideration dated
PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS
April 14, 2011 of the Order dated March 29, 2011 dismissing the
instant Complaint filed on April 18, 2011.30
As already noted by the RTC, Branch 6, Kalibo, Aklan in its
Order31 dated April 4, 2011, in the case for recovery of
possession with damages:32
This Manifestation was signed by plaintiff, her Manila lawyers and
Atty. Joan Ibutnande, plaintiffs counsel on record. From the
statements made by plaintiff in her Manifestation to Withdraw
Motion for Reconsideration that she had made serious thoughts
and deliberation she cannot now say that she was manipulated
and forced in signing the same. The Court perceives plaintiff to be
an intelligent woman not to be swayed of her principles and
beliefs and manipulated by others, she may have a fickle mind
when it comes to other things but definitely it can not be applied to
the Court.
The Court does not see the connection between the instant case
and that of William Strong as alleged by the plaintiff. Mr. Strong is
not a party in this case, even plaintiffs counsel thought so too.
From the Motion for Reconsideration filed by Atty. Joan
Ibutnande, it was stated in paragraph 5: "That the undersigned
counsel was baffled as she did not see any connection [between]
the incident surrounding the arrest of Mr. William Strong and the
above-entitled case filed by the [plaintiff], and told the plaintiff
about it x x x." As Mr. Strong is not a party in the instance case,
his affairs whatever they are can not dictate the outcome of this
case.33
Moreover, it would appear from her own narration that Rodica is
not someone who is nave or ignorant. In her complaint, she
claimed to be an astute businesswoman who even has some
business in Barcelona, Spain.34 Thus, the more reason we cannot
lend credence to her claim that she was tricked into believing that
the withdrawal of the RTC case was only preliminary to the
complete settlement of all her differences with her perceived
adversaries. If such had been the agreement, then a Compromise
Agreement enumerating all the terms and conditions should have
been filed instead of the Manifestation with Motion to Withdraw
the Motion for Reconsideration. In addition, the withdrawal should
not have been limited to the RTC case as it appears that there are
other cases pending with other tribunals and agencies 35 involving
the same parties. If Rodica is to be believed, then these cases
should likewise have been dismissed in order to achieve the full
and complete settlement of her concerns with her adversaries.
From the above and by preponderance of evidence, it is clear that
Rodicas purpose in withdrawing the RTC case is to pave the way
for Apostol to purchase the Boracay property. In fact, Rodica
eventually executed a Deed of Absolute Sale in favor of Apostol
over the Boracay property.36
Rodicas claim of paying more than P 7
million to the Lazaro Law Office is not
substantiated.
There is likewise no merit in Rodicas allegation that the Lazaro
Law Office extorted from her more than P 7 million for alleged
professional and legal fees and penalties relative to Strongs
immigration case. To support her claim, Rodica attached four
statements of account issued by the Lazaro Law Office for
US$2,650.00 under Statement of Account No. 13837,37
US$2,400.00 under Statement of Account No. 13838,38
US$1,550.00 under Statement of Account No. 1383939 and
US$8,650.00 under Statement of Account No. 13835,40 or for a
total amount of US$15,250.00. She likewise presented
photocopies of portions of her dollar savings account passbook to
show where the aforesaid funds came from.
Considering the prevailing exchange rate at that time, the Court
notes that the sum total of the abovementioned figures in its peso
equivalent is far less than P 7 million. In fact, the statements of
account even support the contention of Atty. Manuel that Strong
failed to fully pay the amount of US$100,000.00 as success fee.
Anent the alleged withdrawals from Rodicas dollar savings
account, the same merely established that she made those
withdrawals. They do not constitute as competent proof that the
amounts so withdrawn were indeed paid to Lazaro Law Office.
Agustin, E.P. | 3
Rodica was not the client of the Lazaro
Law Office.
Rodica also faulted the Lazaro Law Office lawyers for disclaiming
that she is their client. However, Rodica admitted in paragraph 5
of her unnotarized Sworn Affidavit41 that Atty. Manuel and his
lawyer-assistants were "engaged by William Strong to handle his
case with the Philippine immigration authorities." Thus, this Court
is more inclined to believe that the Lazaro Law Office agreed to
handle only the deportation case of Strong and such acceptance
cannot be construed as to include the RTC case. In fact, all the
billings of Lazaro Law Office pertained to the immigration case,
and not to the RTC case. To reiterate, the RTC case has nothing
to do with Strongs deportation case. Records also show that the
RTC case was filed long before Strong was arrested and
detained. In fact, it had already been dismissed by the trial court
long before Strong engaged the legal services of the Lazaro Law
Office. More importantly, Strong is not a party to the RTC case.
Also, the counsel of record of Rodica in the RTC case is Atty.
Ibutnande, and not the Lazaro Law Office. There is nothing on
record that would show that respondent Attys. Manuel, Michelle,
and Almario had any participation therein.
Atty. Espejos participation in the RTC
case.
discuss matters with Atty. Espejo than with Atty. Almario as the
latter often contradicts her views. Atty. Espejo apologized to Atty.
Manuel for allowing himself to be manipulated by Rodica.42
At the outset, Atty. Espejo was well aware that Rodica was
represented by another counsel in the RTC case. As a practicing
lawyer, he should know that it is the said counsel, Atty. Ibutnande,
who has the duty to prepare the said motion. In fact, he himself
stated that it is Atty. Ibutnande who is in a better position to
evaluate the merit of the withdrawal of the Motion for
Reconsideration.
Atty. Espejos claim that he drafted and signed the pleading just to
extend assistance to Rodica deserves scant consideration. It is
true that under Rules 2.01 and 2.02, Canon 2 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, a lawyer shall not reject, except for
valid reasons, the cause of the defenseless or the oppressed, and
in such cases, even if he does not accept a case, shall not refuse
to render legal advise to the person concerned if only to the
extent necessary to safeguard the latters right. However, in this
case, Rodica cannot be considered as defenseless or oppressed
considering that she is properly represented by counsel in the
RTC case. Needless to state, her rights are amply safeguarded. It
would have been different had Rodica not been represented by
any lawyer, which, however, is not the case.

However, we cannot say the same as regards Atty. Espejo. He
admitted drafting Rodicas Manifestation and Motion to Withdraw
Motion for Reconsideration indicating therein the firm name of the
Lazaro Law Office as well as his name and the names of Atty.
Manuel and Atty. Michelle without the knowledge and consent of
his superiors, and in likewise affixing his signature thereon.
Atty. Espejo acknowledged committing the abovementioned acts
as a way of assisting Rodica who had already become his close
friend. Atty. Espejos admissions are as follows:
11. Atty. Espejo further recounts that after being advised to simply
withdraw her Motion for Reconsideration ("MR"), Rodica pleaded
with Atty. Espejo to prepare the documents required to be filed
with the RTC x x x to spare her Boracay lawyers from preparing
the same. Atty. Espejo accommodated Jasper and drafted the
Manifestation with Motion to Withdraw Motion for Reconsideration
("Motion to Withdraw MR") to be given to Rodicas Boracay
counsel, Atty. Joan I. Tabanar-Ibutnande, who is in a better
position to evaluate the merit of the withdrawal of the MR.
11.1. Upon seeing Atty. Espejos initial draft, Rodica requested
Atty. Espejo to include x x x the name of the Lazaro Law Office as
signatory allegedly to give more credence and weight to the
pleading and to show the defendants in the RTC case her sincere
intention to terminate the case.
Due to Rodicas pleas and insistence, Atty. Espejo, who among
all lawyers of the Lazaro Law Office, became the most familiar
and "chummy" with Rodica, agreed to include the Lazaro Law
Office and put his name as the signatory for the Office. Still not
satisfied, Rodica pleaded with Atty. Espejo to further revise the
Motion to Withdraw MR to include the names of Atty. Manuel and
Atty. Michelle as signatories and represented that she herself will
cause them to sign it. Relying on Rodicas representations that
she would speak to Atty. Manuel about the matter, Atty. Espejo
obliged to include the name of Atty. Michelle and Atty. Manuel.
Rodica repeatedly reminded Atty. Espejo not to bother Atty.
Manuel on the matter and that she herself will take it up with Atty.
Manuel at the proper time.
Moreover, the Court wonders why Atty. Espejo, knowing fully well
that Rodica is not their law firms client and without the knowledge
and consent of his superiors, gave in to Rodicas request for him
to indicate in the said motion the names of his law firm, Atty.
Manuel and Atty. Michelle for the purpose of "giving more weight
and credit to the pleading." As a member of the bar, Atty. Espejo
ought to know that motions and pleadings filed in courts are acted
upon in accordance with their merit or lack of it, and not on the
reputation of the law firm or the lawyer filing the same. More
importantly, he should have thought that in so doing, he was
actually assisting Rodica in misrepresenting before the RTC that
she was being represented by the said law firm and lawyers,
when in truth she was not.
It is well to remind Atty. Espejo that before being a friend to
Rodica, he is first and foremost an officer of the court. 43 Hence,
he is expected to maintain a high standard of honesty and fair
dealings and must conduct himself beyond reproach at all times.44
He must likewise ensure that he acts within the bounds of reason
and common sense, always aware that he is an instrument of
truth and justice.45 As shown by his actuations. Atty. Espejo fell
short of what is expected of him. Under the circumstances, Atty.
Espejo should have exercised prudence by first diligently studying
the soundness of Rodicas pleas and the repercussions of his
acts.
We note that on August 5, 2011, or even before the filing of the
disbarment complaint, Atty. Espejo already caused the filing of his
Motion to Withdraw Appearance46 before the RTC. Therein, Atty.
Espejo already expressed remorse and sincere apologies to the
RTC for wrongly employing the name of the Lazaro Law Office.
Considering that Atty. Espejo is newly admitted to the Bar (2010),
we deem it proper to warm him to be more circumspect and
prudent in his actuations.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Complaint for
disbarment against respondents Atty. Manuel "Lolong" M. Lazaro,
Atty. Edwin M. Espejo, Atty. Abel M. Almario, Atty. Michelle B.
Lazaro and Atty. Joseph C. Tan is DISMISSED. Atty. Edwin M.
Espejo is WARNED to be more circumspect and prudent in his
actuations.

11.2 Atty. Espejo has a soft heart. He signed the pleading only
SO ORDERED.
with good intentions of helping and assisting Rodica, the common
law wife of a client, whom he had learned to fancy because of
being constantly together and attending to her. He never thought
ill of Rodica and believed her when she said she would speak to
Atty. Lazaro about the matter as represented. Atty. Espejo only
agreed to sign the pleading for purposes of withdrawing Rodicas
MR to attain Rodicas purpose or desired result and objective to
convince or facilitate the sale to Apostol and/or to make the
property more marketable to interested buyers and to attain
peace with the defendants in the RTC case. Evidently, Rodica
took advantage of Atty. Espejos youth and naivete and
manipulated him to do things on her behalf, and deliberately
excluded Atty. Almario the senior lawyer. Rodica preferred to

PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS Agustin, E.P. | 4

 Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
A.C. No. 8243 July 24, 2009
ROLANDO B. PACANA, JR., Complainant,
vs.
ATTY. MARICEL PASCUAL-LOPEZ, Respondent.
DECISION
PER CURIAM:
This case stems from an administrative complaint 1 filed by
Rolando Pacana, Jr. against Atty. Maricel Pascual-Lopez
charging the latter with flagrant violation of the provisions of the
Code of Professional Responsibility.2 Complainant alleges that
respondent committed acts constituting conflict of interest,
dishonesty, influence peddling, and failure to render an
accounting of all the money and properties received by her from
complainant.
On January 2, 2002, complainant was the Operations Director for
Multitel Communications Corporation (MCC). MCC is an affiliate
company of Multitel International Holdings Corporation (Multitel).
Sometime in July 2002, MCC changed its name to Precedent
Communications Corporation (Precedent).3
According to complainant, in mid-2002, Multitel was besieged by
demand letters from its members and investors because of the
failure of its investment schemes. He alleges that he earned the
ire of Multitel investors after becoming the assignee of majority of
the shares of stock of Precedent and after being appointed as
trustee of a fund amounting to Thirty Million Pesos
(P30,000,000.00) deposited at Real Bank.
Distraught, complainant sought the advice of respondent who also
happened to be a member of the Couples for Christ, a religious
organization where complainant and his wife were also active
members. From then on, complainant and respondent constantly
communicated, with the former disclosing all his involvement and
interests in Precedent and Precedents relation with Multitel.
Respondent gave legal advice to complainant and even helped
him prepare standard quitclaims for creditors. In sum,
complainant avers that a lawyer-client relationship was
established between him and respondent although no formal
document was executed by them at that time. A Retainer
Agreement4 dated January 15, 2003 was proposed by
respondent. Complainant, however, did not sign the said
agreement because respondent verbally asked for One Hundred
Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00) as acceptance fee and a 15%
contingency fee upon collection of the overpayment made by
Multitel to Benefon,5 a telecommunications company based in
Finland. Complainant found the proposed fees to be prohibitive
and not within his means.6 Hence, the retainer agreement
remained unsigned.7
After a few weeks, complainant was surprised to receive a
demand letter from respondent8 asking for the return and
immediate settlement of the funds invested by respondents
clients in Multitel. When complainant confronted respondent about
the demand letter, the latter explained that she had to send it so
that her clients defrauded investors of Multitel would know that
she was doing something for them and assured complainant that
there was nothing to worry about.9
Both parties continued to communicate and exchange information
regarding the persistent demands made by Multitel investors
against complainant. On these occasions, respondent impressed
upon complainant that she can closely work with officials of the
Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC), the Department of
Justice (DOJ), the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI), the
Bureau of Immigration and Deportations (BID),10 and the
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)11 to resolve
complainants problems. Respondent also convinced complainant
that in order to be absolved from any liability with respect to the
investment scam, he must be able to show to the DOJ that he
PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS
was willing to divest any and all of his interests in Precedent
including the funds assigned to him by Multitel.12
Respondent also asked money from complainant allegedly for
safekeeping to be used only for his case whenever necessary.
Complainant agreed and gave her an initial amount of
P900,000.00 which was received by respondent herself. 13
Sometime thereafter, complainant again gave respondent
P1,000,000.00.14 Said amounts were all part of Precedents
collections and sales proceeds which complainant held as
assignee of the companys properties.15
When complainant went to the United States (US), he received
several messages from respondent sent through electronic mail
(e-mail) and short messaging system (SMS, or text messages)
warning him not to return to the Philippines because Rosario
Baladjay, president of Multitel, was arrested and that complainant
may later on be implicated in Multitels failed investment system.
Respondent even said that ten (10) arrest warrants and a hold
departure order had been issued against him. Complainant,
thereafter, received several e-mail messages from respondent
updating him of the status of the case against Multitel and
promised that she will settle the matter discreetly with government
officials she can closely work with in order to clear complainants
name.16 In two separate e-mail messages,17 respondent again
asked money from complainant, P200,000 of which was handed
by complainants wife while respondent was confined in Saint
Lukes Hospital after giving birth,18 and another P700,000
allegedly to be given to the NBI.19
Through respondents persistent promises to settle all
complainants legal problems, respondent was able to convince
complainant who was still in the US to execute a deed of
assignment in favor of respondent allowing the latter to retrieve
178 boxes containing cellular phones and accessories stored in
complainants house and inside a warehouse.20 He also signed a
blank deed of sale authorizing respondent to sell his 2002 Isuzu
Trooper.21
Sometime in April 2003, wary that respondent may not be able to
handle his legal problems, complainant was advised by his family
to hire another lawyer. When respondent knew about this, she
wrote to complainant via e-mail, as follows:
Dear Butchie,
Hi! Ok ka lang? Hope you are fine. Sorry if I shocked you but I
had to do it as your friend and lawyer. The charges are all non-
bailable but all the same as the SEC report I told you before. The
findings are the same, i.e. your company was the front for the
fraud of Multitel and that funds were provided you.
I anticipated this, that is why I really pushed for a quitclaim. Rolly
is willing to return the Crosswind, laptap (sic) and [P]alm [P]ilot.
Manny Cancio really helped. Anthony na lang. Then, I will need
the accounting of all the funds you received from the sale of the
phones, every employees and directors[] quitclaim (including
yours), the funds transmitted to the clients through me, the funds
you utilized, and whatelse (sic) is still unremitted, every centavo
must be accounted for as DOJ and NBI can have the account
opened.
I will also need the P30 M proof of deposit with Real [B]ank and
the trust given [to] you. So we can inform them [that] it was not
touched by you.
I have been informed by Efie that your family is looking at hiring
Coco Pimentel. I know him very well as his sister Gwen is my best
friend. I have no problem if you hire him but I will be hands off. I
work differently kasi. In this cases (sic), you cannot be highprofile
(sic) because it is the clients who will be sacrificed at the expense
of the fame of the lawyer. I have to work quietly and discreetly. No
funfare. Just like what I did for your guys in the SEC. I have to
work with people I am comfortable with. Efren Santos will sign as
your lawyer although I will do all the work. He can help with all his
connections. Vals friend in the NBI is the one is (sic) charge of
organized crime who is the entity (sic) who has your warrant. My
law partner was the state prosecutor for financial fraud. Basically
we have it covered in all aspects and all departments. I am just
trying to liquidate the phones I have allotted for you s ana (sic) for
your trooper kasi whether we like it or not, we have to give this
Agustin, E.P. | 5
agencies (sic) to make our work easier according to Val. The
funds with Mickey are already accounted in the quit claims (sic)
as attorneys (sic) fees. I hope he will be able to send it so we
have funds to work with.
As for your kids, legally they can stay here but recently, it is the
children who (sic) the irate clients and government officials harass
and kidnap to make the individuals they want to come out from
hiding (sic). I do not want that to happen. Things will be really
easier on my side.
Please do not worry. Give me 3 months to make it all disappear.
But if you hire Coco, I will give him the free hand to work with your
case. Please trust me. I have never let you down, have I? I told
you this will happen but we are ready and prepared. The clients
who received the phones will stand by you and make you the hero
in this scandal. I will stand by you always. This is my expertise.
TRUST me! That is all. You have an angel on your side. Always
pray though to the best legal mind up there. You will be ok!
Candy22
On July 4, 2003, contrary to respondents advice, complainant
returned to the country. On the eve of his departure from the
United States, respondent called up complainant and
conveniently informed him that he has been cleared by the NBI
and the BID.23
About a month thereafter, respondent personally met with
complainant and his wife and told them that she has already
accumulated P12,500,000.00 as attorneys fees and was willing to
give P2,000,000.00 to complainant in appreciation for his help.
Respondent allegedly told complainant that without his help, she
would not have earned such amount. Overwhelmed and relieved,
complainant accepted respondents offer but respondent, later on,
changed her mind and told complainant that she would instead
invest the P2,000,000.00 on his behalf in a business venture.
Complainant declined and explained to respondent that he and
his family needed the money instead to cover their daily expenses
as he was no longer employed. Respondent allegedly agreed, but
she failed to fulfill her promise.24
Respondent even publicly announced in their religious
organization that she was able to help settle the ten (10) warrants
of arrest and hold departure order issued against complainant and
narrated how she was able to defend complainant in the said
cases.25
By April 2004, however, complainant noticed that respondent was
evading him. Respondent would either refuse to return
complainants call or would abruptly terminate their telephone
conversation, citing several reasons. This went on for several
months.26 In one instance, when complainant asked respondent
for an update on the collection of Benefons obligation to
Precedent which respondent had previously taken charge of,
respondent arrogantly answered that she was very busy and that
she would read Benefons letter only when she found time to do
so.
On November 9, 2004, fed up and dismayed with respondents
arrogance and evasiveness, complainant wrote respondent a
letter formally asking for a full accounting of all the money,
documents and properties given to the latter. 27 Respondent
rendered an accounting through a letter dated December 20,
2004.28 When complainant found respondents explanation to be
inadequate, he wrote a latter expressing his confusion about the
accounting.29 Complainant repeated his request for an audited
financial report of all the properties turned over to her; otherwise,
he will be constrained to file the appropriate case against
respondent.30 Respondent replied,31 explaining that all the
properties and cash turned over to her by complainant had been
returned to her clients who had money claims against Multitel. In
exchange for this, she said that she was able to secure quitclaim
documents clearing complainant from any liability.32 Still
unsatisfied, complainant decided to file an affidavit-complaint33
against respondent before the Commission on Bar Discipline of
the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) seeking the disbarment
of respondent.
In her Answer-Affidavit,34 respondent vehemently denied being
the lawyer for Precedent. She maintained that no formal
PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS
engagement was executed between her and complainant. She
claimed that she merely helped complainant by providing him with
legal advice and assistance because she personally knew him,
since they both belonged to the same religious
organization.35lavvph!1
Respondent insisted that she represented the group of investors
of Multitel and that she merely mediated in the settlement of the
claims her clients had against the complainant. She also averred
that the results of the settlement between both parties were fully
documented and accounted for.36 Respondent believes that her
act in helping complainant resolve his legal problem did not
violate any ethical standard and was, in fact, in accord with Rule
2.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.37
To bolster her claim that the complaint was without basis,
respondent noted that a complaint for estafa was also filed
against her by complainant before the Office of the City
Prosecutor in Quezon City citing the same grounds. The
complaint was, however, dismissed by Assistant City Prosecutor
Josephus Joannes H. Asis for insufficiency of evidence. 38
Respondent argued that on this basis alone, the administrative
case must also be dismissed.
In her Position Paper,39 respondent also questioned the
admissibility of the electronic evidence submitted by complainant
to the IBPs Commission on Bar Discipline. Respondent
maintained that the e-mail and the text messages allegedly sent
by respondent to complainant were of doubtful authenticity and
should be excluded as evidence for failure to conform to the
Rules on Electronic Evidence (A.M. No. 01-7-01-SC).
After due hearing, IBP Investigating Commissioner Patrick M.
Velez issued a Report and Recommendation40 finding that a
lawyer-client relationship was established between respondent
and complainant despite the absence of a written contract. The
Investigating Commissioner also declared that respondent
violated her duty to be candid, fair and loyal to her client when
she allowed herself to represent conflicting interests and failed to
render a full accounting of all the cash and properties entrusted to
her. Based on these grounds, the Investigating Commissioner
recommended her disbarment.
Respondent moved for reconsideration,41 but the IBP Board of
Governors issued a Recommendation42 denying the motion and
adopting the findings of the Investigating Commissioner.
The case now comes before this Court for final action.
We affirm the findings of the IBP.
Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of the Code of Professional responsibility
provides:
Rule 15.03 A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests
except by written consent of all concerned given after full
disclosure of the facts.
This prohibition is founded on principles of public policy, good
taste43 and, more importantly, upon necessity. In the course of a
lawyer-client relationship, the lawyer learns all the facts
connected with the clients case, including its weak and strong
points. Such knowledge must be considered sacred and guarded
with care. No opportunity must be given to him to take advantage
of his client; for if the confidence is abused, the profession will
suffer by the loss thereof.44 It behooves lawyers not only to keep
inviolate the clients confidence, but also to avoid the appearance
of treachery and double dealing for only then can litigants be
encouraged to entrust their secrets to their lawyers, which is
paramount in the administration of justice.45 It is for these reasons
that we have described the attorney-client relationship as one of
trust and confidence of the highest degree.46
Respondent must have known that her act of constantly and
actively communicating with complainant, who, at that time, was
beleaguered with demands from investors of Multitel, eventually
led to the establishment of a lawyer-client relationship.
Respondent cannot shield herself from the inevitable
consequences of her actions by simply saying that the assistance
she rendered to complainant was only in the form of "friendly
Agustin, E.P. | 6
accommodations,"47 precisely because at the time she was giving
assistance to complainant, she was already privy to the cause of
the opposing parties who had been referred to her by the SEC. 48
Respondent also tries to disprove the existence of such
relationship by arguing that no written contract for the
engagement of her services was ever forged between her and
complainant.49 This argument all the more reveals respondents
patent ignorance of fundamental laws on contracts and of basic
ethical standards expected from an advocate of justice. The IBP
was correct when it said:
The absence of a written contract will not preclude the finding that
there was a professional relationship between the parties.
Documentary formalism is not an essential element in the
employment of an attorney; the contract may be express or
implied. To establish the relation, it is sufficient that the advice
and assistance of an attorney is sought and received in any
matter pertinent to his profession.50 (Emphasis supplied.)1awphi1
Given the situation, the most decent and ethical thing which
respondent should have done was either to advise complainant to
engage the services of another lawyer since she was already
representing the opposing parties, or to desist from acting as
representative of Multitel investors and stand as counsel for
complainant. She cannot be permitted to do both because that
would amount to double-dealing and violate our ethical rules on
conflict of interest.
the electronic evidence submitted by complainant. We,
accordingly, adopt the same in toto.
Finally, respondent argues that the recommendation of the IBP
Board of Governors to disbar her on the grounds of deceit,
malpractice and other gross misconduct, aside from violation of
the Lawyers Oath, has been rendered moot and academic by
voluntary termination of her IBP membership, allegedly after she
had been placed under the Department of Justices Witness
Protection Program.57 Convenient as it may be for respondent to
sever her membership in the integrated bar, this Court cannot
allow her to do so without resolving first this administrative case
against her.
The resolution of the administrative case filed against respondent
is necessary in order to determine the degree of her culpability
and liability to complainant. The case may not be dismissed or
rendered moot and academic by respondents act of voluntarily
terminating her membership in the Bar regardless of the reason
for doing so. This is because membership in the Bar is a privilege
burdened with conditions.58 The conduct of a lawyer may make
him or her civilly, if not criminally, liable to his client or to third
parties, and such liability may be conveniently avoided if this
Court were to allow voluntary termination of membership. Hence,
to terminate ones membership in the Bar voluntarily, it is
imperative that the lawyer first prove that the voluntary withdrawal
of membership is not a ploy to further prejudice the public or to
evade liability. No such proof exists in the present case.

WHEREFORE, respondent Attorney Maricel Pascual-Lopez is

In Hornilla v. Atty. Salunat,51 we explained the concept of conflict
hereby DISBARRED for representing conflicting interests and for
of interest, thus:
engaging in unlawful, dishonest and deceitful conduct in violation
of her Lawyers Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility.
There is conflict of interest when a lawyer represents inconsistent
interests of two or more opposing parties. The test is "whether or
Let a copy of this Decision be entered in the respondents record
not in behalf of one client, it is the lawyers duty to fight for an
as a member of the Bar, and notice of the same be served on the
issue or claim, but it is his duty to oppose it for the other client. In
Integrated Bar of the Philippines, and on the Office of the Court
brief, if he argues for one client, this argument will be opposed by
Administrator for circulation to all courts in the country.
him when he argues for the other client." This rule covers not only
cases in which confidential communications have been confided,
but also those in which no confidence has been bestowed or will SO ORDERED.
be used. Also, there is conflict of interests if the acceptance of the
new retainer will require the attorney to perform an act which will
injuriously affect his first client in any matter in which he
represents him and also whether he will be called upon in his new
relation to use against his first client any knowledge acquired
through their connection. Another test of the inconsistency of
interests is whether the acceptance of a new relation will prevent
an attorney from the full discharge of his duty of undivided fidelity
and loyalty to his client or invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or
double dealing in the performance thereof.52

Indubitably, respondent took advantage of complainants hapless

situation, initially, by giving him legal advice and, later on, by
soliciting money and properties from him. Thereafter, respondent
impressed upon complainant that she had acted with utmost
sincerity in helping him divest all the properties entrusted to him in
order to absolve him from any liability. But simultaneously, she
was also doing the same thing to impress upon her clients, the
party claimants against Multitel, that she was doing everything to
reclaim the money they invested with Multitel. Respondent herself
admitted to complainant that without the latters help, she would
not have been able to earn as much and that, as a token of her
appreciation, she was willing to share some of her earnings with
complainant.53 Clearly, respondents act is shocking, as it not only
violated Rule 9.02, Canon 9 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility,54 but also toyed with decency and good taste.

Respondent even had the temerity to boast that no Multitel client

had ever complained of respondents unethical behavior. 55 This
remark indubitably displays respondents gross ignorance of
disciplinary procedure in the Bar. As a member of the Bar, she is
expected to know that proceedings for disciplinary actions against
any lawyer may be initiated and prosecuted by the IBP Board of
Governors, motu proprio or upon referral by this Court or by the
Board of Officers of an IBP Chapter56 even if no private individual
files any administrative complaint.

Upon review, we find no cogent reason to disturb the findings and

recommendations of the IBP Investigating Commissioner, as
adopted by the IBP Board of Governors, on the admissibility of

PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS Agustin, E.P. | 7

 Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. L-23815 June 28, 1974
ADELINO H. LEDESMA, petitioner,
vs.
HON. RAFAEL C. CLIMACO, Presiding Judge of the Court of
First Instance of Negros Occidental, Branch I, Silay City,
respondent.
Adelino H. Ledesma in his own behalf.
Hon. Rafael C. Climaco in his own behalf.
FERNANDO, J.:p
What is assailed in this certiorari proceeding is an order of
respondent Judge denying a motion filed by petitioner to be
allowed to withdraw as counsel de oficio. 1 One of the grounds for
such a motion was his allegation that with his appointment as
Election Registrar by the Commission on Elections, he was not in
a position to devote full time to the defense of the two accused.
The denial by respondent Judge of such a plea, notwithstanding
the conformity of the defendants, was due "its principal effect
[being] to delay this case." 2 It was likewise noted that the
prosecution had already rested and that petitioner was previously
counsel de parte, his designation in the former category being
precisely to protect him in his new position without prejudicing the
accused. It cannot be plausibly asserted that such failure to allow
withdrawal of de oficio counsel could ordinarily be characterized
as a grave abuse of discretion correctible by certiorari. There is,
however, the overriding concern for the right to counsel of the
accused that must be taken seriously into consideration. In
appropriate cases, it should tilt the balance. This is not one of
them. What is easily discernible was the obvious reluctance of
petitioner to comply with the responsibilities incumbent on the
counsel de oficio. Then, too, even on the assumption that he
continues in his position, his volume of work is likely to be very
much less at present. There is not now the slightest pretext for
him to shirk an obligation a member of the bar, who expects to
remain in good standing, should fulfill. The petition is clearly
without merit.
According to the undisputed facts, petitioner, on October 13,
1964, was appointed Election Registrar for the Municipality of
Cadiz, Province of Negros Occidental. Then and there, he
commenced to discharge its duties. As he was counsel de parte
for one of the accused in a case pending in the sala of respondent
Judge, he filed a motion to withdraw as such. Not only did
respondent Judge deny such motion, but he also appointed him
counsel de oficio for the two defendants. Subsequently, on
November 3, 1964, petitioner filed an urgent motion to be allowed
to withdraw as counsel de oficio, premised on the policy of the
Commission on Elections to require full time service as well as on
the volume or pressure of work of petitioner, which could prevent
him from handling adequately the defense. Respondent Judge, in
the challenged order of November 6, 1964, denied said motion. A
motion for reconsideration having proved futile, he instituted this
certiorari proceeding. 3
As noted at the outset, the petition must fail.
1. The assailed order of November 6, 1964 denying the urgent
motion of petitioner to withdraw as counsel de oficio speaks for
itself. It began with a reminder that a crime was allegedly
committed on February 17, 1962, with the proceedings having
started in the municipal court of Cadiz on July 11, 1962. Then
respondent Judge spoke of his order of October 16, 1964 which
reads thus: "In view of the objection of the prosecution to the
motion for postponement of October 15, 1964 (alleging that
counsel for the accused cannot continue appearing in this case
without the express authority of the Commission on Elections);
and since according to the prosecution there are two witnesses
who are ready to take the stand, after which the government
PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS
would rest, the motion for postponement is denied. When counsel
for the accused assumed office as Election Registrar on October
13, 1964, he knew since October 2, 1964 that the trial would be
resumed today. Nevertheless, in order not to prejudice the civil
service status of counsel for the accused, he is hereby designated
counsel de oficio for the accused. The defense obtained
postponements on May 17, 1963, June 13, 1963, June 14, 1963,
October 28, 1963, November 27, 1963, February 11, 1964, March
9, 1964, June 8, 1964 July 26, 1964, and September 7, 1964." 4
Reference was then made to another order of February 11, 1964:
"Upon petition of Atty. Adelino H. Ledesma, alleging indisposition,
the continuation of the trial of this case is hereby transferred to
March 9, 1964 at 8:30 in the morning. The defense is reminded
that at its instance, this case has been postponed at least eight
(8) times, and that the government witnesses have to come all the
way from Manapala." 5 After which, it was noted in such order that
there was no incompatibility between the duty of petitioner to the
accused and to the court and the performance of his task as an
election registrar of the Commission on Elections and that the
ends of justice "would be served by allowing and requiring Mr.
Ledesma to continue as counsel de oficio, since the prosecution
has already rested its case." 6
2. What is readily apparent therefore, is that petitioner was less
than duly mindful of his obligation as counsel de oficio. He ought
to have known that membership in the bar is a privilege burdened
with conditions. It could be that for some lawyers, especially the
neophytes in the profession, being appointed counsel de oficio is
an irksome chore. For those holding such belief, it may come as a
surprise that counsel of repute and of eminence welcome such an
opportunity. It makes even more manifest that law is indeed a
profession dedicated to the ideal of service and not a mere trade.
It is understandable then why a high degree of fidelity to duty is
required of one so designated. A recent statement of the doctrine
is found in People v. Daban: 7 "There is need anew in this
disciplinary proceeding to lay stress on the fundamental postulate
that membership in the bar carries with it a responsibility to live up
to its exacting standard. The law is a profession, not a trade or a
craft. Those enrolled in its ranks are called upon to aid in the
performance of one of the basic purposes of the State, the
administration of justice. To avoid any frustration thereof,
especially in the case of an indigent defendant, a lawyer may be
required to act as counsel de oficio. The fact that his services are
rendered without remuneration should not occasion a diminution
in his zeal. Rather the contrary. This is not, of course, to ignore
that other pressing matters do compete for his attention. After all,
he has his practice to attend to. That circumstance possesses a
high degree of relevance since a lawyer has to live; certainly he
cannot afford either to neglect his paying cases. Nonetheless,
what is incumbent upon him as counsel de oficio must be
fulfilled." 8
So it has been from the 1905 decision of In re Robles Lahesa, 9
where respondent was de oficio counsel, the opinion penned by
Justice Carson making clear: "This Court should exact from its
officers and subordinates the most scrupulous performance of
their official duties, especially when negligence in the
performance of those duties necessarily results in delays in the
prosecution of criminal cases ...." 10 Justice Sanchez in People v.
Estebia 11 reiterated such a view in these words: "It is true that he
is a court-appointed counsel. But we do say that as such counsel
de oficio, he has as high a duty to the accused as one employed
and paid by defendant himself. Because, as in the case of the
latter, he must exercise his best efforts and professional ability in
behalf of the person assigned to his care. He is to render effective
assistance. The accused-defendant expects of him due diligence,
not mere perfunctory representation. For, indeed a lawyer who is
a vanguard in the bastion of justice is expected to have a bigger
dose of social conscience and a little less of self-interest." 12
The weakness of the petition is thus quite evident.
3. If respondent Judge were required to answer the petition, it was
only due to the apprehension that considering the frame of mind
of a counsel loath and reluctant to fulfill his obligation, the welfare
of the accused could be prejudiced. His right to counsel could in
effect be rendered nugatory. Its importance was rightfully stressed
by Chief Justice Moran in People v. Holgado in these words: "In
criminal cases there can be no fair hearing unless the accused be
given an opportunity to be heard by counsel. The right to be heard
would be of little avail if it does not include the right to be heard by
counsel. Even the most intelligent or educated man may have no
skill in the science of law, particularly in the rules of procedure,
and; without counsel, he may be convicted not because he is
Agustin, E.P. | 8
guilty but because he does not know how to establish his
innocence. And this can happen more easily to persons who are
ignorant or uneducated. It is for this reason that the right to be
assisted by counsel is deemed so important that it has become a
constitutional right and it is so implemented that under rules of
procedure it is not enough for the Court to apprise an accused of
his right to have an attorney, it is not enough to ask him whether
he desires the aid of an attorney, but it is essential that the court
should assign one de oficio for him if he so desires and he is poor
or grant him a reasonable time to procure an attorney of his
own." 13 So it was under the previous Organic Acts. 14 The present
Constitution is even more emphatic. For, in addition to reiterating
that the accused "shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself and
counsel," 15 there is this new provision: "Any person under
investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right
to remain silent and to counsel, and to be informed of such right.
No force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other means which
vitiates the free will shall be used against him. Any confession
obtained in violation of this section shall be inadmissible in
evidence." 16

Thus is made manifest the indispensable role of a member of the

Bar in the defense of an accused. Such a consideration could
have sufficed for petitioner not being allowed to withdraw as
counsel de oficio. For he did betray by his moves his lack of
enthusiasm for the task entrusted to him, to put matters mildly. He
did point though to his responsibility as an election registrar.
Assuming his good faith, no such excuse could be availed now.
There is not likely at present, and in the immediate future, an
exorbitant demand on his time. It may likewise be assumed,
considering what has been set forth above, that petitioner would
exert himself sufficiently to perform his task as defense counsel
with competence, if not with zeal, if only to erase doubts as to his
fitness to remain a member of the profession in good standing.
The admonition is ever timely for those enrolled in the ranks of
legal practitioners that there are times, and this is one of them,
when duty to court and to client takes precedence over the
promptings of self-interest.

WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari is dismissed. Costs

against petitioner.

PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS Agustin, E.P. | 9

 Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 90294 September 24, 1991
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
RlCARDO RIO, accused-appellant.
The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.
Ray Anthony F. Fajarito for accused-appellant.
PADILLA, J.:p
Convicted of rape and sentenced to reclusion perpetua by the
Regional Trial Court, Branch CXLVI * of Makati, Metro Manila, in
Criminal Case No. 12042, accused-appellant Ricardo Rio
interposed his appeal and as a consequence, the clerk of court of
said regional trial court branch forwarded the records of the case
to the Court of Appeals. The appellate court, however, forwarded
the records of the case to the Supreme Court in view of the
penalty imposed upon the accused.
On 29 December 1989, the accused-appellant Ricardo Rio, in two
(2) letters dated 14 December 1989, addressed to Division Clerk
of Court Fermin J. Garma and to Assistant Clerk of Court
Tomasita M. Dris, manifested his intention to withdraw the appeal
due to his poverty. 1
The Court resolved in a resolution dated 22 June 1990 to require
the Solicitor General to comment on the appellant's manifestation
to withdraw the appeal.
In the Comment filed by the Solicitor General, the action
recommended was for the Court to ascertain from the accused-
appellant, through the clerk of court of the trial court, whether he
desired the appointment of a counsel de oficio on appeal, in view
of the reasons stated by him for the withdrawal of his appeal, and
inasmuch as poverty should not preclude anyone from pursuing a
cause. It was also recommended that the clerk of court of the trial
court be required by the Court to submit the response of the
accused-appellant along with a certificate of compliance with the
duty imposed on him 2 by Section 13, of Rule 122 of the Rules of
Court, which provides:
Sec. 13. Appointment of counsel de oficio for
accused on appeal. It shall be the duty of
the clerk of the trial court upon the
presentation of a notice of appeal in a
criminal case, to ascertain from the appellant,
if he is confined in prison, whether he desires
the Intermediate Appellate Court or the
Supreme Court to appoint a counsel to
defend him de oficio and to transmit with the
record, upon a form to be prepared by the
clerk of the appellate court, a certificate of
compliance with this duty and of the response
of the appellant to his inquiry.
The branch clerk of the trial court, in a letter addressed to the
Assistant Clerk of Court of the Second Division, this Court, in
compliance with the resolution of this Court, dated 16 April 1990,
adopting the suggestions of the Solicitor General, which required
him to comply with his duty mandated in Section 13, Rule 122 of
the Rules of Court, submitted the reply of the accused-appellant
informing the Court that he was no longer interested in pursuing
his appeal and had, in fact, withdrawn his appeal. 3
Upon recommendation of the Solicitor General, however, the
Court in a resolution dated 1 October 1990, denied the appellant's
motion withdrawing the appeal and appointed a counsel de oficio
for the accused-appellant for, as correctly observed by the
Solicitor General, all the letters of the accused-appellant reveal
that the only reason offered by him for the withdrawal of his
appeal is his inability to retain the services of a counsel de parte
PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS
on account of his poverty, a reason which should not preclude
anyone from seeking justice in any forum. 4
It seems that the accused-appellant was unaware that this Court
can appoint a counsel de oficio to prosecute his appeal pursuant
to Section 13 of Rule 122 of the Rules of Court and the
constitutional mandate provided in Section 11 of Article III of the
1987 Constitution which reads as follows:
Sec. 11. Free access to the courts and quasi-
judicial bodies and adequate legal assistance
shall not be denied to any person by reason
of poverty.
This constitutional provision imposes a duty on the judicial branch
of the government which can cannot be taken lightly. "The
Constitution", as aptly stated in one case, "is a law for rulers and
for people equally in war and in peace and covers with the shield
of its protection all classes of men at all times and under all
circumstances." 5
Paraphrasing Mr. Justice Malcolm, "Two (2) of the basic
privileges of the accused in a criminal prosecution are the right to
the assistance of counsel and the right to a preliminary
examination. President Mckinley made the first a part of the
Organic Law in his Instructions to the Commission by imposing
the inviolable rule that in all criminal prosecutions the accused
'shall enjoy the right ... to have assistance of counsel for the
defense' ". 6 Today said right is enshrined in the 1987 Constitution
for, as Judge Cooley says, this is "perhaps the privilege most
important to the person accused of crime." 7
"In criminal cases there can be no fair hearing unless the accused
be given an opportunity to be heard by counsel. The right to be
heard would be of little meaning if it does not include the right to
be heard by counsel. Even the most intelligent or educated man
may have no skill in the science of the law, particularly in the rules
of procedure, and, without counsel, he may be convicted not
because he is guilty but because he does not know how to
establish his innocence. And this can happen more easily to
persons who are ignorant or uneducated. It is for this reason that
the right to be assisted by counsel is deemed so important that it
has become a constitutional right and it is so implemented that
under our rules of procedure it is not enough for the Court to
apprise an accused of his right to have an attorney, it is not
enough to ask him whether he desires the aid of an attorney, but
it is essential that the court should assign one de oficio for him if
he so desires and he is poor, or grant him a reasonable time to
procure an attorney of his own." 8
This right to a counsel de oficio does not cease upon the
conviction of an accused by a trial court. It continues, even during
appeal, such that the duty of the court to assign a counsel de
oficio persists where an accused interposes an intent to appeal.
Even in a case, such as the one at bar, where the accused had
signified his intent to withdraw his appeal, the court is required to
inquire into the reason for the withdrawal. Where it finds the sole
reason for the withdrawal to be poverty, as in this case, the court
must assign a counsel de oficio, for despite such withdrawal, the
duty to protect the rights of the accused subsists and perhaps,
with greater reason. After all, "those who have less in life must
have more in law." 9 Justice should never be limited to those who
have the means. It is for everyone, whether rich or poor. Its scales
should always be balanced and should never equivocate or
cogitate in order to favor one party over another.
It is with this thought in mind that we charge clerks of court of trial
courts to be more circumspect with the duty imposed on them by
law (Section 13, Rule 122 of the Rules of Court) so that courts will
be above reproach and that never (if possible) will an innocent
person be sentenced for a crime he has not committed nor the
guilty allowed to go scot-free.
In this spirit, the Court ordered the appointment of a counsel de
oficio for the accused-appellant and for said counsel and the
Solicitor General to file their respective briefs, upon submission of
which the case would be deemed submitted for decision.
From the records of the case, it is established that the accused-
appellant was charged with the crime of rape in a verified
complaint filed by complainant Wilma Phua Rio, duly subscribed
Agustin, E.P. | 10
before 3rd Assistant Fiscal Rodolfo M. Alejandro of the province
of Rizal, which reads as follows:
That on or about the 24th day of March,
1984, in the Municipality of Muntinlupa, Metro
Manila, Philippines, a place within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused, by means of force
and intimidation did then and there wilfully,
unlawfully and feloniously have carnal
knowledge of the undersigned Wilma Phua
against her will. 10
On 26 June 1985, at the arraignment, the accused-appellant,
assisted by Atty. Leonido Manalo of the Makati CLAO office, as
counsel de oficio, entered a plea of not guilty to the offense
charged. 11 The evidence for the prosecution adduced at the trial
established the following facts:
During the months of February and March 1984, complainant
Wilma Phua, then only 13 years of age, was living with her mother
and three (3) sisters in a house in Barangay Bayanan,
Municipality of Muntinlupa, Metro Manila. At a distance of about
three (3) meters from this house is another house with a toilet and
bath also owned by complainant's mother but which was
uninhabited at that time. The accused, complainant's uncle, being
the younger brother of complainant's mother, was staying in their
house, free of board and lodging, although he helped in the
household chores. The children used the bathroom in the
uninhabited house because the amenities in the inhabited house
were used only by the adults. 12
At about 2:00 o'clock in the afternoon of 24 March 1984, classes
having closed for vacation and while Maria Zena Phua Rio was in
the house occupied by her family, her daughter Wilma
(complainant) asked her for the key to the comfort room of the
uninhabited house because she had to answer a call of nature.
After having delivered the key to Wilma, the latter proceeded to
the other house, entered the comfort room, and seeing that
nobody was around and that her uncle was washing dishes in
their house, proceeded to answer nature's call without taking the
precaution of locking the comfort room from inside. 13
After relieving herself but before she could raise her panty, the
accused entered the bathroom with his body already exposed,
held Wilma's hands, and ordered her in a loud voice to lie down
and when she resisted, the accused got mad and ordered her to
lie down. After she lay down on her back, the accused put himself
on top of her and tried to insert his private organ into her private
part. Wilma kept pushing the accused away and calling for her
mother; however, since the accused was heavier than she, the
accused succeeded in overpowering her, inserting his penis into
her vagina and having sexual intercourse with her. After satisfying
his lust, the accused released Wilma and allowed her to leave the
bathroom. 14
Outside the bathroom door, complainant met her mother Maria
Zena who, meanwhile, had proceeded to the said other house
after sensing that an inordinate length of time had passed and her
daughter, complainant herein, had not returned from the
bathroom. Maria Zena, upon noticing that Wilma was speechless,
trembling and looking fearful, suspected something remiss so she
tried to open the door of the bathroom. Unable to open it the first
time because it was locked from inside, Maria Zena waited a few
minutes before pushing the door again. This time she was
successful in finding her brother, the herein accused-appellant in
the process of raising his pants. Maria Zena was ignored by her
brother when she asked him the reason for his presence inside
the bathroom. 15
Still suspecting that the accused has done something to her
daughter, Maria Zena continued her inquisition of her brother for
several days but to no avail. Finally, on 9 April 1984, the accused
was asked to leave the house and move out by his sister Maria
Zena. 16
Only after the departure of the accused did Wilma report to her
mother the fact that she had been raped by the accused four (4)
times between the months of February and March of that year
(1984). After receiving such information, Maria Zena wanted her
daughter to immediately undergo physical examination; however,
PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS
Wilma, apparently traumatized by her experience, was too weak
to go with her for such examination and frequently suffered from
fainting spells. It was only on 30 April 1984 that Maria Zena was
able to bring Wilma to the police to report the matter and to file
the complaint. After the report to the police, they were referred to
the P.C. Crime Laboratory at Camp Crame where Wilma
underwent physical examination. 17
Dr. Dario Gajardo, the physician who conducted the internal
examination of Wilma, submitted a report of his examination
dated 6 May 1984. The medical report showed, among others, the
following findings:
There is a scanty growth of pubic hair. Labia
majora are full, convex and gaping which
pale brown, slightly hypertrophied labia
minora presenting in between. On separating
the same is disclosed an elastic, fleshly-type
hymen with deep lacerations at 3, 8 and 9
o'clock. ... 18
The medical report also showed that "there was (sic) no external
signs of recent application of any form of trauma." 19 All these
findings led him to conclude that Wilma is "in a non-virgin state
physicially." 20 Later, on the witness stand, Dr. Gajardo would
further testify that Wilma, on inquiry, revealed that the first rape
happened in the month of February 1984, but that he could not
tell the approximate period or age of the lacerations. 21
Armed with this medical report, Maria Zena and Wilma went back
to the police where a sworn statement of Wilma was taken and
the complaint for rape against the accused was filed before Third
Assistant Fiscal Rodolfo M. Alejandro on 12 May 1984. 22
The evidence for the defense consisted of the testimony of the
accused himself and his brother, Amado Rio. The accused's
defense was anchored on alibi and he substantially testified as
follows: that contrary to the statements made by the witnesses for
the prosecution, he was not asked to leave their house in April
1984, the truth being that he left in the month of January 1984 or
about a month before the alleged first rape on Wilma was
committed because, contrary to an alleged employment
agreement between brother and sister, his sister, Maria Zena, had
not paid him any salary as helper in their house; that from the
month of January 1984, up to 24 March 1984 when the rape
charged in the complaint was allegedly committed, he was in their
hometown in Kambalo, Cahidiocan, province of Romblon; that at
the time of his arrest, he was informed of the criminal charge of
rape on his niece filed against him in court; that from January
1984 up to the time of his arrest on 6 May 1984, he had stayed in
the house of his uncle, Francisco Rio, and had never left the
place during the whole period.
The accused vehemently denied the rape and conjectured that his
sister could have fabricated the charge because he left her house
due to her non-payment of his salary as helper. The brother of the
accused in the person of Amado Rio corroborated the defense of
alibi of the accused. 23
On rebuttal, the prosecution presented Nemesia B. Merca, the
Election Registrar of the Municipality of Muntinlupa, who brought
with her a Voter's Affidavit which was executed on 31 March 1984
by one Ricardo Rio and was subscribed and sworn to on 31
March 1984 before Tessie Balbas, Chairman of Voting Center No.
37-A of Bayanan, Muntinlupa, Metro Manila. On cross-
examination, Registrar Merca admitted that she does not know
the accused personally but that the xerox copy of the Voter's
Affidavit that she brought to court was copied from a book
containing about 60 voter's affidavits of said precinct. 24
After comparing the signature appealing in the Voter's Affidavit
with the penmanship appearing on a letter 25 dated 12 December
1985 written by the accused to his brother, Amado Rio and on the
envelope of said letter, 26 the trial court ruled that the writing
characteristics on the presented documents are the same,
especially the rounded dot over the letter "i" appearing in the
afore-mentioned mentioned documents. It was, therefore,
satisfied that the Voter's Affidavit was indeed prepared by the
accused in Bayanan, Muntinlupa, Metro Manila, on 31 March
1984, before Tessie Balbas and that this piece of evidence
completely belies the defense of the accused as corroborated by
Agustin, E.P. | 11
his brother, Amado, that he was in Romblon continuously from the
month of January 1984 up to the time that he was arrested on 6
May 1984. 27
Thus, the trial court found the accused-appellant guilty of the
crime of rape. The dispositive portion of the decision reads as
follows:
WHEREFORE, finding the above-named
accused guilty of the crime charged in the
information beyond reasonable doubt the
Court hereby sentences him to suffer the
penalty of reclusion perpetua, with the
accessory penalties of the law, to indemnify
Wilma Phua in the sum of P15,000.00,
Philippine currency, and to pay the costs.
SO ORDERED.
The theory of the defense at the trial level was grounded on alibi.
The accused claimed that at the time of the alleged commission
of the crime of rape he was in Romblon. This claim was
corroborated by the accused's brother, Amado Rio. However, this
claim was, as aforestated, rebutted by the prosecution's
submission of the voter's affidavit executed by the accused in
Muntinlupa, Metro Manila on 31 March 1984 when appellant
claimed he was in Romblon.
Upon careful examination of the voter's affidavit, the Court is
convinced, as the trial court, that the affidavit was indeed
executed by the accused himself and the date appearing therein
must be presumed correct and genuine.
Alibi is inherently a weak defense, easy of fabrication especially
between parents and children, husband and wife, and other
relatives and even among those not related to each other. For
such defense to prosper, the accused must prove that it was not
possible for him to have been at the scene of the crime at the time
of its commission. 28
In the present case, where nothing supports the alibi except the
testimony of a relative, in this case the accused's brother Amado,
it deserves but scant consideration. 29 Moreover, the Court notes
the fact that while the accused-appellant had another brother and
sister living in Manila besides the complainant's mother, those two
never came to his aid. Were the accused the innocent man he
claims to be, these siblings would have readily helped in his
defense. The testimony of his other brother Amado alone cannot
raise the necessary doubt to acquit him as against the evidence
presented by the prosecution.
Furthermore, it would be hard to believe that a female, especially
a twelve-year old child, would undergo the expense, trouble and
inconvenience of a public trial, not to mention suffer the scandal,
embarrassment and humiliation such action inevitably invites, as
wen as allow an examination of her private parts if her motive
were not to bring to justice the person who had abused her. A
victim of rape will not come out in the open if her motive were not
to obtain justice. 30
It is harder still to believe that the mother of a child of twelve will
abuse her child and make her undergo the trauma of a public trial
only to punish someone, let alone a brother, for leaving her
without the services of an unpaid helper were it not with the aim to
seek justice for her child. Nobody in his right mind could possibly
wish to stamp his child falsely with the stigma that follows a rape.
On appeal, appellant's counsel de oficio changed the theory of
the defense. The new theory presented by counsel de oficio is
that Wilma Phua consented when accused-appellant had sexual
intercourse with her on 24 March 1984. It was stressed by
counsel de oficio that the rape occurred on 24 March 1984 and
that, allegedly, it was the fourth time accused had abused
complainant. This allegation as well as the fact that complainant
failed to lock the door to the bathroom could only have been due
to the fact that there was consent. The charge was filed,
according to defense counsel de oficio, only because the
complainant's mother caught them. 31
PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS
This theory of the defense on appeal that there had been consent
from the complainant, fails to generate doubt as to the accused's
guilt, for it would be an incredulous situation indeed to believe that
one, so young and as yet uninitiated to the ways of the world,
would permit the occurrence of an incestuous relationship with an
uncle, a brother of her very own mother.
The Court notes the sudden swift in the theory of the defense
from one of total denial of the incident in question, by way of alibi,
to one of participation, that is, with the alleged consent of the
complainant. This new version could only be attributed by the
Court to the fact that counsel on appeal is different from the
counsel in the trial court. Although the Solicitor General has
suggested that this sudden shift be interpreted as an afterthought
by the accused or a desperate effort to get himself acquitted, 32
the Court deems it more likely that this shift was caused by
counsel de oficio's preparation of the appellant's brief without
examining the entire records of the case. If the appointed counsel
for the accused, on appeal, had read the records and transcripts
of the case thoroughly, he would not have changed the theory of
the defense for such a shift can never speak well of the credibility
of the defense. Moreover, the rule in civil procedure, which
applies equally in criminal cases, is that a party may not shift his
theory on appeal. If the counsel de oficio had been more
conscientious, he would have known that the sudden shift would
be violative of aforementioned procedural rule and detrimental to
the cause of the accused-appellant (his client).
The Court hereby admonishes members of the Bar to be more
conscious of their duties as advocates of their clients' causes,
whether acting de parte or de oficio, for "public interest requires
that an attorney exert his best efforts and ability in the prosecution
or defense of his client's cause." 33 Lawyers are an indispensable
part of the whole system of administering justice in this
jurisdiction. 34 And a lawyer who performs that duty with diligence
and candor not only protects the interests of his client; he also
serves the ends of justice, does honor to the Bar and helps
maintain the respect of the community to the legal profession.
This is so because the entrusted privilege to practice law carries
with it correlative duties not only to the client but also to the court,
to the bar and to the public. 35
While a lawyer is not supposed to know all the laws, 36 he is
expected to take such reasonable precaution in the discharge of
his duty to his client and for his professional guidance as will not
make him, who is sworn to uphold the law, a transgressor of its
precepts. 37
The fact that he merely volunteered his services or the
circumstance that he was a counsel de oficio neither diminishes
nor alters the degree of professional responsibility owed to his
client. 38 The ethics of the profession require that counsel display
warm zeal and great dedication to duty irrespective of the client's
capacity to pay him his fees. 39 Any attempted presentation of a
case without adequate preparation distracts the administration of
justice and discredits the Bar. 40
Returning to the case at bar, even if we consider the sudden shift
of defense theory as warranted (which we do not), the Court is
just as convinced, beyond reasonable doubt, that the accused-
appellant is guilty of the crime as charged. His conviction must be
sustained.
WHEREFORE, the decision of the trial court finding the accused-
appellant Ricardo Rio guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime
of rape and sentencing him to the penalty of reclusion perpetua
with all the accessory penalties of the law, is hereby AFFIRMED.
The Court, however, increases the amount of indemnity to be paid
by the accused-appellant to Wilma Phua to thirty thousand pesos
(P30,000.00) in line with prevailing jurisprudence on this matter.
Costs against accused-appellant.
SO ORDERED.
Melencio-Herrera (Chairperson), Paras, Sarmiento and Regalado,
JJ., concur.
Agustin, E.P. | 12
 Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
SECOND DIVISION
A.C. No. 5485 March 16, 2005
ELMER CANOY, Complainant,
vs.
ATTY. JOSE MAX ORTIZ, respondent.
DECISION
TINGA, J.:
There are no good reasons that would justify a lawyer virtually
abandoning the cause of the client in the midst of litigation without
even informing the client of the fact or cause of desertion. That
the lawyer forsook his legal practice on account of what might be
perceived as a higher calling, election to public office, does not
mitigate the dereliction of professional duty. Suspension from the
practice is the usual penalty, and there is no reason to deviate
from the norm in this case.
A Complaint1 dated 10 April 2001 was filed with the Office of the
Bar Confidant by Elmer Canoy (Canoy) accusing Atty. Jose Max
Ortiz (Atty. Ortiz) of misconduct and malpractice. It was alleged
that Canoy filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against his former
employer, Coca Cola Bottlers Philippines. The complaint was filed
with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) Regional
Arbitration Board VI in Bacolod City.2 Atty. Ortiz appeared as
counsel for Canoy in this proceeding. In 1998, the labor arbiter
hearing the complaint ordered the parties to submit their
respective position papers. Canoy submitted all the necessary
documents and records to Atty. Ortiz for the preparation of the
position paper. Thereafter, he made several unfruitful visits to the
office of Atty. Ortiz to follow-up the progress of the case. After a
final visit at the office of Atty. Ortiz in April of 2000, during which
Canoy was told to come back as his lawyer was not present,
Canoy decided to follow-up the case himself with the NLRC. He
was shocked to learn that his complaint was actually dismissed
way back in 1998, for failure to prosecute, the parties not having
submitted their position papers.3 The dismissal was without
prejudice. Canoy alleged that Atty. Ortiz had never communicated
to him about the status of the case, much less the fact that he
failed to submit the position paper.
The Comment4 filed by Atty. Ortiz is the epitome of self-
hagiography. He informs the Court that since commencing his law
practice in 1987, he has mostly catered to indigent and low-
income clients, at considerable financial sacrifice to himself. Atty.
Ortiz claims that for more than ten years, his law office was a
virtual adjunct of the Public Attorney's Office with its steady
stream of non-paying clients in the "hundreds or thousands."5 At
the same time, he hosted a legal assistance show on the radio,
catering to far-flung municipalities and reaching "the people who
need legal advice and assistance."6 Atty. Ortiz pursued on with
this lifestyle until his election as Councilor of Bacolod City, a
victory which he generously attributes to the help "of the same
people whom he had helped by way of legal assistance before."7
Canoy was among those low-income clients whom Atty. Ortiz
deigned to represent. The lawyer was apparently confident that
the illegal dismissal case would eventually be resolved by way of
compromise. He claims having prepared the position paper of
Canoy, but before he could submit the same, the Labor Arbiter
had already issued the order dismissing the case. 8 Atty. Ortiz
admits though that the period within which to file the position
paper had already lapsed. He attributes this failure to timely file
the position paper to the fact that after his election as Councilor of
Bacolod City, "he was frankly preoccupied with both his functions
as a local government official and as a practicing lawyer."
Eventually, "his desire to help was beyond physical limitations,"
and he withdrew from his other cases and his "free legal
services."9
According to Atty. Ortiz, "Mr. Canoy should have at least
understood that during all that time, he was free to visit or call the
office and be entertained by the secretary as [he] would normally
PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS
report to the office in the afternoon as he had to attend to court
trials and report to the Sanggunian office."10 He states that it was
his policy to inform clients that they should be the ones to follow-
up their cases with his office, as it would be "too difficult and a
financial burden to attend making follow-ups with hundreds of
clients, mostly indigents" with only two office personnel.11
Nonetheless, Atty. Ortiz notes that the dismissal of Canoy's
complaint was without prejudice, thus the prescriptive period had
been tolled. He claims not being able to remember whether he
immediately informed Canoy of the dismissal of the case, though
as far as he could recall, Canoy had conveyed a message to him
that he had a lawyer to handle the case, thus his office did not
insist on refiling the same.12
The matter was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
(IBP) for investigation, report and recommendation.13 Canoy
eventually submitted a motion withdrawing the complaint, but this
was not favorably acted upon by the IBP in view of the rule that
the investigation of a case shall not be interrupted or terminated
by reason of withdrawal of the charges.14 Eventually, the
investigating commissioner concluded that "clearly, the records
show that [Atty. Ortiz] failed to exercise that degree of
competence and diligence required of him in prosecuting his
clients' (sic) claim," and recommended that Atty. Ortiz be
reprimanded.15 The IBP Commission on Discipline adopted the
recommendation, with the slight modification that Atty. Ortiz be
likewise warned that a repetition of the same negligence shall be
dealt with more severely in the future.
The Court is sensitive to the difficulties in obtaining legal
representation for indigent or low-income litigants. Apart from the
heroic efforts of government entities such as the Public Attorney's
Office, groups such as the IBP National Committee on Legal Aid
and the Office of Legal Aid of the UP College of Law have
likewise been at the forefront in the quest to provide legal
representation for those who could not otherwise afford the
services of lawyers. The efforts of private practitioners who assist
in this goal are especially commendable, owing to their sacrifice in
time and resources beyond the call of duty and without
expectation of pecuniary reward.
Yet, the problem of under-representation of indigent or low-
income clients is just as grievous as that of non-representation.
Admirable as the apparent focus of Atty. Ortiz's legal practice may
have been, his particular representation of Canoy in the latter's
illegal dismissal case leaves much to be desired.
Several of the canons and rules in the Code of Professional
Responsibility guard against the sort of conduct displayed by Atty.
Ortiz with respect to the handling of Canoy's case.
CANON 17A LAWYER OWES FIDELITY TO THE
CAUSE OF HIS CLIENT AND HE SHALL BE MINDFUL
OF THE TRUST AND CONFIDENCE REPOSED IN
HIM.
CANON 18A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT
WITH COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE.
...
Rule 18.03A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter
entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection
therewith shall render him liable.
Rule 18.04A lawyer shall keep the client informed of
the status of his case and shall respond within a
reasonable time to the client's request for information.
...
CANON 22A LAWYER SHALL WITHDRAW HIS
SERVICES ONLY FOR GOOD CAUSE AND UPON
NOTICE APPROPRIATE IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES.
...
Agustin, E.P. | 13
 Rule 22.02 A lawyer who withdraws or is discharged
shall, subject to a retainer lien, immediately turn over all
papers and property to which the client is entitled, and
shall cooperate with his successor in the orderly
transfer of the matter, including all information
necessary for the proper handling of the matter.
Atty. Ortiz should have filed the position paper on time, owing to
his duty as counsel of Canoy to attend to this legal matter
entrusted to him. His failure to do so constitutes a violation of
Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Once he agrees to take up the cause of a client, a
lawyer owes fidelity to such cause and must always be
mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him. He
must serve the client with competence and diligence
and champion the latter's cause with wholehearted
fidelity, care and devotion. Elsewise stated, he owes
entire devotion to the interest of the client, warm zeal in
the maintenance and defense of his client's rights, and
the exertion of his utmost learning and ability to the end
that nothing be taken or withheld from his client, save
by the rules of law, legally applied. This simply means
that his client is entitled to the benefit of any and every
remedy and defense that is authorized by the law of the
land and he may expect his lawyer to assert every such
remedy or defense. If much is demanded from an
attorney, it is because the entrusted privilege to practice
law carries with it the correlative duties not only to the
client but also to the court, to the bar and to the public.
A lawyer who performs his duty with diligence and
candor not only protects the interest of his client; he
also serves the ends of justice, does honor to the bar
and helps maintain the respect of the community to the
legal profession.16
If indeed Atty. Ortiz's schedule, workload, or physical condition
was such that he would not be able to make a timely filing, he
should have informed Canoy of such fact. The relationship of
lawyer-client being one of confidence, there is ever present the
need for the client to be adequately and fully informed of the
developments of the case and should not be left in the dark as to
the mode and manner in which his/her interests are being
defended.17
There could have been remedies undertaken to this inability of
Atty. Ortiz to file on time the position paper had Canoy been told
of such fact, such as a request for more time to file the position
paper, or maybe even the hiring of collaborating counsel or
substitution of Atty. Ortiz as counsel. Since Atty. Ortiz did not
exercise the necessary degree of care by either filing the position
paper on time or informing Canoy that the paper could not be
submitted seasonably, the ignominy of having the complaint
dismissed for failure to prosecute could not be avoided.
unprotected.25 Indeed, Rule 22.02 requires that a lawyer who
withdraws or is discharged shall, subject to a lien, immediately
turn over all papers and property to which the client is entitled,
and shall cooperate with his successor in the orderly transfer of
the matter. Atty. Ortiz claims that the reason why he took no
further action on the case was that he was informed that Canoy
had acquired the services of another counsel. Assuming that were
true, there was no apparent coordination between Atty. Ortiz and
this new counsel.
In fact, it took nearly two years before Canoy had learned that the
position paper had not been filed and that the case had been
dismissed. This was highly irresponsible of Atty. Ortiz, much more
so considering that Canoy was one of the indigent clients whom
Atty. Ortiz proudly claims as his favored clientele. It does not
escape the Court's attention that Atty. Ortiz faults Canoy for not
adequately following up the case with his office. 26 He cannot now
shift the blame to complainant for failing to inquire about the
status of the case, since, as stated above, it was his duty as
lawyer to inform his clients of the status of cases entrusted to
him.27
The appropriate sanction is within the sound discretion of this
Court. In cases of similar nature, the penalty imposed by the
Court consisted of either a reprimand, a fine of five hundred
pesos with warning, suspension of three months, six months, and
even disbarment in aggravated cases.28 Given the circumstances,
the Court finds the penalty recommended by the IBP too lenient
and instead suspends Atty. Ortiz from the practice of law for one
(1) month. The graver penalty of suspension is warranted in lieu
of an admonition or a reprimand considering that Atty. Ortiz's
undisputed negligence in failing to timely file the position paper
was compounded by his failure to inform Canoy of such fact, and
the successive dismissal of the complaint.
Lawyers who devote their professional practice in representing
litigants who could ill afford legal services deserve commendation.
However, this mantle of public service will not deliver the lawyer,
no matter how well-meaning, from the consequences of negligent
acts. It is not enough to say that all pauper litigants should be
assured of legal representation. They deserve quality
representation as well.
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Jose Max S. Ortiz is ordered
SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one (1) month from
notice, with the warning that a repetition of the same negligence
will be dealt with more severely. Let a copy of this decision be
attached to respondent's personal record in the Office of the Bar
Confidant and copies be furnished to all chapters of the Integrated
Bar of the Philippines and to all the courts in the land.
SO ORDERED.

That the case was dismissed without prejudice, thus allowing

Canoy to refile the case, hardly serves to mitigate the liability of
Atty. Ortiz, as the failure to file the position paper is per se a
violation of Rule 18.03.18

Neither is the Court mollified by the circumstance of Atty. Ortiz's

election as a City Councilor of Bacolod City, as his adoption of
these additional duties does not exonerate him of his negligent
behavior. The Code of Professional Responsibility does allow a
lawyer to withdraw his legal services if the lawyer is elected or
appointed to a public office.19 Statutes expressly prohibit the
occupant of particular public offices from engaging in the practice
of law, such as governors and mayors,20 and in such instance, the
attorney-client relationship is terminated.21 However, city
councilors are allowed to practice their profession or engage in
any occupation except during session hours, and in the case of
lawyers such as Atty. Ortiz, subject to certain prohibitions which
are not relevant to this case.22 In such case, the lawyer
nevertheless has the choice to withdraw his/her services. 23 Still,
the severance of the relation of attorney-client is not effective until
a notice of discharge by the client or a manifestation clearly
indicating that purpose is filed with the court or tribunal, and a
copy thereof served upon the adverse party, and until then, the
lawyer continues to be counsel in the case.24

Assuming that Atty. Ortiz was justified in terminating his services,

he, however, cannot just do so and leave complainant in the cold

PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS Agustin, E.P. | 14

 Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila

EN BANC

A.C. No. L-1117 March 20, 1944

THE DIRECTOR OF RELIGIOUS AFFAIRS, complainant,

vs.
ESTANISLAO R. BAYOT, respondent.

Office of the Solicitor General De la Costa and Solicitor Feria for

complainant.
Francisco Claravall for respondent.

OZAETA, J.:

The respondent, who is an attorney-at-law, is charged with

malpractice for having published an advertisement in the Sunday
Tribune of June 13, 1943, which reads as follows:

Marriage

license 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.

Legal assistance service

12 Escolta, Manila, Room, 105
Tel. 2-41-60.

Appearing in his own behalf, respondent at first denied having

published the said advertisement; but subsequently, thru his
attorney, he admitted having caused its publication and prayed for
"the indulgence and mercy" of the Court, promising "not to repeat
such professional misconduct in the future and to abide himself to
the strict ethical rules of the law profession." In further mitigation
he alleged that the said advertisement was published only once in
the Tribune and that he never had any case at law by reason
thereof.

Upon that plea the case was submitted to the Court for decision.

It is undeniable that the advertisement in question was a flagrant

violation by the respondent of the ethics of his profession, it being
a brazen 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. The lawyer degrades himself and his profession who
stoops to and adopts the practices of mercantilism by advertising
his services or offering them to the public. As a member of the
bar, he defiles the temple of justice with mercenary activities as
the money-changers of old defiled the temple of Jehovah. "The
most worth and effective advertisement possible, even for a
young lawyer, . . . 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." (Canon 27, Code of Ethics.)

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.

Yulo, C.J., Moran, Horrilleno, Paras and Bocobo, JJ., concur.

PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS Agustin, E.P. | 15

 Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
March 23, 1929
In re LUIS B. TAGORDA,
Duran & Lim for respondent.
Attorney-General Jaranilla and Provincial Fiscal Jose for the
Government.
MALCOLM, J.:
The respondent, Luis B. Tagorda, a practising attorney and a
member of the provincial board of Isabela, admits that previous to
the last general elections he made use of a card written in
Spanish and Ilocano, which, in translation, reads as follows:
LUIS B. TAGORDA
Attorney
Notary Public
CANDIDATE FOR THIRD MEMBER
Province of Isabela
(NOTE. As notary public, he can execute for you a
deed of sale for the purchase of land as required by the
cadastral office; can renew lost documents of your
animals; can make your application and final requisites
for your homestead; and can execute any kind of
affidavit. As a lawyer, he can help you collect your
loans although long overdue, as well as any complaint
for or against you. Come or write to him in his town,
Echague, Isabela. He offers free consultation, and is
willing to help and serve the poor.)
The respondent further admits that he is the author of a letter
addressed to a lieutenant of barrio in his home municipality
written in Ilocano, which letter, in translation, reads as follows:
ECHAGUE, ISABELA, September 18, 1928
MY DEAR LIEUTENANT: I would like to inform you of
the approaching date for our induction into office as
member of the Provincial Board, that is on the 16th of
next month. Before my induction into office I should be
very glad to hear your suggestions or recommendations
for the good of the province in general and for your
barrio in particular. You can come to my house at any
time here in Echague, to submit to me any kind of
suggestion or recommendation as you may desire.
I also inform you that despite my membership in the
Board I will have my residence here in Echague. I will
attend the session of the Board of Ilagan, but will come
back home on the following day here in Echague to live
and serve with you as a lawyer and notary public.
Despite my election as member of the Provincial Board,
I will exercise my legal profession as a lawyer and
notary public. In case you cannot see me at home on
any week day, I assure you that you can always find me
there on every Sunday. I also inform you that I will
receive any work regarding preparations of documents
of contract of sales and affidavits to be sworn to before
me as notary public even on Sundays.
I would like you all to be informed of this matter for the
reason that some people are in the belief that my
residence as member of the Board will be in Ilagan and
that I would then be disqualified to exercise my
profession as lawyer and as notary public. Such is not
the case and I would make it clear that I am free to
exercise my profession as formerly and that I will have
my residence here in Echague.
PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS
I would request you kind favor to transmit this
information to your barrio people in any of your
meetings or social gatherings so that they may be
informed of my desire to live and to serve with you in
my capacity as lawyer and notary public. If the people
in your locality have not as yet contracted the services
of other lawyers in connection with the registration of
their land titles, I would be willing to handle the work in
court and would charge only three pesos for every
registration.
Yours respectfully,
(Sgd.) LUIS TAGORDA
Attorney
Notary Public.
The facts being conceded, it is next in order to write down the
applicable legal provisions. Section 21 of the Code of Civil
Procedure as originally conceived related to disbarments of
members of the bar. In 1919 at the instigation of the Philippine
Bar Association, said codal section was amended by Act No.
2828 by adding at the end thereof the following: "The practice of
soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either personally or
through paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice."
The statute as amended conforms in principle to the Canons of
Professionals Ethics adopted by the American Bar Association in
1908 and by the Philippine Bar Association in 1917. Canons 27
and 28 of the Code of Ethics provide:
27. ADVERTISING, DIRECT OR INDIRECT. 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. The publication or circulation of
ordinary simple business cards, being a matter of
personal taste or local custom, and sometimes of
convenience, is not per se improper. But solicitation of
business by circulars or advertisements, or by personal
communications or interview 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
interest involved, the importance of the lawyer's
position, and all other like self-laudation, defy the
traditions and lower the tone of our high calling, and are
intolerable.
28. STIRRING UP LITIGATION, DIRECTLY OR
THROUGH AGENTS. 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. Stirring up strife and litigation
is not only unprofessional, but it is indictable at common
law. It is disreputable to hunt up defects in titles or other
causes of action and inform thereof in order to the
employed to bring suit, or to breed litigation by seeking
out those with claims for personal injuries or those
having any other grounds of action in order to secure
them as clients, or to employ agents or runners for like
purposes, or to pay or reward directly or indirectly,
those who bring or influence the bringing of such cases
to his office, or to remunerate policemen, court or
prison officials, physicians, hospital attaches or others
who may succeed, under the guise of giving
disinterested friendly advice, in influencing the criminal,
the sick and the injured, the ignorant or others, to seek
his professional services. A duty to the public and to the
profession devolves upon every member of the bar
having knowledge of such practices upon the part of
any practitioner immediately to inform thereof to the end
that the offender may be disbarred.
Agustin, E.P. | 16
Common barratry consisting of frequently stirring up suits and
quarrels between individuals was a crime at the common law, and
one of the penalties for this offense when committed by an
attorney was disbarment. Statutes intended to reach the same
evil have been provided in a number of jurisdictions usually at the
instance of the bar itself, and have been upheld as constitutional.
The reason behind statutes of this type is not difficult to discover.
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. (State vs. Rossman [1909], 53
Wash., 1; 17 Ann. Cas., 625; People vs. Mac Cabe [1893], 19 L.
R. A., 231; 2 R. C. L., 1097.)

It becomes our duty to condemn in no uncertain terms the ugly

practice of solicitation of cases by lawyers. It is destructive of the
honor of a great profession. It lowers the standards of that
profession. It works against the confidence of the community in
the integrity of the members of the bar. It results in needless
litigation and in incenting to strife otherwise peacefully inclined
citizens.

The solicitation of employment by an attorney is a ground for

disbarment or suspension. That should be distinctly understood.

Giving application of the law and the Canons of Ethics to the

admitted facts, the respondent stands convicted of having
solicited cases in defiance of the law and those canons.
Accordingly, the only remaining duty of the court is to fix upon the
action which should here be taken. The provincial fiscal of
Isabela, with whom joined the representative of the Attorney-
General in the oral presentation of the case, suggests that the
respondent be only reprimanded. We think that our action should
go further than this if only to reflect our attitude toward cases of
this character of which unfortunately the respondent's is only one.
The commission of offenses of this nature would amply justify
permanent elimination from the bar. But as mitigating,
circumstances working in favor of the respondent there are, first,
his intimation that he was unaware of the impropriety of his acts,
second, his youth and inexperience at the bar, and, third, his
promise not to commit a similar mistake in the future. A modest
period of suspension would seem to fit the case of the erring
attorney. But it should be distinctly understood that this result is
reached in view of the considerations which have influenced the
court to the relatively lenient in this particular instance and should,
therefore, not be taken as indicating that future convictions of
practice of this kind will not be dealt with by disbarment.

In view of all the circumstances of this case, the judgment of the

court is that the respondent Luis B. Tagorda be and is hereby
suspended from the practice as an attorney-at-law for the period
of one month from April 1, 1929,

Street, Johns, Romualdez, and Villa-Real, JJ., concur.

Johnson, J., reserves his vote.

PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS Agustin, E.P. | 17

 Republic of the Philippines ABROAD.
SUPREME COURT
Manila
1avvphi1

FIRST DIVISION

A.C. No. 6672 September 4, 2009

(emphasis supplied)
PEDRO L. LINSANGAN, Complainant,
vs.
ATTY. NICOMEDES TOLENTINO, Respondent. Hence, this complaint.

RESOLUTION Respondent, in his defense, denied knowing Labiano and

CORONA, J.:
1
This is a complaint for disbarment filed by Pedro Linsangan of
the Linsangan Linsangan & Linsangan Law Office against Atty.
Nicomedes Tolentino for solicitation of clients and encroachment
of professional services.
Complainant alleged that respondent, with the help of paralegal
Fe Marie Labiano, convinced his clients2 to transfer legal
representation. Respondent promised them financial assistance3
and expeditious collection on their claims.4 To induce them to hire
his services, he persistently called them and sent them text
messages.
To support his allegations, complainant presented the sworn
affidavit5 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. Complainant also attached "respondents" calling card: 6
Front
authorizing the printing and circulation of the said calling card.7
The complaint was referred to the Commission on Bar Discipline
(CBD) of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for
investigation, report and recommendation.8
Based on testimonial and documentary evidence, the CBD, in its
report and recommendation,9 found that respondent had
encroached on the professional practice of complainant, violating
Rule 8.0210 and other canons11 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility (CPR). Moreover, he contravened the rule against
soliciting cases for gain, personally or through paid agents or
brokers as stated in Section 27, Rule 13812 of the Rules of Court.
Hence, the CBD recommended that respondent be reprimanded
with a stern warning that any repetition would merit a heavier
penalty.
We adopt the findings of the IBP on the unethical conduct of
respondent but we modify the recommended penalty.
The complaint before us is rooted on the alleged intrusion by
respondent into complainants professional practice in violation of
Rule 8.02 of the CPR. And the means employed by respondent in
furtherance of the said misconduct themselves constituted distinct
violations of ethical rules.

Canons of the CPR are rules of conduct all lawyers must adhere
NICOMEDES TOLENTINO
to, including the manner by which a lawyers services are to be
made known. Thus, Canon 3 of the CPR provides:
LAW OFFFICE
CANON 3 - A lawyer in making known his legal services shall use
CONSULTANCY & MARITIME only true, honest, fair, dignified and objective information or
SERVICES statement of facts.
W/ FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE
Time and time again, lawyers are reminded that the practice of
Fe Marie L. Labiano law is a profession and not a business; lawyers should not
Paralegal advertise their talents as merchants advertise their wares. 13 To
allow a lawyer to advertise his talent or skill is to commercialize
the practice of law, degrade the profession in the publics
estimation and impair its ability to efficiently render that high
Tel: 362-
character of service to which every member of the bar is called.14
7820
1st MIJI Mansion,
Fax:
2nd Flr. Rm. M-01
(632) Rule 2.03 of the CPR provides:
6th Ave., cor M.H.
362-
Del Pilar
7821
Grace Park, RULE 2.03. A lawyer shall not do or permit to be done any act
Cel.:
Caloocan City designed primarily to solicit legal business.
(0926)
2701719
Hence, lawyers are prohibited from soliciting cases for the
purpose of gain, either personally or through paid agents or
brokers.15 Such actuation constitutes malpractice, a ground for
Back disbarment.16

Rule 2.03 should be read in connection with Rule 1.03 of the CPR
which provides:

SERVICES OFFERED: RULE 1.03. A lawyer shall not, for any corrupt motive or interest,
encourage any suit or proceeding or delay any mans cause.
CONSULTATION AND ASSISTANCE
TO OVERSEAS SEAMEN This rule proscribes "ambulance chasing" (the solicitation of
REPATRIATED DUE TO ACCIDENT, almost any kind of legal business by an attorney, personally or
INJURY, ILLNESS, SICKNESS, through an agent in order to gain employment)17 as a measure to
DEATH protect the community from barratry and champerty.18
AND INSURANCE BENEFIT CLAIMS

PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS Agustin, E.P. | 18

Complainant presented substantial evidence19 (consisting of the Professional calling cards may only contain the following details:
sworn statements of the very same persons coaxed by Labiano
and referred to respondents office) to prove that respondent
(a) lawyers name;
indeed solicited legal business as well as profited from referrals
suits.
(b) name of the law firm with which he is connected;
Although respondent initially denied knowing Labiano in his
answer, he later admitted it during the mandatory hearing. (c) address;

Through Labianos actions, respondents law practice was (d) telephone number and
benefited. Hapless seamen were enticed to transfer
representation on the strength of Labianos word that respondent
could produce a more favorable result. (e) special branch of law practiced.28

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.1avvphi1
With regard to respondents violation of Rule 8.02 of the CPR,
settled is the rule that a lawyer should not steal another lawyers
client nor induce the latter to retain him by a promise of better
service, good result or reduced fees for his services. 20 Again the
Court notes that respondent never denied having these seafarers
in his client list nor receiving benefits from Labianos "referrals."
Furthermore, he never denied Labianos connection to his office. 21
Respondent committed an unethical, predatory overstep into
anothers legal practice. He cannot escape liability under Rule
8.02 of the CPR.
Moreover, by engaging in a money-lending venture with his
clients as borrowers, respondent violated Rule 16.04:
Rule 16.04 A lawyer shall not borrow money from his client
unless the clients interests are fully protected by the nature of the
case or by independent advice. Neither shall a lawyer lend money
to a client except, when in the interest of justice, he has to
advance necessary expenses in a legal matter he is handling for
the client.
The rule is that a lawyer shall not lend money to his client. The
only exception is, when in the interest of justice, he has to
advance necessary expenses (such as filing fees, stenographers
fees for transcript of stenographic notes, cash bond or premium
for surety bond, etc.) for a matter that he is handling for the client.
Labianos calling card contained the phrase "with financial
assistance." The phrase was clearly used to entice clients (who
already had representation) to change counsels with a promise of
loans to finance their legal actions. Money was dangled to lure
clients away from their original lawyers, thereby taking advantage
of their financial distress and emotional vulnerability. This crass
commercialism degraded the integrity of the bar and deserved no
place in the legal profession. However, in the absence of
substantial evidence to prove his culpability, the Court is not
prepared to rule that respondent was personally and directly
responsible for the printing and distribution of Labianos calling
cards.
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Nicomedes Tolentino for
violating Rules 1.03, 2.03, 8.02 and 16.04 and Canon 3 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility and Section 27, Rule 138 of
the Rules of Court is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of
law for a period of one year effective immediately from receipt
of this resolution. He is STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of
the same or similar acts in the future shall be dealt with more
severely.
Let a copy of this Resolution be made part of his records in the
Office of the Bar Confidant, Supreme Court of the Philippines, and
be furnished to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and the
Office of the Court Administrator to be circulated to all courts.
SO ORDERED.

The rule is intended to safeguard the lawyers independence of

mind so that the free exercise of his judgment may not be
adversely affected.22 It seeks to ensure his undivided attention to
the case he is handling as well as his entire devotion and fidelity
to the clients cause. If the lawyer lends money to the client in
connection with the clients case, the lawyer in effect acquires an
interest in the subject matter of the case or an additional stake in
its outcome.23 Either of these circumstances may lead the lawyer
to consider his own recovery rather than that of his client, or to
accept a settlement which may take care of his interest in the
verdict to the prejudice of the client in violation of his duty of
undivided fidelity to the clients cause.24

As previously mentioned, any act of solicitation constitutes

malpractice25 which calls for the exercise of the Courts
disciplinary powers. Violation of anti-solicitation statutes warrants
serious sanctions for initiating contact with a prospective client for
the purpose of obtaining employment.26 Thus, in this jurisdiction,
we adhere to the rule to protect the public from the Machiavellian
machinations of unscrupulous lawyers and to uphold the nobility
of the legal profession.

Considering the myriad infractions of respondent (including

violation of the prohibition on lending money to clients), the
sanction recommended by the IBP, a mere reprimand, is a wimpy
slap on the wrist. The proposed penalty is grossly
incommensurate to its findings.

A final word regarding the calling card presented in evidence by

petitioner. A lawyers best advertisement is a well-merited
reputation for professional capacity and fidelity to trust based on
his character and conduct.27 For this reason, lawyers are only
allowed to announce their services by publication in reputable law
lists or use of simple professional cards.

PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS Agustin, E.P. | 19

 Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
FIRST DIVISION
A.C. No. 5299 August 19, 2003
ATTY. ISMAEL G. KHAN, JR., Assistant Court Administrator
and Chief, Public Information Office, Complainant,
vs.
ATTY. RIZALINO T. SIMBILLO, Respondent.
x-----------------------x
G.R. No. 157053 August 19, 2003
ATTY. RIZALINO T. SIMBILLO, Petitioner,
vs.
IBP COMMISSION ON BAR DISCIPLINE and ATTY. ISMAEL G.
KHAN, JR., in his capacity as Assistant Court Administrator
and Chief, Public Information Office, Respondents.
RESOLUTION
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
This administrative complaint arose from a paid advertisement
that appeared in the July 5, 2000 issue of the newspaper,
Philippine Daily Inquirer, which reads: "ANNULMENT OF
MARRIAGE Specialist 532-4333/521-2667."1
Ms. Ma. Theresa B. Espeleta, a staff member of the Public
Information Office of the Supreme Court, called up the published
telephone number and pretended to be an interested party. She
spoke to Mrs. Simbillo, who claimed that her husband, Atty.
Rizalino Simbillo, was an expert in handling annulment cases and
can guarantee a court decree within four to six months, provided
the case will not involve separation of property or custody of
children. Mrs. Simbillo also said that her husband charges a fee of
P48,000.00, half of which is payable at the time of filing of the
case and the other half after a decision thereon has been
rendered.
Further research by the Office of the Court Administrator and the
Public Information Office revealed that similar advertisements
were published in the August 2 and 6, 2000 issues of the Manila
Bulletin and August 5, 2000 issue of The Philippine Star.2
On September 1, 2000, Atty. Ismael G. Khan, Jr., in his capacity
as Assistant Court Administrator 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 Rule 3.01 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility and Rule 138, Section 27 of the
Rules of Court.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
prohibition on advertising and solicitation; that the interest of the
public is not served by the absolute prohibition on lawyer
advertising; that the Court can lift the ban on lawyer advertising;
and that the rationale behind the decades-old prohibition should
be abandoned. Thus, he prayed that he be exonerated from all
the charges against him and that the Court promulgate a ruling
that advertisement of legal services offered by a lawyer is not
contrary to law, public policy and public order as long as it is
dignified.4
The case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for
investigation, report and recommendation.5 On June 29, 2002, the
IBP Commission on Bar Discipline passed Resolution No. XV-
2002-306,6 finding respondent guilty of violation of Rules 2.03 and
3.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Rule 138,
Section 27 of the Rules of Court, and suspended him from the
practice of law for one (1) year with the warning that a repetition
PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS
of similar acts would be dealt with more severely. The IBP
Resolution was noted by this Court on November 11, 2002.7
In the meantime, respondent filed an Urgent Motion for
Reconsideration,8 which was denied by the IBP in Resolution No.
XV-2002-606 dated October 19, 20029
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 consolidated with A.C. No. 5299
per the Courts Resolution dated March 4, 2003.
In a Resolution dated March 26, 2003, the parties were required
to manifest whether or not they were willing to submit the case for
resolution on the basis of the pleadings.10 Complainant filed his
Manifestation on April 25, 2003, stating that he is not submitting
any additional pleading or evidence and is submitting the case for
its early resolution on the basis of pleadings and records thereof.
11
Respondent, on the other hand, filed a Supplemental
Memorandum on June 20, 2003.
We agree with the IBPs Resolutions Nos. XV-2002-306 and XV-
2002-606.
Rules 2.03 and 3.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
read:
Rule 2.03. A lawyer shall not do or permit to be done any act
designed primarily to solicit legal business.
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 138, Section 27 of the Rules of Court states:
SEC. 27. Disbarment and suspension of attorneys by Supreme
Court, grounds therefor. A member of the bar may be disbarred
or suspended from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court
for any deceit, malpractice or other gross misconduct in such
office, grossly immoral conduct or by reason of his conviction of a
crime involving moral turpitude, or for any violation of the oath
which he is required to take before the admission to practice, or
for a willful disobedience appearing as attorney for a party without
authority to do so.
It has been repeatedly stressed that the practice of law is not a
business.12 It is a profession in which duty to public service, not
money, is the primary consideration. Lawyering is not primarily
meant to be a money-making venture, and law advocacy is not a
capital that necessarily yields profits.13 The gaining of a livelihood
should be a secondary consideration.14 The duty to public service
and to the administration of justice should be the primary
consideration of lawyers, who must subordinate their personal
interests or what they owe to themselves. 15 The following
elements distinguish the legal profession from a business:
1. A duty of public service, of which the emolument is a
by-product, and in which one may attain the highest
eminence without making much money;
2. A relation as an "officer of the court" to the
administration of justice involving thorough sincerity,
integrity and reliability;
3. A relation to clients in the highest degree of fiduciary;
4. A relation to colleagues at the bar characterized by
candor, fairness, and unwillingness to resort to current
business methods of advertising and encroachment on
their practice, or dealing directly with their clients.16
There is no question that respondent committed the acts
complained of. He himself admits that he caused the publication
of the advertisements. While he professes repentance and begs
Agustin, E.P. | 20
for the Courts indulgence, his contrition rings hollow considering SO ORDERED.
the fact that he advertised his legal services again after he
pleaded for compassion and after claiming that he had no
intention to violate the rules. Eight months after filing his answer,
he again advertised his legal services in the August 14, 2001
issue of the Buy & Sell Free Ads Newspaper. 17 Ten months later,
he caused the same advertisement to be published in the October
5, 2001 issue of Buy & Sell.18 Such acts of respondent are a
deliberate and contemptuous affront on the Courts authority.

What adds to the gravity of respondents acts is that in advertising

himself as a self-styled "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 may be obtained in four to six months from the time of
the filing of the case,19 he in fact encourages people, who might
have otherwise been disinclined and would have refrained from
dissolving their marriage bonds, to do so.

Nonetheless, the solicitation of legal business is not altogether

proscribed. However, for solicitation to be proper, it must be
compatible with the dignity of the legal profession. If it is made in
a modest and decorous manner, it would bring no injury to the
lawyer and to the bar.20 Thus, the use of simple signs stating the
name or names of the lawyers, the office and residence address
and fields of 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 consistent with the standards of conduct
imposed by the canon, of brief biographical and informative data
is likewise allowable. As explicitly stated in Ulep v. Legal Clinic,
Inc.:22

Such data must not be misleading and may include only a

statement of the lawyers name and the names of his professional
associates; addresses, telephone numbers, cable addresses;
branches of law practiced; date and place of birth and admission
to the bar; schools attended with dates of graduation, degrees
and other educational distinctions; public or quasi-public offices;
posts of honor; legal authorships; legal teaching positions;
membership and offices in bar associations and committees
thereof, in legal and scientific societies and legal fraternities; the
fact of listings in other reputable law lists; the names and
addresses of references; and, with their written consent, the
names of clients regularly represented.

The law list must be a reputable law list published primarily for
that purpose; it cannot be a mere supplemental feature of a
paper, magazine, trade journal or periodical which is published
principally for other purposes. For that reason, a lawyer may not
properly publish his brief biographical and informative data in a
daily paper, magazine, trade journal or society program. Nor may
a lawyer permit his name to be published in a law list the conduct,
management, or contents of which are calculated or likely to
deceive or injure the public or the bar, or to lower dignity or
standing of the profession.

The use of an ordinary simple professional card is also permitted.

The card may contain only a statement of his name, the name of
the law firm which he is connected with, address, telephone
number and special branch of law practiced. The publication of a
simple announcement of the opening of a law firm or of changes
in the partnership, associates, firm name or office address, being
for the convenience of the profession, is not objectionable. He
may likewise have his name listed in a telephone directory but not
under a designation of special branch of law. (emphasis and
italics supplied)

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, respondent RIZALINO T.

SIMBILLO is found GUILTY of violation of Rules 2.03 and 3.01 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility and Rule 138, Section 27
of the Rules of Court. He is SUSPENDED from the practice of law
for ONE (1) YEAR effective upon receipt of this Resolution. He is
likewise STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same or
similar offense will be dealt with more severely.

Let copies of this Resolution be entered in his record as attorney

and be furnished the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and all
courts in the country for their information and guidance.

PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS Agustin, E.P. | 21

 Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
Bar Matter No. 553 June 17, 1993
MAURICIO C. ULEP, petitioner,
vs.
THE LEGAL CLINIC, INC., respondent.
R E SO L U T I O N
REGALADO, J.:
Petitioner prays this Court "to order the respondent to cease and
desist from issuing advertisements similar to or of the same tenor
as that of annexes "A" and "B" (of said petition) and to perpetually
prohibit persons or entities from making advertisements pertaining
to the exercise of the law profession other than those allowed by
law."
The advertisements complained of by herein petitioner are as
follows:
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/Foreign Visa for Filipina
Spouse/Children. Call Marivic.
THE 7F Victoria Bldg. 429 UN Ave., LEGAL
Ermita, Manila nr. US Embassy CLINIC, INC.
1 newspaper publications.
Tel. 521-7232; 521-7251; 522-2041; 521-
0767
It is the submission of petitioner that the advertisements above
reproduced are champterous, 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, as a member of
the legal profession, he is ashamed and offended by the said
advertisements, hence the reliefs sought in his petition as
hereinbefore quoted.
PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS
In its answer to the petition, respondent admits the fact of
publication of said advertisement 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, 2 reportedly decided by the United States
Supreme Court on June 7, 1977.
Considering the critical implications on the legal profession of the
issues raised herein, we required the (1) Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP), (2) Philippine Bar Association (PBA), (3)
Philippine Lawyers' Association (PLA), (4) U.P. Womens Lawyers'
Circle (WILOCI), (5) Women Lawyers Association of the
Philippines (WLAP), and (6) Federacion International de
Abogadas (FIDA) to submit their respective position papers on the
controversy and, thereafter, their memoranda. 3 The said bar
associations readily responded and extended their valuable
services and cooperation of which this Court takes note with
appreciation and gratitude.
The main issues posed for resolution before the Court are
whether or not the services offered by respondent, The Legal
Clinic, Inc., as advertised by it constitutes practice of law and, in
either case, whether the same can properly be the subject of the
advertisements herein complained of.
Before proceeding with an in-depth analysis of the merits of this
case, we deem it proper and enlightening to present hereunder
excerpts from the respective position papers adopted by the
aforementioned bar associations and the memoranda submitted
by them on the issues involved in this bar matter.
1. Integrated Bar of the Philippines:
xxx xxx xxx
Notwithstanding the subtle manner by which
respondent endeavored to distinguish the two
terms, i.e., "legal support services" vis-a-vis
"legal services", common sense would readily
dictate that the same are essentially without
substantial distinction. For who could deny
that document search, evidence gathering,
assistance to layman in need of basic
institutional services from government or non-
government agencies like birth, marriage,
property, or business registration, obtaining
documents like clearance, passports, local or
foreign visas, constitutes practice of law?
xxx xxx xxx
The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP)
does not wish to make issue with
respondent's foreign citations. Suffice it to
state that the IBP has made its position
manifest, to wit, that it strongly opposes the
view espoused by respondent (to the effect
that today it is alright to advertise one's legal
services).
The IBP accordingly declares in no uncertain
terms its opposition to respondent's act of
establishing a "legal clinic" and of
concomitantly advertising the same through
The IBP would therefore invoke the
administrative supervision of this Honorable
Court to perpetually restrain respondent from
undertaking highly unethical activities in the
field of law practice as aforedescribed. 4
xxx xxx xxx
Agustin, E.P. | 22
 A. The use of the name "The Legal Clinic, It must not be forgotten, too, that the Family
Inc." gives the impression that respondent Code (defines) a marriage as follows:
corporation is being operated by lawyers and
that it renders legal services.
Article 1. Marriage is
special contract of
While the respondent repeatedly denies that permanent union
it offers legal services to the public, the between a man and
advertisements in question give the woman entered into
impression that respondent is offering legal accordance with law for
services. The Petition in fact simply assumes the establishment of
this to be so, as earlier mentioned, apparently conjugal and family life. It
because this (is) the effect that the is the foundation of the
advertisements have on the reading public. family and an inviolable
social institution whose
nature, consequences,
The impression created by the
and incidents are
advertisements in question can be traced,
governed by law and not
first of all, to the very name being used by
subject to stipulation,
respondent "The Legal Clinic, Inc." Such a
except that marriage
name, it is respectfully submitted connotes
settlements may fix the
the rendering of legal services for legal
property relation during
problems, just like a medical clinic connotes
the marriage within the
medical services for medical problems. More
limits provided by this
importantly, the term "Legal Clinic" connotes
Code.
lawyers, as the term medical clinic connotes
doctors.
By simply reading the questioned
advertisements, it is obvious that the
Furthermore, the respondent's name, as
message being conveyed is that Filipinos can
published in the advertisements subject of
avoid the legal consequences of a marriage
the present case, appears with (the) scale(s)
celebrated in accordance with our law, by
of justice, which all the more reinforces the
simply going to Guam for a divorce. This is
impression that it is being operated by
not only misleading, but encourages, or
members of the bar and that it offers legal
serves to induce, violation of Philippine law.
services. In addition, the advertisements in
At the very least, this can be considered "the
question appear with a picture and name of a
dark side" of legal practice, where certain
person being represented as a lawyer from
defects in Philippine laws are exploited for
Guam, and this practically removes whatever
the sake of profit. At worst, this is outright
doubt may still remain as to the nature of the
malpractice.
service or services being offered.

Rule 1.02. A lawyer

It thus becomes irrelevant whether
respondent is merely offering "legal support
services" as claimed by it, or whether it offers
legal services as any lawyer actively engaged
in law practice does. And it becomes
unnecessary to make a distinction between
"legal services" and "legal support services,"
as the respondent would have it. The
advertisements in question leave no room for
doubt in the minds of the reading public that
legal services are being offered by lawyers,
whether true or not.
B. The advertisements in question are meant
to induce the performance of acts contrary to
law, morals, public order and public policy.
It may be conceded that, as the respondent
claims, the advertisements in question are
only meant to inform the general public of the
services being offered by it. Said
advertisements, however, emphasize to
Guam divorce, and any law student ought to
know that under the Family Code, there is
only one instance when a foreign divorce is
recognized, and that is:
Article 26. . . .
Where a marriage
between a Filipino citizen
and a foreigner is validly
celebrated and a divorce
is thereafter validly
obtained abroad by the
alien spouse capacitating
him or her to remarry,
the Filipino spouse shall
have capacity to remarry
under Philippine Law.
shall not counsel or abet
activities aimed at
defiance of the law or at
lessening confidence in
the legal system.
In addition, it may also be relevant to point
out that advertisements such as that shown
in Annex "A" of the Petition, which contains a
cartoon of a motor vehicle with the words
"Just Married" on its bumper and seems to
address those planning a "secret marriage," if
not suggesting a "secret marriage," makes
light of the "special contract of permanent
union," the inviolable social institution," which
is how the Family Code describes marriage,
obviously to emphasize its sanctity and
inviolability. Worse, this particular
advertisement appears to encourage
marriages celebrated in secrecy, which is
suggestive of immoral publication of
applications for a marriage license.
If the article "Rx for Legal Problems" is to be
reviewed, it can readily be concluded that the
above impressions one may gather from the
advertisements in question are accurate. The
Sharon Cuneta-Gabby Concepcion example
alone confirms what the advertisements
suggest. Here it can be seen that criminal
acts are being encouraged or committed
(a bigamous marriage in Hong Kong or Las
Vegas) with impunity simply because the
jurisdiction of Philippine courts does not
extend to the place where the crime is
committed.
Even if it be assumed, arguendo, (that) the
"legal support services" respondent offers do
not constitute legal services as commonly
understood, the advertisements in question
give the impression that respondent

PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS Agustin, E.P. | 23

 corporation is being operated by lawyers and
that it offers legal services, as earlier
discussed. Thus, the only logical
consequence is that, in the eyes of an
ordinary newspaper reader, members of the
bar themselves are encouraging or inducing
the performance of acts which are contrary to
law, morals, good customs and the public
good, thereby destroying and demeaning the
integrity of the Bar.
xxx xxx xxx
It is respectfully submitted that respondent
should be enjoined from causing the
publication of the advertisements in question,
or any other advertisements similar thereto. It
is also submitted that respondent should be
prohibited from further performing or offering
some of the services it presently offers, or, at
the very least, from offering such services to
the public in general.
The IBP is aware of the fact that providing
computerized legal research, electronic data
gathering, storage and retrieval, standardized
legal forms, investigators for gathering of
evidence, and like services will greatly benefit
the legal profession and should not be stifled
but instead encouraged. However, when the
conduct of such business by non-members of
the Bar encroaches upon the practice of law,
there can be no choice but to prohibit such
business.
Admittedly, many of the services involved in
the case at bar can be better performed by
specialists in other fields, such as computer
experts, who by reason of their having
devoted time and effort exclusively to such
field cannot fulfill the exacting requirements
for admission to the Bar. To prohibit them
from "encroaching" upon the legal profession
will deny the profession of the great benefits
and advantages of modern technology.
Indeed, a lawyer using a computer will be
doing better than a lawyer using a typewriter,
even if both are (equal) in skill.
Both the Bench and the Bar, however, should
be careful not to allow or tolerate the illegal
practice of law in any form, not only for the
protection of members of the Bar but also,
and more importantly, for the protection of the
public. Technological development in the
profession may be encouraged without
tolerating, but instead ensuring prevention of
illegal practice.
There might be nothing objectionable if
respondent is allowed to perform all of its
services, but only if such services are made
available exclusively to members of the
Bench and Bar. Respondent would then be
offering technical assistance, not legal
services. Alternatively, the more difficult task
of carefully distinguishing between which
service may be offered to the public in
general and which should be made available
exclusively to members of the Bar may be
undertaken. This, however, may require
further proceedings because of the factual
considerations involved.
It must be emphasized, however, that some
of respondent's services ought to be
prohibited outright, such as acts which tend
to suggest or induce celebration abroad of
marriages which are bigamous or otherwise
illegal and void under Philippine law. While
respondent may not be prohibited from
simply disseminating information regarding
PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS
such matters, it must be required to include,
in the information given, a disclaimer that it is
not authorized to practice law, that certain
course of action may be illegal under
Philippine law, that it is not authorized or
capable of rendering a legal opinion, that a
lawyer should be consulted before deciding
on which course of action to take, and that it
cannot recommend any particular lawyer
without subjecting itself to possible sanctions
for illegal practice of law.
If respondent is allowed to advertise,
advertising should be directed exclusively at
members of the Bar, with a clear and
unmistakable disclaimer that it is not
authorized to practice law or perform legal
services.
The benefits of being assisted by paralegals
cannot be ignored. But nobody should be
allowed to represent himself as a "paralegal"
for profit, without such term being clearly
defined by rule or regulation, and without any
adequate and effective means of regulating
his activities. Also, law practice in a corporate
form may prove to be advantageous to the
legal profession, but before allowance of
such practice may be considered, the
corporation's Article of Incorporation and By-
laws must conform to each and every
provision of the Code of Professional
Responsibility and the Rules of Court. 5
2. Philippine Bar Association:
xxx xxx xxx.
Respondent asserts that it "is not engaged in
the practice of law but engaged in giving legal
support services to lawyers and laymen,
through experienced paralegals, with the use
of modern computers and electronic
machines" (pars. 2 and 3, Comment). This is
absurd. Unquestionably, respondent's acts of
holding out itself to the public under the trade
name "The Legal Clinic, Inc.," and soliciting
employment for its enumerated services fall
within the realm of a practice which thus
yields itself to the regulatory powers of the
Supreme Court. For respondent to say that it
is merely engaged in paralegal work is to
stretch credulity. Respondent's own
commercial advertisement which announces
a certain Atty. Don Parkinson to be handling
the fields of law belies its pretense. From all
indications, respondent "The Legal Clinic,
Inc." is offering and rendering legal services
through its reserve of lawyers. It has been
held that the practice of law is not limited to
the conduct of cases in court, but includes
drawing of deeds, incorporation, rendering
opinions, and advising clients as to their legal
right and then take them to an attorney and
ask the latter to look after their case in court
See Martin, Legal and Judicial Ethics, 1984
ed., p. 39).
It is apt to recall that only natural persons can
engage in the practice of law, and such
limitation cannot be evaded by a corporation
employing competent lawyers to practice for
it. Obviously, this is the scheme or device by
which respondent "The Legal Clinic, Inc."
holds out itself to the public and solicits
employment of its legal services. It is an
odious vehicle for deception, especially so
when the public cannot ventilate any
grievance for malpractice against the
business conduit. Precisely, the limitation of
practice of law to persons who have been
duly admitted as members of the Bar (Sec. 1,
Agustin, E.P. | 24
 Rule 138, Revised Rules of Court) is to
subject the members to the discipline of the
Supreme Court. Although respondent uses its
business name, the persons and the lawyers
who act for it are subject to court discipline.
The practice of law is not a profession open
to all who wish to engage in it nor can it be
assigned to another (See 5 Am. Jur. 270). It
is a personal right limited to persons who
have qualified themselves under the law. It
follows that not only respondent but also all
the persons who are acting for respondent
are the persons engaged in unethical law
practice. 6
3. Philippine Lawyers' Association:
The Philippine Lawyers' Association's
position, in answer to the issues stated
herein, are wit:
1. The Legal Clinic is engaged in the practice
of law;
2. Such practice is unauthorized;
3. The advertisements complained of are not
only unethical, but also misleading and
patently immoral; and
4. The Honorable Supreme Court has the
power to supress and punish the Legal Clinic
and its corporate officers for its unauthorized
practice of law and for its unethical,
misleading and immoral advertising.
xxx xxx xxx
Respondent posits that is it not engaged in
the practice of law. It claims that it merely
renders "legal support services" to answers,
litigants and the general public as enunciated
in the Primary Purpose Clause of its Article(s)
of Incorporation. (See pages 2 to 5 of
Respondent's Comment). But its advertised
services, as enumerated above, clearly and
convincingly show that it is indeed engaged
in law practice, albeit outside of court.
As advertised, it offers the general public its
advisory services on Persons and Family
Relations Law, particularly regarding foreign
divorces, annulment of marriages, secret
marriages, absence and adoption;
Immigration Laws, particularly on visa related
problems, immigration problems; the
Investments Law of the Philippines and such
other related laws.
Its advertised services unmistakably require
the application of the aforesaid law, the legal
principles and procedures related thereto, the
legal advices based thereon and which
activities call for legal training, knowledge
and experience.
Applying the test laid down by the Court in
the aforecited Agrava Case, the activities of
respondent fall squarely and are embraced in
what lawyers and laymen equally term as
"the practice of law." 7
4. U.P. Women Lawyers' Circle:
In resolving, the issues before this Honorable
Court, paramount consideration should be
given to the protection of the general public
from the danger of being exploited by
PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS
unqualified persons or entities who may be
engaged in the practice of law.
At present, becoming a lawyer requires one
to take a rigorous four-year course of study
on top of a four-year bachelor of arts or
sciences course and then to take and pass
the bar examinations. Only then, is a lawyer
qualified to practice law.
While the use of a paralegal is sanctioned in
many jurisdiction as an aid to the
administration of justice, there are in those
jurisdictions, courses of study and/or
standards which would qualify these
paralegals to deal with the general public as
such. While it may now be the opportune time
to establish these courses of study and/or
standards, the fact remains that at present,
these do not exist in the Philippines. In the
meantime, this Honorable Court may decide
to make measures to protect the general
public from being exploited by those who may
be dealing with the general public in the guise
of being "paralegals" without being qualified
to do so.
In the same manner, the general public
should also be protected from the dangers
which may be brought about by advertising of
legal services. While it appears that lawyers
are prohibited under the present Code of
Professional Responsibility from advertising,
it appears in the instant case that legal
services are being advertised not by lawyers
but by an entity staffed by "paralegals."
Clearly, measures should be taken to protect
the general public from falling prey to those
who advertise legal services without being
qualified to offer such services. 8
A perusal of the questioned advertisements
of Respondent, however, seems to give the
impression that information regarding validity
of marriages, divorce, annulment of marriage,
immigration, visa extensions, declaration of
absence, adoption and foreign investment,
which are in essence, legal matters , will be
given to them if they avail of its services. The
Respondent's name The Legal Clinic, Inc.
does not help matters. It gives the
impression again that Respondent will or can
cure the legal problems brought to them.
Assuming that Respondent is, as claimed,
staffed purely by paralegals, it also gives the
misleading impression that there are lawyers
involved in The Legal Clinic, Inc., as there are
doctors in any medical clinic, when only
"paralegals" are involved in The Legal Clinic,
Inc.
Respondent's allegations are further belied
by the very admissions of its President and
majority stockholder, Atty. Nogales, who gave
an insight on the structure and main purpose
of Respondent corporation in the
aforementioned "Starweek" article." 9
5. Women Lawyer's Association of the
Philippines:
Annexes "A" and "B" of the petition are
clearly advertisements to solicit cases for the
purpose of gain which, as provided for under
the above cited law, (are) illegal and against
the Code of Professional Responsibility of
lawyers in this country.
Annex "A" of the petition is not only illegal in
that it is an advertisement to solicit cases, but
it is illegal in that in bold letters it announces
Agustin, E.P. | 25
 that the Legal Clinic, Inc., could work of the law, and his use of
out/cause the celebration of a secret that knowledge as a
marriage which is not only illegal but immoral factor in determining
in this country. While it is advertised that one what measures he shall
has to go to said agency and pay P560 for a recommend, do not
valid marriage it is certainly fooling the public constitute the practice of
for valid marriages in the Philippines are law . . . . It is not only
solemnized only by officers authorized to do presumed that all men
so under the law. And to employ an agency know the law, but it is a
for said purpose of contracting marriage is fact that most men have
not necessary. considerable
acquaintance with broad
features of the law . . . .
No amount of reasoning that in the USA,
Our knowledge of the
Canada and other countries the trend is
law accurate or
towards allowing lawyers to advertise their
inaccurate moulds our
special skills to enable people to obtain from
conduct not only when
qualified practitioners legal services for their
we are acting for
particular needs can justify the use of
ourselves, but when we
advertisements such as are the subject
are serving others.
matter of the petition, for one (cannot) justify
Bankers, liquor dealers
an illegal act even by whatever merit the
and laymen generally
illegal act may serve. The law has yet to be
possess rather precise
amended so that such act could become
knowledge of the laws
justifiable.
touching their particular
business or profession. A
We submit further that these advertisements good example is the
that seem to project that secret marriages architect, who must be
and divorce are possible in this country for a familiar with zoning,
fee, when in fact it is not so, are highly building and fire
reprehensible. prevention codes, factory
and tenement house
statutes, and who draws
It would encourage people to consult this
plans and specification in
clinic about how they could go about having a harmony with the law.
secret marriage here, when it cannot nor This is not practicing law.
should ever be attempted, and seek advice
on divorce, where in this country there is
none, except under the Code of Muslim But suppose the
Personal Laws in the Philippines. It is also architect, asked by his
against good morals and is deceitful because client to omit a fire tower,
it falsely represents to the public to be able to replies that it is required
do that which by our laws cannot be done by the statute. Or the
(and) by our Code of Morals should not be industrial relations expert
done. cites, in support of some
measure that he
recommends, a decision
In the case (of) In re Taguda, 53 Phil. 37, the of the National Labor
Supreme Court held that solicitation for Relations Board. Are
clients by an attorney by circulars of
they practicing law? In
advertisements, is unprofessional, and my opinion, they are not,
offenses of this character justify permanent provided no separate fee
elimination from the Bar. 10
is charged for the legal
advice or information,
6. Federacion Internacional de Abogados: and the legal question is
subordinate and
incidental to a major non-
xxx xxx xxx legal problem.

1.7 That entities admittedly not engaged in It is largely a matter of

the practice of law, such as management
consultancy firms or travel agencies, whether
run by lawyers or not, perform the services
rendered by Respondent does not
necessarily lead to the conclusion that
Respondent is not unlawfully practicing law.
In the same vein, however, the fact that the
business of respondent (assuming it can be
engaged in independently of the practice of
law) involves knowledge of the law does not
necessarily make respondent guilty of
unlawful practice of law.
. . . . Of necessity, no
one . . . . acting as a
consultant can render
effective service unless
he is familiar with such
statutes and regulations.
He must be careful not to
suggest a course of
conduct which the law
forbids. It seems . . .
.clear that (the
consultant's) knowledge
degree and of custom.
If it were usual for one
intending to erect a
building on his land to
engage a lawyer to
advise him and the
architect in respect to the
building code and the
like, then an architect
who performed this
function would probably
be considered to be
trespassing on territory
reserved for licensed
attorneys. Likewise, if the
industrial relations field
had been pre-empted by
lawyers, or custom
placed a lawyer always
at the elbow of the lay
personnel man. But this
is not the case. The most
important body of the
industrial relations

PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS Agustin, E.P. | 26

 experts are the officers
and business agents of
the labor unions and few
of them are lawyers.
Among the larger
corporate employers, it
has been the practice for
some years to delegate
special responsibility in
employee matters to a
management group
chosen for their practical
knowledge and skill in
such matter, and without
regard to legal thinking
or lack of it. More
recently, consultants like
the defendants have the
same service that the
larger employers get
from their own
specialized staff.
The handling of industrial
relations is growing into
a recognized profession
for which appropriate
courses are offered by
our leading universities.
The court should be very
cautious about declaring
[that] a widespread, well-
established method of
conducting business is
unlawful, or that the
considerable class of
men who customarily
perform a certain
function have no right to
do so, or that the
technical education given
by our schools cannot be
used by the graduates in
their business.
In determining whether a
man is practicing law, we
should consider his work
for any particular client or
customer, as a whole. I
can imagine defendant
being engaged primarily
to advise as to the law
defining his client's
obligations to his
employees, to guide his
client's obligations to his
employees, to guide his
client along the path
charted by law. This, of
course, would be the
practice of the law. But
such is not the fact in the
case before me.
Defendant's primarily
efforts are along
economic and
psychological lines. The
law only provides the
frame within which he
must work, just as the
zoning code limits the
kind of building the limits
the kind of building the
architect may plan. The
incidental legal advice or
information defendant
may give, does not
transform his activities
into the practice of law.
Let me add that if, even
as a minor feature of his
work, he performed
services which are
customarily reserved to
PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS
members of the bar, he
would be practicing law.
For instance, if as part of
a welfare program, he
drew employees' wills.
Another branch of
defendant's work is the
representations of the
employer in the
adjustment of grievances
and in collective
bargaining, with or
without a mediator. This
is not per se the practice
of law. Anyone may use
an agent for negotiations
and may select an agent
particularly skilled in the
subject under discussion,
and the person
appointed is free to
accept the employment
whether or not he is a
member of the bar. Here,
however, there may be
an exception where the
business turns on a
question of law. Most
real estate sales are
negotiated by brokers
who are not lawyers. But
if the value of the land
depends on a disputed
right-of-way and the
principal role of the
negotiator is to assess
the probable outcome of
the dispute and
persuade the opposite
party to the same
opinion, then it may be
that only a lawyer can
accept the assignment.
Or if a controversy
between an employer
and his men grows from
differing interpretations
of a contract, or of a
statute, it is quite likely
that defendant should
not handle it. But I need
not reach a definite
conclusion here, since
the situation is not
presented by the proofs.
Defendant also appears
to represent the
employer before
administrative agencies
of the federal
government, especially
before trial examiners of
the National Labor
Relations Board. An
agency of the federal
government, acting by
virtue of an authority
granted by the Congress,
may regulate the
representation of parties
before such agency. The
State of New Jersey is
without power to interfere
with such determination
or to forbid
representation before the
agency by one whom the
agency admits. The rules
of the National Labor
Relations Board give to a
party the right to appear
in person, or by counsel,
or by other
Agustin, E.P. | 27
 representative. Rules It cannot be claimed that
and Regulations, the publication of a legal
September 11th, 1946, text which publication of
S. 203.31. 'Counsel' here a legal text which
means a licensed purports to say what the
attorney, and ther law is amount to legal
representative' one not a practice. And the mere
lawyer. In this phase of fact that the principles or
his work, defendant may rules stated in the text
lawfully do whatever the may be accepted by a
Labor Board allows, particular reader as a
even arguing questions solution to his problem
purely legal. (Auerbacher does not affect this. . . . .
v. Wood, 53 A. 2d 800, Apparently it is urged
cited in Statsky, that the conjoining of
Introduction to these two, that is, the
Paralegalism [1974], at text and the forms, with
pp. 154-156.). advice as to how the
forms should be filled
out, constitutes the
1.8 From the foregoing, it can be said that a
unlawful practice of law.
person engaged in a lawful calling (which
But that is the situation
may involve knowledge of the law) is not
with many approved and
engaged in the practice of law provided that:
accepted texts. Dacey's
book is sold to the public
(a) The legal question is subordinate and at large. There is no
incidental to a major non-legal problem;. personal contact or
relationship with a
particular individual. Nor
(b) The services performed are not does there exist that
customarily reserved to members of the bar; . relation of confidence
and trust so necessary to
(c) No separate fee is charged for the legal the status of attorney
advice or information. and client. THIS IS THE
ESSENTIAL OF LEGAL
PRACTICE THE
All these must be considered in relation to the REPRESENTATION
work for any particular client as a whole. AND ADVISING OF A
PARTICULAR PERSON
1.9. If the person involved is both lawyer and IN A PARTICULAR
non-lawyer, the Code of Professional SITUATION. At most the
Responsibility succintly states the rule of book assumes to offer
conduct: general advice on
common problems, and
does not purport to give
Rule 15.08 A lawyer who is engaged in personal advice on a
another profession or occupation specific problem peculiar
concurrently with the practice of law shall to a designated or readily
make clear to his client whether he is acting identified person.
as a lawyer or in another capacity. Similarly the defendant's
publication does not
1.10. In the present case. the Legal Clinic purport to give personal
appears to render wedding services (See advice on a specific
Annex "A" Petition). Services on routine, problem peculiar to a
straightforward marriages, like securing a designated or readily
marriage license, and making arrangements identified person in a
with a priest or a judge, may not constitute particular situation in
practice of law. However, if the problem is as their publication and sale
complicated as that described in "Rx for of the kits, such
Legal Problems" on the Sharon Cuneta- publication and sale did
Gabby Concepcion-Richard Gomez case, not constitutes the
then what may be involved is actually the unlawful practice of law .
practice of law. If a non-lawyer, such as the . . . There being no legal
Legal Clinic, renders such services then it is impediment under the
engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. statute to the sale of the
kit, there was no proper
basis for the injunction
1.11. The Legal Clinic also appears to give against defendant
information on divorce, absence, annulment maintaining an office for
of marriage and visas (See Annexes "A" and the purpose of selling to
"B" Petition). Purely giving informational persons seeking a
materials may not constitute of law. The divorce, separation,
business is similar to that of a bookstore annulment or separation
where the customer buys materials on the agreement any printed
subject and determines on the subject and material or writings
determines by himself what courses of action relating to matrimonial
to take. law or the prohibition in
the memorandum of
It is not entirely improbable, however, that modification of the
aside from purely giving information, the judgment against
Legal Clinic's paralegals may apply the law to defendant having an
the particular problem of the client, and give interest in any publishing
legal advice. Such would constitute house publishing his
unauthorized practice of law. manuscript on divorce
and against his having
any personal contact

PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS Agustin, E.P. | 28

 with any prospective
purchaser. The record
does fully support,
however, the finding that
for the change of $75 or
$100 for the kit, the
defendant gave legal
advice in the course of
personal contacts
concerning particular
problems which might
arise in the preparation
and presentation of the
purchaser's asserted
matrimonial cause of
action or pursuit of other
legal remedies and
assistance in the
preparation of necessary
documents (The
injunction therefore
sought to) enjoin conduct
constituting the practice
of law, particularly with
reference to the giving of
advice and counsel by
the defendant relating to
specific problems of
particular individuals in
connection with a whether certain acts constitute "practice of law," thus:
divorce, separation,
annulment of separation
agreement sought and
should be affirmed.
(State v. Winder, 348,
NYS 2D 270 [1973],
cited in Statsky, supra at
p. 101.).
1.12. Respondent, of course, states that its
services are "strictly non-diagnostic, non-
advisory. "It is not controverted, however,
that if the services "involve giving legal
advice or counselling," such would constitute
practice of law (Comment, par. 6.2). It is in
this light that FIDA submits that a factual
inquiry may be necessary for the judicious
disposition of this case.
xxx xxx xxx
2.10. Annex "A" may be ethically
objectionable in that it can give the
impression (or perpetuate the wrong notion)
that there is a secret marriage. With all the
solemnities, formalities and other requisites
of marriages (See Articles 2, et seq., Family
Code), no Philippine marriage can be secret.
2.11. Annex "B" may likewise be ethically
objectionable. The second paragraph thereof
(which is not necessarily related to the first
paragraph) fails to state the limitation that
only "paralegal services?" or "legal support
services", and not legal services, are
available." 11
A prefatory discussion on the meaning of the phrase "practice of
law" becomes exigent for the proper determination of the issues
raised by the petition at bar. On this score, we note that the
clause "practice of law" has long been the subject of judicial
construction and interpretation. The courts have laid down
general principles and doctrines explaining the meaning and
scope of the term, some of which we now take into account.
Practice of law means any activity, in or out of court, which
requires the application of law, legal procedures, knowledge,
training and experience. To engage in the practice of law is to
perform those acts which are characteristic of the profession.
Generally, to practice law is to give advice or render any kind of
service that involves legal knowledge or skill. 12
PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS
The practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases in court.
It includes legal advice and counsel, and the preparation of legal
instruments and contract by which legal rights are secured,
although such matter may or may not be pending in a court. 13
In the practice of his profession, a licensed attorney at law
generally engages in three principal types of professional activity:
legal advice and instructions to clients to inform them of their
rights and obligations, preparation for clients of documents
requiring knowledge of legal principles not possessed by ordinary
layman, and appearance for clients before public tribunals which
possess power and authority to determine rights of life, liberty,
and property according to law, in order to assist in proper
interpretation and enforcement of law. 14
When a person participates in the a trial and advertises himself as
a lawyer, he is in the practice of law. 15 One who confers with
clients, advises them as to their legal rights and then takes the
business to an attorney and asks the latter to look after the case
in court, is also practicing law. 16 Giving advice for compensation
regarding the legal status and rights of another and the conduct
with respect thereto constitutes a practice of law. 17 One who
renders an opinion as to the proper interpretation of a statute, and
receives pay for it, is, to that extent, practicing law. 18
In the recent case of Cayetano vs. Monsod, 19 after citing the
doctrines in several cases, we laid down the test to determine
Black defines "practice of law" as:
The rendition of services requiring the
knowledge and the application of legal
principles and technique to serve the interest
of another with his consent. It is not limited to
appearing in court, or advising and assisting
in the conduct of litigation, but embraces the
preparation of pleadings, and other papers
incident to actions and special proceedings,
conveyancing, the preparation of legal
instruments of all kinds, and the giving of all
legal advice to clients. It embraces all advice
to clients and all actions taken for them in
matters connected with the law.
The practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases on
court.(Land Title Abstract and Trust Co. v. Dworken , 129 Ohio St.
23, 193N. E. 650). A person is also considered to be in the
practice of law when he:
. . . . for valuable consideration engages in
the business of advising person, firms,
associations or corporations as to their right
under the law, or appears in a representative
capacity as an advocate in proceedings,
pending or prospective, before any court,
commissioner, referee, board, body,
committee, or commission constituted by law
or authorized to settle controversies and
there, in such representative capacity,
performs any act or acts for the purpose of
obtaining or defending the rights of their
clients under the law. Otherwise stated, one
who, in a representative capacity, engages in
the business of advising clients as to their
rights under the law, or while so engaged
performs any act or acts either in court or
outside of court for that purpose, is engaged
in the practice of law. (State ex. rel. Mckittrick
v. C.S. Dudley and Co., 102 S. W. 2d 895,
340 Mo. 852).
This Court, in the case of Philippines Lawyers Association v.
Agrava (105 Phil. 173, 176-177),stated:
The practice of law is not limited to the
conduct of cases or litigation in court; it
embraces the preparation of pleadings and
other papers incident to actions and special
proceedings, the management of such
actions and proceedings on behalf of clients
Agustin, E.P. | 29
 before judges and courts, and in addition,
conveying. In general, all advice to clients,
and all action taken for them in matters
connected with the law incorporation
services, assessment and condemnation
services contemplating an appearance before
a judicial body, the foreclosure of a mortgage,
enforcement of a creditor's claim in
bankruptcy and insolvency proceedings, and
conducting proceedings in attachment, and in
matters or estate and guardianship have
been held to constitute law practice, as do
the preparation and drafting of legal
instruments, where the work done involves
the determination by the trained legal mind of
the legal effect of facts and conditions. (5 Am.
Jr. p. 262, 263).
Practice of law under modern conditions
consists in no small part of work performed
outside of any court and having no immediate
relation to proceedings in court. It embraces
conveyancing, the giving of legal advice on a
large variety of subjects and the preparation
and execution of legal instruments covering
an extensive field of business and trust
relations and other affairs. Although these
transactions may have no direct connection
with court proceedings, they are always
subject to become involved in litigation. They
require in many aspects a high degree of
legal skill, a wide experience with men and
affairs, and great capacity for adaptation to
difficult and complex situations. These
customary functions of an attorney or
counselor at law bear an intimate relation to
the administration of justice by the courts. No
valid distinction, so far as concerns the
question set forth in the order, can be drawn
between that part of the work of the lawyer
which involves appearance in court and that
part which involves advice and drafting of
instruments in his office. It is of importance to
the welfare of the public that these manifold
customary functions be performed by
persons possessed of adequate learning and
skill, of sound moral character, and acting at
all times under the heavy trust obligations to
clients which rests upon all attorneys.
(Moran, Comments on the Rules o Court,
Vol. 3 [1973 ed.], pp. 665-666, citing In Re
Opinion of the Justices [Mass], 194 N. E.
313, quoted in Rhode Is. Bar Assoc. v.
Automobile Service Assoc. [R.I.] 197 A. 139,
144).
The practice of law, therefore, covers a wide range of activities in
and out of court. Applying the aforementioned criteria to the case
at bar, we agree with the perceptive findings and observations of
the aforestated bar associations that the activities of respondent,
as advertised, constitute "practice of law."
The contention of respondent that it merely offers legal support
services can neither be seriously considered nor sustained. Said
proposition is belied by respondent's own description of the
services it has been offering, to wit:
Legal support services basically consists of
giving ready information by trained paralegals
to laymen and lawyers, which are strictly non-
diagnostic, non-advisory, through the
extensive use of computers and modern
information technology in the gathering,
processing, storage, transmission and
reproduction of information and
communication, such as computerized legal
research; encoding and reproduction of
documents and pleadings prepared by
laymen or lawyers; document search;
evidence gathering; locating parties or
witnesses to a case; fact finding
investigations; and assistance to laymen in
need of basic institutional services from
government or non-government agencies,
PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS
like birth, marriage, property, or business
registrations; educational or employment
records or certifications, obtaining
documentation like clearances, passports,
local or foreign visas; giving information
about laws of other countries that they may
find useful, like foreign divorce, marriage or
adoption laws that they can avail of
preparatory to emigration to the foreign
country, and other matters that do not involve
representation of clients in court; designing
and installing computer systems, programs,
or software for the efficient management of
law offices, corporate legal departments,
courts and other entities engaged in
dispensing or administering legal services. 20
While some of the services being offered by respondent
corporation merely involve mechanical and technical knowhow,
such as the installation of computer systems and programs for the
efficient management of law offices, or the computerization of
research aids and materials, these will not suffice to justify an
exception to the general rule.
What is palpably clear is that respondent corporation gives out
legal information to laymen and lawyers. Its contention that such
function is non-advisory and non-diagnostic is more apparent than
real. In providing information, for example, about foreign laws on
marriage, divorce and adoption, it strains the credulity of this
Court that all the respondent corporation will simply do is look for
the law, furnish a copy thereof to the client, and stop there as if it
were merely a bookstore. With its attorneys and so called
paralegals, it will necessarily have to explain to the client the
intricacies of the law and advise him or her on the proper course
of action to be taken as may be provided for by said law. That is
what its advertisements represent and for the which services it will
consequently charge and be paid. That activity falls squarely
within the jurisprudential definition of "practice of law." Such a
conclusion will not be altered by the fact that respondent
corporation does not represent clients in court since law practice,
as the weight of authority holds, is not limited merely giving legal
advice, contract drafting and so forth.
The aforesaid conclusion is further strengthened by an article
published in the January 13, 1991 issue of the Starweek/The
Sunday Magazine of the Philippines Star, entitled "Rx for Legal
Problems," where an insight into the structure, main purpose and
operations of respondent corporation was given by its own
"proprietor," Atty. Rogelio P. Nogales:
This is the kind of business that is transacted
everyday at The Legal Clinic, with offices on
the seventh floor of the Victoria Building
along U. N. Avenue in Manila. No matter
what the client's problem, and even if it is as
complicated as the Cuneta-Concepcion
domestic situation, Atty. Nogales 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 specialist are
backed up by a battery of paralegals,
counsellors and attorneys.
Atty. Nogales set up The Legal Clinic in 1984.
Inspired by the trend in the medical field
toward specialization, it caters to clients who
cannot afford the services of the big law
firms.
The Legal Clinic has regular and walk-in
clients. "when they come, we start by
analyzing the problem. That's what doctors
do also. They ask you how you contracted
what's bothering you, they take your
temperature, they observe you for the
symptoms and so on. That's how we operate,
too. And once the problem has been
categorized, then it's referred to one of our
specialists.
Agustin, E.P. | 30
 There are cases which do not, in medical
terms, require surgery or follow-up treatment.
These The Legal Clinic disposes of in a
matter of minutes. "Things like preparing a
simple deed of sale or an affidavit of loss can
be taken care of by our staff or, if this were a
hospital the residents or the interns. We can
take care of these matters on a while you
wait basis. Again, kung baga sa hospital, out-
patient, hindi kailangang ma-confine. It's just
like a common cold or diarrhea," explains
Atty. Nogales.
Those cases which requires more extensive
"treatment" are dealt with accordingly. "If you
had a rich relative who died and named you
her sole heir, and you stand to inherit millions
of pesos of property, we would refer you to a
specialist in taxation. There would be real
estate taxes and arrears which would need to
be put in order, and your relative is even
taxed by the state for the right to transfer her
property, and only a specialist in taxation
would be properly trained to deal with the
problem. Now, if there were other heirs
contesting your rich relatives will, then you
would need a litigator, who knows how to
arrange the problem for presentation in court,
and gather evidence to support the case. 21
That fact that the corporation employs paralegals to carry out its
services is not controlling. What is important is that it is engaged
in the practice of law by virtue of the nature of the services it
renders which thereby brings it within the ambit of the statutory
prohibitions against the advertisements which it has caused to be
published and are now assailed in this proceeding.
Further, as correctly and appropriately pointed out by the U.P.
WILOCI, said reported facts sufficiently establish that the main
purpose of respondent is to serve as a one-stop-shop of sorts for
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. 22
It should be noted that in our jurisdiction the services being
offered by private respondent which constitute practice of law
cannot be performed by paralegals. Only a person duly admitted
as a member of the bar, or hereafter admitted as such in
accordance with the provisions of the Rules of Court, and who is
in good and regular standing, is entitled to practice law. 23
Public policy requires that the practice of law be limited to those
individuals found duly qualified in education and character. The
permissive right conferred on the lawyers is an individual and
limited privilege subject to withdrawal if he fails to maintain proper
standards of moral and professional conduct. The purpose is to
protect the public, the court, the client and the bar from the
incompetence or dishonesty of those unlicensed to practice law
and not subject to the disciplinary control of the court. 24
The same rule is observed in the american jurisdiction wherefrom
respondent would wish to draw support for his thesis. The
doctrines there also stress that the practice of law is limited to
those who meet the requirements for, and have been admitted to,
the bar, and various statutes or rules specifically so provide. 25
The practice of law is not a lawful business except for members of
the bar who have complied with all the conditions required by
statute and the rules of court. Only those persons are allowed to
practice law who, by reason of attainments previously acquired
through education and study, have been recognized by the courts
as possessing profound knowledge of legal science entitling them
to advise, counsel with, protect, or defend the rights claims, or
liabilities of their clients, with respect to the construction,
interpretation, operation and effect of law. 26 The justification for
excluding from the practice of law those not admitted to the bar is
found, not in the protection of the bar from competition, but in the
protection of the public from being advised and represented in
legal matters by incompetent and unreliable persons over whom
the judicial department can exercise little control. 27
PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS
We have to necessarily and definitely reject respondent's position
that the concept in the United States of paralegals as an
occupation separate from the law profession be adopted in this
jurisdiction. Whatever may be its merits, respondent cannot but
be aware that this should first be a matter for judicial rules or
legislative action, and not of unilateral adoption as it has done.
Paralegals in the United States are trained professionals. As
admitted by respondent, there are schools and universities there
which offer studies and degrees in paralegal education, while
there are none in the Philippines. 28 As the concept of the
"paralegals" or "legal assistant" evolved in the United States,
standards and guidelines also evolved to protect the general
public. One of the major standards or guidelines was developed
by the American Bar Association which set up Guidelines for the
Approval of Legal Assistant Education Programs (1973).
Legislation has even been proposed to certify legal assistants.
There are also associations of paralegals in the United States
with their own code of professional ethics, such as the National
Association of Legal Assistants, Inc. and the American Paralegal
Association. 29
In the Philippines, we still have a restricted concept and limited
acceptance of what may be considered as paralegal service. As
pointed out by FIDA, some persons not duly licensed to practice
law are or have been allowed 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 therefor. 30
Accordingly, we have adopted the American judicial policy that, in
the absence of constitutional or statutory authority, a person who
has not been admitted as an attorney cannot practice law for the
proper administration of justice cannot be hindered by the
unwarranted intrusion of an unauthorized and unskilled person
into the practice of law. 31 That policy should continue to be one of
encouraging persons who are unsure of their legal rights and
remedies to seek legal assistance only from persons licensed to
practice law in the state. 32
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. 33 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. 34
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. 35 Prior to the adoption of the code of
Professional Responsibility, the Canons of Professional Ethics
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 has
been or is engaged or concerning the manner of their conduct,
the magnitude of the interest involved, the importance of the
lawyer's position, and all other like self-laudation. 36
The standards of the legal profession condemn the lawyer's
advertisement of his talents. A lawyer cannot, without violating the
ethics of his profession. advertise his talents or skill as in a
manner similar to a merchant advertising his goods. 37 The
prescription against advertising of legal services or solicitation of
legal business rests on the fundamental postulate that the that the
practice of law is a profession. Thus, in the case of The Director
of Religious Affairs. vs. Estanislao R. Bayot 38 an advertisement,
similar to those of respondent which are involved in the present
proceeding, 39 was held to constitute improper advertising or
solicitation.
The pertinent part of the decision therein reads:
It is undeniable that the advertisement in
question was a flagrant violation by the
respondent of the ethics of his profession, it
being a brazen 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
Agustin, E.P. | 31
 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. The lawyer degrades himself and his
profession who stoops to and adopts the
practices of mercantilism by advertising his
services or offering them to the public. As a
member of the bar, he defiles the temple of
justice with mercenary activities as the
money-changers of old defiled the temple of
Jehovah. "The most worthy and effective
advertisement possible, even for a young
lawyer, . . . . 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." (Canon 27, Code of Ethics.).
We repeat, the canon of the profession tell us that 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 by-product 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 by-product of able service and the
unwholesome result of propaganda. 40
Of course, not all types of advertising or solicitation are prohibited.
The canons of the profession enumerate exceptions to the rule
against advertising or solicitation and define the extent to which
they may be undertaken. The exceptions are of two broad
categories, namely, those which are expressly allowed and those
which are necessarily implied from the restrictions. 41
The first of such exceptions is the publication in reputable law
lists, in a manner consistent with the standards of conduct
imposed by the canons, of brief biographical and informative data.
"Such data must not be misleading and may include only a
statement of the lawyer's name and the names of his professional
associates; addresses, telephone numbers, cable addresses;
branches of law practiced; date and place of birth and admission
to the bar; schools attended with dates of graduation, degrees
and other educational distinction; public or quasi-public offices;
posts of honor; legal authorships; legal teaching positions;
membership and offices in bar associations and committees
thereof, in legal and scientific societies and legal fraternities; the
fact of listings in other reputable law lists; the names and
addresses of references; and, with their written consent, the
names of clients regularly represented." 42
The law list must be a reputable law list published primarily for
that purpose; it cannot be a mere supplemental feature of a
paper, magazine, trade journal or periodical which is published
principally for other purposes. For that reason, a lawyer may not
properly publish his brief biographical and informative data in a
daily paper, magazine, trade journal or society program. Nor may
a lawyer permit his name to be published in a law list the conduct,
management or contents of which are calculated or likely to
deceive or injure the public or the bar, or to lower the dignity or
standing of the profession. 43
The use of an ordinary simple professional card is also permitted.
The card may contain only a statement of his name, the name of
the law firm which he is connected with, address, telephone
number and special branch of law practiced. The publication of a
simple announcement of the opening of a law firm or of changes
in the partnership, associates, firm name or office address, being
for the convenience of the profession, is not objectionable. He
may likewise have his name listed in a telephone directory but not
under a designation of special branch of law. 44
Verily, 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, we find and so hold that the
same definitely do not and conclusively cannot fall under any of
the above-mentioned exceptions.
PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS
The ruling in the case of Bates, et al. vs. State Bar of Arizona, 45
which is repeatedly invoked and constitutes the justification relied
upon by respondent, is obviously not applicable to the case at
bar. Foremost is the fact that the disciplinary rule involved in said
case explicitly allows a lawyer, as 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 stated therein are "not
applicable in any state unless and until it is implemented by such
authority in that state." 46 This goes to show that an exception to
the general rule, such as that being invoked by herein
respondent, can be made only if and when the canons expressly
provide for such an exception. Otherwise, the prohibition stands,
as in the case at bar.
It bears mention that in a survey conducted by the American Bar
Association after the decision in Bates, on the attitude of the
public about lawyers after viewing television commercials, it was
found that public opinion dropped significantly 47 with respect to
these characteristics of lawyers:
Trustworthy from 71% to
14%
Professional from 71% to
14%
Honest from 65% to 14%
Dignified from 45% to
14%
Secondly, it is our firm belief that with the present situation of our
legal and judicial systems, to allow the publication of
advertisements of the kind used by respondent would only serve
to aggravate what is already a deteriorating public opinion of the
legal profession whose integrity has consistently been under
attack lately by media and the community in general. At this point
in time, it is of utmost importance in the face of such negative,
even if unfair, criticisms at times, to adopt and maintain that level
of professional conduct which is beyond reproach, and to exert all
efforts to regain the high esteem formerly accorded to the legal
profession.
In sum, it is undoubtedly a misbehavior on the part of the lawyer,
subject to disciplinary action, to advertise his services except in
allowable instances 48 or to aid a layman in the unauthorized
practice of law. 49 Considering that Atty. Rogelio P. Nogales, who
is the prime incorporator, major stockholder and proprietor of The
Legal Clinic, Inc. is a member of the Philippine Bar, he is hereby
reprimanded, with a warning that a repetition of the same or
similar acts which are involved in this proceeding will be dealt with
more severely.
While we deem it necessary that the question as to the legality or
illegality of the purpose/s for which the Legal Clinic, Inc. was
created should be passed upon and determined, we are
constrained to refrain from lapsing into an obiter on that aspect
since it is clearly not within the adjudicative parameters of the
present proceeding which is merely administrative in nature. It is,
of course, imperative that this matter be promptly determined,
albeit in a different proceeding and forum, since, under the
present state of our law and jurisprudence, a corporation cannot
be organized for or engage in the practice of law in this country.
This interdiction, just like the rule against unethical advertising,
cannot be subverted by employing some so-called paralegals
supposedly rendering the alleged support services.
The remedy for the apparent breach of this prohibition by
respondent is the concern and province of the Solicitor General
who can institute the corresponding quo warranto action, 50 after
due ascertainment of the factual background and basis for the
grant of respondent's corporate charter, in light of the putative
misuse thereof. That spin-off from the instant bar matter is
referred to the Solicitor General for such action as may be
necessary under the circumstances.
ACCORDINGLY, the Court Resolved to RESTRAIN and ENJOIN
herein respondent, The Legal Clinic, Inc., from issuing or causing
the publication or dissemination of any advertisement in any form
Agustin, E.P. | 32
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. Let copies of this
resolution be furnished the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, the
Office of the Bar Confidant and the Office of the Solicitor General
for appropriate action in accordance herewith.

Narvasa, C.J., Cruz, Feliciano, Padilla, Bidin, Grio-Aquino,

Davide, Jr., Romero, Nocon, Bellosillo, Melo and Quiason, JJ.,
concur

PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS Agustin, E.P. | 33

 Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila

EN BANC

Adm. Case No. 2131 May 10, 1985

ADRIANO E. DACANAY, complainant

vs.
BAKER & MCKENZIE and JUAN G. COLLAS JR., LUIS MA.
GUERRERO, VICENTE A. TORRES, RAFAEL E.
EVANGELISTA, JR., ROMEO L. SALONGA, JOSE R.
SANDEJAS, LUCAS M. NUNAG, J. CLARO TESORO,
NATIVIDAD B. KWAN and JOSE A. CURAMMENG, JR.,
respondents.

AQUINO, J.:

Lawyer Adriano E. Dacanay, admitted to the bar in 1954, in his

1980 verified complaint, sought to enjoin Juan G. Collas, Jr. and
nine other lawyers from practising law under the name of Baker &
McKenzie, a law firm organized in Illinois.

In a letter dated November 16, 1979 respondent Vicente A.

Torres, using the letterhead of Baker & McKenzie, which contains
the names of the ten lawyers, asked Rosie Clurman for the
release of 87 shares of Cathay Products International, Inc. to H.E.
Gabriel, a client.

Attorney Dacanay, in his reply dated December 7, 1979, denied

any liability of Clurman to Gabriel. He requested that he be
informed whether the lawyer of Gabriel is Baker & McKenzie "and
if not, what is your purpose in using the letterhead of another law
office." Not having received any reply, he filed the instant
complaint.

We hold that Baker & McKenzie, being an alien law firm, cannot
practice law in the Philippines (Sec. 1, Rule 138, Rules of Court).
As admitted by the respondents in their memorandum, Baker &
McKenzie is a professional partnership organized in 1949 in
Chicago, Illinois with members and associates in 30 cities around
the world. Respondents, aside from being members of the
Philippine bar, practising under the firm name of Guerrero &
Torres, are members or associates of Baker & Mckenzie.

As pointed out by the Solicitor General, respondents' use of the

firm name Baker & McKenzie constitutes a representation that
being associated with the firm they could "render legal services of
the highest quality to multinational business enterprises and
others engaged in foreign trade and investment" (p. 3,
respondents' memo). This is unethical because Baker &
McKenzie is not authorized to practise law here. (See Ruben E.
Agpalo, Legal Ethics, 1983 Ed., p. 115.)

WHEREFORE, the respondents are enjoined from practising law

under the firm name Baker & McKenzie.

SO ORDERED.

PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS Agustin, E.P. | 34