People v. Tuanda, A.C. 3360
6672
FACTS:
Respondent Fe T. Tuanda, a member of the Philippine
Bar, asks this Court to lift the suspension from the practice of
law imposed upon her by a decision of the Court of Appeals. In
1983, Atty. Fe Tuanda received from one Herminia A. Marquez
several pieces of jewelry with a total value of P36,000 for sale
on commission basis. In 1984, instead of returning the unsold
pieces of jewelry worth P26,250, she issued 3 checks. These
checks were dishonored by the drawee bank. Notwithstanding
receipt of the notice of dishonor, Tuanda made no effort to
settle her obligation. Criminal cases were filed, wherein she
was acquitted of estafa but was found guilty of violation of BP
22 (The Anti-Bouncing Check Law). The appellate court
affirmed the decision of the trial court and imposed further
suspension against Tuanda in the practice of law, on the
ground that the offense involves moral turpitude. Tuanda is
now appealing to the Supreme Court for her suspension to be
lifted.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the suspension of Atty. Tuanda may be lifted
HELD:
NO. The Court of Appeals correctly ruled that "the
offense [of] which she is found guilty involved moral turpitude.
Conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude relates
to and affects the good moral character of a person convicted of
such offense. Herein, BP 22 violation is a serious criminal
offense which deleteriously affects public interest and public
order. The effects of the issuance of a worthless check
transcend the private interest of parties directly involved in the
transaction and touch the interest of the community at large.
Putting valueless commercial papers in circulation injure the
banking system public interest. The crimes of which
respondent was convicted also import deceit and violation of
her attorney's oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility
under both of which she was bound to "obey the laws of the
land."
Linsangan v. Tolentino, A.C.
A complaint of disbarment was filed by Pedro Linsangan
against Atty. Nicomendes Tolentino for solicitation of clients
and encroachment of professional services. Linsangan alleged
that Tolentino with the help of paralegal Labiano convinced his
clients to transfer legal representation by promising fiscal
assistance and expeditious collection to their claims. To induce
them, Tolentino allegedly texted them multiple times and called
them persistently. To support his allegation, Linsangan
presented the sworn affidavit of James Gregorio attesting that
Labiano tried to prevail over him to sever his client-attorney
relationship with Linsangan. Also he attached “respondent’s
calling card”.
In his defense, Tolentino denies knowing Labiano and
authorizing the printing and circulating of said calling card.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Tolentino is guilty of advertising his
services.
HELD:
Yes. Atty. Tolentino suspended for violating Rules 1.03,
2.03, 8.02 and 16.04 and Canon 3 of the Code.
This rule proscribes "ambulance chasing" (the
solicitation of almost any kind of legal business by an attorney,
personally or through an agent in order to gain employment) as
a measure to protect the community from barratry and
champerty. Complainant presented substantial evidence
(consisting of the sworn statements of the very same persons
coaxed by Labiano and referred to respondent's office) to prove
that respondent indeed solicited legal business as well as
profited from referrals' suits. Although respondent initially
denied knowing Labiano in his answer, he later admitted it
during the mandatory hearing. Through Labiano's actions,
respondent's law practice was benefited. Hapless seamen were
enticed to transfer representation on the strength of Labiano's
word that respondent could produce a more favorable result.
Labiano’s calling card contained the phrase “with
financial assistance” which was clearly used to entice clients to
change counsels with promise of loans to finance their legal
actions. Money was dangled to lure clients away from their
original lawyers.
Delgado v. De La Rama
“A lawyer shall not charge rates lower than those customarily
prescribed unless the circumstances so warrant”
Facts:
In this case the plaintiff seeks to recover from the
defendant the sum of P60,000 with interest thereon and costs,
as the value of the professional services rendered by him to the
defendant in two civil cases filed in the Court of First Instance
of Occidental Negros for damages. In the first of said cases,
bearing number 1798, the sum of P1,110,000 was involved,
and in the second, bearing number 1799, the sum of P72,952.
Defendant acknowledged that the plaintiff is entitled for
sum of P5,000 to the rendered legal service, and he stand
ready for the payment of the same. However, as counterclaim,
he alleged that due to the compromise done, he lost a total of
P70,000 in the process. Both parties appealed the plaintiff
praying for a higher payment whilst the defendant for the
counterclaim to overrule the demurrer.
Issue:
Whether or not Francisco Delgado is entitled to proper
payment settled by the courts?
Held:
Yes. The plaintiff is, and for several years passed has
been practicing in Manila, where he has a large clientele, and
is recognized as one of the best lawyers of this forum; that,
moreover, on account of their importance, plaintiff employed
all his attention in the study of those cases, thereby causing
him to lay aside others and to be absent from his law office for
several days to attend personally at the trial of those cases, the
court believes that the sum of P15,000 is a fair compensation
for his professional services.
Ledesma v Climaco
Facts:
Petitioner Ledesma was assigned as counsel de parte for
an accused in a case pending in the sala of the respondent
judge. On October 13, 1964, Ledesma was appointed Election
Registrar for the Municipality of Cadiz, Negros Occidental. He
commenced discharging his duties, and filed a motion to
withdraw from his position as counsel de parte. The
respondent Judge denied him and also appointed him as
counsel de oficio for the two defendants. On November 6,
Ledesma filed a motion to be allowed to withdraw as counsel de
oficio, because the Comelec requires full time service which
could prevent him from handling adequately the defense.
Judge denied the motion. So Ledesma instituted this certiorari
proceeding.
Issue:
Whether or not the order of the respondent judged in
denying the motion of the petitioner is a grave abuse of
discretion?
Holding:
No. Ledesma’s withdrawal would be an act showing his
lack of fidelity to the duty required of the legal profession. He
ought to have known that membership in the bar is burdened
with conditions. The legal profession is dedicated to the ideal of
service, and is not a mere trade. A lawyer may be required to
act as counsel de oficio to aid in the performance of the
administration of justice. The fact that such services are
rendered without pay should not diminish the lawyer's zeal.

Ulep v The Legal Clinic
“A good and reputable lawyer needs no artificial stimulus
to generate it and to magnify his success”
Facts:
Mauricio C. Ulep, petitioner, prays this Court "to order
the respondent, The Legal Clinic, Inc., 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.”
It is the submission of petitioner that the advertisements
are demeaning of the law profession, and destructive of the
confidence of the community in the integrity of the members of
the bar.
Issue:
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.
Held:
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 is now assailed in this
proceeding. 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
skills as in a manner similar to a merchant advertising his
goods. The proscription against advertising of legal services or
solicitation of legal business rests on the fundamental
postulate that the practice of law is a profession. The canons 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.
Khan Jr. v Simbillo
“It is a profession [legal] in which duty to public service, not
money, is the primary consideration”
FACTS
Atty. Rizalino Simbillo was charged for improper
advertising and solicitation of his legal services. Respondent
admitted the act imputed to him, but argued that advertising
and solicitation per se are not prohibited acts.
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."
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.
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.
ISSUE
Whether or not Simbillos’s actions were in violation of
the Code of Professional Responsibility
HELD

Yes. 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 for the Court's indulgence, his contrition
rings hollow considering 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. Ten months later, he caused the same
advertisement to be published in the October 5, 2001 issue of
Buy & Sell. Such acts of respondent are a deliberate and
contemptuous affront on the Court's authority.