PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS – CASE DIGESTS
Director of Religious Affairs vs Estanislao Bayot The most worthy and effective advertisement possible, even for a
74 Phil 579 – Legal Ethics – Malpractice
In June 1943, Bayot advertised in a newspaper that he helps people in
securing marriage licenses; that he does so avoiding delays and
publicity; that he also makes marriage arrangements; that legal
consultations are free for the poor; and that everything is confidential.
The Director of Religious Affairs took notice of the ad and so he sued
Bayot for Malpractice.
Bayot initially denied having published the advertisement. But later,
he admitted the same and asked for the court’s mercy as he promised
to never repeat the act again.
ISSUE: Whether or not Bayot is guilty of Malpractice.
HELD: Yes. 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.” The advertisement he caused to be published is a
brazen solicitation of business from the public. .” It is highly unethical
for an attorney to advertise his talents or skill as a merchant advertises
his wares. The Supreme Court again emphasized that best
advertisement for a lawyer is the establishment of a well-merited
reputation for professional capacity and fidelity to trust. But because
of Bayot’s plea for leniency and his promise and the fact that he did
not earn any case by reason of the ad, the Supreme Court merely
reprimanded him.
In Re: Luis Tagorda
53 Phil 37 – Legal Ethics – Malpractice – Solicitation of Legal Business –
Advertisement in the Legal Profession – Stirring Up of Litigation
In 1928, Luis Tagorda was a provincial board member of Isabela.
Before his election, he campaigned that he is a lawyer and a notary
public; that as a notary public he can do notarial acts such as execution
of deeds of sale, etc.; that as a lawyer, he can help clients collect
debts; that he offers free consultation; that he is willing to serve the
poor.
When he won, he wrote a letter to the barrio lieutenant of Echague,
Isable advising the latter that even though he was elected as a
provincial board member, he can still practice law; that he wants the
lieutenant to tell the same to his people; that he is willing to receive
works regarding preparations of sales contracts and affidavits etc.;
that he is willing to receive land registration cases for a charge of three
pesos.
ISSUE: Whether or not Tagorda is guilty of malpractice.
HELD: Yes. Tagorda admitted doing the foregoing acts. The practice of
soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either personally or
through paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice.
young lawyer, and especially with his brother lawyers, is the
establishment of a well- merited reputation for professional capacity
and fidelity to trust. This cannot be forced, but must be the outcome
of character and conduct. Solicitation of business by circulars or
advertisements, or by personal communications or interviews not
warranted by personal relations, is unprofessional. It is equally
unprofessional to procure business by indirection through touters of
any kind, whether allied real estate firms or trust companies
advertising to secure the drawing of deeds or wills or offering retainers
in exchange for executorships or trusteeships to be influenced by the
lawyer. Indirect advertisement for business by furnishing or inspiring
newspaper comments concerning the manner of their conduct, the
magnitude of the interests involved, the importance of the lawyer’s
position, and all other like self-laudation, defy the traditions and lower
the tone of our high calling, and are intolerable.
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.
Tagorda’s liability is however mitigated by the fact that he is a young
inexperienced lawyer and that he was unaware of the impropriety of
his acts. So instead of being disbarred, he was suspended from the
practice of law for a month.
PETITION FOR AUTHORITY TO CONTINUE USE OF THE FIRM NAME
“SYCIP, SALAZAR, FELICIANO, HERNANDEZ & CASTILLO".
PETITION FOR AUTHORITY TO CONTINUE USE OF THE FIRM NAME
“SYCIP, SALAZAR, FELICIANO, HERNANDEZ & CASTILLO.”
July 30, 1979
Facts:
Petitions were filed by the surviving partners of Atty. Alexander Sycip,
who died on May 5, 1975 and by the surviving partners of Atty.
Herminio Ozaeta, who died on February 14, 1976, praying that they be
allowed to continue using, in the names of their firms, the names of
partners who had passed away.
Petitioners contend that the continued use of the name of a deceased
or former partner when permissible by local custom, is not unethical
but care should be taken that no imposition or deception is practiced
through this use. They also contend that no local custom prohibits the
continued use of a deceased partner’s name in a professional firm’s
name; there is no custom or usage in the Philippines, or at least in the
Greater Manila Area, which recognizes that the name of a law firm
necessarily identifies the individual members of the firm.
Issue:
WON the surviving partners may be allowed by the court to retain the
name of the partners who already passed away in the name of the
firm? NO
Held:
In the case of Register of Deeds of Manila vs. China Banking
Corporation, the SC said:
The Court believes that, in view of the personal and confidential
nature of the relations between attorney and client, and the high
standards demanded in the canons of professional ethics, no practice
should be allowed which even in a remote degree could give rise to
the possibility of deception. Said attorneys are accordingly advised to
drop the names of the deceased partners from their firm name.
The public relations value of the use of an old firm name can tend to
create undue advantages and disadvantages in the practice of the
profession. An able lawyer without connections will have to make a
name for himself starting from scratch. Another able lawyer, who can
join an old firm, can initially ride on that old firm’s reputation
established by deceased partners.
The court also made the difference from the law firms and business
corporations:
A partnership for the practice of law is not a legal entity. It is a mere
relationship or association for a particular purpose. … It is not a
partnership formed for the purpose of carrying on trade or business or
of holding property.” Thus, it has been stated that “the use of a nom
de plume, assumed or trade name in law practice is improper.
We find such proof of the existence of a local custom, and of the
elements requisite to constitute the same, wanting herein. Merely
because something is done as a matter of practice does not mean that
Courts can rely on the same for purposes of adjudication as a juridical
custom.
Petition suffers legal and ethical impediment.
Dacanay vs Baker & McKenzie et al
Legal Ethics – Use of Foreign Law Firm Name
In November 1979, Atty. Vicente Torres sent a letter to one Rosie
Clurman, represented by Atty. Adriano Dacanay, asking Clurman to
release some shares to Torres’ client. The letterhead contained the
name “Baker & McKenzie”. Dacanay denied Clurman’s liability and at
the same time he asked why is Torres using the letterhead “Baker &
McKenzie”, a foreign partnership established in Chicago, Illinois. No
reply was received so Dacanay filed an administrative complaint
enjoining Torres from using “Baker & McKenzie”.
Later, Torres said that he is an associate of the law firm Guerrero &
Torres; that their law firm is a member of Baker & McKenzie; that the
said foreign firm has members in 30 cities all over the world; that they
associated with them in order to make a representation that they can
render legal services of the highest quality to multinational business
enterprises and others engaged in foreign trade and investment.
ISSUE: Whether or not the use of a foreign law office name is allowed.
Page | 1
PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS – CASE DIGESTS

HELD: No. Baker & McKenzie, being an alien law firm, cannot practice
law in the Philippines. Such use of foreign law firm name is unethical
therefore Torres and his law firm are enjoined from using “Baker &
McKenzie” in their practice of law.
In Re: Felipe Del Rosario
52 Phil 399 – Legal Ethics – Practice of Law is a Privilege
Felipe Del Rosario took the bar in 1925 for the second time and he
failed. He again took it in 1926 and he failed again. In 1927, he filed a
motion before the Supreme Court in which he alleged that there was a
mistake in the computation of his exam results in the 1925 bar exams.
He was then admitted to the bar.
HOWEVER, a subsequent investigation by the city fiscal uncovered that
Del Rosario, together with one Juan Villaflor – a former employee of
the Supreme Court, falsified some documents to make it appear that
Del Rosario actually passed the 1925 bar exams. The two were
subsequently charged with falsification. Villaflor was convicted as he
pleaded guilty but Del Rosario was acquitted for lack of evidence. The
fiscal however recommended Del Rosario to surrender his certificate
of attorney.
ISSUE: Whether or not the recommendation by the fiscal is correct.
HELD: Yes. The mere fact that Villaflor was convicted proves that Del
Rosario is unworthy of the certificate of attorney. The crime which
Villaflor is proven guilty of has benefited only Del Rosario and it is
impossible that the latter has no knowledge of this illegal machination.
But shouldn’t the Supreme Court just allow Del Rosario to take the bar
exams again?
No. The practice of the law is not an absolute right to be granted
everyone who demands it, but is a privilege to be extended or
withheld in the exercise of a sound discretion. The standards of the
legal profession are not satisfied by conduct which merely enables one
to escape the penalties of the criminal law. It would be a disgrace to
the Judiciary to receive one whose integrity is questionable as an
officer of the court, to clothe him with all the prestige of its
confidence, and then to permit him to hold himself out as a duly
authorized member of the bar.
turn over the proceeds of the sale. This forced Soledad to file an action
for a sum of money before the RTC, Quezon City.
The court rendered its decision ordering the Atty. to pay Soledad the
sum of P16,000 as principal obligation, with at the legal rate from the
date of the commencement of the action.
An appeal to the CA was made. However, the appeal was dismissed for
failure to pay the required docket fee within the reglementary period
despite notice.
Soledad filed a motion for the issuance of an alias writ of execution.
But it appears that only a partial satisfaction of the P16,000 judgment
was made, leaving P13,800 unsatisfied. In payment for the latter, Atty.
issued four postdated checks but was dishonored because the account
against which they were drawn was closed.
Hence, Soledad was forced to file four criminal complaints for violation
of B.P. Blg. 22 before the MTC, Quezon City.
In a joint affidavit, Atty. Ricafort admitted having drawn and issued
said four postdated checks in favor of Soledad. Allegedly believing in
good faith that said checks had already been encashed by Soledad, he
subsequently closed his checking account in China Banking
Corporation, Legazpi City, from which said four checks were drawn. He
was not notified that the checks were dishonored. Had he been
notified, he would have made the necessary arrangements with the
bank
The court required Atty. to comment on the complaint. But he never
did despite the favorable action on his three motions for extension of
time to file the comment. His failure to do so compelled Soledad to file
a motion to cite Atty. in contempt on the ground that his strategy to
file piecemeal motions for extension of time to submit the comment
“smacks of a delaying tactic scheme that is unworthy of a member of
the bar and a law dean.”
The IBP findings show that the Atty. had no intention to “honor” the
money judgment against him. It recommended that Atty. be declared
“guilty of misconduct in his dealings with complainant” and be
suspended from the practice of law for at least one year and pay the
amount of the checks issued to the complainant.
lawyers. Instead of promoting such confidence and respect, he
miserably failed to live up to the standards of the legal profession.
His act of issuing bad checks in satisfaction of the alias writ of
execution for money judgment rendered by the trial court was a clear
attempt to defeat the ends of justice. His failure to make good the
checks despite demands and the criminal cases for violation of B.P.
Blg. 22 showed his continued defiance of judicial processes, which he,
as an officer of the court, was under continuing duty to uphold.
To further demonstrate his very low regard for the courts and judicial
processes, he even had the temerity of making a mockery of the
court’s generosity to him. We granted his three motions for extension
of time to file his comment on the complaint in this case. Yet, not only
did he fail to file the comment, he as well did not even bother to
explain such failure notwithstanding our resolution declaring him as
having waived the filing of the comment. To the SC, Atty. openly
showed a high degree of irresponsibility amounting to willful
disobedience to its lawful orders.
Atty. Ricafort then knowingly and willfully violated Rules 12.04 and
12:03 of Canon 12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility stating
that:
Lawyers should avoid any action that would unduly delay a case,
impede the execution of a judgment or misuse court processes; and
that lawyers, after obtaining extensions of time to file pleadings,
memoranda or briefs, should not let the period lapse without
submitting the same or offering an explanation for their failure to do
so.
The SC indefinitely suspended Atty. Ricafort from the practice of law
and directed to pay Soledad P13,800.

Nunez v Ricafort Issue:

382 SCRA 381
Facts:
An administrative complaint was by Soledad Nuñez, a septuagenarian
represented by her attorney-in-fact Ananias B. Co, Jr., seeking the
disbarment of Atty. Romulo Ricafort on the ground of grave
misconduct.
Sometime in October 1982, Soledad authorized Atty. Ricafort to sell
her two parcels of land located in Legazpi City for P40,000. She agreed
to the lawyer 10% of the price as commission. Atty. Ricafort succeeded
in selling the lots, but despite Soledad’s repeated demands, he did not
Whether or not Atty. Romulo Ricafort is guilty of grave misconduct in
his dealings with complainant.
Held:
YES. There is a blatant violation of Rule 1:01 of Canon 1 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility which provides:
A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest and immoral or
deceitful conduct.
By violating Rule 1:01 of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, Atty. diminished public confidence in the law and the

Page | 2