CANON 2 By Jeth Tan Cantiller v Potenciano A.M. Case No. 3195.

December 18, 1989 Facts: Herein respondent, Potenciano, is charged with deceit, fraud, and misrepresentation, and also with gross misconduct, malpractice and of acts unbecoming of an officer of the court. Complainant, after losing to an ejectment case, contracted the legal service of Potenciano. Respondent told the complainant that the temporary restraining order would be secured if the judge who would hear the case is his barkada However, when the case was raffled and assigned to Branch 153, the presiding judge asked respondent to withdraw as counsel in the case on the ground of their friendship. Respondent went into the house of complainant and asked for 2,000 pesos to be given to another judge who could secure the latters restraining order in the ejectment case. Sometime after the filing of Civil Case No. 55118, respondent informed complainant that there was a need to file another case with the Regional Trial Court to enable them to retain possession of the apartment. For this purpose, respondent told complainant to prepare the amount of 10,000 pesos allegedly to be deposited with the Treasurer's Office of Pasig as purchase price of the apartment and another 1,000.00 pesos to cover the expenses of the suit. Respondent stressed to the complainant the need and urgency of filing the new complaint. Later on during the hearing, respondent withdrew his appearance as counsel for complainant. Complainant was not able to get another lawyer as replacement. Thus, no restraining order or preliminary injunction was obtained. As a consequence, the order to vacate in the ejectment case was eventually enforced and executed. Later on the complainant wrote a letter asking for reimbursement of the amount given to respondent however the respondent did not returned the said amount (P 11 000) to the complainant. It was also found that the respondent prepared a "hastily prepared, poorly conceived, and haphazardly composed petition for annulment of judgment. Issue: Whether or not the respondent is guilty of the allegations, deceit, fraud, misrepresentation, and also with gross misconduct, malpractice and of acts unbecoming of an officer of the court, charged against him by the complainant? Held: The respondent was found guilty of the offenses charged against him and was sentenced indefinite suspension until such time he can demonstrate that he has rehabilitated himself as to deserve to resume the practice of law. His first duty was to file the best pleading within his capability as a lawyer. He had also depended on his closeness to the judge to get desired decisions. He had also extorted 10,000 from client as deposit but deposit was not required and such was also not made. Lastly, he had failed to exercise due diligence in protecting his clients interest due to the fact that four days before hearing of preliminary injunction, he already withdrew as counsel because of his reason that he had frequent attacks of pain due to hemorrhoids, however he failed to find a replacement and failed to inform the complainant to hire another lawyer in his stead. CANON 2

By Jeth Tan In Re: Tagorda GR No. 32329. March 23, 1929 Facts: The respondent, Luis B. Tagorda, a practicing attorney and a member of the provincial board of Isabela, that he made use of a card written in Spanish and Ilocano and distributed it to their municipality so he could render legal service to them. Respondent also admitted having written a letter in Ilocano addressed to a lieutenant in his home municipality in Echague, Isabela in which he stated his continued exercise of his profession as a lawyer and a notary public, besides being a Member of the Board of the municipality of Ilagan, Isabela. He also stated that he would be willing to render his legal services to the people who have not contracted any other lawyers services. Respondents service is based on the registration of land titles and charge people three pesos for every registration. Issue: Whether or not the suspension of Luis B. Tagorda is meritorious under the code of professional responsibility by advertising and soliciting legal work by distributing pamphlets? Held: The respondent was suspended for 1 month under the Rule 2.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility because it is stated in the rule that A lawyer shall not do or permit to be done any act designed primarily to solicit legal business. Practice of law is not a trade or a business. It is a profession in which duty to public service, not money, is the primary consideration.