Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
SUPREME COURT
Manila
SECOND DIVISION
A.C. No. 4497
FIRST DIVISION
[A.C. NO. 6672 : September 4, 2009]
PEDRO L. LINSANGAN, Complainant, v. ATTY.
NICOMEDES TOLENTINO, Respondent.
RE S O LUTI ON
CORONA, J.:
This is a complaint for disbarment1 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 clients 2 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 lawyerclient relations with complainant and utilize
respondent's services instead, in exchange for a loan
of P50,000. Complainant also attached "respondent's"
calling card:6
Front
NICOMEDES
TOLENTINO
, 2nd
Flr. Rm.
M-01
6th Ave.,
cor
M.H.
Del Pilar
Grace
Park,
Calooca
n City
7820
Fax:
(632)
3627821
Cel.:
(0926)
270171
9
Back
SERVICES
OFFERED:
CONSULTATION
AND ASSISTANCE
TO OVERSEAS
SEAMEN
REPATRIATED DUE
TO ACCIDENT,
INJURY, ILLNESS,
SICKNESS, DEATH
AND INSURANCE
BENEFIT CLAIMS
ABROAD.
rbl rl l
lbrr
LAW OFFFICE
CONSULTANCY &
MARITIME
SERVICES
W/ FINANCIAL
ASSISTANCE
Fe Marie L. Labiano
Paralegal
1st MIJI
Mansion
Tel:
362-
(emphasis supplied)
Hence, this complaint.
Respondent, in his defense, denied knowing Labiano
and 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
floor
of
the
house
there.
General
in
the
way.
10
JON
de
YSASI
III
ORDERED.
FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. L-28546. July 30, 1975.]
VENANCIO CASTAEDA and NICETAS
HENSON, Petitioners, v. PASTOR D. AGO,
LOURDES YU AGO and THE COURT OF
APPEALS, Respondents.
Quijano & Arroyo, for Petitioners.
Jose M. Luison for Respondents.
SYNOPSIS
In a decision of the Supreme Court affirming a
judgment of the Court of First Instance of Manila in a
replevin case, Pastor Ago was ordered to deliver
personal properties or pay sums of money to the
plaintiffs therein. The case was consequently
remanded to the trial court for execution, levy was
made on Agos house and lots, and auction was
scheduled. Ago moved to stop the sale, failing in
which he filed a petition for certiorari with the Court
of Appeals which dismissed it. This dismissal was
affirmed by the Supreme Court. Efforts to obtain a
writ of preliminary injunction having failed, the
sheriff sold the house and lots and awarded them to
herein petitioners as highest bidders. As Ago failed to
redeem, a final deed of sale was executed in favor of
the vendee in whose favor the Court of First Instance
of Manila issued writ of possession to the properties.
Subsequently, Ago, joined by his wife, filed with the
Court of First Instance of Quezon City, an action to
annul the sheriffs sale on the ground that the
obligation upon which judgment had been rendered
against Ago was his personal obligation that could
not legally affect his wifes half-share in their
conjugal house and lots levied upon and sold for the
satisfaction of the judgment. The Quezon City court
issued an ex parte writ of preliminary injunction
restraining the registration of the final deeds of sale
and the carrying out of any writ of possession. For a
couple of times this was lifted and then restored,
before the said court finally lifted the restraining
order. While these processes were being pursued,
Ago filed with the Supreme Court a petition for
certiorari and prohibition praying for a writ of
preliminary injunction to enjoin the sheriff from
DECISION
CASTRO, J.:
The parties in this case, except Lourdes Yu Ago, have
been commuting to this Court for more than a
decade.
In 1955 the petitioners Venancio Castaeda and
Nicetas Henson filed a replevin suit against Pastor
Ago in the Court of First Instance of Manila to
recover certain machineries (civil case 27251). In
1957 judgment was rendered in favor of the
plaintiffs, ordering Ago to return the machineries or
pay definite sums of money. Ago appealed, and on
June 30, 1961 this Court, in Ago v. Castaeda, L14066, affirmed the judgment. After remand, the trial
court issued on August 25, 1961 a writ of execution
for the sum of P172,923.87. Ago moved for a stay of
execution but his motion was denied, and levy was
made on Agos house and lots located in Quezon
City. The sheriff then advertised them for auction sale
on October 25, 1961. Ago moved to stop the auction
sale, failing in which he filed a petition for certiorari
with the Court of Appeals. The appellate court
dismissed the petition and Ago appealed. On January
31, 1966 this Court, in Ago v. Court of Appeals, Et
Al., L-19718, affirmed the dismissal. Ago thrice
attempted to obtain a writ of preliminary injunction
to restrain the sheriff from enforcing the writ of
execution "to save his family house and lot;" his
motions were denied, and the sheriff sold the house
and lots on March 9, 1963 to the highest bidders, the
petitioners Castaeda and Henson. Ago failed to
redeem, and on April 17, 1964 the sheriff executed
the final deed of sale in favor of the vendees
Castaeda and Henson. Upon their petition, the Court
of First Instance of Manila issued a writ of
possession to the properties.
However, on May 2, 1964 Pastor Ago, now joined by
his wife, Lourdes Yu Ago, as his co-plaintiff, filed a
complaint in the Court of First Instance of Quezon
City (civil case Q-7986) to annul the sheriffs sale on
the ground that the obligation of Pastor Ago upon
which judgment was rendered against him in the
replevin suit was his personal obligation, and that
Lourdes Yu Agos one-half share in their conjugal
residential house and lots which were levied upon
and sold by the sheriff could not legally be reached
for the satisfaction of the judgment. They alleged in
their complaint that wife Lourdes was not a party in
THIRD DIVISION
[A.C. NO. 6252 : October 5, 2004]
JONAR SANTIAGO, Complainant, v. Atty.
EDISON V. RAFANAN, Respondent.
DECISION
PANGANIBAN, J.:
Notaries public are expected to exert utmost care in
the performance of their duties, which are impressed
with public interest. They are enjoined to comply
faithfully with the solemnities and requirements of
the Notarial Law. This Court will not hesitate to mete
out appropriate sanctions to those who violate it or
neglect observance thereof.
The Case and the Facts
Before us is a verified Complaint1 filed by Jonar
Santiago, an employee of the Bureau of Jail
Management and Penology (BJMP), for the
disbarment of Atty. Edison V. Rafanan. The
Complaint was filed with the Commission on Bar
Discipline (CBD) of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP) on January 16, 2001. It charged
Atty. Rafanan with deceit; malpractice or other gross
misconduct in office under Section 27 of Rule 1382
of the Rules of Court; and violation of Canons 1.01,
1.02 and 1.033, Canon 54, and Canons 12.075 and
12.08 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
(CPR).
In his Report, IBP Investigating Commissioner
Leland R. Villadolid Jr. summarized the allegations
of the complainant in this wise:
"x x x. In his Letter-Complaint, Complainant alleged,
among others, that Respondent in notarizing several
documents on different dates failed and/or refused to:
a)make the proper notation regarding the cedula or
community tax certificate of the affiants; b) enter the
FIRST DIVISION
[A.C. No. 5299. August 19, 2003.]
ATTY. ISMAEL G. KHAN, JR., Assistant Court
Administrator and Chief, Public Information
Office, Complainant, v. ATTY. RIZALINO T.
SIMBILLO, Respondent.
[G.R. No. 157053. August 19, 2003.]
ATTY. RIZALINO T. SIMBILLO, Petitioner, v.
IBP COMMISSION ON BAR DISCIPLINE and
ATTY. ISMAEL G. KHAN, JR., in his capacity as
Assistant Court Administrator and Chief, Public
Information Office, Respondents.
R ES OLUTIO N
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
2002 9
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-2002306 and XV-2002-606.
Rules 2.03 and 3.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility read:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
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:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
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.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw
1ibrary
Problems" on the Sharon Cuneta-Gabby ConcepcionRichard Gomez case, then what may be involved is
actually the practice of law. If a non-lawyer, such as
the Legal Clinic, renders such services then it is
engaged in the unauthorized practice of law.
1.11. The Legal Clinic also appears to give
information on divorce, absence, annulment of
marriage and visas (See Annexes "A" and "B"
Petition). Purely giving informational materials may
not constitute of law. The business is similar to that
of a bookstore where the customer buys materials on
the subject and determines on the subject and
determines by himself what courses of action to take.
It is not entirely improbable, however, that aside
from purely giving information, the Legal Clinic's
paralegals may apply the law to the particular
problem of the client, and give legal advice. Such
would constitute unauthorized practice of law.
It cannot be claimed that the publication of a legal
text which publication of a legal text which purports
to say what the law is amount to legal practice. And
the mere fact that the principles or rules stated in the
text may be accepted by a particular reader as a
solution to his problem does not affect this. . . . .
Apparently it is urged that the conjoining of these
two, that is, the text and the forms, with advice as to
how the forms should be filled out, constitutes the
unlawful practice of law. But that is the situation with
many approved and accepted texts. Dacey's book is
sold to the public at large. There is no personal
contact or relationship with a particular individual.
Nor does there exist that relation of confidence and
trust so necessary to the status of attorney and client.
THIS IS THE ESSENTIAL OF LEGAL PRACTICE
THE REPRESENTATION AND ADVISING OF A
PARTICULAR PERSON IN A PARTICULAR
SITUATION. At most the book assumes to offer
general advice on common problems, and does not
purport to give personal advice on a specific problem
peculiar to a designated or readily identified person.
Similarly the defendant's publication does not purport
to give personal advice on a specific problem
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
THIRD DIVISION
[A.M. No. P-99-1292. February 26, 1999.]
JULIETA BORROMEO SAMONTE,
Complainant, v. ATTY. ROLANDO R.
GATDULA, Branch Clerk of Court, Respondent.
RE S O LUTI ON
GONZAGA-REYES, J.:
The complaint filed by Julieta Borromeo Samonte
charges Rolando R. Gatdula, RTC, Branch 220,
Quezon City with grave misconduct consisting in the
alleged engaging in the private practice of law which
is in conflict with his official functions as Branch
Clerk of Court.
Complainant alleges that she is the authorized
representative of her sister Flor Borromeo de Leon,
the plaintiff, in Civil Case No. 37-14552 for
ejectment, filed with the Metropolitan Trial Court of
Quezon City, Branch 37. A typographical error was
committed in the complaint which stated that the
address of defendant is No. 63-C instead of 63-B, P.
Tuazon Blvd., Cubao, Quezon City. The mistake was
rectified by the filing of an amended complaint which
was admitted by the Court. A decision was rendered
in favor of the plaintiff who subsequently filed a
motion for execution. Complainant, however, was
surprised to receive a temporary restraining order
signed by Judge Prudencio Castillo of Branch 220,
RTC, Quezon City, where Atty. Rolando Gatdula is
the Branch Clerk of Court, enjoining the execution of
the decision of the Metropolitan Trial Court.
Complainant alleges that the issuance of the
temporary restraining order was hasty and irregular