Case Digest

Adelino H. Ledesma v. Hon. Rafael C. Climaco

G.R. No. L- 23815 (June 28, 1974)
Legal Ethics : Definition
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
rqeuired 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.
Ratio:
The only attorneys who cannot practice law by reason of their office are Judges, or
other officials or employees of the superior courts or the office of the solicitor
General (Section 32 Rule 127 of the Rules of Court [Section 35 of Rule 138 of the
Revised Rules of Court]. The lawyer involved not being among them, remained as
counsel of record since he did not file a motion to withdraw as defendantappellants counsel after his appointment as Register of Deeds. Nor was substitution
of attorney asked either by him or by the new counsel for the defendant-appellant
(People vs. Williams CA G.R. Nos. 00375-76, February 28, 1963)
To avoid any frustration thereof, especially in the case of an indigent
defendant, a lawyer may be required to act as counsel de officio (People v. Daban)
Moreover, The right of an accused in a criminal case to be represented by counsel is
a constitutional right of the highest importance, and there can be no fair hearing
with due process of law unless he is fully informed of his rights in this regard and
given opportunity to enjoy them (People vs. Holgado, L-2809, March 22, 1950)

The trial court in a criminal case has authority to provide the accused with
a counsel de officio for such action as it may deem fit to safeguard the rights of the
accused (Provincial Fiscal of Rizal vs. Judge Muoz Palma, L-15325, August 31, 1930)
IN RE: LUIS B. TAGORDA 53 PHIL 37 3/23/29

FACTS:
The respondent Atty. Luis Tagorda, a member of the provincial board of
Isabela, admits that in the last general elections he made use of a card written in
Spanish and Ilocano, which in translation, read as follows:
LUIS B. TAGORDA Attoney; Notary Public; CANDIDATE FOR THIRD
MEMBER, Province of Isabela. (NOTE.- as notaty public, he can execute for 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 reads as follow:
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 Iligan
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, I would request your kind favor to transmit this information to your barrio
people in any of your meeting 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.

HELD:
Application is give to se. 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as
amended by Act NO. 2828, providing The practice of soliciting cases at law for the
purpose of gain, either personally or through paid agents or brokets, constitutes
malpractice, and to Canon 27 and 28 of the Code of Ethics adopted by the
American Bar Association in 1908 and by the Philippines Bar Association in 1917, to
the case of the respondent lawyer. The law is a profession and not a business. The
solicitation of employment by an attorney is a ground for disbarment or suspension.

1.
2.

Respondent Tagorda is suspended from the practice of law for 1

month.
For advertising his services in the Sunday Tribune respondent
attorney is reprimanded.

IN RE: TAGORDA
Facts:
Luis Tagorda was a member of the provincial board of Isabela. Previous to the last election, he admits that
he made use of a card written in Spanish containing the fact that he was a candidate for third member of the Province
of Isabela & offering services as notary public (such as free consultation, execution of deed of sale, etc.). He also
admits that he wrote a letter addressed to a lieutenant of a barrio if his home municipality saying that he will continue
his practice of law and for the lieutenant to make known to the people of his desire to serve as lawyer & notary public
(including his services to handle land registration cases for P3/every registration).
Issue:
W/N acts of Tagorda constituted advertising
Held:
Yes, Tagorda is in a way advertising his services and is contrary to the Canons of Professional Ethics.
Solicitation of business by circulars or advertisements, or by personal communications or interviews not warranted by
personal relations is unprofessional. His acts warrant disbarment, but because of the mitigating circumstance of his
youth and inexperience, he is therefore suspended.
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. It is also unprofessional for a lawyer to volunteer advice to bring
lawsuit. Lastly, solicitation of cases result in the lowering of the confidence of the community and integrity of the
members of the bar (as it results in needless litigations and in incenting to strife otherwise peaceful citizens).
ATTY. ISMAEL KHAN V. ATTY RIZALINO SIMBILLO
FACTS
A paid advertisement in the Philippine Daily Inquirer was published which reads: Annulment of Marriage
Specialist [contact number]. Espeleta, a staff of the Supreme Court, called up the number but it was Mrs. Simbillo
who answered. She claims that her husband, Atty. Simbillo was an expert in handling annulment cases and can
guarantee a court decree within 4-6mos provided the case will not involve separation of property and custody of
children. It appears that similar advertisements were also published.
An administrative complaint was filed which was referred to the IBP for investigation and recommendation.
The IBP resolved to suspend Atty. Simbillo for 1year. Note that although the name of Atty. Simbillo did not appear in
the advertisement, he admitted the acts imputed against him but argued that he should not be charged. He said that
it was time to lift the absolute prohibition against advertisement because the interest of the public isnt served in any
way by the prohibition.
ISSUE
Whether or not Simbillo violated Rule2.03 & Rule3.01.
HELD
Yes!
The practice of law is not a business --- it is a profession in which the primary duty is public service and
money. Gaining livelihood is a secondary consideration while duty to public service and administration of justice
should be primary. Lawyers should subordinate their primary interest.
Worse, advertising himself as an annulment of marriage specialist he erodes and undermines the sanctity
of an institution still considered as sacrosanct --- he in fact encourages people otherwise disinclined to dissolve their
marriage bond.
Solicitation of business is not altogether proscribed but for it to be proper it must be compatible with the
dignity of the legal profession. Note that the law list where the lawyers name appears must be a reputable law list
only for that purpose --- a lawyer may not properly publish in a daily paper, magazineetc., nor may a lawyer permit
his name to be published the contents of which are likely to deceive or injure the public or the bar.

MAURICIO C. ULEP V. THE LEGAL CLINIC, INC.

FACTS:
This is a petition praying for an order to the respondent to cease and desist from issuing certain
advertisements pertaining to the exercise of the law profession other than those allowed by law.
The said advertisement of the Legal Clinic invites potential clients to inquire about secret marriage and
divorce in Guam and annulment, and the like. It also says that they are giving free books on Guam Divorce.
Ulep claims that such advertisements are unethical and destructive of the confidence of the community in
the integrity of lawyers. He, being a member of the bar, is ashamed and offended by the said advertisements. On the
other hand, the respondent, while admitting of the fact of the publication of the advertisements, claims that it is not
engaged in the practice of law but is merely rendering legal support services through paralegals. It also contends that
such advertisements should be allowed based on certain US cases decided.
ISSUE:
W/N the Legal Clinic Inc is engaged in the practice of law.
W/N the same can properly be the subject of the advertisements complained of.
HELD/RATIO:
Yes, it constitutes practice of law. No, the ads should be enjoined.
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.
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. When a person participates in a trial and advertises himself as a lawyer, he is in the
practice of law. 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. Giving advice for compensation
regarding the legal status and rights of another and the conduct with respect thereto constitutes a practice of law. The
practice of law, therefore, covers a wide range of activities in and out of court. And applying the criteria, respondent
Legal Clinic Inc. is, as advertised, engaged in the practice of law.
What is palpably clear is that respondent corporation gives out legal information to laymen and lawyers. 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."
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. The only exceptions are when he appears in a reputable law list and use of an ordinary, simple
professional card.
The advertisements do not fall under these exceptions. 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. Hence, it should be enjoined.