ATTY. ISMAEL G. KHAN, JR. vs. ATTY. RIZALINO T.

SIMBILLO

Facts:

The administrative complaint arose from the paid advertisement that appeared in the July 5, 2000 issue of Philippine
Daily Inquirer which read: Annulment of Marriage Specialist 532-4333/521-2667. Ms. Ma. Theresa Espeleta, a staff
member of the Public Information Office of the Supreme Court, took notice of the advertisement and inquired by
pretending as an interested party. After such inquiry, confirming that Atty. Rizalino Simbillo is actually promoting
himself as an expert in handling annulment cases and is guaranteeing a court decree within four to six months with a
fee of P48,000 to be paid in installment basis, further research was conducted by the Office of the Court
Administrator (OCA). The research revealed other similar advertisements published in two other newspapers –
August 2 and 6, 2000 issues of Manila Bulletin and August 5, 2000 issue of The Philippine Star. Atty. Ismael Khan,
Jr., afterwards, in his capacity as Assistant Court Administrator and Chief of the Public Information Office filed an
administrative complaint against Atty. Simbillo for improper advertising and solicitation in violation of Rule
2.03 and Rule 3.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) and Rule 138, Section 27 of the Rules of
Court. The IBP, taking cognizance of the referral to investigate, report and recommend, found the respondent guilty.
Respondent, then, filed an Urgent Motion for Reconsideration, which was denied. Hence, this petition for certiorari.

Issue:

Whether or not Atty. Rizalino Simbillo is guilty of violating Rule 2.03 and Rule 3.01 of CPR.

Held:

Yes. The Court agreed with the IBP’s resolution, holding that the practice of law is not a business but a profession in
which duty to public service and not money is the primary consideration. By advertising himself as an “Annulment
Specialist,” he undermined the stability and sanctity of marriage —encouraging people who might have otherwise
been disinclined and would have refrained from dissolving their marriage bonds, to do so. In addition, although
solicitation of legal business is not altogether proscribed, for solicitation to be proper, it must be compatible with the
dignity of the legal profession which the petitioner failed to do. Therefore, the Court suspended the petitioner from
the practice of law for one year and sternly warned him that a repetition of the same or similar offense will be dealt
with more severely.