Legal Ethics Assignment 3

Lawyer's Oath
I, do solemnly swear that I will maintain allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines, I will support the Constitution and obey the
laws as well as the legal orders of the duly constituted authorities therein; I will do no falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in
court; I will not wittingly or willingly promote or sue any groundless, false or unlawful suit, or give aid nor consent to the same; I will
delay no man for money or malice, and will conduct myself as a lawyer according to the best of my knowledge and discretion, with all
good fidelity as well to the courts as to my clients; and I impose upon myself these voluntary obligations without any mental
reservation or purpose of evasion. So help me God.
CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY

(Promulgated June 21, 1988)
CHAPTER I. THE LAWYER AND SOCIETY
CANON 1 - A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF THE LAND AND PROMOTE
RESPECT FOR LAW OF AND LEGAL PROCESSES.
Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
Rule 1.02 - A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening confidence in the legal system.
Rule 1.03 - A lawyer shall not, for any corrupt motive or interest, encourage any suit or proceeding or delay any man's cause.
Rule 1.04 - A lawyer shall encourage his clients to avoid, end or settle a controversy if it will admit of a fair settlement.
CANON 2 - A LAWYER SHALL MAKE HIS LEGAL SERVICES AVAILABLE IN AN EFFICIENT AND CONVENIENT
MANNER COMPATIBLE WITH THE INDEPENDENCE, INTEGRITY AND EFFECTIVENESS OF THE PROFESSION.
Rule 2.01 - A lawyer shall not reject, except for valid reasons, the cause of the defenseless or the oppressed.
Rule 2.02 - In such cases, even if the lawyer does not accept a case, he shall not refuse to render legal advice to the person concerned
if only to the extent necessary to safeguard the latter's rights.
Rule 2.03 - A lawyer shall not do or permit to be done any act designed primarily to solicit legal business.
Rule 2.04 - A lawyer shall not charge rates lower than those customarily prescribed unless the circumstances so warrant.
CANON 3 - A LAWYER IN MAKING KNOWN HIS LEGAL SERVICES SHALL USE ONLY TRUE, HONEST, FAIR,
DIGNIFIED AND OBJECTIVE INFORMATION OR STATEMENT OF FACTS.
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 3.02 - In the choice of a firm name, no false, misleading or assumed name shall be used. The continued use of the name of a
deceased partner is permissible provided that the firm indicates in all its communications that said partner is deceased.
Rule 3.03 - Where a partner accepts public office, he shall withdrawal from the firm and his name shall be dropped from the firm
name unless the law allows him to practice law currently.
Rule 3.04 - A lawyer shall not pay or give anything of value to representatives of the mass media in anticipation of, or in return for,
publicity to attract legal business.
CANON 4 - A LAWYER SHALL PARTICIPATE IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE LEGAL SYSTEM BY INITIATING OR
SUPPORTING EFFORTS IN LAW REFORM AND IN THE IMPROVEMENT OF THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE.
1
CANON 5 - A LAWYER SHALL KEEP ABREAST OF LEGAL DEVELOPMENTS, PARTICIPATE IN CONTINUING LEGAL
EDUCATION PROGRAMS, SUPPORT EFFORTS TO ACHIEVE HIGH STANDARDS IN LAW SCHOOLS AS WELL AS IN
THE PRACTICAL TRAINING OF LAW STUDENTS AND ASSIST IN DISSEMINATING THE LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE.
CANON 6 - THESE CANONS SHALL APPLY TO LAWYERS IN GOVERNMENT SERVICES IN THE DISCHARGE OF THEIR
TASKS.
Rule 6.01 - The primary duty of a lawyer engaged in public prosecution is not to convict but to see that justice is done. The
suppression of facts or the concealment of witnesses capable of establishing the innocence of the accused is highly reprehensible and
is cause for disciplinary action.
Rule 6.02 - A lawyer in the government service shall not use his public position to promote or advance his private interests, nor allow
the latter to interfere with his public duties.
Rule 6.03 - A lawyer shall not, after leaving government service, accept engagement or employment in connection with any matter in
which he had intervened while in said service.
Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
B.M. No. 850 August 22, 2000
MANDATORY CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION (MCLE)

ADOPTING THE RULES ON MANDATORY CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION FOR MEMBERS OF THE
INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES
EN BANC
RESOLUTION
Considering the Rules on Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) for members of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
(IBP), recommended by the IBP, endorsed by the Philippine Judicial Academy, and reviewed and passed upon by the Supreme Court
Committee on Legal Education, the Court hereby resolves to adopt, as it hereby adopts, the following rules for proper
implementation:
RULE 1
PURPOSE
Section 1. Purpose of the MCLE
Continuing legal education is required of members of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) to ensure that throughout their career,
they keep abreast with law and jurisprudence, maintain the ethics of the profession and enhance the standards of the practice of law.
RULE 2
MANDATORY CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION
Section 1. Constitution of the MCLE Committee
Within two (2) months from the approval of these Rules by the Supreme Court En Banc, the MCLE Committee shall be constituted in
accordance with these Rules.
Section 2. Requirements of completion of MCLE
2
Members of the IBP not exempt under Rule 7 shall complete, every three (3) years, at least thirty-six (36) hours of continuing legal
education activities approved by the MCLE Committee. Of the 36 hours:
(a) At least six (6) hours shall be devoted to legal ethics.
(b) At least (4) hours shall be devoted to trial and pretrial skills.
(c) At least five (5) hours shall be devoted to alternative dispute resolution.
(d) At least nine (9) hours shall be devoted to updates on substantive and procedural laws, and jurisprudence.
(e) At least four (4) hours shall be devoted to legal writing and oral advocacy.
(f) At least two (2) hours shall be devoted to international law and international conventions.
(g) The remaining six (6) hours shall be devoted to such subjects as may be prescribed by the MCLE Committee.
RULE 3
COMPLIANCE PERIOD
Section 1. Initial compliance period
The initial compliance period shall begin not later than three (3) months from the constitution of the MCLE Committee. Except for the
initial compliance period for members admitted or readmitted after the establishment of the program, all compliance periods shall be
for thirty-six (36) months and shall begin the day after the end of the previous compliance period.
Section 2. Compliance Group 1.
Members in the National Capital Region (NCR) or Metro Manila shall be permanently assigned to Compliance Group 1.
Members in Luzon outside NCR shall be permanently assigned to Compliance Group 2.
Members in Visayas and Mindanao shall be permanently assigned to Compliance Group 3.
Section 5. Compliance period for members admitted or readmitted after establishment of the program.
Members admitted or readmitted to the Bar after the establishment of the program shall be permanently assigned to the appropriate
Compliance Group based on their Chapter membership on the date of admission or readmission.
The initial compliance period after admission or readmission shall begin on the first day of the month of admission or readmission and
shall end on the same day as that of all other members in the same Compliance Group.
(a) Where four (4) months or less remain of the initial compliance period after admission or readmission, the member is not
required to comply with the program requirement for the initial compliance.
(b) Where more than four (4) months remain of the initial compliance period after admission or readmission, the member
shall be required to complete a number of hours of approved continuing legal education activities equal to the number of
months remaining in the compliance period in which the member is admitted or readmitted. Such member shall be required to
complete a number of hours of education in legal ethics in proportion to the number of months remaining in the compliance
period. Fractions of hours shall be rounded up to the next whole number.
3
RULE 4
COMPUTATION OF CREDIT UNITS
Section 1. Guidelines
The following are the guidelines for computation of credit units (CU):
PROGRAMS CREDIT UNITS SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS
1. SEMINARS, CONVENTIONS, CONFERENCES, SYMPOSIA, IN-HOUSE EDUCATION PROGRAMS,

WORKSHOPS, DIALOGUES, ROUND TABLE DISCUSSIONS BY APPROVED PROVIDERS UNDER RULE 7 AND
OTHER RELATED RULES
1.1 PARTICIPANT 1 CU PER HOUR CERTIFICATE OF ATTENDANCE WITH NUMBER OF HOURS
1.2 LECTURER 5 CU PER HOUR PHOTOCOPY OF PLAQUE OR SPONSOR'S CERTIFICATION
1.3 RESOURCE 3 CU PER HOUR PHOTOCOPY OF PLAQUE OR SPONSOR'S SPEAKER CERTIFICATION
1.4 ASSIGNED 2 CU PER HOUR CERTIFICATION FROM SPONSORING PENALIST/ ORGANIZATION

REACTOR/COMMENTATOR
1.5 MODERATOR/ 2 CU PER HOUR CERTIFICATION FROM SPONSORING COORDINATOR/

ORGANIZATION FACILITATOR
2. AUTHORSHIP, EDITING AND REVIEW
2.1 RESEARCH/ 5-10 CREDIT UNITS DULY CERTIFIED/PUBLISHED INNOVATIVE TECHNICAL

REPORT/PAPER PROGRAM/CREATIVE PROJECT
2.2 BOOK 50-100 PP 101+ PUBLISHED BOOK SINGLE AUTHOR 12-16 CU 17-20 CU
2 AUTHORS 10-12 CU 13-16 CU
3 OR MORE 5-6 CU 7-11 CU
2.3 BOOK EDITOR 1/2 OF THE CU OF PUBLISHED BOOK WITH PROOF AUTHORSHIP AS EDITOR
CATEGORY
2.4 LEGAL ARTICLE 5-10 PP 11+ PUBLISHED ARTICLE SINGLE AUTHOR 6 CU 8 CU

2 AUTHORS 4 CU 6 CU
3 OR MORE 2 CU 4 CU
2.5 LEGAL 3-6 CU PER ISSUE PUBLISHED NEWSLETTER/JOURNAL NEWSLETTER/LAW JOURNAL

EDITOR
3. PROFESSIONAL 6 CU PER CHAIR CERTIFICATION OF LAW DEAN CHAIR/BAR 1 CU PER LECTURE OR BAR
REVIEW DIRECTOR REVIEW/ HOUR LECTURE/LAW TEACHING
Section 2. Limitation on certain credit units
In numbers 2 and 3 of the guidelines in the preceding Section, the total maximum credit units shall not exceed twenty (20) hours per
three (3) years.
RULE 5
CATEGORIES OF CREDIT
4
Section 1. Classes of credits
The credits are either participatory or non-participatory.
Section 2. Claim for participatory credit
Participatory credit may be claimed for:
(a) Attending approved education activities like seminars, conferences, symposia, in-house education programs, workshops,
dialogues or round table discussions.
(b) Speaking or lecturing, or acting as assigned panelist, reactor, commentator, resource speaker, moderator, coordinator or
facilitator in approved education activities.
(c) Teaching in a law school or lecturing in a bar review class.
Section 3. Claim for non-participatory credit
Non-participatory credit may be claimed per compliance period for:
(a) Preparing, as an author or co-author, written materials published or accepted for publication, e.g., in the form of an article,
chapter, book, or book review which contribute to the legal education of the author member, which were not prepared in the
ordinary course of the member's practice or employment.
(b) Editing a law book, law journal or legal newsletter.
RULE 6
COMPUTATION OF CREDIT HOURS
Section 1. Computation of credit hours
Credit hours are computed based on actual time spent in an activity (actual instruction or speaking time), in hours to the nearest one-
quarter hour.
RULE 7
EXEMPTIONS
Section 1. Parties exempted from the MCLE
The following members of the Bar are exempt from the MCLE requirement:
(a) The President and the Vice President of the Philippines, and the Secretaries and Undersecretaries of Executives
Departments;
(b) Senators and Members of the House of Representatives;
(c) The Chief Justice and Associate Justices of the Supreme Court, incumbent and retired members of the judiciary,
incumbent members of the Judicial and Bar Council and incumbent court lawyers covered by the Philippine Judicial
Academy program of continuing judicial education;
(d) The Chief State Counsel, Chief State Prosecutor and Assistant Secretaries of the Department of Justice;
(e) The Solicitor General and the Assistant Solicitor General;
(f) The Government Corporate Counsel, Deputy and Assistant Government Corporate Counsel;
5
(g) The Chairmen and Members of the Constitutional Commissions;
(h) The Ombudsman, the Overall Deputy Ombudsman, the Deputy Ombudsmen and the Special Prosecutor of the Office of
the Ombudsman;
(i) Heads of government agencies exercising quasi-judicial functions;
(j) Incumbent deans, bar reviews and professors of law who have teaching experience for at least 10 years accredited law
schools;
(k) The Chancellor, Vice-Chancellor and members of the Corps of Professors and Professorial Lectures of the Philippine
Judicial Academy; and
(l) Governors and Mayors.
Section 2. Other parties exempted from the MCLE
The following Members of the Bar are likewise exempt:
(a) Those who are not in law practice, private or public.
(b) Those who have retired from law practice with the approval of the IBP Board of Governors.
Section 3. Good cause for exemption from or modification of requirement
A member may file a verified request setting forth good cause for exemption (such as physical disability, illness, post graduate study
abroad, proven expertise in law, etc.) from compliance with or modification of any of the requirements, including an extension of time
for compliance, in accordance with a procedure to be established by the MCLE Committee.
Section 4. Change of status
The compliance period shall begin on the first day of the month in which a member ceases to be exempt under Sections 1, 2, or 3 of
this Rule and shall end on the same day as that of all other members in the same Compliance Group.
Section 5. Proof of exemption
Applications for exemption from or modification of the MCLE requirement shall be under oath and supported by documents.
RULE 8
STANDARDS FOR APPROVAL OF EDUCATION ACTIVITIES
Section 1. Approval of MCLE program
Subject to the rules as may be adopted by the MCLE Committee, continuing legal education program may be granted approval in
either of two (2) ways: (1) the provider of the activity is an approved provider and certifies that the activity meets the criteria of
Section 3 of this Rules; and (2) the provider is specially mandated by law to provide continuing legal education.
Section 2. Standards for all education activities
All continuing legal education activities must meet the following standards:
(a) The activity shall have significant current intellectual or practical content.
6
(b) The activity shall constitute an organized program of learning related to legal subjects and the legal profession, including
cross profession activities (e.g., accounting-tax or medical-legal) that enhance legal skills or the ability to practice law, as
well as subjects in legal writing and oral advocacy.
(c) The activity shall be conducted by a provider with adequate professional experience.
(d) Where the activity is more than one (1) hour in length, substantive written materials must be distributed to all participants.
Such materials must be distributed at or before the time the activity is offered.
(e) In-house education activities must be scheduled at a time and location so as to be free from interruption like telephone
calls and other distractions.
RULE 9
APPROVAL OF PROVIDERS
Section 1. Approval of providers
Approval of providers shall be done by the MCLE Committee.
Section 2. Requirements for approval of providers
Any persons or group may be approved as a provider for a term of two (2) years, which may be renewed, upon written application. All
providers of continuing legal education activities, including in-house providers, are eligible to be approved providers. Application for
approval shall:
(a) Be submitted on a form provided by the IBP;
(b) Contain all information requested on the form;
(c) Be accompanied by the approval fee;
Section 3. Requirements of all providers
All approved providers shall agree to the following:
(a) An official record verifying the attendance at the activity shall be maintained by the provider for at least four (4) years
after the completion date. The provider shall include the member on the official record of attendance only if the member's
signature was obtained at the time of attendance at the activity. The official record of attendance shall contain the member's
name and number in the Roll of Attorneys and shall identify the time, date, location, subject matter, and length of the
education activity. A copy of such record shall be furnished the IBP.
(b) The provider shall certify that:
(1) This activity has been approved for MCLE by the IBP in the amount of ________ hours of which hours will
apply in (legal ethics, etc.), as appropriate to the content of the activity;
(2) The activity conforms to the standards for approved education activities prescribed by these Rules and such
regulations as may be prescribed by the IBP pertaining to MCLE.
(c) The provider shall issue a record or certificate to all participants identifying the time, date, location, subject matter and
length of the activity.
(d) The provider shall allow in-person observation of all approved continuing legal education activities by members of the
IBP Board of Governors, the MCLE Committee, or designees of the Committee and IBP staff for purposes of monitoring
compliance with these Rules.
7
(e) The provider shall indicate in promotional materials, the nature of the activity, the time devoted to each devoted to each
topic and identify of the instructors. The provider shall make available to each participant a copy of IBP-approved Education
Activity Evaluation Form.
(f) The provider shall maintain the completed Education Activity Evaluation Forms for a period of not less than one (1) year
after the activity, copy furnished the IBP.
(g) Any person or group who conducts an unauthorized activity under this program or issues a spurious certificate in
violation of these Rules shall be subject to appropriate sanctions.
Section 4. Renewal of provider approval
The approval of a provider may be renewed every two (2) years. It may be denied if the provider fails to comply with any of the
requirements of these Rules or fails to provide satisfactory education activities for the preceding period.
Section 5. Revocation of provider approval
The approval of any provider referred to in Rule 9 may be revoked by a majority vote of the IBP Board of Governors, upon
recommendation of the MCLE Committee, after notice and hearing and for good cause.
RULE 10
ACTIVITY AND PROVIDER APPROVAL FEE
Section 1. Payment of fees
Application for approval of an education activity or as a provider requires payment of an appropriate fee.
RULE 11
GENERAL COMPLIANCE PROCEDURES
Section 1. Compliance card
Each member shall secure from the MCLE Committee a Compliance Card before the end of his compliance period. He shall complete
the card by attesting under oath that he has complied with the education requirement or that he is exempt, specifying the nature of the
exemption. Such Compliance Card must be returned to the address indicated therein not later than the day after the end of the
member's compliance period.
Section 2. Member record keeping requirement
Each member shall maintain sufficient record of compliance or exemption, copy furnished the MCLE Committee. The record required
to be provided to the members by the provider pursuant to Section 3(c) of Rule 9 should be sufficient record of attendance at a
participatory activity. A record of non-participatory activity shall also be maintained by the member, as referred to in Section 3 of
Rule 5.
RULE 12
NON-COMPLIANCE PROCEDURES
Section 1. What constitutes non-compliance
The following shall constitute non-compliance
(a) Failure to complete the education requirement within the compliance period;
(b) Failure to provide attestation of compliance or exemption;
8
(c) Failure to provide satisfactory evidence of compliance (including evidence of exempt status) within the prescribed period;
(d) Failure to satisfy the education requirement and furnish evidence of such compliance within sixty (60) days from receipt
of a non-compliance notice;
(e) Any other act or omission analogous to any of the foregoing or intended to circumvent or evade compliance with the
MCLE requirements.
Section 2. Non-compliance notice and 60-day period to attain compliance
A member failing to comply will receive a Non-Compliance Notice stating the specific deficiency and will be given sixty (60) days
from the date of notification to explain the deficiency or otherwise show compliance with the requirements. Such notice shall contain,
among other things, the following language in capital letters:
YOUR FAILURE TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE JUSTIFICATION FOR NON-COMPLIANCE OR PROOF OF

COMPLIANCE WITH THE MCLE REQUIREMENT BY (INSERT DATE 60 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF NOTICE),
SHALL BE A CAUSE FOR LISTING AS A DELINQUENT MEMBER.
The Member may use this period to attain the adequate number of credit hours for compliance. Credit hours earned during this period
may only be counted toward compliance with the prior compliance period requirement unless hours in excess of the requirement are
earned, in which case, the excess hours may be counted toward meeting the current compliance period requirement.lawphil.net
RULE 13
CONSEQUENCES OF NON-COMPLIANCE
Section 1. Non-compliance fee
A member who, for whatever reason, is in non-compliance at the end of the compliance period shall pay a non-compliance fee.
Section 2. Listing as delinquent member
Any member who fails to satisfactorily comply with Section 2 of Rule 12 shall be listed as a delinquent member by the IBP Board of
Governors upon the recommendation of the MCLE Committee, in which case, Rule 139-A of the Rules of Court shall apply.
RULE 14
REINSTATEMENT
Section 1. Process
The involuntary listing as a delinquent member shall be terminated when the member provides proof of compliance with the MCLE
requirement, including payment of non-compliance fee. A member may attain the necessary credit hours to meet the requirement for
the period of non-compliance during the period the member is on inactive status. These credit hours may not be counted toward
meeting the current compliance period requirement. Credit hours attained during the period of non-compliance in excess of the
number needed to satisfy the prior compliance period requirement may be counted toward meeting the current compliance period
requirement.lawphil.net
Section 2. Termination of delinquent listing administrative process
The termination of listing as a delinquent member is administrative in nature but it shall be made with notice and hearing by the
MCLE Committee.
RULE 15
MANDATORY CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION COMMITTEE
Section 1. Composition
9
The MCLE Committee shall be composed of five (5) members, namely: a retired Justice of the Supreme Court, as Chair, and four (4)
members, respectively, nominated by the IBP, the Philippine Judicial Academy, a law center designated by the Supreme Court and
associations of law schools and/or law professors.
The members of the Committee shall be of proven probity and integrity. They shall be appointed by the Supreme Court for a term of
three (3) years and shall receive such compensation as may be determined by the Court.
Section 2. Duty of the Committee
The MCLE Committee shall administer and adopt such implementing rules as may be necessary subject to the approval by the
Supreme Court. It shall, in consultation with the IBP Board of Governors, prescribe a schedule of MCLE fees with the approval of the
Supreme Court.
Section 3. Staff of the IBP
The IBP shall employ such staff as may be necessary to perform the record-keeping, auditing, reporting, approval and other necessary
functions.
Section 4. Submission of annual budget
The IBP shall submit to the Supreme Court an annual budget for a subsidy to establish, operate and maintain the MCLE Program.
This resolution shall take effect in October 2000, following its publication in two (2) newspaper of general circulation in the
Philippines.
Adopted this 22nd day of August, 2000.
Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Purisima, Pardo, Buena, Gonzaga-
Reyes, Ynares-Santiago and De Leon, Jr., JJ.,concur.
CASES
[ADM. CASE No. 3319. June 8, 2000.]
LESLIE UI, Complainant, v. ATTY. IRIS BONIFACIO, Respondent.
DECISION
DE LEON, JR., J.:
Before us is an administrative complaint for disablement against Atty. Iris Bonifacio for allegedly carrying on an immoral relationship
with Carlos L. Ui, husband of complainant, Leslie Ui.
The relevant facts are:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
On January 24, 1971 complainant Leslie Ui married Carlos L. Ui at the Our Lady of Lourdes Church in Quezon City 1 and as a result
of their marital union, they had four (4) children, namely, Leilani, Lianni, Lindsay and Carl Cavin, all surnamed Ui. Sometime in
December 1987, however, complainant found out that her husband, Carlos Ui, was carrying on an illicit relationship with respondent
Atty. Iris Bonifacio with whom he begot a daughter sometime in 1986, and that they had been living together at No. 527 San Carlos
Street, Ayala Alabang Village in Muntinlupa City. Respondent who is a graduate of the College of Law of the University of the
Philippines was admitted to the Philippine Bar in 1982.chanrobles.com.ph:red
Carlos Ui admitted to complainant his relationship with the Respondent. Complainant then visited respondent at her office in the later
10
part of June 1988 and introduced herself as the legal wife of Carlos Ui. Whereupon, respondent admitted to her that she has a child
with Carlos Ui and alleged, however, that everything was over between her and Carlos Ui. Complainant believed the representations
of respondent and thought things would turn out well from then on and that the illicit relationship between her husband and respondent
would come to an end.
However, complainant again discovered that the illicit relationship between her husband and respondent continued, and that sometime
in December 1988, respondent and her husband, Carlos Ui, had a second child. Complainant then met again with respondent sometime
in March 1989 and pleaded with respondent to discontinue her illicit relationship with Carlos Ui but to no avail. The illicit relationship
persisted and complainant even came to know later on that respondent had been employed by her husband in his company.
A complaint for disbarment, docketed as Adm. Case No. 3319, was then filed on August 11, 1989 by the complainant against
respondent Atty. Iris Bonifacio before the Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (hereinafter,
Commission) on the ground of immorality, more particularly, for carrying on an illicit relationship with the complainant’s husband,
Carlos Ui. In her Answer, 2 respondent averred that she met Carlos Ui sometime in 1983 and had known him all along to be a
bachelor, with the knowledge, however, that Carlos Ui had children by a Chinese woman in Amoy, China, from whom he had long
been estranged. She stated that during one of their trips abroad, Carlos Ui formalized his intention to marry her and they in fact got
married in Hawaii, USA in 1985. 3 Upon their return to Manila, respondent did not live with Carlos Ui. The latter continued to live
with his children in their Greenhills residence because respondent and Carlos Ui wanted to let the children gradually to know and
accept the fact of his second marriage before they would live together. 4chanrobles virtuallawlibrary
In 1986, respondent left the country and stayed in Honolulu, Hawaii and she would only return occasionally to the Philippines to
update her law practice and renew legal ties. During one of her trips to Manila sometime in June 1988, respondent was surprised when
she was confronted by a woman who insisted that she was the lawful wife of Carlos Ui. Hurt and desolate upon her discovery of the
true civil status of Carlos Ui, respondent then left for Honolulu, Hawaii sometime in July 1988 and returned only in March 1989 with
her two (2) children. On March 20, 1989, a few days after she reported to work with the law firm 5 she was connected with, the
woman who represented herself to be the wife of Carlos Ui again came to her office, demanding to know if Carlos Ui has been
communicating with her.
It is respondent’s contention that her relationship with Carlos Ui is not illicit because they were married abroad and that after June
1988 when respondent discovered Carlos Ui’s true civil status, she cut off all her ties with him. Respondent averred that Carlos Ui
never lived with her in Alabang, and that he resided at 26 Potsdam Street, Greenhills, San Juan, Metro Manila. It was respondent who
lived in Alabang in a house which belonged to her mother, Rosalinda L. Bonifacio; and that the said house was built exclusively from
her parents’ funds. 6 By way of counterclaim, respondent sought moral damages in the amount of Ten Million Pesos
(Php10,000,000.00) against complainant for having filed the present allegedly malicious and groundless disbarment case
against Respondent.
In her Reply 7 dated April 6, 1990, complainant states, among others, that respondent knew perfectly well that Carlos Ui was married
to complainant and had children with her even at the start of her relationship with Carlos Ui, and that the reason respondent went
abroad was to give birth to her two (2) children with Carlos Ui.chanrobles.com : law library
During the pendency of the proceedings before the Integrated Bar, complainant also charged her husband, Carlos Ui, and respondent
with the crime of Concubinage before the Office of the Provincial Fiscal of Rizal, docketed as I.S. No. 89-5247, but the same was
dismissed for insufficiency of evidence to establish probable cause for the offense charged. The resolution dismissing the criminal
complaint against respondent reads:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
Complainant’s evidence had prima facie established the existence of the "illicit relationship" between the respondents allegedly
discovered by the complainant in December 1987. The same evidence however show that respondent Carlos Ui was still living with
complainant up to the latter part of 1988 and/or the early part of 1989.
It would therefore be logical and safe to state that the "relationship" of respondents started and was discovered by complainant
sometime in 1987 when she and respondent Carlos were still living at No. 26 Potsdam Street, Northeast Greenhills, San Juan, Metro
Manila and they, admittedly, continued to live together at their conjugal home up to early (sic) part of 1989 or later 1988, when
respondent Carlos left the same.
From the above, it would not be amiss to conclude that altho (sic) the relationship, illicit as complainant puts it, had been prima facie
established by complainant’s evidence, this same evidence had failed to even prima facie establish the "fact of respondent’s
cohabitation in the concept of husband and wife at the 527 San Carlos St., Ayala Alabang house, proof of which is necessary and
indispensable to at least create probable cause for the offense charged. The statement alone of complainant, worse, a statement only of
a conclusion respecting the fact of cohabitation does not make the complainant’s evidence thereto any better/stronger (U.S. v.
Casipong and Mongoy, 20 Phil. 178).chanrobles.com : virtual law library
11
It is worth stating that the evidence submitted by respondents in support of their respective positions on the matter support and bolster
the foregoing conclusion/recommendation.
WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully recommended that the instant complaint be dismissed for want of evidence to establish probable
cause for the offense charged.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED. 8
Complainant appealed the said Resolution of the Provincial Fiscal of Rizal to the Secretary of Justice, but the same was dismissed 9
on the ground of insufficiency of evidence to prove her allegation that respondent and Carlos Ui lived together as husband and wife at
527 San Carlos Street, Ayala Alabang, Muntinlupa, Metro Manila.
In the proceedings before the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline, complainant filed a Motion to Cite Respondent in Contempt of the
Commission 10 wherein she charged respondent with making false allegations in her Answer and for submitting a supporting
document which was altered and intercalated. She alleged that in the Answer of respondent filed before the Integrated Bar, respondent
averred, among others, that she was married to Carlos Ui on October 22, 1985 and attached a Certificate of Marriage to substantiate
her averment. However, the Certificate of Marriage 11 duly certified by the State Registrar as a true copy of the record on file in the
Hawaii State Department of Health, and duly authenticated by the Philippine Consulate General in Honolulu, Hawaii, USA revealed
that the date of marriage between Carlos Ui and respondent Atty. Iris Bonifacio was October 22, 1987, and not October 22, 1985 as
claimed by respondent in her Answer. According to complainant, the reason for that false allegation was because respondent wanted
to impress upon the said IBP that the birth of her first child by Carlos Ui was within the wedlock. 12 It is the contention of
complainant that such act constitutes a violation of Articles 183 13 and 184 14 of the Revised Penal Code, and also contempt of the
Commission; and that the act of respondent in making false allegations in her Answer and submitting an altered/intercalated document
are indicative of her moral perversity and lack of integrity which make her unworthy to be a member of the Philippine
Bar.chanrobles.com : virtual law library
In her Opposition (To Motion To Cite Respondent in Contempt), 15 respondent averred that she did not have the original copy of the
marriage certificate because the same was in the possession of Carlos Ui, and that she annexed such copy because she relied in good
faith on what appeared on the copy of the marriage certificate in her possession.
Respondent filed her Memorandum 16 on February 22, 1995, and raised the lone issue of whether or not she has conducted herself in
an immoral manner for which she deserves to be barred from the practice of law. Respondent averred that the complaint should be
dismissed on two (2) grounds, namely:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
(i) Respondent conducted herself in a manner consistent with the requirement of good moral character for the practice of the legal
profession; and
(ii) Complainant failed to prove her allegation that respondent conducted herself in an immoral manner. 17
In her defense, respondent contends, among others, that it was she who was the victim in this case and not Leslie Ui because she did
not know that Carlos Ui was already married, and that upon learning of this fact, respondent immediately cut-off all her ties with
Carlos Ui. She stated that there was no reason for her to doubt at that time that the civil status of Carlos Ui was that of a bachelor
because he spent so much time with her, and he was so open in his courtship. 18chanrobles virtual lawlibrary
On the issue of the falsified marriage certificate, respondent alleged that it was highly incredible for her to have knowingly attached
such marriage certificate to her Answer had she known that the same was altered. Respondent reiterated that there was no compelling
reason for her to make it appear that her marriage to Carlos Ui took place either in 1985 or 1987, because the fact remains that
respondent and Carlos Ui got married before complainant confronted respondent and informed the latter of her earlier marriage to
Carlos Ui in June 1988. Further, respondent stated that it was Carlos Ui who testified and admitted that he was the person responsible
for changing the date of the marriage certificate from 1987 to 1985, and complainant did not present evidence to rebut the testimony
of Carlos Ui on this matter.
Respondent posits that complainant’s evidence, consisting of the pictures of respondent with a child, pictures of respondent with
Carlos Ui, a picture of a garage with cars, a picture of a light colored car with Plate No. PNS 313, a picture of the same car, and
portion of the house and ground, and another picture of the same car bearing Plate No. PNS 313 and a picture of the house and the
garage, 19 does not prove that she acted in an immoral manner. They have no evidentiary value according to her. The pictures were
taken by a photographer from a private security agency and who was not presented during the hearings. Further, the respondent
presented the Resolution of the Provincial Fiscal of Pasig in I.S. Case No. 89-5427 dismissing the complaint filed by Leslie Ui against
respondent for lack of evidence to establish probable cause for the offense charged 20 and the dismissal of the appeal by the
12
Department of Justice 21 to bolster her argument that she was not guilty of any immoral or illegal act because of her relationship with
Carlos Ui. In fine, respondent claims that she entered the relationship with Carlos Ui in good faith and that her conduct cannot be
considered as willful, flagrant, or shameless, nor can it suggest moral indifference. She fell in love with Carlos Ui whom she believed
to be single, and, that upon her discovery of his true civil status, she parted ways with him.chanrobles.com.ph : red
In the Memorandum 22 filed on March 20, 1995 by complainant Leslie Ui, she prayed for the disbarment of Atty. Iris Bonifacio and
reiterated that respondent committed immorality by having intimate relations with a married man which resulted in the birth of two (2)
children. Complainant testified that respondent’s mother, Mrs. Linda Bonifacio, personally knew complainant and her husband since
the late 1970s because they were clients of the bank where Mrs. Bonifacio was the Branch Manager. 23 It was thus highly improbable
that respondent, who was living with her parents as of 1986, would not have been informed by her own mother that Carlos Ui was a
married man. Complainant likewise averred that respondent committed disrespect towards the Commission for submitting a
photocopy of a document containing an intercalated date.
In her Reply to Complainant’s Memorandum, 24 respondent stated that complainant miserably failed to show sufficient proof to
warrant her disbarment. Respondent insists that contrary to the allegations of complainant, there is no showing that respondent had
knowledge of the fact of marriage of Carlos Ui to complainant. The allegation that her mother knew Carlos Ui to be a married man
does not prove that such information was made known to Respondent.
Hearing on the case ensued, after which the Commission on Bar Discipline submitted its Report and Recommendation, finding
that:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
In the case at bar, it is alleged that at the time respondent was courted by Carlos Ui, the latter represented himself to be single. The
Commission does not find said claim too difficult to believe in the light of contemporary human experience.
Almost always, when a married man courts a single woman, he represents himself to be single, separated, or without any firm
commitment to another woman. The reason therefor is not hard to fathom. By their very nature, single women prefer single men.
The records will show that when respondent became aware the (sic) true civil status of Carlos Ui, she left for the United States (in July
of 1988). She broke off all contacts with him. When she returned to the Philippines in March of 1989, she lived with her brother, Atty.
Teodoro Bonifacio, Jr. Carlos Ui and respondent only talked to each other because of the children whom he was allowed to visit. At
no time did they live together.
Under the foregoing circumstances, the Commission fails to find any act on the part of respondent that can be considered as
unprincipled or disgraceful as to be reprehensible to a high degree. To be sure, she was more of a victim that (sic) anything else and
should deserve compassion rather than condemnation. Without cavil, this sad episode destroyed her chance of having a normal and
happy family life, a dream cherished by every single girl.
x x x"
Thereafter, the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines issued a Notice of Resolution dated December 13, 1997,
the dispositive portion of which reads as follows:chanrobles.com : virtual law library
RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby ADOPTED and APPROVED, the Report and Recommendation of the
Investigating Commissioner in the above-entitled case, herein made part of this Resolution/Decision as Annex "A", and, finding the
recommendation fully supported by the evidence on record and the applicable laws and rules, the complaint for Gross Immorality
against Respondent is DISMISSED for lack of merit. Atty. Iris Bonifacio is REPRIMANDED for knowingly and willfully attaching to
her Answer a falsified Certificate of Marriage with a stern warning that a repetition of the same will merit a more severe
penalty."cralaw virtua1aw library
We agree with the findings aforequoted.
The practice of law is a privilege. A bar candidate does not have the right to enjoy the practice of the legal profession simply by
passing the bar examinations. It is a privilege that can be revoked, subject to the mandate of due process, once a lawyer violates his
oath and the dictates of legal ethics. The requisites for admission to the practice of law are:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
a. he must be a citizen of the Philippines;
b. a resident thereof;
c. at least twenty-one (21) years of age;

13
d. a person of good moral character;
e. he must show that no charges against him involving moral turpitude, are filed or pending in court;
f. possess the required educational qualifications; and
g. pass the bar examinations. 25 (Emphasis supplied)
Clear from the foregoing is that one of the conditions prior to admission to the bar is that an applicant must possess good moral
character. More importantly, possession of good moral character must be continuous as a requirement to the enjoyment of the
privilege of law practice, otherwise, the loss thereof is a ground for the revocation of such privilege. It has been held: —
If good moral character is a sine qua non for admission to the bar, then the continued possession of good moral character is also a
requisite for retaining membership in the legal profession. Membership in the bar may be terminated when a lawyer ceases to have
good moral character. (Royong v. Oblena, 117 Phil. 865).
A lawyer may be disbarred for "grossly immoral conduct, or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude." A
member of the bar should have moral integrity in addition to professional probity. It is difficult to state with precision and to fix an
inflexible standard as to what is "grossly immoral conduct" or to specify the moral delinquency and obliquity which render a lawyer
unworthy of continuing as a member of the bar. The rule implies that what appears to be unconventional behavior to the straight-laced
may not be the immoral conduct that warrants disbarment.
Immoral conduct has been defined as "that conduct which is willful, flagrant, or shameless, and which shows a moral indifference to
the opinion of the good and respectable members of the community." (7 C.J.S. 959). 26chanrobles virtual lawlibrary
In the case at bar, it is the claim of respondent Atty. Bonifacio that when she met Carlos Ui, she knew and believed him to be single.
Respondent fell in love with him and they got married and as a result of such marriage, she gave birth to two (2) children. Upon her
knowledge of the true civil status of Carlos Ui, she left him
Simple as the facts of the case may sound, the effects of the actuations of respondent are not only far from simple, they will have a
rippling effect on how the standard norms of our legal practitioners should be defined. Perhaps morality in our liberal society today is
a far cry from what it used to be before. This permissiveness notwithstanding, lawyers, as keepers of public faith, are burdened with a
higher degree of social responsibility and thus must handle their personal affairs with greater caution. The facts of this case lead us to
believe that perhaps respondent would not have found herself in such a compromising situation had she exercised prudence and been
more vigilant in finding out more about Carlos Ui’s personal background prior to her intimate involvement with him.
Surely, circumstances existed which should have at least aroused respondent’s suspicion that something was amiss in her relationship
with Carlos Ui, and moved her to ask probing questions. For instance, respondent admitted that she knew that Carlos Ui had children
with a woman from Amoy, China, yet it appeared that she never exerted the slightest effort to find out if Carlos Ui and this woman
were indeed unmarried. Also, despite their marriage in 1987, Carlos Ui never lived with respondent and their first child, a
circumstance that is simply incomprehensible considering respondent’s allegation that Carlos Ui was very open in courting
her.chanrobles virtuallawlibrary
All these taken together leads to the inescapable conclusion that respondent was imprudent in managing her personal affairs. However,
the fact remains that her relationship with Carlos Ui, clothed as it was with what respondent believed was a valid marriage, cannot be
considered immoral. For immorality connotes conduct that shows indifference to the moral norms of society and the opinion of good
and respectable members of the community. 27 Moreover, for such conduct to warrant disciplinary action, the same must be "grossly
immoral," that is, it must be so corrupt and false as to constitute a criminal act or so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high
degree. 28
We have held that "a member of the Bar and officer of the court is not only required to refrain from adulterous relationships . . . but
must also so behave himself as to avoid scandalizing the public by creating the belief that he is flouting those moral standards." 29
Respondent’s act of immediately distancing herself from Carlos Ui upon discovering his true civil status belies just that alleged moral
indifference and proves that she had no intention of flaunting the law and the high moral standard of the legal profession.
Complainant’s bare assertions to the contrary deserve no credit. After all, the burden of proof rests upon the complainant, and the
Court will exercise its disciplinary powers only if she establishes her case by clear, convincing and satisfactory evidence. 30 This,
herein complainant miserably failed to do.
On the matter of the falsified Certificate of Marriage attached by respondent to her Answer, we find improbable to believe the
14
averment of respondent that she merely relied on the photocopy of the Marriage Certificate which was provided her by Carlos Ui. For
an event as significant as a marriage ceremony, any normal bride would verily recall the date and year of her marriage. It is difficult to
fathom how a bride, especially a lawyer as in the case at bar, can forget the year when she got married. Simply stated, it is contrary to
human experience and highly improbable.
Furthermore, any prudent lawyer would verify the information contained in an attachment to her pleading, especially so when she has
personal knowledge of the facts and circumstances contained therein. In attaching such Marriage Certificate with an intercalated date,
the defense of good faith of respondent on that point cannot stand.
It is the bounden duty of lawyers to adhere unwaveringly to the highest standards of morality. The legal profession exacts from its
members nothing less. Lawyers are called upon to safeguard the integrity of the Bar, free from misdeeds and acts constitutive of
malpractice. Their exalted positions as officers of the court demand no less than the highest degree of morality.chanrobles.com :
virtual law library
WHEREFORE, the complaint for disbarment against respondent Atty. Iris L. Bonifacio, for alleged immorality, is hereby
DISMISSED.
However, respondent is hereby REPRIMANDED for attaching to her Answer a photocopy of her Marriage Certificate, with an altered
or intercalated date thereof, with a STERN WARNING that a more severe sanction will be imposed on her for any repetition of the
same or similar offense in the future.
SO ORDERED.
Bellosillo, Mendoza, Quisumbing and Buena, JJ., concur.
A.C. No. 6486 September 22, 2004
EMMA T. DANTES, complainant,

vs.
ATTY. CRISPIN G. DANTES, respondent.
DECISION
PER CURIAM:
Despite variations in the specific standards and provisions, one requirement remains constant in all the jurisdictions where the practice
of law is regulated: the candidate must demonstrate that he or she has "good moral character," and once he becomes a lawyer he
should always behave in accordance with the standard. In this jurisdiction too, good moral character is not only a condition
precedent1 to the practice of law, but an unending requirement for all the members of the bar. Hence, when a lawyer is found guilty of
grossly immoral conduct, he may be suspended or disbarred. 2
In an Affidavit-Complaint3 dated June 6, 2001, filed with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), Emma T. Dantes, sought the
disbarment of her husband, Atty. Crispin G. Dantes on the ground of immorality, abandonment, and violation of professional ethics
and law. The case was docketed as CBD Case No. 01-851.
Complainant alleged that respondent is a philanderer. Respondent purportedly engaged in illicit relationships with two women, one
after the other, and had illegitimate children with them. From the time respondent’s illicit affairs started, he failed to give regular
support to complainant and their children, thus forcing complainant to work abroad to provide for their children’s needs. Complainant
pointed out that these acts of respondent constitute a violation of his lawyer’s oath and his moral and legal obligation to be a role
model to the community.
On July 4, 2001, the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline issued an Order4 requiring respondent to submit his answer to the Affidavit-
Complaint.
Respondent submitted his Answer5 on November 19, 2001. Though admitting the fact of marriage with the complainant and the birth
of their children, respondent alleged that they have mutually agreed to separate eighteen (18) years before after complainant had
abandoned him in their Balintawak residence and fled to San Fernando, Pampanga. Respondent claimed that when complainant
15
returned after eighteen years, she insisted that she be accommodated in the place where he and their children were residing. Thus, he
was forced to live alone in a rented apartment.
Respondent further alleged that he sent their children to the best school he could afford and provided for their needs. He even bought
two lots in Pampanga for his sons, Dandelo and Dante, and gave complainant adequate financial support even after she had abandoned
him in 1983.
Respondent asserted that complainant filed this case in order to force him to remit seventy percent (70%) of his monthly salary to her.
Subsequently, the IBP conducted its investigation and hearings on the complaint. Complainant presented her evidence, both oral and
documentary,6 to support the allegations in her Affidavit-Complaint.
From the evidence presented by the complainant, it was established that on January 19, 1979, complainant and respondent were
married7 and lived with the latter’s mother in Balintawak. At that time, respondent was just a fourth year law student. To make ends
meet, complainant engaged in the buy and sell business and relied on dole-outs from the respondent’s mother.
Three children were born to the couple, namely, Dandelo, Dante and Daisy, who were born on February 20, 1980, 8 October 14,
19819 and August 11, 1983,10 respectively. Complainant narrated that their relationship was marred by frequent quarrels because of
respondent’s extra-marital affairs.11 Sometime in 1983, she brought their children to her mother in Pampanga to enable her to work
because respondent had failed to provide adequate support. From 1986 to 2001, complainant worked abroad as a domestic helper.
Denying that there was a mutual agreement between her and respondent to live separately, complainant asseverated that she was just
compelled to work abroad to support their children. When she returned to the Philippines, she learned that respondent was living with
another woman. Respondent, then bluntly told her, that he did not want to live with her anymore and that he preferred his mistresses.
Complainant presented documentary evidence consisting of the birth certificates of Ray Darwin, Darling, and Christian Dave, 12 all
surnamed Dantes, and the affidavits of respondent and his paramour 13 to prove the fact that respondent sired three illegitimate children
out of his illicit affairs with two different women. Letters of complainant’s legitimate children likewise support the allegation that
respondent is a womanizer.14
In an Order dated April 17, 2002, respondent was deemed to have waived his right to cross-examine complainant, after he failed to
appear during the scheduled hearings despite due notice. He, however, submitted his Comment/Opposition to the Complainant’s
Formal Offer of Evidence with Motion to Exclude the Evidence from the Records of the Proceedings15 on August 1, 2002.
Subsequently, on May 29, 2003, respondent submitted a Motion to Adopt Alternative Dispute Resolution Mechanism. Respondent’s
motion was denied because it was filed after the complainant had already presented her evidence.16 Respondent was given a final
chance to present his evidence on July 11, 2003. Instead of presenting evidence, respondent filed a Motion for Reconsideration with
Motion to Dismiss, which was likewise denied for being a prohibited pleading under the Rules of Procedure of the Commission on Bar
Discipline. Respondent submitted his Position Paper on August 4, 2003.
In respondent’s Position Paper,17 he reiterated the allegations in his Answer except that this time, he argued that in view of the
resolution of the complaint for support with alimony pendente lite18 filed against him by the complainant before the Regional Trial
Court (RTC) of Quezon City,19 the instant administrative case should be dismissed for lack of merit.
On July 7, 2004, the IBP submitted to us through the Office of the Bar Confidant its Report20 and Resolution No. XVI-2004-
230 involving CBD Case No. 01-851.21 The IBP recommended that the respondent be suspended indefinitely from the practice of law.
Except for the penalty, we find the above recommendation well-taken.
The Code of Professional Responsibility provides:
"Rule 1.01- A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct."
"Canon 7- A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession, and support the activities of the
Integrated Bar."
16
"Rule 7.03- A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor should he, whether
in public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession."
The Code of Professional Responsibility forbids lawyers from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. Immoral
conduct has been defined as that conduct which is so willful, flagrant, or shameless as to show indifference to the opinion of good and
respectable members of the community.22 To be the basis of disciplinary action, the lawyer’s conduct must not only be immoral, but
grossly immoral. That is, it must be so corrupt as to constitute a criminal act or so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high
degree23 or committed under such scandalous or revolting circumstances as to shock the common sense of decency. 24
In Barrientos vs. Daarol,25 we ruled that as officers of the court, lawyers must not only in fact be of good moral character but must
also be seen to be of good moral character and leading lives in accordance with the highest moral standards of the community. More
specifically, a member of the Bar and officer of the court is not only required to refrain from adulterous relationships or keeping
mistresses but must also so behave himself as to avoid scandalizing the public by creating the belief that he is flouting those moral
standards. If the practice of law is to remain an honorable profession and attain its basic ideals, those enrolled in its ranks should not
only master its tenets and principles but should also, in their lives, accord continuing fidelity to them. The requirement of good moral
character is of much greater import, as far as the general public is concerned, than the possession of legal learning.
It should be noted that the requirement of good moral character has three ostensible purposes, namely: (i) to protect the public; (ii) to
protect the public image of lawyers; and (iii) to protect prospective clients. A writer added a fourth: to protect errant lawyers from
themselves.26
Lawyers are expected to abide by the tenets of morality, not only upon admission to the Bar but also throughout their legal
career, in order to maintain their good standing in this exclusive and honored fraternity. 27 They may be suspended from the practice of
law or disbarred for any misconduct, even if it pertains to his private activities, as long as it shows him to be wanting in moral
character, honesty, probity or good demeanor. 28
Undoubtedly, respondent’s acts of engaging in illicit relationships with two different women during the subsistence of his marriage to
the complainant constitutes grossly immoral conduct warranting the imposition appropriate sanctions. Complainant’s testimony, taken
in conjunction with the documentary evidence, sufficiently established respondent’s commission of marital infidelity and immorality.
Evidently, respondent had breached the high and exacting moral standards set for members of the law profession. He has made a
mockery of marriage which is a sacred institution demanding respect and dignity. 29
In Toledo vs. Toledo,30 we disbarred respondent for abandoning his lawful wife and cohabiting with another woman who had borne
him a child. Likewise, in Obusan vs. Obusan,31 we ruled that abandoning one’s wife and resuming carnal relations with a paramour
fall within that conduct which is willful, flagrant, or shameless, and which shows moral indifference to the opinion of the good and
respectable members of the community.
We reiterate our ruling in Cordova vs. Cordova,32 that moral delinquency which affects the fitness of a member of the bar to continue
as such, includes conduct that outrages the generally accepted moral standards of the community as exemplified by behavior which
makes a mockery of the inviolable social institution of marriage.
The power to disbar must be exercised with great caution, and only in a clear case of misconduct that seriously affects the standing
and character of the lawyer as an officer of the Court and as a member of the bar. 33 Where a lesser penalty, such as temporary
suspension, could accomplish the end desired, disbarment should never be decreed. 34 However, in the present case, the seriousness of
the offense compels the Court to wield its power to disbar as it appears to be the most appropriate penalty.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing Atty. Crispin G. Dantes is hereby DISBARRED and his name is ORDERED
STRICKEN from the Roll of Attorneys. Let a copy of this Decision be entered in the respondent’s record as a member of the Bar, and
notice of the same be served on the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines, and on the Office of the Court Administrator for circulation to all courts in the country.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., Puno, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio, Austria-Martinez, Corona, Carpio-
Morales*, Callejo, Sr., Azcuna, Tinga, and Chico-Nazario**, JJ., concur.
17
EN BANC
[A.C. NO. 2474. June 30, 2005]
EDUARDO M. COJUANGCO, JR., Complainant, v. ATTY. LEO J. PALMA, Respondent.
RESOLUTION
PER CURIAM:
Providing one's children with a comfortable life and good education does not render marriage a fait accompli. Leo J. Palma,
respondent herein, may have provided well for his children but this accomplishment is not sufficient to wipe away the penalty for his
transgression. He ought to remember that before he became a father, he was a husband first. As such, he should have loved, respected
and remained faithful to his wife.
At bar is respondent's Motion to Vacate1 our Decision dated September 15, 2004 finding him guilty of grossly immoral conduct and
violation of his oath as a lawyer and imposing upon him the penalty of disbarment from the practice of law.
In resolving the instant motion, a brief revisit of the facts is imperative. On June 22, 1982, respondent, despite his subsisting marriage
with Elizabeth Hermosisima, married Maria Luisa Cojuangco, the 22-year old daughter of complainant Eduardo M. Cojuangco, Jr.
This prompted the latter to file with this Court, on November 8, 1982, a complaint for disbarment against respondent.
Respondent moved to dismiss the complaint.
In our Resolution2 dated March 2, 1983, we referred the case to the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) for investigation, report and
recommendation. Then Assistant Solicitor General Oswaldo D. Agcaoili heard the testimonies of the complainant and his witness in
the presence of respondent's counsel.
On March 19, 1984, respondent filed with the OSG an urgent motion to suspend proceedings 3 on the ground that the final outcome of
Civil Case No. Pq0401-P,4 for declaration of nullity of marriage between him and his wife Lisa, poses a prejudicial question to the
disbarment proceeding. The motion was denied.
Respondent then filed with this Court an urgent motion for issuance of a restraining order. 5 On December 19, 1984, we issued a
Resolution enjoining the OSG from continuing the disbarment proceedings. 6 Ï‚rÎ½ll
In the interim, Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court took effect. Hence, the OSG transferred the disbarment case to the Integrated Bar of
the Philippines (IBP). On October 19, 1998, IBP Commissioner Julio C. Elamparo required the parties to manifest within ten (10)
days from notice whether they are still interested in pursuing the case. 7 Ï‚rÎ½ll
In his manifestation,8 complainant confirmed his continuing interest in prosecuting the case.
For his part, respondent moved to postpone the hearing eight (8) times. In one of those instances, particularly on August 28, 2001,
complainant moved 'that respondent be deemed to have waived his right to present evidence and for the case to be deemed
submitted for resolution in view of his continuing failure to present his evidence. However, complainant withdrew such motion
upon the promise of the respondent's counsel that on the next hearing, scheduled on October 4, 2001, he would definitely present his
client's evidence. But even before that date, respondent already manifested that he would not be able to return to the Philippines for his
direct testimony. Instead, he promised to submit his 'direct testimony in affidavit form. 9 In an Order issued that day, the IBP
Commissioner reset the hearing for the last time on January 24, 2002 and warned respondent that should he fail to appear or present
his 'direct testimony in affidavit form, the case will be deemed submitted for resolution. 10 On January 24, 2002, respondent neither
appeared nor presented his 'direct testimony in affidavit form, hence, the case was deemed submitted for resolution. 11 Ï‚rÎ½ll
On March 20, 2003, the IBP Commissioner submitted a Report and Recommendation finding respondent guilty of gross immoral
conduct and violation of his oath as a lawyer and recommending that he be suspended from the practice of law for a period of three (3)
years.
18
The IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the above Report and Recommendation, but reduced the penalty of suspension to
only one (1) year.
On September 15, 2004, we rendered the assailed Decision.
In his motion for reconsideration, respondent raised the following issues:Ï‚Î·Î±Ã±rÎ¿blÎµÅ¡ Î½Î¹râ€ Ï…Î±l lÎ±Ï‰ lÎ¹brÎ±rÃ¿
First, the complaint for disbarment was filed by an improper party, complainant not being the offended party.
Second, he was denied due process because the case was submitted for resolution on January 24, 2002 without his 'direct testimony
in affidavit form.
Third, the disbarment proceedings before the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline is void because our Resolution dated December 19,
1984 restraining the OSG from continuing such proceedings has not been lifted.
Fourth, our Decision is barred by laches because of the lapse of almost fourteen (14) years from December 19, 1984, the date we
restrained the OSG from continuing the disbarment proceedings, until October 19, 1998, the date the IBP Commissioner required the
parties to 'manifest whether or not they are still interested in prosecuting the case.
Fifth, the Resolution dated June 21, 2003 of the IBP Board of Governors imposing upon him the penalty of one (1) year suspension
'has attained finality and should be deemed served already.
And sixth, he acted under a 'firm factual and legal conviction in declaring before the Hong Kong Marriage Registry that he is a
'bachelor because his first marriage is void even if there is no judicial declaration of nullity.
In his comment, complainant countered that: first, respondent cannot claim denial of due process because his failure to adduce
evidence was due to his own fault; second, it is now too late to invoke this Court's Resolution of December 19, 1984 restraining the
OSG from continuing the disbarment proceedings; third, laches does not apply because the 14-year hiatus was brought about by the
said Resolution; fourth, the penalty of one-year suspension imposed by the IBP Board of Governors cannot be deemed 'final and
served already because it is a mere recommendation to this Court; and fifth, although his previous marriage was annulled, it can not
erase the betrayal of trust and abuse of confidence he committed against complainant.
Respondent's motion is bereft of merit.
We observe that in his motion, respondent alleged new issues12 which were not considered below. Nonetheless, in view of the caveat
that the power to disbar must be exercised with great caution, we shall resolve all these new issues.
I - Improper Party
We find no merit in respondent's contention that the complainant, being the father of the offended party, does not have the standing to
file the instant complaint.
Disbarment proceedings are undertaken solely for public welfare. The only question for determination is whether respondent is fit to
be a member of the Bar. The complainant or the person who called the attention of this Court to the lawyer's alleged misconduct is in
no sense a party and generally has no interest in the outcome except as all good citizens may have in the proper administration of
justice.13 Thus, this Court may investigate charges against lawyers, regardless of complainant's standing. In fact, it can do
so motu proprio. Our ruling in Rayos-Ombac v. Rayos 14 applies four-square,
thus:Ï‚Î·Î±Ã±rÎ¿blÎµÅ¡ Î½Î¹râ€ Ï…Î±l lÎ±Ï‰ lÎ¹brÎ±rÃ¿
x x x A case of suspension or disbarment may proceed regardless of interest or lack of interest of the complainant. What
matters is whether, on the basis of the facts borne out by the record, the charge of deceit and grossly immoral conduct has
been duly proven. 'This rule is premised on the nature of disciplinary proceedings. A proceeding for suspension or disbarment is not
in any sense a civil action where the complainant is a plaintiff and the respondent lawyer is a defendant. Disciplinary proceedings
involve no private interest and afford no redress for private grievance. They are undertaken and prosecuted solely for the
public welfare. 'They are undertaken for the purpose of preserving courts of justice from the official ministration of persons unfit to
practice in them. The attorney is called to answer to the court for his conduct as an officer of the court. The complainant or the person
who called the attention of the court to the attorney's alleged misconduct is in no sense a party, and has generally no interest in the
19
outcome except as all good citizens may have in the proper administration of justice. Hence, if the evidence on record warrants, the
respondent may be suspended or disbarred despite the desistance of complainant or his withdrawal of the charges.
II - Due Process
Neither do we find merit in respondent's claim that the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline violated his right to due process when it
considered the case submitted for resolution on January 24, 2002 without his direct testimony in affidavit form. The records show that
the case dragged on for three (3) years after the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline resumed its investigation on October 19, 1998. Of
the fifteen15 (15) settings from February 2, 1999 to January 24, 2002, respondent had the hearing postponed for eight (8) times.
Indisputably, it was respondent's failure to submit his 'direct testimony in affidavit form that caused delay. Since the proceedings had
been dragging on a lethargic course, the IBP Commissioner is correct in considering the case submitted for resolution. At this
juncture, it must be stressed that the essence of due process in administrative proceedings is the opportunity to explain one's side or
seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of. As long as the parties are given the opportunity to be heard before
judgment is rendered, the demands of due process are sufficiently met. 16 Here, respondent was given sufficient opportunity to explain
his side and adduce his evidence. Despite his sudden 'flight into oblivion, the IBP Commissioner notified him of the proceedings.
Significantly, he was duly represented by a counsel who attended the hearings and submitted manifestations and motions on his
behalf, the latest of which is the instant Motion to Vacate. In short, the active participation of his lawyer in every stage of the
proceedings rules out any badge of procedural deficiency therein. Of course, we need not mention the fact that respondent was able to
file with this Court a motion to dismiss the complaint, as well as to confront and cross-examine the complainant and his witness
during the investigation in the OSG.
III - Restraining Order
The restraining order was anchored on the ground that the final outcome of Civil Case No. Pq0401-P poses a prejudicial question to
the disbarment proceedings. It appears from complainant's allegation, which respondent does not deny, that Civil Case No. Pq0401-P
was dismissed without prejudice.17 Necessarily, there is no more prejudicial question to speak of.
IV - Laches
Respondent cannot find solace in the principle of laches. While it is true that there was a hiatus or delay of 14 years before the IBP
Commissioner resumed the investigation, the same was pursuant to the said restraining order of December 19, 1984.
V ' Finality of the Penalty Imposed
by the IBP-Board of Governors
The penalty of one-year suspension imposed by the IBP Board of Governors cannot attain finality. Section 12 of Rule 139-B
provides:Ï‚Î·Î±Ã±rÎ¿blÎµÅ¡ Î½Î¹râ€ Ï…Î±l lÎ±Ï‰ lÎ¹brÎ±rÃ¿
Section 12. Review and Decision by the Board of Governors.-
xxx
(b) If the Board, by the vote of a majority of its total membership, determines that the respondent should be suspended from the
practice of law or disbarred, it shall issue a resolution setting forth its findings and recommendations which, together with the whole
record of the case shall forthwith be transmitted to the Supreme Court for final action.
Clearly, the resolution of the IBP Board of Governors is merely recommendatory. The 'power to recommend includes the power to
give 'advice, exhortation or indorsement, which is essentially persuasive in character, not binding upon the party to whom it is
made.18 Necessarily, the 'final action on the resolution of the IBP Board of Governors still lies with this Court. Obviously,
respondent's argument that we affirmed such resolution when we 'noted it is certainly misplaced. In Re: Problem of Delays in Cases
Before the Sandiganbayan ,19 we held that the term 'noted means that the Court has merely taken cognizance of the existence of an act
or declaration, without exercising a judicious deliberation or rendering a decision on the matter. It does not imply agreement or
approval. The power to disbar belongs to the Court alone.
VI - Good Faith
20
Respondent's argument that he was of the 'firm factual and legal conviction when he declared before the Hong Kong authorities that he
was a bachelor since his first marriage is void and does not need judicial declaration of nullity cannot exonerate him. In Terre v.
Terre,20 the same defense was raised by respondent lawyer whose disbarment was also sought. We
held:Ï‚Î·Î±Ã±rÎ¿blÎµÅ¡ Î½Î¹râ€ Ï…Î±l lÎ±Ï‰ lÎ¹brÎ±rÃ¿
x x x Respondent Jordan Terre, being a lawyer, knew or should have known that such an argument ran counter to the
prevailing case law of this Court which holds that for purposes of determining whether a person is legally free to contract a
second marriage, a judicial declaration that the first marriage was null and void ab initio is essential. Even if we were to
assume, arguendo merely, that Jordan Terre held that mistaken belief in good faith, the same result will follow. For if we are to hold
Jordan Terre to his own argument, his first marriage to complainant Dorothy Terre must be deemed valid, with the result that his
second marriage must be regarded as bigamous and criminal in character.
Before we write finis to this case, we find it necessary to stress certain points in view of respondent's additional reason why he should
be exonerated - that he loves all his children and has always provided for them. He may have indeed provided well for his children.
But this accomplishment is not sufficient to show his moral fitness to continue being a member of the noble profession of law. It has
always been the duties of parents - e.g., to support, educate and instruct their children according to right precepts and good example;
and to give them love, companionship and understanding, as well as moral and spiritual guidance.21 But what respondent forgot is that
he has also duties to his wife. As a husband, he is obliged to live with her; observe mutual love, respect and fidelity; and render
help and support.22 And most important of all, he is obliged to remain faithful to her until death.
The undeniable truth is that respondent married Lisa while his marriage with Elizabeth Hermosisima was still subsisting. Such act
constitutes grossly immoral conduct, a ground for disbarment under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court. Obviously,
he exhibited a deplorable lack of that degree of morality required of him as a member of the Bar. He made a mockery of marriage, a
sacred institution demanding respect and dignity. In Cordova v. Cordova,23 we held that 'The moral delinquency that affects the fitness
of a member of the bar to continue as such includes conduct that outrages the generally accepted moral standards of the community,
conduct for instance, which makes a mockery of the inviolable social institution of marriage.
We also reiterate our ruling that respondent's conduct speaks of a clear case of betrayal of trust and abuse of confidence,
thus:Ï‚Î·Î±Ã±rÎ¿blÎµÅ¡ Î½Î¹râ€ Ï…Î±l lÎ±Ï‰ lÎ¹brÎ±rÃ¿
x x x. It was respondent's closeness to the complainant's family as well as the latter's complete trust in him that made possible his
intimate relationship with Lisa. When his concern was supposed to be complainant's legal affairs only, he sneaked at the latter's back
and courted his daughter. Like the proverbial thief in the night, he attacked when nobody was looking. Moreover, he availed of
complainant's resources by securing a plane ticket from complainant's office in order to marry the latter's daughter in Hong Kong. He
did this without complainant's knowledge. Afterwards, he even had the temerity to assure complainant that 'everything is legal.
Clearly, respondent had crossed he limits of propriety and decency.
Indeed, we are not prepared to exonerate respondent or reduce the penalty we imposed on him as it will denigrate the standard of the
law profession.
WHEREFORE, respondent's Motion to Vacate our Decision dated September 15, 2004 is hereby DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C.J., Puno, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio, Austria-Martinez, Corona,
Carpio-Morales, Callejo, Sr., Azcuna, Tinga, Chico-Nazario, and Garcia, JJ., concur.
A.C. No. 2505 February 21, 1992
EVANGELINE LEDA, complainant,

vs.
ATTY. TREBONIAN TABANG, respondent.
21
PER CURIAM:
Complainant, Evangeline Leda, squarely puts in issue respondent Atty. Trebonian Tabang's good moral character, in two Complaints
she had filed against him, one docketed as Bar Matter No. 78 instituted on 6 January 1982, and the present Administrative Case No.
2505, which is a Petition for Disbarment, filed on 14 February 1983.
It appears that on 3 October 1976, Respondent and Complainant contracted marriage at Tigbauan, Iloilo. The marriage, solemnized by
Judge Jose T. Tavarro of Tigbauan, was performed under Article 76 of the Civil
Code1 as one of exceptional character (Annex "A", Petition).
The parties agreed to keep the fact of marriage a secret until after Respondent had finished his law studies (began in l977), and had
taken the Bar examinations (in 1981), allegedly to ensure a stable future for them. Complainant admits, though, that they had not lived
together as husband and wife (Letter-Complaint, 6 January 1982).
Respondent finished his law studies in 1981 and thereafter applied to take the Bar. In his application, he declared that he was "single."
He then passed the examinations but Complainant blocked him from taking his Oath by instituting Bar Matter No. 78, claiming
that Respondent had acted fraudulently in filling out his application and, thus, was unworthy to take the lawyer's Oath for lack of good
moral character. Complainant also alleged that after Respondent's law studies, he became aloof and "abandoned" her (Petition, par. 5).
The Court deferred Respondent's Oath-taking and required him to answer the Complaint.
Respondent filed his "Explanation," dated 26 May 1982 which was received on 7 June 1982. Said "Explanation" carries Complainant's
conformity (Records, p. 6). Therein, he admitted that he was "legally married" to Complainant on 3 October 1976 but that the
marriage "was not as yet made and declared public" so that he could proceed with his law studies and until after he could take the Bar
examinations "in order to keep stable our future." He also admitted having indicated that he was "single" in his application to take the
Bar "for reason that to my honest belief, I have still to declare my status as single since my marriage with the complainant was not as
yet made and declared public." He further averred that he and Complainant had reconciled as shown by her conformity to the
"Explanation," for which reason he prayed that the Complaint be dismissed.
Respondent also filed a Motion to Dismiss, dated 2 June 1982. Attached to it was Complainant's Affidavit of Desistance, which stated
that Bar Matter No. 78 arose out of a misunderstanding and communication gap and that she was refraining from pursuing her
Complaint against Respondent.
Acting on the aforesaid Motion and Comment, the Court dismissed Bar Matter No. 78 and allowed Respondent to take his Oath in a
Resolution dated 20 August 1982.
On 14 February 1983, however, Complainant filed this Administrative Case, this time praying for Respondent's disbarment based on
the following grounds:
a. For having made use of his legal knowledge to contract an invalid marriage with me assuming that our marriage is
not valid, and making a mockery of our marriage institution.
b. For having misrepresented himself as single when in truth he is already married in his application to take the bar
exam.
c. For being not of good moral character contrary to the certification he submitted to the Supreme Court;
d. For (sic) guilty of deception for the reason that he deceived me into signing of the affidavit of desistance and the
conformity to his explanation and later on the comment to his motion to dismiss, when in truth and in fact he is not
sincere, for he only befriended me to resume our marriage and introduced me to his family, friends and relatives as
his wife, for a bad motive that is he wanted me to withdraw my complaint against him with the Supreme Court.
Attached to Complainant's Petition for Disbarment, as Annex "F," is an undated and unsigned letter addressed to Complainant,
allegedly written by Respondent after he had already taken his Oath stating, among others, that while he was grateful for
Complainant's help, he "could not force myself to be yours," did not love her anymore and considered her only a friend. Their
marriage contract was actually void for failure to comply with the requisites of Article 76 of the Civil Code, among them the
minimum cohabitation for five (5) years before the celebration of the marriage, an affidavit to that effect by the solemnizing officer,
22
and that the parties must be at least twenty-one (21) years of age, which they were not as they were both only twenty years old at the
time. He advised Complainant not to do anything more so as not to put her family name "in shame." As for him, he had "attain(ed) my
goal as a full-pledge (sic) professional and there is nothing you can do for it to take away from me even (sic) you go to any
court." According to Complainant, although the letter was unsigned, Respondent's initials appear on the upper left-hand corner of the
airmail envelope (Exh. "8-A-1").
Respondent denied emphatically that he had sent such a letter contending that it is Complainant who has been indulging in fantasy and
fabrications.
In his Comment in the present case, Respondent avers that he and Complainant had covenanted not to disclose the marriage not
because he wanted to finish his studies and take the Bar first but for the reason that said marriage was void from the beginning in the
absence of the requisites of Article 76 of the Civil Code that the contracting parties shall have lived together as husband and wife for
at least five (5) years before the date of the marriage and that said parties shall state the same in an affidavit before any person
authorized by law to administer oaths. He could not have abandoned Complainant because they had never lived together as husband
and wife. When he applied for the 1981 Bar examinations, he honestly believed that in the eyes of the law, he was single.
On 7 May 1984, the Court referred the Complaint to the Solicitor General for investigation, report and recommendation. On 5 March
1990, the Solicitor General submitted his Report, with the recommendation that Respondent be exonerated from the charges against
him since Complainant failed to attend the hearings and to substantiate her charges but that he be reprimanded for making inconsistent
and conflicting statements in the various pleadings he had filed before this Court.
On 26 March 1990, the Court referred the Solicitor General's Report to the Bar Confidant for evaluation, report and
recommendation. In an undated Report, the latter recommended the indefinite suspension of Respondent until the status of his
marriage is settled.
Upon the facts on Record even without testimonial evidence from Complainant, we find Respondent's lack of good moral character
sufficiently established.
Firstly, his declaration in his application for Admission to the 1981 Bar Examinations that he was "single" was a gross
misrepresentation of a material fact made in utter bad faith, for which he should be made answerable. Rule 7.01, Canon 7, Chapter II
of the Code of Professional Responsibility explicitly provides: "A lawyer shall be answerable for knowingly making a false statement
or suppression of a material fact in connection with his application for admission to the bar." That false statement, if it had been
known, would have disqualified him outright from taking the Bar Examinations as it indubitably exhibits lack of good moral
character.
Respondent's protestations that he had acted in good faith in declaring his status as "single" not only because of his pact with
Complainant to keep the marriage under wraps but also because that marriage to the Complainant was void from the beginning, are
mere afterthoughts absolutely wanting of merit. Respondent can not assume that his marriage to Complainant is void. The
presumption is that all the requisites and conditions of a marriage of an exceptional character under Article 76 of the Civil Code have
been met and that the Judge's official duty in connection therewith has been regularly performed.
Secondly, Respondent's conduct in adopting conflicting positions in the various pleadings submitted in Bar Matter No. 78 and in the
case at bar is duplicitous and deplorable.
The records show that in Bar Matter No. 78, Respondent had submitted an "Explanation," in paragraph 1, page 1 of which he admits
having been "legally married" to Complainant. Yet, during the hearings before the Solicitor General, he denied under oath that he had
submitted any such pleading (t.s.n., p. 21) contending instead that it is only the second page where his signature appears that he meant
to admit and not the averments on the first page which were merely of Complainant's own making (ibid., pp. 59-60). However, in his
Comment in this Administrative Case, he admits and makes reference to such "Explanation" (pars. 3[f]) and [g]; 4[b]).
Again, while in said "Explanation" he admitted having been "legally married" to Complainant (par. 1), in this case, however, he denies
the legality of the marriage and, instead, harps on its being void ab initio. He even denies his signature in the marriage contract.
In Bar Matter No. 78, Respondent also averred that the fact of marriage was not to be made public so as to allow him to finish his
studies and take the Bar. In this case, however, he contends that the reason it was kept a secret was because it was "not in order from
the beginning."
23
Thirdly, Respondent denies that he had sent the unsigned letter (Annex "F," Petition) to Complainant. However, its very tenor
coincides with the reasons that he advances in his Comment why the marriage is void from the beginning, that is, for failure to comply
with the requisites of Article 76 of the Civil Code.
Fourthly, the factual scenario gathered from the records shows that Respondent had reconciled with Complainant and admitted the
marriage to put a quick finish to Bar Matter No. 78 to enable him to take the lawyer's Oath, which otherwise he would have been
unable to do. But after he had done so and had become a "full-pledge (sic) lawyer," he again refused to honor his marriage to
Complainant.
Respondent's lack of good moral character is only too evident. He has resorted to conflicting submissions before this Court to suit
himself. He has also engaged in devious tactics with Complainant in order to serve his purpose. In so doing, he has violated Canon 10
of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which provides that "a lawyer owes candor, fairness and good faith to the court" as well as
Rule 1001 thereof which states that "a lawyer should do no falsehood nor consent to the doing of any in Court; nor shall he mislead, or
allow the court to be misled by any artifice." Courts are entitled to expect only complete candor and honesty from the lawyers
appearing and pleading before them (Chavez v. Viola, Adm. Case No. 2152, 19 April 1991, 196 SCRA 10). Respondent, through his
actuations, has been lacking in the candor required of him not only as a member of the Bar but also as an officer of the Court.
It cannot be overemphasized that the requirement of good moral character is not only a condition precedent to admission to the
practice of law; its continued possession is also essential for remaining in the practice of law (People v. Tuanda, Adm. Case No. 3360,
30 January 1990, 181 SCRA 692). As so aptly put by Mr. Justice George A. Malcolm: "As good character is an essential qualification
for admission of an attorney to practice, when the attorney's character is bad in such respects as to show that he is unsafe and unfit to
be entrusted with the powers of an attorney, the courts retain the power to discipline him (Piatt v. Abordo, 58 Phil. 350 [1933]).
WHEREFORE, finding respondent Trebonian C. Tabang grossly unfit and unworthy to continue to be entrusted with the duties and
responsibilities belonging to the office of an attorney, he is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law until further Orders, the
suspension to take effect immediately.
Copies of this Decision shall be entered in his personal record as an attorney and served on the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and
the Court Administrator who shall circulate the same to all Courts in the country for their information and guidance.
SO ORDERED.
Narvasa, C.J., Melencio-Herrera, Gutierrez, Jr., Cruz, Paras, Feliciano, Padilla, Bidin, Griño-Aquino, Medialdea, Regalado, Davide,
Jr., Romero and Nocon, JJ., concur.
Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
March 23, 1929
In re LUIS B. TAGORDA,
Duran & Lim for respondent.

Attorney-General Jaranilla and Provincial Fiscal Jose for the Government.
MALCOLM, J.:
The respondent, Luis B. Tagorda, a practising attorney and a member of the provincial board of Isabela, admits that previous to the
last general elections he made use of a card written in Spanish and Ilocano, which, in translation, reads as follows:
24
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 municipality written in
Ilocano, which letter, in translation, reads as follows:
ECHAGUE, ISABELA, September 18, 1928
MY DEAR LIEUTENANT: I would like to inform you of the approaching date for our induction into office as
member of the Provincial Board, that is on the 16th of next month. Before my induction into office I should be very
glad to hear your suggestions or recommendations for the good of the province in general and for your barrio in
particular. You can come to my house at any time here in Echague, to submit to me any kind of suggestion or
recommendation as you may desire.
I also inform you that despite my membership in the Board I will have my residence here in Echague. I will attend
the session of the Board of Ilagan, but will come back home on the following day here in Echague to live and serve
with you as a lawyer and notary public. Despite my election as member of the Provincial Board, I will exercise my
legal profession as a lawyer and notary public. In case you cannot see me at home on any week day, I assure you
that you can always find me there on every Sunday. I also inform you that I will receive any work regarding
preparations of documents of contract of sales and affidavits to be sworn to before me as notary public even on
Sundays.
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 Ilagan 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 you kind favor to transmit this information to your barrio people in any of your meetings 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.
Yours respectfully,
(Sgd.) LUIS TAGORDA

Attorney
Notary Public.
The facts being conceded, it is next in order to write down the applicable legal provisions. Section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure
as originally conceived related to disbarments of members of the bar. In 1919 at the instigation of the Philippine Bar Association, said
codal section was amended by Act No. 2828 by adding at the end thereof the following: "The practice of soliciting cases at law for the
purpose of gain, either personally or through paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice."
The statute as amended conforms in principle to the Canons of Professionals Ethics adopted by the American Bar Association in 1908
and by the Philippine Bar Association in 1917. Canons 27 and 28 of the Code of Ethics provide:
25
27. ADVERTISING, DIRECT OR INDIRECT. — The most worthy and effective advertisement possible, even for a 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. The publication or circulation
of ordinary simple business cards, being a matter of personal taste or local custom, and sometimes of convenience, is not per
se improper. But solicitation of business by circulars or advertisements, or by personal communications or interview 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
interest 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.
28. STIRRING UP LITIGATION, DIRECTLY OR THROUGH AGENTS. — 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. Stirring up
strife and litigation is not only unprofessional, but it is indictable at common law. It is disreputable to hunt up defects in titles
or other causes of action and inform thereof in order to the employed to bring suit, or to breed litigation by seeking out those
with claims for personal injuries or those having any other grounds of action in order to secure them as clients, or to employ
agents or runners for like purposes, or to pay or reward directly or indirectly, those who bring or influence the bringing of
such cases to his office, or to remunerate policemen, court or prison officials, physicians, hospital attaches or others who may
succeed, under the guise of giving disinterested friendly advice, in influencing the criminal, the sick and the injured, the
ignorant or others, to seek his professional services. A duty to the public and to the profession devolves upon every member
of the bar having knowledge of such practices upon the part of any practitioner immediately to inform thereof to the end that
the offender may be disbarred.
Common barratry consisting of frequently stirring up suits and quarrels between individuals was a crime at the common law, and one
of the penalties for this offense when committed by an attorney was disbarment. Statutes intended to reach the same evil have been
provided in a number of jurisdictions usually at the instance of the bar itself, and have been upheld as constitutional. The reason
behind statutes of this type is not difficult to discover. 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. (State vs. Rossman [1909], 53 Wash., 1; 17 Ann. Cas.,
625; People vs. Mac Cabe [1893], 19 L. R. A., 231; 2 R. C. L., 1097.)
It becomes our duty to condemn in no uncertain terms the ugly practice of solicitation of cases by lawyers. It is destructive of the
honor of a great profession. It lowers the standards of that profession. It works against the confidence of the community in the
integrity of the members of the bar. It results in needless litigation and in incenting to strife otherwise peacefully inclined citizens.
The solicitation of employment by an attorney is a ground for disbarment or suspension. That should be distinctly understood.
Giving application of the law and the Canons of Ethics to the admitted facts, the respondent stands convicted of having solicited cases
in defiance of the law and those canons. Accordingly, the only remaining duty of the court is to fix upon the action which should here
be taken. The provincial fiscal of Isabela, with whom joined the representative of the Attorney-General in the oral presentation of the
case, suggests that the respondent be only reprimanded. We think that our action should go further than this if only to reflect our
attitude toward cases of this character of which unfortunately the respondent's is only one. The commission of offenses of this nature
would amply justify permanent elimination from the bar. But as mitigating, circumstances working in favor of the respondent there
are, first, his intimation that he was unaware of the impropriety of his acts, second, his youth and inexperience at the bar, and, third,
his promise not to commit a similar mistake in the future. A modest period of suspension would seem to fit the case of the erring
attorney. But it should be distinctly understood that this result is reached in view of the considerations which have influenced the court
to the relatively lenient in this particular instance and should, therefore, not be taken as indicating that future convictions of practice of
this kind will not be dealt with by disbarment.
In view of all the circumstances of this case, the judgment of the court is that the respondent Luis B. Tagorda be and is hereby
suspended from the practice as an attorney-at-law for the period of one month from April 1, 1929,
Street, Johns, Romualdez, and Villa-Real, JJ., concur.

Johnson, J., reserves his vote.
26
Separate Opinions
OSTRAND, J., dissenting:
I dissent. Under the circumstances of the case a reprimand would have been sufficient punishment.
EN BANC
Bar Matter No. 553 June 17, 1993
MAURICIO C. ULEP, Petitioner, vs. THE LEGAL CLINIC, INC., Respondent.
R E SO L U T I O N
REGALADO, J.:
Petitioner prays this Court "to order the respondent to cease and desist from issuing advertisements similar to or of the same tenor as
that of annexes "A" and "B" (of said petition) and to perpetually prohibit persons or entities from making advertisements pertaining to
the exercise of the law profession other than those allowed by law."chanrobles virtual law library
The advertisements complained of by herein petitioner are as follows:
Annex A
SECRET MARRIAGE?
P560.00 for a valid marriage.
Info on DIVORCE. ABSENCE.
ANNULMENT. VISA.chanrobles virtual law library
THE Please call: 521-0767 LEGAL 5217232, 5222041 CLINIC, INC. 8:30 am- 6:00 pm 7-Flr. Victoria Bldg., UN Ave., Mla.
Annex B
GUAM DIVORCE.
DON PARKINSONchanrobles virtual law library
an Attorney in Guam, is giving FREE BOOKS on Guam Divorce through The Legal Clinic beginning Monday to Friday during office
hours.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
Guam divorce. Annulment of Marriage. Immigration Problems, Visa Ext. Quota/Non-quota Res. & Special Retiree's Visa. Declaration
of Absence. Remarriage to Filipina Fiancees. Adoption. Investment in the Phil. US/Foreign Visa for Filipina Spouse/Children. Call
Marivic.chanrobles virtual law library
THE 7F Victoria Bldg. 429 UN Ave., LEGAL Ermita, Manila nr. US Embassy CLINIC, INC. 1 Tel. 521-7232; 521-7251; 522-2041;
521-0767
It is the submission of petitioner that the advertisements above reproduced are champterous, unethical, demeaning of the law
profession, and destructive of the confidence of the community in the integrity of the members of the bar and that, as a member of the
legal profession, he is ashamed and offended by the said advertisements, hence the reliefs sought in his petition as hereinbefore
quoted.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
27
In its answer to the petition, respondent admits the fact of publication of said advertisement at its instance, but claims that it is not
engaged in the practice of law but in the rendering of "legal support services" through paralegals with the use of modern computers
and electronic machines. Respondent further argues that assuming that the services advertised are legal services, the act of advertising
these services should be allowed supposedly
in the light of the case of John R. Bates and Van O'Steen vs. State Bar of Arizona, 2reportedly decided by the United States Supreme
Court on June 7, 1977.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
Considering the critical implications on the legal profession of the issues raised herein, we required the (1) Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP), (2) Philippine Bar Association (PBA), (3) Philippine Lawyers' Association (PLA), (4) U.P. Womens Lawyers'
Circle (WILOCI), (5) Women Lawyers Association of the Philippines (WLAP), and (6) Federacion International de Abogadas (FIDA)
to submit their respective position papers on the controversy and, thereafter, their memoranda. 3The said bar associations readily
responded and extended their valuable services and cooperation of which this Court takes note with appreciation and
gratitude.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
The main issues posed for resolution before the Court are whether or not the services offered by respondent, The Legal Clinic, Inc., as
advertised by it constitutes practice of law and, in either case, whether the same can properly be the subject of the advertisements
herein complained of.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
Before proceeding with an in-depth analysis of the merits of this case, we deem it proper and enlightening to present hereunder
excerpts from the respective position papers adopted by the aforementioned bar associations and the memoranda submitted by them on
the issues involved in this bar matter.
1. Integrated Bar of the Philippines:
xxx xxx xxxchanrobles virtual law library
Notwithstanding the subtle manner by which respondent endeavored to distinguish the two terms, i.e., "legal support services" vis-a-
vis "legal services", common sense would readily dictate that the same are essentially without substantial distinction. For who could
deny that document search, evidence gathering, assistance to layman in need of basic institutional services from government or non-
government agencies like birth, marriage, property, or business registration, obtaining documents like clearance, passports, local or
foreign visas, constitutes practice of law?
The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) does not wish to make issue with respondent's foreign citations. Suffice it to state that the
IBP has made its position manifest, to wit, that it strongly opposes the view espoused by respondent (to the effect that today it is
alright to advertise one's legal services).chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
The IBP accordingly declares in no uncertain terms its opposition to respondent's act of establishing a "legal clinic" and of
concomitantly advertising the same through newspaper publications.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
The IBP would therefore invoke the administrative supervision of this Honorable Court to perpetually restrain respondent from
undertaking highly unethical activities in the field of law practice as aforedescribed. 4
A. The use of the name "The Legal Clinic, Inc." gives the impression that respondent corporation is being operated by lawyers and
that it renders legal services.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
While the respondent repeatedly denies that it offers legal services to the public, the advertisements in question give the impression
that respondent is offering legal services. The Petition in fact simply assumes this to be so, as earlier mentioned, apparently because
this (is) the effect that the advertisements have on the reading public.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
The impression created by the advertisements in question can be traced, first of all, to the very name being used by respondent - "The
Legal Clinic, Inc." Such a name, it is respectfully submitted connotes the rendering of legal services for legal problems, just like a
medical clinic connotes medical services for medical problems. More importantly, the term "Legal Clinic" connotes lawyers, as the
term medical clinic connotes doctors.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
28
Furthermore, the respondent's name, as published in the advertisements subject of the present case, appears with (the) scale(s) of
justice, which all the more reinforces the impression that it is being operated by members of the bar and that it offers legal services. In
addition, the advertisements in question appear with a picture and name of a person being represented as a lawyer from Guam, and this
practically removes whatever doubt may still remain as to the nature of the service or services being
offered.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
It thus becomes irrelevant whether respondent is merely offering "legal support services" as claimed by it, or whether it offers legal
services as any lawyer actively engaged in law practice does. And it becomes unnecessary to make a distinction between "legal
services" and "legal support services," as the respondent would have it. The advertisements in question leave no room for doubt in the
minds of the reading public that legal services are being offered by lawyers, whether true or not.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles
virtual law library
B. The advertisements in question are meant to induce the performance of acts contrary to law, morals, public order and public
policy.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
It may be conceded that, as the respondent claims, the advertisements in question are only meant to inform the general public of the
services being offered by it. Said advertisements, however, emphasize to Guam divorce, and any law student ought to know that under
the Family Code, there is only one instance when a foreign divorce is recognized, and that is:
Article 26. . . .chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
Where a marriage between a Filipino citizen and a foreigner is validly celebrated and a divorce is thereafter validly obtained abroad
by the alien spouse capacitating him or her to remarry, the Filipino spouse shall have capacity to remarry under Philippine Law.
It must not be forgotten, too, that the Family Code (defines) a marriage as follows:
Article 1. Marriage is special contract of permanent union between a man and woman entered into accordance with law for the
establishment of conjugal and family life. It is the foundation of the family and an inviolable social institution whose nature,
consequences, and incidents are governed by law and not subject to stipulation, except that marriage settlements may fix the property
relation during the marriage within the limits provided by this Code.
By simply reading the questioned advertisements, it is obvious that the message being conveyed is that Filipinos can avoid the legal
consequences of a marriage celebrated in accordance with our law, by simply going to Guam for a divorce. This is not only
misleading, but encourages, or serves to induce, violation of Philippine law. At the very least, this can be considered "the dark side" of
legal practice, where certain defects in Philippine laws are exploited for the sake of profit. At worst, this is outright malpractice.
Rule 1.02. - A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening confidence in the legal system.
In addition, it may also be relevant to point out that advertisements such as that shown in Annex "A" of the Petition, which contains a
cartoon of a motor vehicle with the words "Just Married" on its bumper and seems to address those planning a "secret marriage," if not
suggesting a "secret marriage," makes light of the "special contract of permanent union," the inviolable social institution," which is
how the Family Code describes marriage, obviously to emphasize its sanctity and inviolability. Worse, this particular advertisement
appears to encourage marriages celebrated in secrecy, which is suggestive of immoral publication of applications for a marriage
license.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
If the article "Rx for Legal Problems" is to be reviewed, it can readily be concluded that the above impressions one may gather from
the advertisements in question are accurate. The Sharon Cuneta-Gabby Concepcion example alone confirms what the advertisements
suggest. Here it can be seen that criminal acts are being encouraged or committed
(a bigamous marriage in Hong Kong or Las Vegas) with impunity simply because the jurisdiction of Philippine courts does not extend
to the place where the crime is committed.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
Even if it be assumed, arguendo, (that) the "legal support services" respondent offers do not constitute legal services as commonly
understood, the advertisements in question give the impression that respondent corporation is being operated by lawyers and that it
offers legal services, as earlier discussed. Thus, the only logical consequence is that, in the eyes of an ordinary newspaper reader,
members of the bar themselves are encouraging or inducing the performance of acts which are contrary to law, morals, good customs
and the public good, thereby destroying and demeaning the integrity of the Bar.
29
It is respectfully submitted that respondent should be enjoined from causing the publication of the advertisements in question, or any
other advertisements similar thereto. It is also submitted that respondent should be prohibited from further performing or offering
some of the services it presently offers, or, at the very least, from offering such services to the public in
general.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
The IBP is aware of the fact that providing computerized legal research, electronic data gathering, storage and retrieval, standardized
legal forms, investigators for gathering of evidence, and like services will greatly benefit the legal profession and should not be stifled
but instead encouraged. However, when the conduct of such business by non-members of the Bar encroaches upon the practice of law,
there can be no choice but to prohibit such business.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
Admittedly, many of the services involved in the case at bar can be better performed by specialists in other fields, such as computer
experts, who by reason of their having devoted time and effort exclusively to such field cannot fulfill the exacting requirements for
admission to the Bar. To prohibit them from "encroaching" upon the legal profession will deny the profession of the great benefits and
advantages of modern technology. Indeed, a lawyer using a computer will be doing better than a lawyer using a typewriter, even if
both are (equal) in skill.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
Both the Bench and the Bar, however, should be careful not to allow or tolerate the illegal practice of law in any form, not only for the
protection of members of the Bar but also, and more importantly, for the protection of the public. Technological development in the
profession may be encouraged without tolerating, but instead ensuring prevention of illegal
practice.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
There might be nothing objectionable if respondent is allowed to perform all of its services, but only if such services are made
available exclusively to members of the Bench and Bar. Respondent would then be offering technical assistance, not legal services.
Alternatively, the more difficult task of carefully distinguishing between which service may be offered to the public in general and
which should be made available exclusively to members of the Bar may be undertaken. This, however, may require further
proceedings because of the factual considerations involved.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
It must be emphasized, however, that some of respondent's services ought to be prohibited outright, such as acts which tend to suggest
or induce celebration abroad of marriages which are bigamous or otherwise illegal and void under Philippine law. While respondent
may not be prohibited from simply disseminating information regarding such matters, it must be required to include, in the
information given, a disclaimer that it is not authorized to practice law, that certain course of action may be illegal under Philippine
law, that it is not authorized or capable of rendering a legal opinion, that a lawyer should be consulted before deciding on which
course of action to take, and that it cannot recommend any particular lawyer without subjecting itself to possible sanctions for illegal
practice of law.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
If respondent is allowed to advertise, advertising should be directed exclusively at members of the Bar, with a clear and unmistakable
disclaimer that it is not authorized to practice law or perform legal services.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
The benefits of being assisted by paralegals cannot be ignored. But nobody should be allowed to represent himself as a "paralegal" for
profit, without such term being clearly defined by rule or regulation, and without any adequate and effective means of regulating his
activities. Also, law practice in a corporate form may prove to be advantageous to the legal profession, but before allowance of such
practice may be considered, the corporation's Article of Incorporation and By-laws must conform to each and every provision of the
Code of Professional Responsibility and the Rules of Court. 5
2. Philippine Bar Association:
xxx xxx xxx.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
Respondent asserts that it "is not engaged in the practice of law but engaged in giving legal support services to lawyers and laymen,
through experienced paralegals, with the use of modern computers and electronic machines" (pars. 2 and 3, Comment). This is absurd.
Unquestionably, respondent's acts of holding out itself to the public under the trade name "The Legal Clinic, Inc.," and soliciting
employment for its enumerated services fall within the realm of a practice which thus yields itself to the regulatory powers of the
Supreme Court. For respondent to say that it is merely engaged in paralegal work is to stretch credulity. Respondent's own commercial
advertisement which announces a certain Atty. Don Parkinson to be handling the fields of law belies its pretense. From all indications,
respondent "The Legal Clinic, Inc." is offering and rendering legal services through its reserve of lawyers. It has been held that the
30
practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases in court, but includes drawing of deeds, incorporation, rendering opinions, and
advising clients as to their legal right and then take them to an attorney and ask the latter to look after their case in court See Martin,
Legal and Judicial Ethics, 1984 ed., p. 39).chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
It is apt to recall that only natural persons can engage in the practice of law, and such limitation cannot be evaded by
a corporation employing competent lawyers to practice for it. Obviously, this is the scheme or device by which respondent "The Legal
Clinic, Inc." holds out itself to the public and solicits employment of its legal services. It is an odious vehicle for deception, especially
so when the public cannot ventilate any grievance for malpractice against the business conduit. Precisely, the limitation of practice of
law to persons who have been duly admitted as members of the Bar (Sec. 1, Rule 138, Revised Rules of Court) is to subject the
members to the discipline of the Supreme Court. Although respondent uses its business name, the persons and the lawyers who act for
it are subject to court discipline. The practice of law is not a profession open to all who wish to engage in it nor can it be assigned to
another (See 5 Am. Jur. 270). It is a personal right limited to persons who have qualified themselves under the law. It follows that not
only respondent but also all the persons who are acting for respondent are the persons engaged in unethical law practice. 6
3. Philippine Lawyers' Association:chanrobles virtual law library
The Philippine Lawyers' Association's position, in answer to the issues stated herein, are wit:
1. The Legal Clinic is engaged in the practice of law;
2. Such practice is unauthorized;
3. The advertisements complained of are not only unethical, but also misleading and patently immoral; and
4. The Honorable Supreme Court has the power to supress and punish the Legal Clinic and its corporate officers for its unauthorized
practice of law and for its unethical, misleading and immoral advertising.
Respondent posits that is it not engaged in the practice of law. It claims that it merely renders "legal support services" to answers,
litigants and the general public as enunciated in the Primary Purpose Clause of its Article(s) of Incorporation. (See pages 2 to 5 of
Respondent's Comment). But its advertised services, as enumerated above, clearly and convincingly show that it is indeed engaged in
law practice, albeit outside of court.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
As advertised, it offers the general public its advisory services on Persons and Family Relations Law, particularly regarding foreign
divorces, annulment of marriages, secret marriages, absence and adoption; Immigration Laws, particularly on visa related problems,
immigration problems; the Investments Law of the Philippines and such other related laws.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles
virtual law library
Its advertised services unmistakably require the application of the aforesaid law, the legal principles and procedures related thereto,
the legal advices based thereon and which activities call for legal training, knowledge and
experience.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
Applying the test laid down by the Court in the aforecited Agrava Case, the activities of respondent fall squarely and are embraced in
what lawyers and laymen equally term as "the practice of law." 7
4. U.P. Women Lawyers' Circle:chanrobles virtual law library
In resolving, the issues before this Honorable Court, paramount consideration should be given to the protection of the general public
from the danger of being exploited by unqualified persons or entities who may be engaged in the practice of
law.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
At present, becoming a lawyer requires one to take a rigorous four-year course of study on top of a four-year bachelor of arts or
sciences course and then to take and pass the bar examinations. Only then, is a lawyer qualified to practice
law.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
31
While the use of a paralegal is sanctioned in many jurisdiction as an aid to the administration of justice, there are in those jurisdictions,
courses of study and/or standards which would qualify these paralegals to deal with the general public as such. While it may now be
the opportune time to establish these courses of study and/or standards, the fact remains that at present, these do not exist in the
Philippines. In the meantime, this Honorable Court may decide to make measures to protect the general public from being exploited
by those who may be dealing with the general public in the guise of being "paralegals" without being qualified to do
so.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
In the same manner, the general public should also be protected from the dangers which may be brought about by advertising of legal
services. While it appears that lawyers are prohibited under the present Code of Professional Responsibility from advertising, it
appears in the instant case that legal services are being advertised not by lawyers but by an entity staffed by "paralegals." Clearly,
measures should be taken to protect the general public from falling prey to those who advertise legal services without being qualified
to offer such services. 8
A perusal of the questioned advertisements of Respondent, however, seems to give the impression that information regarding validity
of marriages, divorce, annulment of marriage, immigration, visa extensions, declaration of absence, adoption and foreign investment,
which are in essence, legal matters , will be given to them if they avail of its services. The Respondent's name - The Legal Clinic, Inc.
- does not help matters. It gives the impression again that Respondent will or can cure the legal problems brought to them. Assuming
that Respondent is, as claimed, staffed purely by paralegals, it also gives the misleading impression that there are lawyers involved in
The Legal Clinic, Inc., as there are doctors in any medical clinic, when only "paralegals" are involved in The Legal Clinic,
Inc.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
Respondent's allegations are further belied by the very admissions of its President and majority stockholder, Atty. Nogales, who gave
an insight on the structure and main purpose of Respondent corporation in the aforementioned "Starweek" article." 9
5. Women Lawyer's Association of the Philippines:chanrobles virtual law library
Annexes "A" and "B" of the petition are clearly advertisements to solicit cases for the purpose of gain which, as provided for under the
above cited law, (are) illegal and against the Code of Professional Responsibility of lawyers in this
country.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
Annex "A" of the petition is not only illegal in that it is an advertisement to solicit cases, but it is illegal in that in bold letters it
announces that the Legal Clinic, Inc., could work out/cause the celebration of a secret marriage which is not only illegal but immoral
in this country. While it is advertised that one has to go to said agency and pay P560 for a valid marriage it is certainly fooling the
public for valid marriages in the Philippines are solemnized only by officers authorized to do so under the law. And to employ an
agency for said purpose of contracting marriage is not necessary.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
No amount of reasoning that in the USA, Canada and other countries the trend is towards allowing lawyers to advertise their special
skills to enable people to obtain from qualified practitioners legal services for their particular needs can justify the use of
advertisements such as are the subject matter of the petition, for one (cannot) justify an illegal act even by whatever merit the illegal
act may serve. The law has yet to be amended so that such act could become justifiable.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual
law library
We submit further that these advertisements that seem to project that secret marriages and divorce are possible in this country for a
fee, when in fact it is not so, are highly reprehensible.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
It would encourage people to consult this clinic about how they could go about having a secret marriage here, when it cannot nor
should ever be attempted, and seek advice on divorce, where in this country there is none, except under the Code of Muslim Personal
Laws in the Philippines. It is also against good morals and is deceitful because it falsely represents to the public to be able to do that
which by our laws cannot be done (and) by our Code of Morals should not be done.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law
library
In the case (of) In re Taguda, 53 Phil. 37, the Supreme Court held that solicitation for clients by an attorney by circulars of
advertisements, is unprofessional, and offenses of this character justify permanent elimination from the Bar. 10
6. Federacion Internacional de Abogados:
32
1.7 That entities admittedly not engaged in the practice of law, such as management consultancy firms or travel agencies, whether run
by lawyers or not, perform the services rendered by Respondent does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that Respondent is not
unlawfully practicing law. In the same vein, however, the fact that the business of respondent (assuming it can be engaged in
independently of the practice of law) involves knowledge of the law does not necessarily make respondent guilty of unlawful practice
of law.
. . . . Of necessity, no one . . . . acting as a consultant can render effective service unless he is familiar with such statutes and
regulations. He must be careful not to suggest a course of conduct which the law forbids. It seems . . . .clear that (the consultant's)
knowledge of the law, and his use of that knowledge as a factor in determining what measures he shall recommend, do not constitute
the practice of law . . . . It is not only presumed that all men know the law, but it is a fact that most men have considerable
acquaintance with broad features of the law . . . . Our knowledge of the law - accurate or inaccurate - moulds our conduct not only
when we are acting for ourselves, but when we are serving others. Bankers, liquor dealers and laymen generally possess rather precise
knowledge of the laws touching their particular business or profession. A good example is the architect, who must be familiar with
zoning, building and fire prevention codes, factory and tenement house statutes, and who draws plans and specification in harmony
with the law. This is not practicing law.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
But suppose the architect, asked by his client to omit a fire tower, replies that it is required by the statute. Or the industrial relations
expert cites, in support of some measure that he recommends, a decision of the National Labor Relations Board. Are they practicing
law? In my opinion, they are not, provided no separate fee is charged for the legal advice or information, and the legal question is
subordinate and incidental to a major non-legal problem.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
It is largely a matter of degree and of custom.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
If it were usual for one intending to erect a building on his land to engage a lawyer to advise him and the architect in respect to the
building code and the like, then an architect who performed this function would probably be considered to be trespassing on territory
reserved for licensed attorneys. Likewise, if the industrial relations field had been pre-empted by lawyers, or custom placed a lawyer
always at the elbow of the lay personnel man. But this is not the case. The most important body of the industrial relations experts are
the officers and business agents of the labor unions and few of them are lawyers. Among the larger corporate employers, it has been
the practice for some years to delegate special responsibility in employee matters to a management group chosen for their practical
knowledge and skill in such matter, and without regard to legal thinking or lack of it. More recently, consultants like the defendants
have the same service that the larger employers get from their own specialized staff.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law
library
The handling of industrial relations is growing into a recognized profession for which appropriate courses are offered by our leading
universities. The court should be very cautious about declaring [that] a widespread, well-established method of conducting business is
unlawful, or that the considerable class of men who customarily perform a certain function have no right to do so, or that the technical
education given by our schools cannot be used by the graduates in their business.
In determining whether a man is practicing law, we should consider his work for any particular client or customer, as a whole. I can
imagine defendant being engaged primarily to advise as to the law defining his client's obligations to his employees, to guide his
client's obligations to his employees, to guide his client along the path charted by law. This, of course, would be the practice of the
law. But such is not the fact in the case before me. Defendant's primarily efforts are along economic and psychological lines. The law
only provides the frame within which he must work, just as the zoning code limits the kind of building the limits the kind of building
the architect may plan. The incidental legal advice or information defendant may give, does not transform his activities into the
practice of law. Let me add that if, even as a minor feature of his work, he performed services which are customarily reserved to
members of the bar, he would be practicing law. For instance, if as part of a welfare program, he drew employees'
wills.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
Another branch of defendant's work is the representations of the employer in the adjustment of grievances and in collective
bargaining, with or without a mediator. This is not per se the practice of law. Anyone may use an agent for negotiations and may
select an agent particularly skilled in the subject under discussion, and the person appointed is free to accept the employment whether
or not he is a member of the bar. Here, however, there may be an exception where the business turns on a question of law. Most real
estate sales are negotiated by brokers who are not lawyers. But if the value of the land depends on a disputed right-of-way and the
principal role of the negotiator is to assess the probable outcome of the dispute and persuade the opposite party to the same opinion,
then it may be that only a lawyer can accept the assignment. Or if a controversy between an employer and his men grows from
differing interpretations of a contract, or of a statute, it is quite likely that defendant should not handle it. But I need not reach a
definite conclusion here, since the situation is not presented by the proofs.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
33
Defendant also appears to represent the employer before administrative agencies of the federal government, especially before trial
examiners of the National Labor Relations Board. An agency of the federal government, acting by virtue of an authority granted by
the Congress, may regulate the representation of parties before such agency. The State of New Jersey is without power to interfere
with such determination or to forbid representation before the agency by one whom the agency admits. The rules of the National
Labor Relations Board give to a party the right to appear in person, or by counsel, or by other representative. Rules and Regulations,
September 11th, 1946, S. 203.31. 'Counsel' here means a licensed attorney, and ther representative' one not a lawyer. In this phase of
his work, defendant may lawfully do whatever the Labor Board allows, even arguing questions purely legal. (Auerbacher v. Wood, 53
A. 2d 800, cited in Statsky, Introduction to Paralegalism [1974], at pp. 154-156.).
1.8 From the foregoing, it can be said that a person engaged in a lawful calling (which may involve knowledge of the law) is not
engaged in the practice of law provided that:chanrobles virtual law library
(a) The legal question is subordinate and incidental to a major non-legal problem;.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law
library
(b) The services performed are not customarily reserved to members of the bar; .chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law
library
(c) No separate fee is charged for the legal advice or information.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
All these must be considered in relation to the work for any particular client as a whole.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual
law library
1.9. If the person involved is both lawyer and non-lawyer, the Code of Professional Responsibility succintly states the rule of
conduct:chanrobles virtual law library
Rule 15.08 - A lawyer who is engaged in another profession or occupation concurrently with the practice of law shall make clear to his
client whether he is acting as a lawyer or in another capacity.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
1.10. In the present case. the Legal Clinic appears to render wedding services (See Annex "A" Petition). Services on routine,
straightforward marriages, like securing a marriage license, and making arrangements with a priest or a judge, may not constitute
practice of law. However, if the problem is as complicated as that described in "Rx for Legal Problems" on the Sharon Cuneta-Gabby
Concepcion-Richard 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.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
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.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
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 peculiar to a designated or readily identified person in a particular situation - in their publication
and sale of the kits, such publication and sale did not constitutes the unlawful practice of law . . . . There being no legal impediment
under the statute to the sale of the kit, there was no proper basis for the injunction against defendant maintaining an office for the
purpose of selling to persons seeking a divorce, separation, annulment or separation agreement any printed material or writings
relating to matrimonial law or the prohibition in the memorandum of modification of the judgment against defendant having an
34
interest in any publishing house publishing his manuscript on divorce and against his having any personal contact with any
prospective purchaser. The record does fully support, however, the finding that for the change of $75 or $100 for the kit, the defendant
gave legal advice in the course of personal contacts concerning particular problems which might arise in the preparation and
presentation of the purchaser's asserted matrimonial cause of action or pursuit of other legal remedies and assistance in the preparation
of necessary documents (The injunction therefore sought to) enjoin conduct constituting the practice of law, particularly with
reference to the giving of advice and counsel by the defendant relating to specific problems of particular individuals in connection
with a divorce, separation, annulment of separation agreement sought and should be affirmed. (State v. Winder, 348, NYS 2D 270
[1973], cited in Statsky, supra at p. 101.).
1.12. Respondent, of course, states that its services are "strictly non-diagnostic, non-advisory. "It is not controverted, however, that if
the services "involve giving legal advice or counselling," such would constitute practice of law (Comment, par. 6.2). It is in this light
that FIDA submits that a factual inquiry may be necessary for the judicious disposition of this case.
2.10. Annex "A" may be ethically objectionable in that it can give the impression (or perpetuate the wrong notion) that there is a secret
marriage. With all the solemnities, formalities and other requisites of marriages (See Articles 2, et seq., Family Code), no Philippine
marriage can be secret.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
2.11. Annex "B" may likewise be ethically objectionable. The second paragraph thereof (which is not necessarily related to the first
paragraph) fails to state the limitation that only "paralegal services?" or "legal support services", and not legal services, are
available." 11chanrobles virtual law library
A prefatory discussion on the meaning of the phrase "practice of law" becomes exigent for the proper determination of the issues
raised by the petition at bar. On this score, we note that the clause "practice of law" has long been the subject of judicial construction
and interpretation. The courts have laid down general principles and doctrines explaining the meaning and scope of the term, some of
which we now take into account.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
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. 12chanrobles virtual law library
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. 13chanrobles
virtual law library
In the practice of his profession, a licensed attorney at law generally engages in three principal types of professional activity: legal
advice and instructions to clients to inform them of their rights and obligations, preparation for clients of documents requiring
knowledge of legal principles not possessed by ordinary layman, and appearance for clients before public tribunals which possess
power and authority to determine rights of life, liberty, and property according to law, in order to assist in proper interpretation and
enforcement of law. 14chanrobles virtual law library
When a person participates in the a trial and advertises himself as a lawyer, he is in the practice of law. 15One 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. 16Giving advice for compensation regarding the legal status and rights of another and the conduct with respect
thereto constitutes a practice of law. 17One who renders an opinion as to the proper interpretation of a statute, and receives pay for it,
is, to that extent, practicing law. 18chanrobles virtual law library
In the recent case of Cayetano vs. Monsod, 19after citing the doctrines in several cases, we laid down the test to determine whether
certain acts constitute "practice of law," thus:
Black defines "practice of law" as:chanrobles virtual law library
The rendition of services requiring the knowledge and the application of legal principles and technique to serve the interest of another
with his consent. It is not limited to appearing in court, or advising and assisting in the conduct of litigation, but embraces the
preparation of pleadings, and other papers incident to actions and special proceedings, conveyancing, the preparation of legal
35
instruments of all kinds, and the giving of all legal advice to clients. It embraces all advice to clients and all actions taken for them in
matters connected with the law.
The practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases on court.(Land Title Abstract and Trust Co. v. Dworken , 129 Ohio St. 23,
193N. E. 650). A person is also considered to be in the practice of law when he:
. . . . for valuable consideration engages in the business of advising person, firms, associations or corporations as to their right under
the law, or appears in a representative capacity as an advocate in proceedings, pending or prospective, before any court, commissioner,
referee, board, body, committee, or commission constituted by law or authorized to settle controversies and there, in such
representative capacity, performs any act or acts for the purpose of obtaining or defending the rights of their clients under the law.
Otherwise stated, one who, in a representative capacity, engages in the business of advising clients as to their rights under the law, or
while so engaged performs any act or acts either in court or outside of court for that purpose, is engaged in the practice of law. (State
ex. rel. Mckittrick v. C.S. Dudley and Co., 102 S. W. 2d 895, 340 Mo. 852).
This Court, in the case of Philippines Lawyers Association v. Agrava (105 Phil. 173, 176-177),stated:
The practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases or litigation in court; it embraces the preparation of pleadings and other
papers incident to actions and special proceedings, the management of such actions and proceedings on behalf of clients before judges
and courts, and in addition, conveying. In general, all advice to clients, and all action taken for them in matters connected with the law
incorporation services, assessment and condemnation services contemplating an appearance before a judicial body, the foreclosure of
a mortgage, enforcement of a creditor's claim in bankruptcy and insolvency proceedings, and conducting proceedings in attachment,
and in matters or estate and guardianship have been held to constitute law practice, as do the preparation and drafting of legal
instruments, where the work done involves the determination by the trained legal mind of the legal effect of facts and conditions. (5
Am. Jr. p. 262, 263).chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
Practice of law under modern conditions consists in no small part of work performed outside of any court and having no immediate
relation to proceedings in court. It embraces conveyancing, the giving of legal advice on a large variety of subjects and the preparation
and execution of legal instruments covering an extensive field of business and trust relations and other affairs. Although these
transactions may have no direct connection with court proceedings, they are always subject to become involved in litigation. They
require in many aspects a high degree of legal skill, a wide experience with men and affairs, and great capacity for adaptation to
difficult and complex situations. These customary functions of an attorney or counselor at law bear an intimate relation to the
administration of justice by the courts. No valid distinction, so far as concerns the question set forth in the order, can be drawn
between that part of the work of the lawyer which involves appearance in court and that part which involves advice and drafting of
instruments in his office. It is of importance to the welfare of the public that these manifold customary functions be performed by
persons possessed of adequate learning and skill, of sound moral character, and acting at all times under the heavy trust obligations to
clients which rests upon all attorneys. (Moran, Comments on the Rules o Court, Vol. 3 [1973 ed.], pp. 665-666, citing In Re Opinion
of the Justices [Mass], 194 N. E. 313, quoted in Rhode Is. Bar Assoc. v. Automobile Service Assoc. [R.I.] 197 A. 139, 144).
The practice of law, therefore, covers a wide range of activities in and out of court. Applying the aforementioned criteria to the case at
bar, we agree with the perceptive findings and observations of the aforestated bar associations that the activities of respondent, as
advertised, constitute "practice of law."chanrobles virtual law library
The contention of respondent that it merely offers legal support services can neither be seriously considered nor sustained. Said
proposition is belied by respondent's own description of the services it has been offering, to wit:
Legal support services basically consists of giving ready information by trained paralegals to laymen and lawyers, which are strictly
non-diagnostic, non-advisory, through the extensive use of computers and modern information technology in the gathering,
processing, storage, transmission and reproduction of information and communication, such as computerized legal research; encoding
and reproduction of documents and pleadings prepared by laymen or lawyers; document search; evidence gathering; locating parties
or witnesses to a case; fact finding investigations; and assistance to laymen in need of basic institutional services from government or
non-government agencies, like birth, marriage, property, or business registrations; educational or employment records or
certifications, obtaining documentation like clearances, passports, local or foreign visas; giving information about laws of other
countries that they may find useful, like foreign divorce, marriage or adoption laws that they can avail of preparatory to emigration to
the foreign country, and other matters that do not involve representation of clients in court; designing and installing computer systems,
programs, or software for the efficient management of law offices, corporate legal departments, courts and other entities engaged in
dispensing or administering legal services. 20chanrobles virtual law library
36
While some of the services being offered by respondent corporation merely involve mechanical and technical knowhow, such as the
installation of computer systems and programs for the efficient management of law offices, or the computerization of research aids
and materials, these will not suffice to justify an exception to the general rule.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
What is palpably clear is that respondent corporation gives out legal information to laymen and lawyers. Its contention that such
function is non-advisory and non-diagnostic is more apparent than real. In providing information, for example, about foreign laws on
marriage, divorce and adoption, it strains the credulity of this Court that all the respondent corporation will simply do is look for the
law, furnish a copy thereof to the client, and stop there as if it were merely a bookstore. 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." Such a conclusion will not be altered
by the fact that respondent corporation does not represent clients in court since law practice, as the weight of authority holds, is not
limited merely giving legal advice, contract drafting and so forth.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
The aforesaid conclusion is further strengthened by an article published in the January 13, 1991 issue of the Starweek/The Sunday
Magazine of the Philippines Star, entitled "Rx for Legal Problems," where an insight into the structure, main purpose and operations
of respondent corporation was given by its own "proprietor," Atty. Rogelio P. Nogales:
This is the kind of business that is transacted everyday at The Legal Clinic, with offices on the seventh floor of the Victoria Building
along U. N. Avenue in Manila. No matter what the client's problem, and even if it is as complicated as the Cuneta-Concepcion
domestic situation, Atty. Nogales and his staff of lawyers, who, like doctors are "specialists" in various fields can take care of it. The
Legal Clinic, Inc. has specialists in taxation and criminal law, medico-legal problems, labor, litigation, and family law. These
specialist are backed up by a battery of paralegals, counsellors and attorneys.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
Atty. Nogales set up The Legal Clinic in 1984. Inspired by the trend in the medical field toward specialization, it caters to clients who
cannot afford the services of the big law firms.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
The Legal Clinic has regular and walk-in clients. "when they come, we start by analyzing the problem. That's what doctors do also.
They ask you how you contracted what's bothering you, they take your temperature, they observe you for the symptoms and so on.
That's how we operate, too. And once the problem has been categorized, then it's referred to one of our
specialists.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library
There are cases which do not, in medical terms, require surgery or follow-up treatment. These The Legal Clinic disposes of in a matter
of minutes. "Things like preparing a simple deed of sale or an affidavit of loss can be taken care of by our staff or, if this were a
hospital the residents or the interns. We can take care of these matters on a while you wait basis. Again, kung baga sa hospital, out-
patient, hindi kailangang ma-confine. It's just like a common cold or diarrhea," explains Atty.
Nogales.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
Those cases which requires more extensive "treatment" are dealt with accordingly. "If you had a rich relative who died and named you
her sole heir, and you stand to inherit millions of pesos of property, we would refer you to a specialist in taxation. There would be real
estate taxes and arrears which would need to be put in order, and your relative is even taxed by the state for the right to transfer her
property, and only a specialist in taxation would be properly trained to deal with the problem. Now, if there were other heirs
contesting your rich relatives will, then you would need a litigator, who knows how to arrange the problem for presentation in court,
and gather evidence to support the case. 21chanrobles virtual law library
That fact that the corporation employs paralegals to carry out its services is not controlling. What is important is that it is engaged in
the practice of law by virtue of the nature of the services it renders which thereby brings it within the ambit of the statutory
prohibitions against the advertisements which it has caused to be published and are now assailed in this
proceeding.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
Further, as correctly and appropriately pointed out by the U.P. WILOCI, said reported facts sufficiently establish that the main
purpose of respondent is to serve as a one-stop-shop of sorts for various legal problems wherein a client may avail of legal services
from simple documentation to complex litigation and corporate undertakings. Most of these services are undoubtedly beyond the
domain of paralegals, but rather, are exclusive functions of lawyers engaged in the practice of law. 22chanrobles virtual law library
It should be noted that in our jurisdiction the services being offered by private respondent which constitute practice of law cannot be
performed by paralegals. Only a person duly admitted as a member of the bar, or hereafter admitted as such in accordance with the
provisions of the Rules of Court, and who is in good and regular standing, is entitled to practice law. 23chanrobles virtual law library
37
Public policy requires that the practice of law be limited to those individuals found duly qualified in education and character. The
permissive right conferred on the lawyers is an individual and limited privilege subject to withdrawal if he fails to maintain proper
standards of moral and professional conduct. The purpose is to protect the public, the court, the client and the bar from the
incompetence or dishonesty of those unlicensed to practice law and not subject to the disciplinary control of the court. 24chanrobles
virtual law library
The same rule is observed in the american jurisdiction wherefrom respondent would wish to draw support for his thesis. The doctrines
there also stress that the practice of law is limited to those who meet the requirements for, and have been admitted to, the bar, and
various statutes or rules specifically so provide. 25The practice of law is not a lawful business except for members of the bar who have
complied with all the conditions required by statute and the rules of court. Only those persons are allowed to practice law who, by
reason of attainments previously acquired through education and study, have been recognized by the courts as possessing profound
knowledge of legal science entitling them to advise, counsel with, protect, or defend the rights claims, or liabilities of their clients,
with respect to the construction, interpretation, operation and effect of law. 26The justification for excluding from the practice of law
those not admitted to the bar is found, not in the protection of the bar from competition, but in the protection of the public from being
advised and represented in legal matters by incompetent and unreliable persons over whom the judicial department can exercise little
control. 27chanrobles virtual law library
We have to necessarily and definitely reject respondent's position that the concept in the United States of paralegals as an occupation
separate from the law profession be adopted in this jurisdiction. Whatever may be its merits, respondent cannot but be aware that this
should first be a matter for judicial rules or legislative action, and not of unilateral adoption as it has
done.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
Paralegals in the United States are trained professionals. As admitted by respondent, there are schools and universities there which
offer studies and degrees in paralegal education, while there are none in the Philippines. 28As the concept of the "paralegals" or "legal
assistant" evolved in the United States, standards and guidelines also evolved to protect the general public. One of the major standards
or guidelines was developed by the American Bar Association which set up Guidelines for the Approval of Legal Assistant Education
Programs (1973). Legislation has even been proposed to certify legal assistants. There are also associations of paralegals in the United
States with their own code of professional ethics, such as the National Association of Legal Assistants, Inc. and the American
Paralegal Association. 29chanrobles virtual law library
In the Philippines, we still have a restricted concept and limited acceptance of what may be considered as paralegal service. As
pointed out by FIDA, some persons not duly licensed to practice law are or have been allowed limited representation in behalf of
another or to render legal services, but such allowable services are limited in scope and extent by the law, rules or regulations granting
permission therefor. 30chanrobles virtual law library
Accordingly, we have adopted the American judicial policy that, in the absence of constitutional or statutory authority, a person who
has not been admitted as an attorney cannot practice law for the proper administration of justice cannot be hindered by the
unwarranted intrusion of an unauthorized and unskilled person into the practice of law. 31That policy should continue to be one of
encouraging persons who are unsure of their legal rights and remedies to seek legal assistance only from persons licensed to practice
law in the state. 32chanrobles virtual law library
Anent the issue on the validity of the questioned advertisements, the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that a lawyer in
making known his legal services shall use only true, honest, fair, dignified and objective information or statement of facts. 33He is not
supposed to 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. 34Nor shall he pay or give something of value to representatives of the mass media
in anticipation of, or in return for, publicity to attract legal business. 35Prior to the adoption of the code of Professional Responsibility,
the Canons of Professional Ethics had also warned that lawyers should not resort to indirect advertisements for professional
employment, such as furnishing or inspiring newspaper comments, or procuring his photograph to be published in connection with
causes in which the lawyer has been or is engaged or concerning the manner of their conduct, the magnitude of the interest involved,
the importance of the lawyer's position, and all other like self-laudation. 36chanrobles virtual law library
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. 37The prescription against
advertising of legal services or solicitation of legal business rests on the fundamental postulate that the that the practice of law is a
profession. Thus, in the case of The Director of Religious Affairs. vs. Estanislao R. Bayot 38 an advertisement, similar to those of
respondent which are involved in the present proceeding, 39was held to constitute improper advertising or
solicitation.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
38
The pertinent part of the decision therein reads:
It is undeniable that the advertisement in question was a flagrant violation by the respondent of the ethics of his profession, it being a
brazen solicitation of business from the public. 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." It is highly
unethical for an attorney to advertise his talents or skill as a merchant advertises his wares. Law is a profession and not a trade. The
lawyer degrades himself and his profession who stoops to and adopts the practices of mercantilism by advertising his services or
offering them to the public. As a member of the bar, he defiles the temple of justice with mercenary activities as the money-changers
of old defiled the temple of Jehovah. "The most worthy and effective advertisement possible, even for a young lawyer, . . . . 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." (Canon 27, Code of Ethics.).
We repeat, the canon of the profession tell us that the best advertising possible for a lawyer is a well-merited reputation for
professional capacity and fidelity to trust, which must be earned as the outcome of character and conduct. Good and efficient service
to a client as well as to the community has a way of publicizing itself and catching public attention. That publicity is a normal by-
product of effective service which is right and proper. A good and reputable lawyer needs no artificial stimulus to generate it and to
magnify his success. He easily sees the difference between a normal by-product of able service and the unwholesome result of
propaganda. 40chanrobles virtual law library
Of course, not all types of advertising or solicitation are prohibited. The canons of the profession enumerate exceptions to the rule
against advertising or solicitation and define the extent to which they may be undertaken. The exceptions are of two broad categories,
namely, those which are expressly allowed and those which are necessarily implied from the restrictions. 41chanrobles virtual law
library
The first of such exceptions is the publication in reputable law lists, in a manner consistent with the standards of conduct imposed by
the canons, of brief biographical and informative data. "Such data must not be misleading and may include only a statement of the
lawyer's name and the names of his professional associates; addresses, telephone numbers, cable addresses; branches of law practiced;
date and place of birth and admission to the bar; schools attended with dates of graduation, degrees and other educational distinction;
public or quasi-public offices; posts of honor; legal authorships; legal teaching positions; membership and offices in bar associations
and committees thereof, in legal and scientific societies and legal fraternities; the fact of listings in other reputable law lists; the names
and addresses of references; and, with their written consent, the names of clients regularly represented." 42chanrobles virtual law
library
The law list must be a reputable law list published primarily for that purpose; it cannot be a mere supplemental feature of a paper,
magazine, trade journal or periodical which is published principally for other purposes. For that reason, a lawyer may not properly
publish his brief biographical and informative data in a daily paper, magazine, trade journal or society program. Nor may a lawyer
permit his name to be published in a law list the conduct, management or contents of which are calculated or likely to deceive or
injure the public or the bar, or to lower the dignity or standing of the profession. 43chanrobles virtual law library
The use of an ordinary simple professional card is also permitted. The card may contain only a statement of his name, the name of the
law firm which he is connected with, address, telephone number and special branch of law practiced. The publication of a simple
announcement of the opening of a law firm or of changes in the partnership, associates, firm name or office address, being for the
convenience of the profession, is not objectionable. He may likewise have his name listed in a telephone directory but not under a
designation of special branch of law. 44chanrobles virtual law library
Verily, taking into consideration the nature and contents of the advertisements for which respondent is being taken to task, which even
includes a quotation of the fees charged by said respondent corporation for services rendered, we find and so hold that the same
definitely do not and conclusively cannot fall under any of the above-mentioned exceptions.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles
virtual law library
The ruling in the case of Bates, et al. vs. State Bar of Arizona, 45 which is repeatedly invoked and constitutes the justification relied
upon by respondent, is obviously not applicable to the case at bar. Foremost is the fact that the disciplinary rule involved in said case
explicitly allows a lawyer, as an exception to the prohibition against advertisements by lawyers, to publish a statement of legal fees for
an initial consultation or the availability upon request of a written schedule of fees or an estimate of the fee to be charged for the
specific services. No such exception is provided for, expressly or impliedly, whether in our former Canons of Professional Ethics or
the present Code of Professional Responsibility. Besides, even the disciplinary rule in the Bates case contains a proviso that the
exceptions stated therein are "not applicable in any state unless and until it is implemented by such authority in that state." 46This goes
to show that an exception to the general rule, such as that being invoked by herein respondent, can be made only if and when the
39
canons expressly provide for such an exception. Otherwise, the prohibition stands, as in the case at
bar.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
It bears mention that in a survey conducted by the American Bar Association after the decision in Bates, on the attitude of the public
about lawyers after viewing television commercials, it was found that public opinion dropped significantly 47 with respect to these
characteristics of lawyers:
Trustworthy from 71% to 14%

Professional from 71% to 14%
Honest from 65% to 14%
Dignified from 45% to 14%
Secondly, it is our firm belief that with the present situation of our legal and judicial systems, 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 lately by media and the community in general. At this point in
time, it is of utmost importance in the face of such negative, even if unfair, criticisms at times, to adopt and maintain that level of
professional conduct which is beyond reproach, and to exert all efforts to regain the high esteem formerly accorded to the legal
profession.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
In sum, it is undoubtedly a misbehavior on the part of the lawyer, subject to disciplinary action, to advertise his services except in
allowable instances 48or to aid a layman in the unauthorized practice of law. 49Considering that Atty. Rogelio P. Nogales, who is the
prime incorporator, major stockholder and proprietor of The Legal Clinic, Inc. is a member of the Philippine Bar, he is hereby
reprimanded, with a warning that a repetition of the same or similar acts which are involved in this proceeding will be dealt with more
severely.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
While we deem it necessary that the question as to the legality or illegality of the purpose/s for which the Legal Clinic, Inc. was
created should be passed upon and determined, we are constrained to refrain from lapsing into an obiter on that aspect since it is
clearly not within the adjudicative parameters of the present proceeding which is merely administrative in nature. It is, of course,
imperative that this matter be promptly determined, albeit in a different proceeding and forum, since, under the present state of our law
and jurisprudence, a corporation cannot be organized for or engage in the practice of law in this country. This interdiction, just like the
rule against unethical advertising, cannot be subverted by employing some so-called paralegals supposedly rendering the alleged
support services.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
The remedy for the apparent breach of this prohibition by respondent is the concern and province of the Solicitor General who can
institute the corresponding quo warranto action, 50 after due ascertainment of the factual background and basis for the grant of
respondent's corporate charter, in light of the putative misuse thereof. That spin-off from the instant bar matter is referred to the
Solicitor General for such action as may be necessary under the circumstances.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law
library
ACCORDINGLY, the Court Resolved to RESTRAIN and ENJOIN herein respondent, The Legal Clinic, Inc., from issuing or causing
the publication or dissemination of any advertisement in any form which is of the same or similar tenor and purpose as Annexes "A"
and "B" of this petition, and from conducting, directly or indirectly, any activity, operation or transaction proscribed by law or the
Code of Professional Ethics as indicated herein. Let copies of this resolution be furnished the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, the
Office of the Bar Confidant and the Office of the Solicitor General for appropriate action in accordance herewith.
Narvasa, C.J., Cruz, Feliciano, Padilla, Bidin, Griño-Aquino, Davide, Jr., Romero, Nocon, Bellosillo, Melo and Quiason, JJ., concur
A.C. No. 5299 August 19, 2003
ATTY. ISMAEL G. KHAN, JR., Assistant Court Administrator and Chief, Public Information Office, Complainant,
vs.
ATTY. RIZALINO T. SIMBILLO, Respondent.
x-----------------------x
40
G.R. No. 157053 August 19, 2003
ATTY. RIZALINO T. SIMBILLO, Petitioner,

vs.
IBP COMMISSION ON BAR DISCIPLINE and ATTY. ISMAEL G. KHAN, JR., in his capacity as Assistant Court
Administrator and Chief, Public Information Office, Respondents.
RESOLUTION
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 time of filing of the case and the other half after a decision thereon has been rendered.
Further research by the Office of the Court Administrator and the Public Information Office revealed that similar advertisements were
published in the August 2 and 6, 2000 issues of the Manila Bulletin and August 5, 2000 issue of The Philippine Star. 2
On September 1, 2000, Atty. Ismael G. Khan, Jr., in his capacity as Assistant Court Administrator and Chief of the Public Information
Office, filed an administrative complaint against Atty. Rizalino T. Simbillo for improper advertising and solicitation of his legal
services, in violation of Rule 2.03 and Rule 3.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Rule 138, Section 27 of the Rules of
Court.3
In his answer, respondent admitted the acts imputed to him, but argued that advertising and solicitation per se are not prohibited acts;
that the time has come to change our views about the prohibition on advertising and solicitation; that the interest of the public is not
served by the absolute prohibition on lawyer advertising; that the Court can lift the ban on lawyer advertising; and that the rationale
behind the decades-old prohibition should be abandoned. Thus, he prayed that he be exonerated from all the charges against him and
that the Court promulgate a ruling that advertisement of legal services offered by a lawyer is not contrary to law, public policy and
public order as long as it is dignified.4
The case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for investigation, report and recommendation. 5 On June 29, 2002, the
IBP Commission on Bar Discipline passed Resolution No. XV-2002-306,6 finding respondent guilty of violation of Rules 2.03 and
3.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Rule 138, Section 27 of the Rules of Court, and suspended him from the practice
of law for one (1) year with the warning that a repetition of similar acts would be dealt with more severely. The IBP Resolution was
noted by this Court on November 11, 2002. 7
In the meantime, respondent filed an Urgent Motion for Reconsideration, 8 which was denied by the IBP in Resolution No. XV-2002-
606 dated October 19, 20029
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 Court’s 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 IBP’s Resolutions Nos. XV-2002-306 and XV-2002-606.
Rules 2.03 and 3.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility read:
41
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:
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.
It has been repeatedly stressed that the practice of law is not a business. 12 It is a profession in which duty to public service, not money,
is the primary consideration. Lawyering is not primarily meant to be a money-making venture, and law advocacy is not a capital that
necessarily yields profits.13 The gaining of a livelihood should be a secondary consideration. 14 The duty to public service and to the
administration of justice should be the primary consideration of lawyers, who must subordinate their personal interests or what they
owe to themselves.15 The following elements distinguish the legal profession from a business:
1. A duty of public service, of which the emolument is a by-product, and in which one may attain the highest eminence
without making much money;
2. A relation as an "officer of the court" to the administration of justice involving thorough sincerity, integrity and reliability;
3. A relation to clients in the highest degree of fiduciary;
4. A relation to colleagues at the bar characterized by candor, fairness, and unwillingness to resort to current business
methods of advertising and encroachment on their practice, or dealing directly with their clients. 16
There is no question that respondent committed the acts complained of. He himself admits that he caused the publication of the
advertisements. While he professes repentance and begs for the Court’s indulgence, his contrition rings hollow considering the fact
that he advertised his legal services again after he pleaded for compassion and after claiming that he had no intention to violate the
rules. Eight months after filing his answer, he again advertised his legal services in the August 14, 2001 issue of the Buy & Sell Free
Ads Newspaper.17 Ten months later, he caused the same advertisement to be published in the October 5, 2001 issue of Buy &
Sell.18 Such acts of respondent are a deliberate and contemptuous affront on the Court’s authority.
What adds to the gravity of respondent’s acts is that in advertising himself as a self-styled "Annulment of Marriage Specialist," he
wittingly or unwittingly erodes and undermines not only the stability but also the sanctity of an institution still considered sacrosanct
despite the contemporary climate of permissiveness in our society. Indeed, in assuring prospective clients that an annulment may be
obtained in four to six months from the time of the filing of the case, 19 he in fact encourages people, who might have otherwise been
disinclined and would have refrained from dissolving their marriage bonds, to do so.
Nonetheless, the solicitation of legal business is not altogether proscribed. However, for solicitation to be proper, it must be
compatible with the dignity of the legal profession. If it is made in a modest and decorous manner, it would bring no injury to the
lawyer and to the bar.20 Thus, the use of simple signs stating the name or names of the lawyers, the office and residence address and
fields of practice, as well as advertisement in legal periodicals bearing the same brief data, are permissible. Even the use of calling
cards is now acceptable.21 Publication in reputable law lists, in a manner consistent with the standards of conduct imposed by the
canon, of brief biographical and informative data is likewise allowable. As explicitly stated in Ulep v. Legal Clinic, Inc.:22
Such data must not be misleading and may include only a statement of the lawyer’s name and the names of his professional associates;
addresses, telephone numbers, cable addresses; branches of law practiced; date and place of birth and admission to the bar; schools
attended with dates of graduation, degrees and other educational distinctions; public or quasi-public offices; posts of honor; legal
authorships; legal teaching positions; membership and offices in bar associations and committees thereof, in legal and scientific
societies and legal fraternities; the fact of listings in other reputable law lists; the names and addresses of references; and, with their
written consent, the names of clients regularly represented.
42
The law list must be a reputable law list published primarily for that purpose; it cannot be a mere supplemental feature of a paper,
magazine, trade journal or periodical which is published principally for other purposes. For that reason, a lawyer may not properly
publish his brief biographical and informative data in a daily paper, magazine, trade journal or society program. Nor may a lawyer
permit his name to be published in a law list the conduct, management, or contents of which are calculated or likely to deceive or
injure the public or the bar, or to lower dignity or standing of the profession.
The use of an ordinary simple professional card is also permitted. The card may contain only a statement of his name, the name of the
law firm which he is connected with, address, telephone number and special branch of law practiced. The publication of a simple
announcement of the opening of a law firm or of changes in the partnership, associates, firm name or office address, being for the
convenience of the profession, is not objectionable. He may likewise have his name listed in a telephone directory but not under a
designation of special branch of law. (emphasis and italics supplied)
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, respondent RIZALINO T. SIMBILLO is found GUILTY of violation of Rules 2.03 and
3.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Rule 138, Section 27 of the Rules of Court. He is SUSPENDED from the practice
of law for ONE (1) YEAR effective upon receipt of this Resolution. He is likewise STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same
or similar offense will be dealt with more severely.
Let copies of this Resolution be entered in his record as attorney and be furnished the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and all courts
in the country for their information and guidance.
SO ORDERED.
Vitug, (Acting Chairman),Carpio, and Azcuna, JJ., concur.

Davide, Jr., C.J., (Chairman ), abroad, on official business.
EN BANC
A.C. No. 4984. April 1, 2003
ATTY. JULITO D. VITRIOLO, PRECILLANA J. HONORICA, ARLEEN J. RAMOS, DR. ROGER PEREZ, DR. IMELDA
DARAUG, DR. REMIGIA NATHANIELZ, CELEDONIA CORONACION, and JOSE RABALO, complainants, v. ATTY.
FELINA DASIG, respondent.
RESOLUTION
PER CURIAM:
This is an administrative case for disbarment filed against Atty. Felina S. Dasig, 1 an official of the Commission on Higher
Education (CHED). The charge involves gross misconduct of respondent in violation of the Attorneys Oath for having used
her public office to secure financial spoils to the detriment of the dignity and reputation of the CHED.
Almost all complainants in the instant case are high-ranking officers of the CHED. In their sworn Complaint-Affidavit filed
with this Court on December 4, 1998, complainants allege that respondent, while she was OIC of Legal Affairs Service, CHED,
committed acts that are grounds for disbarment under Section 27, 2 Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, to wit:
a) Sometime in August 1998 and during the effectivity of Respondents designation as Officer-in-Charge of Legal Affairs
Service, CHED, she demanded from Betty C. Mangohon, a teacher of Our Lady of Mariazel Educational Center in
Novaliches, Quezon City, the amount of P20,000.00 and later reduced to P5,000.00 for the facilitation of her application for
correction of name then pending before the Legal Affairs Service, CHED...
b) Likewise, sometime in July to August 1998 and during the effectivity of Respondents designation as Officer-in-Charge of
Legal Affairs Service, CHED, she demanded from Rosalie B. Dela Torre, a student, the amount of P18,000.00 to P20,000.00 for
facilitation of her application for correction of name then pending before the Legal Affairs Service, CHED
c) Likewise, sometime in September 1998 and during the effectivity of Respondents designation as Officer-in-Charge of Legal
Affairs Service, CHED, she demanded from Rocella G. Eje, a student, the amount of P5,000.00 for facilitation of her
43
application for correction of name then pending before the Legal Affairs Service, CHED. . . In addition, Respondent even
suggested to Ms. Eje to register her birth anew with full knowledge of the existence of a prior registration
d) Likewise, sometime in August to September 1998 and during the effectivity of Respondents designation as Officer-in-
Charge of Legal Affairs Service, CHED, she demanded from Jacqueline N. Ng, a student, a considerable amount which was
subsequently confirmed to be P15,000.00 and initial fee of P5,000.00 more or less for facilitation of her application for
correction of name then pending before the Legal Affairs Service, CHED... In addition, the Respondent even suggested to Ms.
Ng to hire a lawyer who shall be chosen by Respondent Dasig to facilitate the application for correction of
name.3cräläwvirtualibräry
Complainants likewise aver that respondent violated her oath as attorney-at-law by filing eleven (11) baseless, groundless, and
unfounded suits before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City, which were subsequently
dismissed.4cräläwvirtualibräry
Further, complainants charge respondent of transgressing subparagraph b (22), Section 36 5 of Presidential Decree No. 807, for
her willful failure to pay just debts owing to Borela Tire Supply and Novas Lining Brake & Clutch as evidenced by the
dishonored checks she issued,6 the complaint sheet, and the subpoena issued to respondent.7cräläwvirtualibräry
Complainants also allege that respondent instigated the commission of a crime against complainant Celedonia R. Coronacion
and Rodrigo Coronacion, Jr., when she encouraged and ordered her son, Jonathan Dasig, a guard of the Bureau of Jail
Management and Penology, to draw his gun and shoot the Coronacions on the evening of May 14, 1997. As a result of this
incident, a complaint for grave threats against the respondent and her son, docketed as Criminal Case No. 86052, was lodged
with the Metropolitan Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 36. 8cräläwvirtualibräry
Finally, complainants allege that respondent authored and sent to then President Joseph Estrada a libelous and unfair report,
which maligned the good names and reputation of no less than eleven (11) CHED Directors calculated to justify her ill motive
of preventing their re-appointment and with the end view of securing an appointment for herself. 9cräläwvirtualibräry
In our resolution of February 3, 1999, we required respondent to file a Comment on the charges. 10 A copy of said resolution
was sent to the respondent at her address at Blk. 4, Lot 12, Hobart II Subdivision, Novaliches, Quezon City, only to be
returned to this Court with the notation Unclaimed.11cräläwvirtualibräry
On July 5, 1999, we directed that a copy of the resolution of February 3, 1999, be served by registered mail to respondent at
her office address in CHED.
In a letter dated August 28, 2000, the Postmaster of the Ortigas Center Post Office informed the Court that the said mail
matter had been delivered to, received by, and signed for by one Antonio Molon, an authorized agent of respondent on August
27, 1999.12cräläwvirtualibräry
On November 22, 2000, we granted complainants motion to refer the complaint to the Commission on Bar Discipline,
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report, and recommendation.
In its order dated February 6, 2001, the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline directed respondent to submit her Answer to the
Complaint, failing which she would be considered in default and the case heard ex parte. Respondent failed to heed said order
and on January 8, 2002, the Commission directed her anew to file her Answer, but again she failed to comply with the
directive. As a result, the Commission ruled that she had waived her right to file her Comment or Answer to the Complaint
and the case was mainly resolved on the basis of the documents submitted and on record.
In its report and recommendation, dated April 5, 2002, the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline stated as follows:
From the foregoing evidence on record, it can be concluded that respondent in violation of her oath as a government official
and as a member of the Bar, indeed made unlawful demands or attempted to extort money from certain people who had
pending applications/requests before her office in exchange for her promise to act favorably on said applications/requests.
Clearly, respondent unlawfully used her public office in order to secure financial spoils to the detriment of the dignity and
reputation of the Commission on Higher Education.
44
For the foregoing reasons, it is recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for the maximum period
allowable of three (3) years with a further warning that similar action in the future will be a ground for disbarment of
respondent.
On August 3, 2002, the IBP Board of Governors passed Resolution No. XV-2002-393, the full text of which reads as follows:
RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby ADOPTED and APPROVED, the Report and Recommendation of the
Investigating Commissioner of the above-entitled case, herein made part of this Resolution/Decision as Annex A:; and, finding
the recommendation fully supported by the evidence on record and the applicable laws and rules; and considering that
respondent unlawfully used her public office in order to secure financial spoils to the detriment of the dignity and reputation
of the Commission on Higher Education, Respondent is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for three (3)
years.13cräläwvirtualibräry
At the threshold is the query of whether respondent attorney-at-law, as Officer-in-Charge (OIC) of Legal Services, CHED,
may be disciplined by this Court for her malfeasance, considering that her position, at the time of filing of the complaint, was
Chief Education Program Specialist, Standards Development Division, Office of Programs and Standards, CHED.
Generally speaking, a lawyer who holds a government office may not be disciplined as a member of the Bar for misconduct in
the discharge of his duties as a government official. 14 However, if said misconduct as a government official also constitutes a
violation of his oath as a lawyer, then he may be disciplined by this Court as a member of the Bar. 15cräläwvirtualibräry
In this case, the record shows that the respondent, on various occasions, during her tenure as OIC, Legal Services, CHED,
attempted to extort from Betty C. Mangohon, Rosalie B. Dela Torre, Rocella G. Eje, and Jacqueline N. Ng sums of money as
consideration for her favorable action on their pending applications or requests before her office. The evidence remains
unrefuted, given the respondents failure, despite the opportunities afforded her by this Court and the IBP Commission on Bar
Discipline to comment on the charges. We find that respondents misconduct as a lawyer of the CHED is of such a character as
to affect her qualification as a member of the Bar, for as a lawyer, she ought to have known that it was patently unethical and
illegal for her to demand sums of money as consideration for the approval of applications and requests awaiting action by her
office.
The Attorneys Oath is the source of the obligations and duties of every lawyer and any violation thereof is a ground for
disbarment, suspension, or other disciplinary action. The Attorneys Oath imposes upon every member of the bar the duty to
delay no man for money or malice. Said duty is further stressed in Rule 1.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.16 Respondents demands for sums of money to facilitate the processing of pending applications or requests
before her office violates such duty, and runs afoul of the oath she took when admitted to the Bar. Such actions likewise run
contrary to Rule 1.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
A member of the Bar who assumes public office does not shed his professional obligations. Hence, the Code of Professional
Responsibility, promulgated on June 21, 1988, was not meant to govern the conduct of private practitioners alone, but of all
lawyers including those in government service. This is clear from Canon 6 17 of said Code. Lawyers in government are public
servants who owe the utmost fidelity to the public service. Thus, they should be more sensitive in the performance of their
professional obligations, as their conduct is subject to the ever-constant scrutiny of the public.
Respondents attempts to extort money from persons with applications or requests pending before her office are violative of
Rule 1.0118 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which prohibits members of the Bar from engaging or participating in
any unlawful, dishonest, or deceitful acts. Moreover, said acts constitute a breach of Rule 6.0219 of the Code which bars
lawyers in government service from promoting their private interests. Promotion of private interests includes soliciting gifts or
anything of monetary value in any transaction requiring the approval of his office or which may be affected by the functions of
his office. Respondents conduct in office falls short of the integrity and good moral character required from all lawyers,
specially from one occupying a high public office. For a lawyer in public office is expected not only to refrain from any act or
omission which might tend to lessen the trust and confidence of the citizenry in government, she must also uphold the dignity
of the legal profession at all times and observe a high standard of honesty and fair dealing. Otherwise said, a lawyer in
government service is a keeper of the public faith and is burdened with high degree of social responsibility, perhaps higher
than her brethren in private practice.
For her violation of the Attorneys Oath as well as of Rule 1.01 and Rule 1.03 of Canon 1 20 and Rule 6.02 of Canon 6 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility, particularly for acts of dishonesty as well as gross misconduct as OIC, Legal Services,
CHED, we find that respondent deserves not just the penalty of three years suspension from membership in the Bar as well as
45
the practice of law, as recommended by the IBP Board of Governors, but outright disbarment. Her name shall be stricken off
the list of attorneys upon finality of this decision.
WHEREFORE, respondent Arty. Felina S. Dasig is found liable for gross misconduct and dishonesty in violation of the
Attorneys Oath as well as the Code of Professional Responsibility, and is hereby ordered DISBARRED.
Let copies of this Resolution be furnished to the Bar Confidant to be spread on the records of the respondent, as well as to the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines for distribution to all its chapters, and the Office of the Court Administrator for
dissemination to all courts throughout the country.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo, Puno, Vitug, Mendoza, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio,
Austria-Martinez, Corona, Carpio-Morales, Callejo, Sr., and Azcuna, JJ., concur.
46

Legal Ethics Assignment 3

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Legal Ethics Assignment 3

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lawyer's Oath

CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY

CHAPTER I. THE LAWYER AND SOCIETY

Republic of the Philippines

B.M. No. 850 August 22, 2000

MANDATORY CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION (MCLE)

Section 1. Purpose of the MCLE

Section 1. Constitution of the MCLE Committee

Section 2. Requirements of completion of MCLE

(a) At least six (6) hours shall be devoted to legal ethics.

Section 1. Initial compliance period

Section 2. Compliance Group 1.

Section 3. Compliance Group 2.

Members in Luzon outside NCR shall be permanently assigned to Compliance Group 2.

Section 4. Compliance Group 3.

Members in Visayas and Mindanao shall be permanently assigned to Compliance Group 3.

PROGRAMS CREDIT UNITS SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS

1. SEMINARS, CONVENTIONS, CONFERENCES, SYMPOSIA, IN-HOUSE EDUCATION PROGRAMS,

1.1 PARTICIPANT 1 CU PER HOUR CERTIFICATE OF ATTENDANCE WITH NUMBER OF HOURS

1.2 LECTURER 5 CU PER HOUR PHOTOCOPY OF PLAQUE OR SPONSOR'S CERTIFICATION

1.3 RESOURCE 3 CU PER HOUR PHOTOCOPY OF PLAQUE OR SPONSOR'S SPEAKER CERTIFICATION

1.4 ASSIGNED 2 CU PER HOUR CERTIFICATION FROM SPONSORING PENALIST/ ORGANIZATION

1.5 MODERATOR/ 2 CU PER HOUR CERTIFICATION FROM SPONSORING COORDINATOR/

2. AUTHORSHIP, EDITING AND REVIEW

2.1 RESEARCH/ 5-10 CREDIT UNITS DULY CERTIFIED/PUBLISHED INNOVATIVE TECHNICAL

2.4 LEGAL ARTICLE 5-10 PP 11+ PUBLISHED ARTICLE SINGLE AUTHOR 6 CU 8 CU

2.5 LEGAL 3-6 CU PER ISSUE PUBLISHED NEWSLETTER/JOURNAL NEWSLETTER/LAW JOURNAL

Section 2. Limitation on certain credit units

The credits are either participatory or non-participatory.

Section 2. Claim for participatory credit

Participatory credit may be claimed for:

(c) Teaching in a law school or lecturing in a bar review class.

Section 3. Claim for non-participatory credit

Non-participatory credit may be claimed per compliance period for:

(b) Editing a law book, law journal or legal newsletter.

Section 1. Computation of credit hours

Section 1. Parties exempted from the MCLE

(b) Senators and Members of the House of Representatives;

(e) The Solicitor General and the Assistant Solicitor General;

(i) Heads of government agencies exercising quasi-judicial functions;

(l) Governors and Mayors.

Section 2. Other parties exempted from the MCLE

The following Members of the Bar are likewise exempt:

(a) Those who are not in law practice, private or public.

Section 3. Good cause for exemption from or modification of requirement

Section 4. Change of status

Section 5. Proof of exemption

Section 1. Approval of MCLE program

Section 2. Standards for all education activities

Section 1. Approval of providers

Approval of providers shall be done by the MCLE Committee.

Section 2. Requirements for approval of providers

(a) Be submitted on a form provided by the IBP;

(b) Contain all information requested on the form;

(c) Be accompanied by the approval fee;

Section 3. Requirements of all providers

All approved providers shall agree to the following:

(b) The provider shall certify that:

Section 4. Renewal of provider approval

Section 5. Revocation of provider approval

Section 1. Payment of fees

Section 1. Compliance card

Section 2. Member record keeping requirement