Khan v Simbillo

TOPIC: Practice of law, concept

FACTS:
 Simbillo, published advertisements on different news publications on different dates regarding his
services as an “Annulment of Marriage specialist”
 Khan, of the public information office filed an admin complaint against Simbillo for improper
advertising and solicitations of his legal services, in violations of Rule 2.03 and Rule 3.01 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility and Rule 138,Section 27 of the Rules of Court.
 Simbillo admitted acts imputed to him but argued that his acts for advertising and solicitation of legal
services offered by a lawyer are not prohibited acts.
 IBP rendered Simbillo guilty of the administrative complaint filed by the Khan

ISSUE:
W/N Simbillo violated provisions under the CPR and Rules of Court by way of advertising his services

RULING: YES

 Pursuant to the provision of the CPR and Rules of Court, the practice of law is not a business but a
profession which duty to public service. Money, is not the prime consideration. The duty to public
service and to the administration of justice should be the primary consideration of lawyers.
 In advertising himself as an “Annulment of Marriage Specialist” he undermines to sanctity of marriage.
A lawyer is not permitted to publish any contents which are likely to deceive the public or the bar, or to
lower dignity or standing of the profession

Pepsi Cola vs CA

FACTS:
 Civil action was filed by private respondents who won from the Pepsi Promotion wherein numerous
holders of the “winning” crowns were not honored and paid by Pepsi
 While the private respondents are finished presenting their evidence, the petitioner continues to pray
for postponement verbally due to unavailability of witnesses.
 The schedule for presentation of evidence began on 1993
 Finally, the court issued a warning to the petitioner’s counsel that the scheduled hearing on January
1995 shall be intransferrable in character. But still, counsel for petitioner moved for postponement
again which was denied by the court for unreasonable delay on the case.
 CA affirmed the said decision hence this petition for certiorari

ISSUE: WON the CA erred in denying the petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.

RULING: NO
 The court held that the petitioner was given ample time to prepare for their witnesses causing the trial
to take up to 2 years due to their frequent motion for postponement and reminded the counsel of the
petitioner that they have the duty to give proper administration of justice without any
delay and dismissed the petition for lack of merit

Schulz vs Flores:

“Respondent should know that as a lawyer, he owes fidelity to the cause of his client. When a lawyer accepts a
case, his acceptance is an implied representation that he possesses the requisite academic learning, skill and
ability to handle the case. The lawyer has the duty to exert his best judgment in the prosecution or defense of
the case entrusted to him and to exercise reasonable and ordinary care and diligence in the pursuit or defense
of the case.”
Vda. De Mijares v Justice Villaluz

FACTS:
 De Mijares files a disbarment case against the Villaluz on grounds of bigamy after contracting a
marriage with Lydia several months after their marriage.
 Villaluz contends that what transpires was just a sham marriage in an effort to protect the De Mijares
from the admin case on immorality and
 He likewise revealed his marriage with his first wife was subsisting since the declaration of its
annulment was not yet final and executory
 Justice Purisima of CA recommended suspension of the respondent for 2 years

ISSUE: WON respondent should be suspended.

RULING: Yes.
 The mere admission of the Villaluz of contracting the marriage with the De Mijares while knowingly his
first marriage subsists and then married another woman after said marriage is a gross misconduct.
 Villaluz’s claim that he married De Mijares to protect her is unfounded since one cannot correct a
wrong by doing another wrongful act
 SC upheld the recommendation of Justice Purisima

Olbes vs. Deciembre

Constituting a serious transgression of the Code of Professional Responsibility was the malevolent act of
Deciembre, who filled up the blank checks entrusted to him as security for a loan by writing on those checks
amounts that had not been agreed upon at all, despite his full knowledge that the loan they were meant to
secure had already been paid
Ui vs. Bonifacio
Facts:

 Ui filed an admin complaint for disbarment against Atty. Bonifacio on the ground of immorality, for
allegedly carrying an immoral relationship with Carlos Ui, her husband.
 In the proceeding before the IBP, Boni attached a photocopy of a marriage certificate that said that she
and Carlos got married in 1985 but according to the certificate of marriage obtained from the Hawaii
State Department of Health, they were married in 1987.
Issue: Whether or not Atty. Iris Bonifacio conducted herself in an immoral manner for which she deserves to be
barred from the practice of law.
Held: NO.
The practice of law is a privilege. He must also have a continued possession of good moral character. Lawyers,
as keepers of public faith, are burdened with a higher degree of social responsibility and thus must handle their
personal affairs with great caution.
Bonifacio was imprudent in managing her personal affairs. However the fact remains that her relationship with
Carlos, clothed as it was with what she believed as a valid marriage, cannot be considered immoral.
Her act of distancing herself on her discovery that Carlos was married proves that she had no intention of
flaunting the law and the high moral standard of the legal profession.
On the matter of the falsified marriage certificate, it is contrary to human experience and highly improbable
that she did not know the year of her marriage or she failed to check that the information on the document she
attached to her Answer were correct.
Yumol vs Atty. Ferrer

Facts:
 Yumol, OIC of the CHR, files a disbarment case against respondent, Attorney IV of CHR on ground for
grave misconduct.
 The respondent was found to have:
1. issued 2 orders awarding custody of a child to a complainant in the Commission
2. ordered a bank to reinstate the bank account of the said complainant
3. engaging in private practice
4. notarizing public documents
5. attending court hearings
while filling up his DTR at the Commission as present at the same time.
 IBP recommended suspension for 2 years which was modified by the IBP Board to 6 months.

ISSUE: WON respondent has committed gross misconduct arising from the following alleged acts:
1. Engaging in the private practice of his profession while being a government employee;
2. Falsifying his Daily Time Records;
3. Issuing unauthorized orders; and
4. Continuously engaging in private practice even after the filing of case against him for engaging in private
practice.

RULING: The court held on the following:

1. CHR authorizes CHR lawyers to engage in private practice subject to some conditions with approval from the
CHR. In the absence of such approval, the respondent is not allowed in private practice and proved to have
falsified his attendance in the DTR while appearing in court at the same time without approved leave of
absence.
3. The authority granted with the CHR in their function is merely to investigate all forms of human rights
violation. They cannot try and decide cases.
The court ruled to modify the suspension of 1 year to be sufficient

Re: Application of A.M. Hernandez July 27, 1993

FACTS:
 Hernandez is a Filipino citizen obtained a degree of Juris Doctor from Columbia Law School in New
York and passed the bar examinations in the same City in 1990.
 He is currently taking bar subjects in Ateneo Law School and taking a 5 month bar review course there.
 He prays that he may be allowed to take the phil bar exams.

ISSUE: WON the S.C. may allow him to take the bar exam in the Phils.

RULING: YES
 He may be allowed to take the bar because there were some instances in the past where a Filipino
studied law in a foreign law school and were allowed to take the bar in the Philippines.
 However, the court held this time that in the following year, applicants for the Bar must study in a local
law school in the Phils. and must present certifications

Narido vs. Linsangan

Facts:
 Arose from a labor dispute where Atty. Risma represented Narido, an indigent client against her
employer, the client of Atty. Linsangan
 Atty. Risma alleged that an affidavit by Atty Linsangan was perjured
  He threatened Atty. Linsangan that if said affidavit is submitted in court, they shall file a disbarment
case against him. The affidavit was filed and so Risma and Narido filed an administrative case against
Linsangan
 Linsangan on the other hand filed a separate admin case against Risma accusing him of instigating his
client to file a case against him

ISSUE: Whether or not both administrative cases should prosper.

HELD: No.
 The SC adopted the findings of the Solicitor General where it was recommended that both
administrative cases are not well merited.
 In the administrative case against Linsangan, it was found out that there is no sufficient evidence to
prove that De Dios’ affidavit is perjured
 In the administrative case against Risma, it was not proven that he instigated Narido. It was Risma’s
zeal in protecting his client’s interest that made him to convince Narido to file an administrative case
against Linsangan. There was no bad faith on the part of Risma. He even advanced the expenses
because Narido is indigent.
 HOWEVER, it was found that Risma made an arrangement with Narido that he shall collect 15% from
whatever amount they shall collect from De Dios as a result of the labor case. Risma was admonished
for this; that under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, he’s only allowed to collect a maximum of 10%.