PALE (Canons 2 and 3)|1
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:
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:
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,
PALE (Canons 2 and 3)|2
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
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. On June 29, 2002, the IBP Commission
5 
on Bar Discipline passed Resolution No. XV-2002-
306, finding respondent guilty of violation of Rules 2.03 and
6 
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, which was denied by the IBP in
8 
Resolution No. XV-2002-606 dated October 19, 2002 9
Hence, the instant petition for certiorari, which was
docketed as G.R. No. 157053 entitled, "Atty. Rizalino T.
Simbillo, Petitioner versus IBP Commission on Bar
Discipline, Atty. Ismael G. Khan, Jr., Asst. Court
Administrator and Chief, Public Information Office,
Respondents." This petition was consolidated with A.C. No.
5299 per the 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. Complainant filed his Manifestation on April 25,
10 
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.  Respondent, on the other hand, filed a
11 
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:
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. It is a profession in which duty to public
12 
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. The gaining of a livelihood should be a secondary
13 
consideration. The duty to public service and to the
14 
administration of justice should be the primary
consideration of lawyers, who must subordinate their
personal interests or what they owe to themselves. The 15 
following elements distinguish the legal profession from a
business:
PALE (Canons 2 and 3)|3
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. Ten months
17 
later, he caused the same advertisement to be published in
the October 5, 2001 issue of Buy & Sell. Such acts of
18 
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, he in fact encourages people, who might
19 
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. Thus,
20 
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. Publication in reputable
21 
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.
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.
[A.C. NO. 5485 : March 16, 2005]
ELMER CANOY, Complainant, v. ATTY. JOSE MAX
ORTIZ, Respondent.
DECISION
TINGA, J.:
There are no good reasons that would justify a lawyer virtually
abandoning the cause of the client in the midst of litigation
without even informing the client of the fact or cause of
desertion. That the lawyer forsook his legal practice on account
of what might be perceived as a higher calling, election to public
office, does not mitigate the dereliction of professional duty.
Suspension from the practice is the usual penalty, and there is no
reason to deviate from the norm in this case.
A Complaint1 dated 10 April 2001 was filed with the Office of the
Bar Confidant by Elmer Canoy (Canoy) accusing Atty. Jose Max
Ortiz (Atty. Ortiz) of misconduct and malpractice. It was alleged
that Canoy filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against his
former employer, Coca Cola Bottlers Philippines. The complaint
was filed with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC)
Regional Arbitration Board VI in Bacolod City. 2 Atty. Ortiz
appeared as counsel for Canoy in this proceeding. In 1998, the
labor arbiter hearing the complaint ordered the parties to submit
their respective position papers. Canoy submitted all the
necessary documents and records to Atty. Ortiz for the
preparation of the position paper. Thereafter, he made several
unfruitful visits to the office of Atty. Ortiz to follow-up the
progress of the case. After a final visit at the office of Atty. Ortiz
PALE (Canons 2 and 3)|4
in April of 2000, during which Canoy was told to come back as his
lawyer was not present, Canoy decided to follow-up the case
himself with the NLRC. He was shocked to learn that his
complaint was actually dismissed way back in 1998, for failure to
prosecute, the parties not having submitted their position
papers.3 The dismissal was without prejudice. Canoy alleged that
Atty. Ortiz had never communicated to him about the status of
the case, much less the fact that he failed to submit the position
paper.
The Comment4 filed by Atty. Ortiz is the epitome of self-
hagiography. He informs the Court that since commencing his
law practice in 1987, he has mostly catered to indigent and low-
income clients, at considerable financial sacrifice to himself. Atty.
Ortiz claims that for more than ten years, his law office was a
virtual adjunct of the Public Attorney's Office with its steady
stream of non-paying clients in the "hundreds or thousands." 5 At
the same time, he hosted a legal assistance show on the radio,
catering to far-flung municipalities and reaching "the people who
need legal advice and assistance."6 Atty. Ortiz pursued on with
this lifestyle until his election as Councilor of Bacolod City, a
victory which he generously attributes to the help "of the same
people whom he had helped by way of legal assistance before." 7
Canoy was among those low-income clients whom Atty. Ortiz
deigned to represent. The lawyer was apparently confident that
the illegal dismissal case would eventually be resolved by way of
compromise. He claims having prepared the position paper of
Canoy, but before he could submit the same, the Labor Arbiter
had already issued the order dismissing the case. 8 Atty. Ortiz
admits though that the period within which to file the position
paper had already lapsed. He attributes this failure to timely file
the position paper to the fact that after his election as Councilor
of Bacolod City, "he was frankly preoccupied with both his
functions as a local government official and as a practicing
lawyer." Eventually, "his desire to help was beyond physical
limitations," and he withdrew from his other cases and his "free
legal services."9
According to Atty. Ortiz, "Mr. Canoy should have at least
understood that during all that time, he was free to visit or call
the office and be entertained by the secretary as [he] would
normally report to the office in the afternoon as he had to attend
to court trials and report to the Sanggunian office." 10 He states
that it was his policy to inform clients that they should be the
ones to follow-up their cases with his office, as it would be "too
difficult and a financial burden to attend making follow-ups with
hundreds of clients, mostly indigents" with only two office
personnel.11
Nonetheless, Atty. Ortiz notes that the dismissal of Canoy's
complaint was without prejudice, thus the prescriptive period
had been tolled. He claims not being able to remember whether
he immediately informed Canoy of the dismissal of the case,
though as far as he could recall, Canoy had conveyed a message
to him that he had a lawyer to handle the case, thus his office did
not insist on refiling the same.12
The matter was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
(IBP) for investigation, report and recommendation. 13 Canoy
eventually submitted a motion withdrawing the complaint, but
this was not favorably acted upon by the IBP in view of the rule
that the investigation of a case shall not be interrupted or
terminated by reason of withdrawal of the charges. 14 Eventually,
the investigating commissioner concluded that "clearly, the
records show that [Atty. Ortiz] failed to exercise that degree of
competence and diligence required of him in prosecuting his
clients' (sic) claim," and recommended that Atty. Ortiz be
reprimanded.15 The IBP Commission on Discipline adopted the
recommendation, with the slight modification that Atty. Ortiz be

likewise warned that a repetition of the same negligence shall be
dealt with more severely in the future.
The Court is sensitive to the difficulties in obtaining legal
representation for indigent or low-income litigants. Apart from
the heroic efforts of government entities such as the Public
Attorney's Office, groups such as the IBP National Committee on
Legal Aid and the Office of Legal Aid of the UP College of Law
have likewise been at the forefront in the quest to provide legal
representation for those who could not otherwise afford the
services of lawyers. The efforts of private practitioners who assist
in this goal are especially commendable, owing to their sacrifice
in time and resources beyond the call of duty and without
expectation of pecuniary reward.
Yet, the problem of under-representation of indigent or low-
income clients is just as grievous as that of non-representation.
Admirable as the apparent focus of Atty. Ortiz's legal practice
may have been, his particular representation of Canoy in the
latter's illegal dismissal case leaves much to be desired.
Several of the canons and rules in the Code of Professional
Responsibility guard against the sort of conduct displayed by
Atty. Ortiz with respect to the handling of Canoy's case.
CANON 17 A LAWYER OWES FIDELITY TO THE CAUSE OF HIS
CLIENT AND HE SHALL BE MINDFUL OF THE TRUST AND
CONFIDENCE REPOSED IN HIM.
CANON 18 A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT WITH
COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE.
...
Rule 18.03 A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to
him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him
liable.
Rule 18.04 A lawyer shall keep the client informed of the status
of his case and shall respond within a reasonable time to the
client's request for information.
...
CANON 22 A LAWYER SHALL WITHDRAW HIS SERVICES ONLY FOR
GOOD CAUSE AND UPON NOTICE APPROPRIATE IN THE
CIRCUMSTANCES.
...
Rule 22.02 - A lawyer who withdraws or is discharged shall,
subject to a retainer lien, immediately turn over all papers and
property to which the client is entitled, and shall cooperate with
his successor in the orderly transfer of the matter, including all
information necessary for the proper handling of the matter.
Atty. Ortiz should have filed the position paper on time, owing to
his duty as counsel of Canoy to attend to this legal matter
entrusted to him. His failure to do so constitutes a violation of
Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Once he agrees to take up the cause of a client, a lawyer owes
fidelity to such cause and must always be mindful of the trust
and confidence reposed in him. He must serve the client with
competence and diligence and champion the latter's cause with
wholehearted fidelity, care and devotion. Elsewise stated, he
owes entire devotion to the interest of the client, warm zeal in
the maintenance and defense of his client's rights, and the
exertion of his utmost learning and ability to the end that
PALE (Canons 2 and 3)|5
nothing be taken or withheld from his client, save by the rules of
law, legally applied. This simply means that his client is entitled
to the benefit of any and every remedy and defense that is
authorized by the law of the land and he may expect his lawyer
to assert every such remedy or defense. If much is demanded
from an attorney, it is because the entrusted privilege to practice
law carries with it the correlative duties not only to the client but
also to the court, to the bar and to the public. A lawyer who
performs his duty with diligence and candor not only protects
the interest of his client; he also serves the ends of justice, does
honor to the bar and helps maintain the respect of the
community to the legal profession.16
If indeed Atty. Ortiz's schedule, workload, or physical condition
was such that he would not be able to make a timely filing, he
should have informed Canoy of such fact. The relationship of
lawyer-client being one of confidence, there is ever present the
need for the client to be adequately and fully informed of the
developments of the case and should not be left in the dark as to
the mode and manner in which his/her interests are being
defended.17
There could have been remedies undertaken to this inability of
Atty. Ortiz to file on time the position paper had Canoy been told
of such fact, such as a request for more time to file the position
paper, or maybe even the hiring of collaborating counsel or
substitution of Atty. Ortiz as counsel. Since Atty. Ortiz did not
exercise the necessary degree of care by either filing the position
paper on time or informing Canoy that the paper could not be
submitted seasonably, the ignominy of having the complaint
dismissed for failure to prosecute could not be avoided.
That the case was dismissed without prejudice, thus allowing
Canoy to refile the case, hardly serves to mitigate the liability of
Atty. Ortiz, as the failure to file the position paper is per se a
violation of Rule 18.03.18
Neither is the Court mollified by the circumstance of Atty. Ortiz's
election as a City Councilor of Bacolod City, as his adoption of
these additional duties does not exonerate him of his negligent
behavior. The Code of Professional Responsibility does allow a
lawyer to withdraw his legal services if the lawyer is elected or
appointed to a public office. 19 Statutes expressly prohibit the
occupant of particular public offices from engaging in the
practice of law, such as governors and mayors, 20 and in such
instance, the attorney-client relationship is
terminated.21 However, city councilors are allowed to practice
their profession or engage in any occupation except during
session hours, and in the case of lawyers such as Atty. Ortiz,
subject to certain prohibitions which are not relevant to this
case.22 In such case, the lawyer nevertheless has the choice to
withdraw his/her services.23 Still, the severance of the relation of
attorney-client is not effective until a notice of discharge by the
client or a manifestation clearly indicating that purpose is filed
with the court or tribunal, and a copy thereof served upon the
adverse party, and until then, the lawyer continues to be counsel
in the case.24
Assuming that Atty. Ortiz was justified in terminating his services,
he, however, cannot just do so and leave complainant in the cold
unprotected.25 Indeed, Rule 22.02 requires that a lawyer who
withdraws or is discharged shall, subject to a lien, immediately
turn over all papers and property to which the client is entitled,
and shall cooperate with his successor in the orderly transfer of
the matter. Atty. Ortiz claims that the reason why he took no
further action on the case was that he was informed that Canoy
had acquired the services of another counsel. Assuming that
were true, there was no apparent coordination between Atty.
Ortiz and this new counsel.
 PALE (Canons 2 and 3)|6

In fact, it took nearly two years before Canoy had learned that tried to prevail upon him to sever his lawyer-client relations
the position paper had not been filed and that the case had been with complainant and utilize respondent’s services instead,
dismissed. This was highly irresponsible of Atty. Ortiz, much in exchange for a loan of ₱50,000. Complainant also
more so considering that Canoy was one of the indigent clients attached "respondent’s" calling card:6
whom Atty. Ortiz proudly claims as his favored clientele. It does
not escape the Court's attention that Atty. Ortiz faults Canoy for Front
not adequately following up the case with his office. 26 He cannot
now shift the blame to complainant for failing to inquire about
the status of the case, since, as stated above, it was his duty as
lawyer to inform his clients of the status of cases entrusted to
NICOMEDES TOLENTINO
him.27
LAW OFFFICE
The appropriate sanction is within the sound discretion of this
Court. In cases of similar nature, the penalty imposed by the
CONSULTANCY & MARITIME
Court consisted of either a reprimand, a fine of five hundred
SERVICES
pesos with warning, suspension of three months, six months, W/ FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE
and even disbarment in aggravated cases. 28 Given the
circumstances, the Court finds the penalty recommended by the
Fe Marie L. Labiano
IBP too lenient and instead suspends Atty. Ortiz from the
Paralegal
practice of law for one (1) month. The graver penalty of
suspension is warranted in lieu of an admonition or a reprimand
considering that Atty. Ortiz's undisputed negligence in failing to Tel: 362-
timely file the position paper was compounded by his failure to 7820
inform Canoy of such fact, and the successive dismissal of the 1st MIJI Mansion,
Fax:
2nd Flr. Rm. M-01
complaint. (632)
6th Ave., cor M.H.
362-
Del Pilar
Lawyers who devote their professional practice in representing 7821
Grace Park,
litigants who could ill afford legal services deserve Cel.:
Caloocan City
commendation. However, this mantle of public service will not (0926)
2701719
deliver the lawyer, no matter how well-meaning, from the
consequences of negligent acts. It is not enough to say that all
pauper litigants should be assured of legal representation. They
Back
deserve quality representation as well.

WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Jose Max S. Ortiz is ordered

SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one (1) month from
notice, with the warning that a repetition of the same negligence
will be dealt with more severely. Let a copy of this decision be SERVICES OFFERED:
attached to respondent's personal record in the Office of the Bar
Confidant and copies be furnished to all chapters of the CONSULTATION AND
Integrated Bar of the Philippines and to all the courts in the land. ASSISTANCE
TO OVERSEAS SEAMEN
SO ORDERED. REPATRIATED DUE TO
ACCIDENT,
INJURY, ILLNESS, SICKNESS,
DEATH
AND INSURANCE BENEFIT
CLAIMS
A.C. No. 6672               September 4, 2009 ABROAD.
1avvphi1

PEDRO L. LINSANGAN, Complainant,
vs.
ATTY. NICOMEDES TOLENTINO, Respondent.

RESOLUTION
(emphasis supplied)
CORONA, J.:
Hence, this complaint.
This is a complaint for disbarment1 filed by Pedro Linsangan
of the Linsangan Linsangan & Linsangan Law Office Respondent, in his defense, denied knowing Labiano and
against Atty. Nicomedes Tolentino for solicitation of clients authorizing the printing and circulation of the said calling
and encroachment of professional services. card.7

Complainant alleged that respondent, with the help of
paralegal Fe Marie Labiano, convinced his clients 2 to
transfer legal representation. Respondent promised them
financial assistance3 and expeditious collection on their
claims.4 To induce them to hire his services, he persistently
called them and sent them text messages.
To support his allegations, complainant presented the
sworn affidavit5 of James Gregorio attesting that Labiano
The complaint was referred to the Commission on Bar
Discipline (CBD) of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
(IBP) for investigation, report and recommendation. 8
Based on testimonial and documentary evidence, the CBD,
in its report and recommendation, 9 found that respondent
had encroached on the professional practice of
complainant, violating Rule 8.0210 and other canons11 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR). Moreover, he

contravened the rule against soliciting cases for gain,
personally or through paid agents or brokers as stated in
Section 27, Rule 13812 of the Rules of Court. Hence, the
CBD recommended that respondent be reprimanded with a
stern warning that any repetition would merit a heavier
penalty.
We adopt the findings of the IBP on the unethical conduct
of respondent but we modify the recommended penalty.
The complaint before us is rooted on the alleged intrusion
by respondent into complainant’s professional practice in
violation of Rule 8.02 of the CPR. And the means employed
by respondent in furtherance of the said misconduct
themselves constituted distinct violations of ethical rules.
Canons of the CPR are rules of conduct all lawyers must
adhere to, including the manner by which a lawyer’s
services are to be made known. Thus, Canon 3 of the CPR
provides:
CANON 3 - A lawyer in making known his legal services
shall use only true, honest, fair, dignified and objective
information or statement of facts.
Time and time again, lawyers are reminded that the
practice of law is a profession and not a business; lawyers
should not advertise their talents as merchants advertise
their wares.13 To allow a lawyer to advertise his talent or skill
is to commercialize the practice of law, degrade the
profession in the public’s estimation and impair its ability to
efficiently render that high character of service to which
every member of the bar is called.14
Rule 2.03 of the CPR provides:
RULE 2.03. A lawyer shall not do or permit to be done any
act designed primarily to solicit legal business.
Hence, lawyers are prohibited from soliciting cases for the
purpose of gain, either personally or through paid agents or
brokers.15 Such actuation constitutes malpractice, a ground
for disbarment.16
Rule 2.03 should be read in connection with Rule 1.03 of
the CPR which provides:
RULE 1.03. A lawyer shall not, for any corrupt motive or
interest, encourage any suit or proceeding or delay any
man’s cause.
This rule proscribes "ambulance chasing" (the solicitation of
almost any kind of legal business by an attorney, personally
or through an agent in order to gain employment) 17 as a
measure to protect the community from barratry and
champerty.18
Complainant presented substantial evidence  (consisting of
19
the sworn statements of the very same persons coaxed by
Labiano and referred to respondent’s office) to prove that
respondent indeed solicited legal business as well as
profited from referrals’ suits.
Although respondent initially denied knowing Labiano in his
answer, he later admitted it during the mandatory hearing.
Through Labiano’s actions, respondent’s law practice was
benefited. Hapless seamen were enticed to transfer
representation on the strength of Labiano’s word that
respondent could produce a more favorable result.
Based on the foregoing, respondent clearly solicited
employment violating Rule 2.03, and Rule 1.03 and Canon
PALE (Canons 2 and 3)|7
3 of the CPR and Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of
Court.1avvphi1
With regard to respondent’s violation of Rule 8.02 of the
CPR, settled is the rule that a lawyer should not steal
another lawyer’s client nor induce the latter to retain him by
a promise of better service, good result or reduced fees for
his services.20 Again the Court notes that respondent never
denied having these seafarers in his client list nor receiving
benefits from Labiano’s "referrals." Furthermore, he never
denied Labiano’s connection to his office. 21 Respondent
committed an unethical, predatory overstep into another’s
legal practice. He cannot escape liability under Rule 8.02 of
the CPR.
Moreover, by engaging in a money-lending venture with his
clients as borrowers, respondent violated Rule 16.04:
Rule 16.04 – A lawyer shall not borrow money from his
client unless the client’s interests are fully protected by the
nature of the case or by independent advice. Neither shall a
lawyer lend money to a client except, when in the interest of
justice, he has to advance necessary expenses in a legal
matter he is handling for the client.
The rule is that a lawyer shall not lend money to his client.
The only exception is, when in the interest of justice, he has
to advance necessary expenses (such as filing fees,
stenographer’s fees for transcript of stenographic notes,
cash bond or premium for surety bond, etc.) for a matter
that he is handling for the client.
The rule is intended to safeguard the lawyer’s
independence of mind so that the free exercise of his
judgment may not be adversely affected. 22 It seeks to
ensure his undivided attention to the case he is handling as
well as his entire devotion and fidelity to the client’s cause.
If the lawyer lends money to the client in connection with
the client’s case, the lawyer in effect acquires an interest in
the subject matter of the case or an additional stake in its
outcome.23 Either of these circumstances may lead the
lawyer to consider his own recovery rather than that of his
client, or to accept a settlement which may take care of his
interest in the verdict to the prejudice of the client in
violation of his duty of undivided fidelity to the client’s
cause.24
As previously mentioned, any act of solicitation constitutes
malpractice25 which calls for the exercise of the Court’s
disciplinary powers. Violation of anti-solicitation statutes
warrants serious sanctions for initiating contact with a
prospective client for the purpose of obtaining
employment.26 Thus, in this jurisdiction, we adhere to the
rule to protect the public from the Machiavellian
machinations of unscrupulous lawyers and to uphold the
nobility of the legal profession.
Considering the myriad infractions of respondent (including
violation of the prohibition on lending money to clients), the
sanction recommended by the IBP, a mere reprimand, is a
wimpy slap on the wrist. The proposed penalty is grossly
incommensurate to its findings.
A final word regarding the calling card presented in
evidence by petitioner. A lawyer’s best advertisement is a
well-merited reputation for professional capacity and fidelity
to trust based on his character and conduct. 27 For this
reason, lawyers are only allowed to announce their services
by publication in reputable law lists or use of simple
professional cards.
Professional calling cards may only contain the following
details:
 PALE (Canons 2 and 3)|8

(a) lawyer’s name;

(b) name of the law firm with which he is

connected;

(c) address;

(d) telephone number and

(e) special branch of law practiced.28

Labiano’s calling card contained the phrase "with financial

assistance." The phrase was clearly used to entice clients
(who already had representation) to change counsels with a
promise of loans to finance their legal actions. Money was
dangled to lure clients away from their original lawyers,
thereby taking advantage of their financial distress and
emotional vulnerability. This crass commercialism degraded
the integrity of the bar and deserved no place in the legal
profession. However, in the absence of substantial
evidence to prove his culpability, the Court is not prepared
to rule that respondent was personally and directly
responsible for the printing and distribution of Labiano’s
calling cards.

WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Nicomedes Tolentino for

violating Rules 1.03, 2.03, 8.02 and 16.04 and Canon 3 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility and Section 27,
Rule 138 of the Rules of Court is
hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a
period of one year effective immediately from receipt of
this resolution. He is STERNLY WARNED that a repetition
of the same or similar acts in the future shall be dealt with
more severely.

Let a copy of this Resolution be made part of his records in

the Office of the Bar Confidant, Supreme Court of the
Philippines, and be furnished to the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines and the Office of the Court Administrator to be
circulated to all courts.

SO ORDERED.