LEGAL ETHICS CASE DIGESTS

Canon 2- Rule 2.03

Atty. Ismael G. Khan vs. Atty. Rizalino T. Simbillo

A.C. No. 5299. August 19, 2003.

Dura, Vanessa Gayle

FACTS:

An investigation was conducted against Atty. Rizalino Simbillo by Atty. Ismael G. Khan, Jr., in
his capacity as Assistant Court Administrator and Chief of the Public Information Office. Atty
Khan then filed administrative complaint against Atty. 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. Based on their
investigation, Mrs. Simbillo, claimed that her husband 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 various advertisements
were published in different issue of the newspapers. Atty. Simbilo admitted the acts imputed
to him, but argued that advertising and solicitation per se are not prohibited acts.

ISSUE:

Whether or not respondent’s act was a violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

RULING:

Yes. Atty. Rizalino Simbillo is found GUILTY of violation of 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.

It has been repeatedly stressed that the practice of law is not a business. 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. The gaining of a livelihood should be a secondary consideration. 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.

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.

Such acts of respondents 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 have otherwise been disinclined and would have
refrained from dissolving their marriage bonds, to do so.
LEGAL ETHICS CASE DIGESTS
Canon 2- Rule 2.03

Pedro L. Linsangan vs Atty. Nicomedes Tolentino

A.C. No. 6672. September 4, 2009.

Payot, Keely Shaye L.

FACTS:

Pedro Linsangan of the Linsangan Linsangan & Linsangan Law Office filed a complaint of
disbarment against Atty. Nicomedes Tolentino for solicitation of clients and encroachment
of professional services alleging that respondent, with the help of paralegal Fe Marie
Labiano, convinced his clients to transfer legal representation to said respondent with the
promise of financial assistance and expeditious collection on their claims. To induce them
to hire his services, he persistently called them and sent them text messages. Complainant
presented the sworn affidavit of James Gregorio attesting that Labiano convinced him to
sever his lawyer-client relations with complainant and use respondent’s services instead,
in exchange for a loan of P50,000.00.

ISSUE:

Whether or not, Tolentino’s actions constitute disbarment.

HELD:

The court adopted the findings of the IBP on unethical conduct of the respondent whereby
it found the respondent to have encroached on the professional practice of complainant,
violating Rule 2.03 of the CPR which provide;

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. Such actuation
constitutes malpractice, a ground for disbarment. 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) as a measure
to protect the community from barratry and champerty.

Based on such, Atty. Nicomedes Tolentino is found to have violated Rules 1.03, 2.03, of
the CPR and is suspended from the practice of law for a period of one year with a stern
warning that a repetition of the same or similar acts in the future shall be dealt with more
severely.
LEGAL ETHICS CASE DIGESTS
Canon 2- Rule 2.03

Jerry M. Palencia vs. Atty. Pedro Linsangan

A.C. No. 1055. July 10, 2018.

Depabulos, Prince Lloyd

FACTS:

Jerry Palencia was an overseas Filipino worker seafarer who was seriously injured during
work when he fell into the elevator shaft of the vessel M/T “Panos G” flying a Cyprus flag.
After initial treatment in Singapore, Palencia was discharged and flown to the Philippines
to continue his medical treatment and rehabilitation. While confined, paralegals and Atty.
Pedro Linsangan were able to convince Palencia to engage their services in order to file a
suit against the latter’s employers for indemnity. An Attorney-Client Contract was executed
which reads, in part, “We/I hereby voluntarily agree and bind ourselves, our heirs and
assigns to pay Atty. Pedro L. Linsangan and his collaborating Singapore counsels, the sum
equivalent to thirty-five [35%] of any recovery or settlement obtained.” In addition, a
Special Power of Attorney was also executed where he engaged the legal services of
Linsangan’s law firm and Gurbani & Co., a law firm based in Singapore, and agreed to pay
attorney’s fees of 35% of any recovery or settlement for both. Through the efforts of Atty.
Linsangan, Palencia was paid US$60,000 as indemnity and US$20,000 under the collective
bargaining agreement. From these, 35% attorney’s fees were charged.

Atty. Linsangan and Gurbani & Co. filed a tort case against the employer before the High
Court of Singapore, negotiations led to a settlement award in favor of Palencia in the
amount of US$95,000. Gurbani & Co. remitted to Atty. Linsangan the amount of
US$59,608.40. From this amount, Atty. Linsangan deducted: US$5,000 for Justice
Gancayco for his expert opinion; their 35% attorney’s fees; and other expenses, leaving
the net amount of US$18,132.43 for Palencia. The amount of US$20,756.05 (representing
the net amount) was tendered but was refused by Palencia contesting the amount of
expenses and attorney’s fees that was deducted.

Atty. Linsangan filed an action for preliminary mandatory injunction to compel Palencia to
receive the amount. The case was dismissed and upheld by the Supreme Court. On the
other hand, Palencia filed an action for accounting, remittance of settlement amount and
damages. The RTC ruled in favor of Palencia. The CA affirmed the RTC’s ruling but reduced
the rate of attorney’s fees to 10%. The Supreme Court affirmed the CA’s ruling and
attained finality on August 2013.

Meanwhile, Palencia filed a complaint with the IBP against Atty. Linsangan refusing to
remit the amount collected in the Singapore case worth US$95,000.00, and in offering
only US$20,756.05; depositing complainant’s money into their own account; and engaging
in "ambulance chasing" by deploying their agents to convince the complainant to hire
respondent’s services while the former was still bedridden in the hospital.

The IBP-CBD, in its Report and Recommendation, ruled that Atty. Linsangan has violated
the canons of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The IBP Board of Governors
adopted the Report and Recommendation.

ISSUE:

Whether the IBP was correct in finding Attys. Linsangan liable under the Code of
Professional Responsibility.

RULING:

Yes. The Court held that “The practice of law is a profession and not a business. Lawyers
are reminded to avoid at all times any act that would tend to lessen the confidence of the
LEGAL ETHICS CASE DIGESTS
Canon 2- Rule 2.03

public in the legal profession as a noble calling, including, among others, the manner by
which he makes known his legal services.”

A lawyer in making known his legal services must do so in a dignified manner. They are
prohibited from soliciting cases for the purpose of gain, either personally or through paid
agents or brokers. The CPR explicitly states that "[a] lawyer shall not do or permit to be
done any act designed primarily to solicit legal business." Corollary to this duty is for
lawyers not to encourage any suit or proceeding for any corrupt motive or interest. Thus,
"ambulance chasing," or the solicitation of almost any kind of business by an attorney,
personally or through an agent, in order to gain employment, is proscribed.”

The Court further held that “The relationship between a lawyer and his client is highly
fiduciary. This relationship holds a lawyer to a great degree of fidelity and good faith
especially in handling money or property of his clients. Thus, Canon 16 and its rules remind
a lawyer to: (1) hold in trust all moneys and properties of his client that may come into
his possession; (2) deliver the funds and property of his client when due or upon demand
subject to his retaining lien; and (3) account for all money or property collected or received
for or from his client.

Money collected by a lawyer on a judgment rendered in favor of his client constitutes trust
funds and must be immediately paid over to the client. As he holds such funds as agent or
trustee, his failure to pay or deliver the same to the client after demand constitutes
conversion. Thus, whenever a lawyer collects money as a result of a favorable judgment,
he must promptly report and account the money collected to his client.

It is the lawyer's duty to give a prompt and accurate account to his client. Upon the
collection or receipt of property or funds for the benefit of the client, his duty is to notify
the client promptly and, absent a contrary understanding, pay or remit the same to the
client, less only proper fees and disbursements, as soon as reasonably possible. He is
under absolute duty to give his client a full, detailed, and accurate account of all money
and property which has been received and handled by him, and must justify all transactions
and dealings concerning them. And while he is in possession of the client's funds, he should
not commingle it with his private property or use it for his personal purposes without his
client's consent.”
LEGAL ETHICS CASE DIGESTS
Canon 2- Rule 2.03

Miguel G. Villatuya vs. Atty. Bede S. Tabalingcos

A.C. No. 6622. July 10, 2012

Deduyo, Rois Marielle

FACTS:

Manuel G. Villatuya filed a Complaint for Disbarment on December 06, 2004 against
Tabalingcos, Atty. Bede S. Tabalingcos. In a resolution, the court required the Tabalingcos
to file a comment, which the Tabalingcos did. The complaint was then referred to the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines for investigation. In a mandatory conference called for by
the Commission on Bar Discipline of the IBP, Villatuya and his counsel, and the Tabalingcos
appeared and submitted issues for resolution.

The commission ordered the parties to submit their verified position papers. In the position
paper submitted by Villatuya on August 1, 2005, he averred that he was employed by
Tabalingcos as financial consultant to assist Tabalingcos in a number of corporate
rehabilitation cases. Villatuya claimed that they had a verbal agreement whereby he would
be entitled to ₱50,000 for every Stay Order issued by the court in the cases they would
handle, in addition to ten percent (10%) of the fees paid by their clients. Notwithstanding,
18 Stay Orders that was issued by the courts as a result of his work and Tabalingcos being
able to rake in millions from the cases that they were working on together, the latter did
not pay the amount due to him. He also alleged that Tabalingcos engaged in unlawful
solicitation of cases by setting up two financial consultancy firms as fronts for his legal
services. On the third charge of gross immorality, Villatuya accused Tabalingcos of
committing two counts of bigamy for having married two other women while his first
marriage was subsisting.

In his defense, Tabalingcos denied charges against him and asserted that the Villatuya
was not an employee of his law firm but rather an employee of Jesi and Jane Management,
Inc., one of the financial consultancy firms. Tabalingcos alleged Villatuya was
unprofessional and incompetent in performing his job and that there was no verbal
agreement between them regarding the payment of fees and the sharing of professional
fees paid by his clients. Tabalingcos also denied committing any unlawful solicitation. To
support his contention, Tabalingcos attached a Joint Venture Agreement and an affidavit
executed by the Vice-President for operations of Jesi and Jane Management, Inc. On the
charge of gross immorality, Tabalingcos assailed the Affidavit of a dismissed messenger
of Jesi and Jane Management, Inc., as having no probative value, since it had been
retracted by the affiant himself.

ISSUE:

1. Whether or not Tabalingcos violated the rule against unlawful solicitation

2. Whether or not Tabalingcos is guilty of gross immoral conduct for having married thrice.

RULING:

1. YES. Unlawful solicitation of clients. (RULE 2.03) In its Report, the IBP established the
truth of these allegations and ruled that Tabalingcos had violated the rule on the
solicitation of clients, but it failed to point out the specific provision that was breached.
Based on the facts of the case, he violated Rule 2.03 of the Code, which prohibits
lawyers from soliciting cases for the purpose of profit.

A lawyer is not prohibited from engaging in business or other lawful occupation.

Impropriety arises, though, when the business is of such a nature or is conducted in
such a manner as to be inconsistent with the lawyer’s duties as a member of the bar.
This inconsistency arises when the business is one that can readily lend itself to the
procurement of professional employment for the lawyer; or that can be used as a cloak
LEGAL ETHICS CASE DIGESTS
Canon 2- Rule 2.03

for indirect solicitation on the lawyer’s behalf; or is of a nature that, if handled by a

lawyer, would be regarded as the practice of law.

It is clear from the documentary evidence submitted by Villatuya that Jesi & Jane
Management, Inc., which purports to be a financial and legal consultant, was indeed a
vehicle used by Tabalingcos as a means toprocure professional employment;
specifically for corporate rehabilitation cases.

2. YES. The SC held that his acts of committing bigamy twice constituted grossly
immoral conduct and are grounds for disbarment under Section 27, Rule 138
of the Revised Rules of Court. The Supreme Court adopted the recommendation of
the IBP to disbar respondent and ordered that his name be stricken from the Roll of
Attorneys.

This is because a lawyer may not divide his personality so as to be an attorney at one
time and a mere citizen at another. He is expected to be competent, honorable and
reliable at all times since he who cannot apply and abide by the laws in his private
affairs, can hardly be expected to do so in his professional dealings nor lead others in
doing so. Professional honesty and honor are not to be expected as the accompaniment
of dishonesty and dishonor in other relations. Tabalingcos 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.