LAPUT v. REMOTIGUE, A.M. No.

219 (1962)

FACTS:

Petitioner Atty. Casiano U. Laput charge respondents Atty. Francisco Remotigue and Atty. Fortunato
Patalinghug with unprofessional and unethical conduct in soliciting cases and intriguing against a brother
lawyer. In May 1952, Nieves Rillas Vda. de Barrera retained petitioner Atty. Laput to handle her "Testate
Estate of Macario Barrera" case in CFI-Cebu. By Jan. 1955, petitioner had prepared two pleadings: (1)
closing of administration proceedings, and (2) rendering of final accounting and partition of said estate.
Mrs. Barrera did not countersign both pleadings. Petitioner found out later that respondent Atty.
Patalinghug had filed on 11 Jan. 1955 a written appearance as the new counsel for Mrs. Barrera. On 5
Feb. 1955, petitioner voluntarily asked the court to be relieved as Mrs. Barrera’s Counsel.

Petitioner alleged that: (1) respondents’ appearances were unethical and improper; (2) they
made Mrs. Barrera sign documents revoking the petitioner’s “Power of Attorney" purportedly to
disauthorize him from further collecting and receiving dividends of the estate from Mr. Macario
Barrera’s corporations, and make him appear as a dishonest lawyer and no longer trusted by
his client; and (3) Atty. Patalinghug entered his appearance without notice to petitioner.

Respondent Atty. Patalinghug answered that when he entered his appearance on 11 Jan. 1955
Mrs. Barrera had already lost confidence in her lawyer, and had already filed a pleading
discharging his services. The other respondent Atty. Remotigue answered that when he filed
his appearance on 7 Feb. 1955, the petitioner had already withdrawn as counsel.

The SC referred the case to the SolGen for investigation, report and recommendation. The
latter recommended the complete exoneration of respondents

ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Remotigue and Atty Patalinghug are guilty of unprofessional and
unethical conduct in soliciting cases

RULING: No. The SC found no irregularity in the appearance of Atty. Patalinghug as counsel
for Mrs. Barrera; and there was no actual grabbing of a case from the petitioner because Atty.
Patalinghug's professional services were contracted by the widow. Besides, the petitioner's
voluntary withdrawal on 5 Feb. 1955, and his filing almost simultaneously of a motion for the
payment of his attorney's fees, amounted to consent to the appearance of Atty. Patalinghug as
counsel for the widow.

The SC also held that respondent Atty. Remotigue was also not guilty of unprofessional
conduct inasmuch as he entered his appearance, dated 5 Feb. 1955, only on 7 February 1955,
after Mrs. Barrera had dispensed with petitioner's professional services, and after petitioner
had voluntarily withdrawn his appearance.

As to Atty. Patalinghug’s preparation of documents revoking the petitioner’s power of attorney,

the SolGen found that the same does not appear to be prompted by malice or intended to hurt
petitioner's feelings, but purely to safeguard the interest of the administratrix.
Case dismissed and closed for no sufficient evidence submitted to sustain the charges
—

ULEP VS. LEGAL CLINIC, INC., 223 SCRA 378 (1993)

FACTS:

Petitioner Mauricio Ulep prays for the Court to order the respondent Legal Clinic Inc., to
cease and desist from issuing advertisements similar to or of the same tenor as that of annex A and B of
the 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. Ulep avers that the said advertisements are
champertous, unethical, demeaning of the law profession and destructive of the confidence of the
community in the integrity of the members of the bar.

The respondent, thru its answer, admits the fact of publication of said advertisement but claims that the
company is not engaged in the practice of law but rather in rendering legal support services through
paralegals.

ISSUE:

1. Whether or not the services offered by Legal Clinic Inc as advertised by it constitutes practice of
law

2. Whether or not their services can properly be the subject of the advertisements

RULING:

1. Yes. Practice of law means any activity, in or out of court, which requires the application of law,
legal procedures, knowledge, training and experience. Generally, to practice law is to give advice
or render any kind of service that involves legal knowledge or skill.

In practice, a lawyer engages in three principal types of professional activity:

(1) Legal advise and instructions to clients to inform them of their rights and obligations
(2) Preparation for clients of documents requiring knowledge of legal principles not possessed by
ordinary layman
(3) Appearance for clients before the 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

Applying the criteria, the activities of The Legal Clinic constitute practice of law. 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
advertisement represents and for which services it will consequently charge and be paid. That activity
falls squarely within the definition of “practice of law.”
 2. NO. The standard of 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. The canon of the profession states that the
best advertising possible for a lawyer is a well- merited reputation for profession capacity and
fidelity to trust, which must be earned as the outcome of character and conduct. A good and
reputable lawyer needs no artificial stimulus to generate it and to magnify his success.
DISPOSITIVE:
The Court resolved to RESTRAIN AND ENJOIN The Legal Clinic Inc from issuing or causing the
publication or dissemination of any advertisement in any form and from conducting, directly or indirectly,
any activity, Operation, or transaction proscribed by law or the Code of Professional Ethics.

Atty. Rogelio Nogales, as a member of the Philippine Bar, is 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.

The question as to the legality or illegality of the purpose for which the Legal Clinic was created was not
decided upon by the Court. They are constrained to refrain from lapsing into an obiter since it is clearly
not within the adjudicative parameters of the present proceedings which is administrative in nature.

IN RE SOTTO , 82 Phil 595 (1949)

FACTS: Atty. Sotto was required to show cause why he should not be punished for contempt in
connection with his written statement of the SC’s decision in the matter of Angel Parazo’s case which
was published in Manila Times and in other newspapers in the locality.

Sotto was given ten days more besides the five originally given him to file his answer, and although his
answer was filed after the expiration of the period of time given him the said answer was admitted. He
does not deny the authenticity of the statement as it has been published.

He however, contends that under section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, which confers upon this
Supreme Court the power to promulgate rules concerning pleading, practice, and procedure, the
Supreme Court has has no power to impose correctional penalties upon the citizens, and it can only
impose fines and imprisonment by virtue of a law, and has to be promulgated by Congress with the
approval of the Chief Executive.

He also alleges in his answer that "in the exercise of the freedom of speech guaranteed by the
Constitution, the respondent made his statement in the press with the utmost good faith and with no
intention of offending any of the majority of the honorable members of this high Tribunal, who, in his
opinion, erroneously decided the Parazo case; but he has not attacked, or intended to attack the honesty
or integrity of any one.

ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Vicente Sotto is guilty of contempt?

RULING:

The Court finds that the respondent Sotto knowingly published false imputations against its members.
He accused them of such depravity as to have committed "blunders and injustices deliberately." He has
maliciously branded them to be incompetent, narrow-minded, perpetrators of evil, "a constant peril to
liberty and democracy," to be the opposite of those who were the honor and glory of the Philippines
judiciary, to be needing a lesson in law, to be rendering an intolerable sentence, to be needing
replacement by better qualified justices.

Respondent has not presented any evidence or offered any to support his slanderous imputations, and
no single word can be found in his answer showing that he ever believed that the imputations are based
on fact.

It is also well settled that an attorney as an officer of the court is under special obligation to be
respectful in his conduct and communication to the courts, he may be removed from office or stricken
from the roll of attorneys as being guilty of flagrant misconduct.

As a member of the Bar and an office of the Courts, Atty. Sotto is duty bound to uphold the dignity and
authority of this Court, to which he owes fidelity according to the oath he has taken as an attorney, and
not to promote distrust

The Court concurred in imposing upon Atty. Sotto a fine Php1,000.00 with subsidiary imprisonment an
ordering him to show cause why he should not be completely deprived of the privilege of practicing the
profession of a lawyer.
—-

CRUZ VS. SALVA, 105 PHIL 1151 (1951)

FACTS: On the case handled in his capacity as City Fiscal of Pasay City, the respondent Francisco G.
H. Salva was filed a case of certiorari and prohibition with a preliminary injunction by the petitioner
Timoteo V. Cruz for the investigation he was conducting in September 1957.

In this case, a criminal investigation was conducted by the Fiscal towards the killing of Manuel Monroy in
1953 committed by Oscar Catelo and his co-defendants. As Fiscal Salva conferred with the Office of the
Solicitor General, a Conference was held publicly with the Secretary of Justice wherein reporters were
invited at the session hall of municipal court and Timote Cruz was subpoenaed by Fiscal Salva represented
by Atty. Baizas.

ISSUE: Whether or not the conduct of investigation was in violation of Rule 3.04 of Canon 3 of Code of
Professional Responsibility (CPR)
RULING: Yes, there is a violation of the code, herein, Fiscal Salva as held by the court that the publicity
was unnecessary if there is only just to acquaint the evidence and questioning towards those who were
accused.

Furthermore, the investigation was conducted on a session hall wherein there is a big crowd filled with
reporters, as such the Fiscal incited reporters to interfere with the investigation through entertaining
questions in connection. As the court added, the publicity expressed that the press will be in favor. As
fortunately, the press declined the offer to ask questions.
But the effect took place on the publications, narrations, and comments as a concomitant result of the public
investigation as already intervened by the press, the court was disturbed for such publicity in violation of
Canon 3 Rule 3.04 of CPR as giving value to mass media in which result regarded as a grievous error and
poor judgment. Wherein the court issued censure and reprehension to Francisco G.H. Salva for contempt
of court and violation of publicity and sensationalism.