You are on page 1of 5


MARY MALECDAN vs. PEKAS and KOLLIN A.C. No. 5830. January 26, 2004 Facts: Atty Pekas and Kollin substituted Atty. Bustamante as a counsels for the Fanged Spouses. Petitioner Malecdan bought a parcel of land located in Baguio City from the Fanged spouses. The money was received by Eliza Fanged and deposited in the account of Atty. Artemio Bustamante, then counsel for the latter. The complainant later found out, however, that the said lot was the subject of a controversy between the former owners and the Fanged Spouses. Then Kollin replaced Bustamante. He filed for a petition for rescission over the contract of sale, without returning the amount of money to Malecdan. While Malecdan was in the US, the Fanged spouses, Atty Bustamante and the PCIB (bank) signed a compromised contract, and Malecdan was not made a signatory to such contract. They caused the transfer of P30K from the account of Bustamante to a separate account for Kollin and Pekas as attorneys fees. Now, Malecdan files a case for disbarment against Kollin and Pekas, because not only was she prejudiced from such withdrawal of money, but they also committed acts against the IBP in contravention/violation to the lawyers oath that they shall uphold the laws of the land. Issue: WON Kollin and Pekas should be suspended? YES Held: It is a settled principle that the compensation of a lawyer should be but a mere incident of the practice of law, the primary purpose of which is to render public service. The practice of law is a profession and not a money-making trade. The process of imbibing ethical standards can begin with the simple act of openness and candor in dealing with clients, which would progress thereafter towards the ideal that a lawyers vocation is not synonymous with an ordinary business proposition but a serious matter of public interest. DECISION: Pekas suspended for 6 months, Kollin for 3 years.

ONG VS. UNTO February 6, 2002 FACTS: This is a disbarment case filed by Alex Ong against Atty. Elpidio D. Unto, for malpractice of law and conduct unbecoming of a lawyer.

It is evident from the records that he tried to coerce the complainant to comply with his letterdemand by threatening to file various charges against the latter. When the complainant did not heed his warning, he made good his threat and filed a string of criminal and administrative cases against the complainant. They, however, did not have any bearing or connection to the cause of his client, The records show that the respondent offered monetary rewards to anyone who could provide him any information against the complainant just so he would have leverage in his actions against the latter.

ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Untos acts constitute malpractice. HELD: Yes. Canon 19 of the Code of Professional Responsibility mandates lawyers to represent their clients with zeal but within the bounds of the law. Rule 19.01 further commands that a lawyer shall employ only fair and honest means to attain the lawful objectives of his client and shall not present, participate, or threaten to present unfounded criminal charges to obtain an improper advantage in any case or proceeding.

Tan Tek Beng vs. David 126 SCRA 389 Tan Tek Beng (non-lawyer) has had an agreement with Timoteo David (lawyer) as documented by a letter made by David with terms and condition that reads: 1. all commission/attorneys fees from the clients supplied by Tan will be divided 50-50 between them 2. David will not deal directly with their clients without Tans consent 3. Tan will be collecting and keeping the said fees/advances 4. Other clients who are related to Tan and are contacted through him will be his clients This agreement was agreed by the parties but their business relationship did not last due to accusations and double-cross. Because of the alleged breach of agreement Tan accused David to Pres. Asst. Zamora, Office of Civil Relations and to Supreme Court, This case was sent to Solicitor General for investigation, report and recommendation. Issue: WON a disciplinary action be taken against David? HELD

David is reprimanded for being guilty of malpractice. The agreement made is void because it is tantamount to malpractice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either personally or through agents or brokers. Practice of law is a profession, not a business. Commercialization of law practice is condemned in certain canons of professional ethics adopted by American Bar Association that prohibits division of fees, intermediaries, and compensation, commission and rebates. The discountenance of Davids conduct was not because of the complaint of Tan Tek Beng (who does not know about legal ethics) but because David should have known better that unprofessional conduct in an attorney is that which violates the rule or ethical codes of his profession or which is unbecoming a member of that profession.

[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. 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. Similar advertisements were published in the issues of the Manila Bulletin and The Philippine Star. 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. HELD 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. 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. 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

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.

IN RE: TAGORDA 53 PHHIL. 37 (1929) The respondent, Luis B. Tagorda, a practising attorney and a member of the provincial board of Isabela, made use of a card written in Spanish and Ilocano, with a note that he can execute any kind of affidavit and offers free consultation. He also wrote a letter addressed to a lieutenant of barrio requeting 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. HELD The practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either personally or through paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice.

The solicitation of employment by an attorney is a ground for disbarment or suspension. Respondent stands convicted of having solicited cases in defiance of the law and those canons. In view of all the circumstances of this case, 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,

A.C. No. L-1117

March 20, 1944

THE DIRECTOR OF RELIGIOUS AFFAIRS, complainant, vs. ESTANISLAO R. BAYOT, respondent. FACTS: The respondent, who is an attorney-at-law, is charged with malpractice for having published an advertisement in the Sunday Tribune of June 13, 1943, which reads as follows: Marriage

license promptly secured thru our assistance & the annoyance of delay or publicity avoided if desired, and marriage arranged to wishes of parties. Consultation on any matter free for the poor. Everything confidential. Legal assistance service 12 Escolta, Manila, Room, 105 Tel. 2-41-60. 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 Considering his plea for leniency and his promise not to repeat the misconduct, the Court is of the opinion and so decided that the respondent should be, as he hereby is, reprimanded.