Pedro Linsangan v. Atty.

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

FACTS:
 This is a complaint for disbarment filed by Pedro Linsangan against Atty. Nicomedes Tolentino for
solicitation of clients and encroachment of professional services.
 The complainant alleged that the respondent, with the help of paralegal Fe Marie Labiano,
convinced his clients to transfer legal representation. Respondent promised them financial
assistance and expeditious collection on their claims. To induce them to hire his services, he
persistently called them and sent them text messages.
 To support such allegations, the complainant presented: (1) sworn affidavit and (2) attached the
calling card of the respondent with the phrase “with financial assistance”.
 As a defense, respondent denied knowing Labiano and authorizing the printing and circulation of
the said calling card.
 IBP-CBD recommended that respondent be reprimanded.
 Hence, the present petition

ISSUE:
W/N the Atty. Tolentino violated the Canons of CPR by solicitation of clients.

HELD:
YES. The Court ADOPTED the resolution of IBP and MODIFIED the penalty from reprimand to
SUSPENSION of 1 year.

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. Canon 3 (now Canon II Sec. 17) provides that a lawyer
making known his legal services shall use only true honest, fair dignified and objective information or
statement of facts. The Court reminded lawyers that practice of law is a profession and not a business;
lawyers should not advertise their talents as merchants advertise their wares. To allow such lawyer to
advertise his talent or skill is to commercialize the practice of law, degrade the profession in the public
estimation and impair its ability to efficiently render that hish character of service to which every
member of the bar is called.

Moreover, by engaging in a money-lending venture is a violation of Rule 16.04. The rule is that a
lawyer shall not lend money to his client except when in the interest of justice, he has to advance
necessary expenses for a matter that he is handling for the client. The rule is intended to safeguard
lawyer’s independence of mind so that the free exercise of his judgement may not be adversely affected.
In re: Luis B. Tagorda
GR No. 32329 | March 23, 1929

FACTS:
 The respondent, Luis B. Tagorda, a practicing attorney and a member of the provincial board of
Isabela, admits the following:
o He made use of a card written in Spanish and Ilocano to solicit legal services.
o He is the author of a letter addressed to a lieutenant of barrio in his home municipality
also soliciting legal and notarial services.

ISSUE:
W/N the Atty. Luis Tagorda violated the Canons of CPR by solicitation of clients.

HELD:
YES. The Court SUSPENDED the respondent from practice of law for a period of 1 month.

The practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either personally or through paid
agents or brokers constitutes malpractice. The practice of 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. The solicitation of employment by an attorney is a ground for disbarment or suspension.
Atty. Ismael Khan Jr. v. Atty. Rizalino Simbillo
AC No. 5299| August 19, 2003

FACTS:
 The is an 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 [insert telephone number].
 Ms. Espeleta, a staff member of the Public Information Office of the SC, 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 that the case will not involve
separation of property or custody of children.
 Further research by the Office of Court Administrator revealed that similar advertisements were
published in August 2000 issues of Manila Bulletin and The Philippine Star.
 In Sept. 2000, Atty. Ismael Khan, in his capacity as Assistant Court Administrator and Chief of PIO,
filed an admin complaint against Atty. Rizalino Simbillo for improper advertising and solicitation
of legal services.
 In his answer, Atty. Simbillo admitted the acts imputed to him, but argued that advertising and
solicitation per se are not prohibited acts.
 IBP decided against the respondent.

ISSUE:
W/N the respondent violated the Canons of CPR by improper advertisement and solicitation of
legal services.

HELD:
YES. The Court found that the respondent is GUILTY of violation of CPR and ordered SUSPENSION
from practice of law for 1-year.

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 livelihood should be a secondary consideration. The following elements distinguish legal
profession from a business:

a. A duty of public service, of which the emolument is a by-product

Nonetheless, the solicitation of legal business is not altogether proscribed. However, for the
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 and thus would not bring injury to the lawyer and to the bar.
Foodsphere, Inc. v. Atty. Melanio L. Mauricio, Jr.
AC No. 7199 | July 22, 2009

FACTS:
 Foodsphere, Inc., operating under the trade name “CDO”, filed a complaint before the IBP-CBD
against Atty. Melanio Mauricio popularly known as “Batas Mauricio”, a popular writer/columnist
of several tabloids and a host of television programs for (1) gross immoral conduct, (2) violation
of Lawyer’s Oath and (3) disrespect to the courts and investigating officer.
 This issue stemmed from a certain Alberto Cordero who purportedly bought a can of CDO liver
spread, and later discovered a colony of worms inside the can. Thus, Cordero filed a complaint
before the BFAD. Due to this incident, Cordero requested 150,000 as damages to CDO.
Complaint refused and instead offered to return the actual medical and incidental expenses.
 Respondent later proposed to settle the matter for 50,000 – 15,000 would go to Corderos, and
35,000 to his Batas Foundation. And, respondent directed complainant to place paid
advertisements in the tabloids and television programs.
 Thereafter, the respondent sent an Advertising contract to the complainant for such
advertisement amounting to 360,000. However, the complainantcounter-offered to buy
advertisement for a total of 23,100 only.
 Acting on the complainant’s offer, respondent relayed to the complainant that they were
disappointed with the offer and threatened to proceed with the publication of articles and
columns.
 In August 2004, respondent in his radio program sponsored a contest: “anong liver spread ang
may uod?”, “aling lover spread ang may uod at anong kompanya?” etc.
 The respondent also wrote and published several articles in his tabloids which put the
complainant in bad light.
 Thus, the complainant filed a criminal, civil and administrative complaint against the respondent.
 As to administrative complaint, IBP ruled against the respondent. Hence, the present petition.

ISSUE:
W/N the respondent-lawyer violated the sub-judice rule under the CPR.

HELD:
YES. Atty. Mauricio is SUSPENDED from practice of law for 3 years for violation of the lawyer’s
oath and Code of Professional Responsibility.
The Court held that the respondent violated Rules 1.01, 13.02 and 8.02 of the CPR which (a)
mandates the lawyers to refrain from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct; (b)
to refrain from making public statements in the media regarding a pending case tending to arouse public
opinion against a party, and (c) prohibits lawyers to use language which is abusive, offensive or improper
in his professional dealings.
Here, the respondent took advantage of the complaint against CDO to advance his interest; to
obtain funds for his Batas Foundation and seek sponsorship and advertisements for the tabloids and his
television program.
Imelda Nakpil v. Atty. Carlos Valdes
AC No. 2040| March 4, 1998

FACTS:
 Jose Nakpil, the late husband of the complainant, became interested in purchasing summer
residence in Moran St., Baguio City. For lack of funds, he requested respondent to purchase the
Moran property for him.
 They agreed that the respondent would keep the property in trust for the Nakpil’s until the latter
could buy it back.
 Pursuant to their agreement, the respondent obtained two loans from bank which he used to
purchase and renovate the property. Title was then issued in respondent’s name.
 The ownership of Moran property became an issue in the intestate proceedings when Jose
Nakpil died. Respondent acted as the legal counsel and accountant of widow. Respondent
excluded Moran property from the inventory of Jose’s estate and transferred the title of the
Moran property to his company, the Raval Realty Corporation.
 Complainant sought to recover the property by filing with CFI – Baguio an action for
reconveyance with damages against respondent and his corporation.
 CFI – Baguio dismissed the case. CFA held that respondent was the absolute owner of property.
The case was however reversed by SC.
 Hence, she charged the respondent for violation of professional ethics.

ISSUE:
W/N there was a conflict of interest between complainant and the respondent.

HELD:
YES. Atty. Carlos Valdes is GUILTY of misconduct and was SUSPENDED from the practice of law
for a period of 1 year.
There is no question that the interests of the estate and that of its creditors are adverse to each
other. Respondent’s accounting firm prepared the list of assets and liabilities of the estate and, at the
same time, computed the claims of two creditors of the estate. There is clearly a conflict between the
interest of the estate which stands as the debtor, and that of the two claimants who are creditors of the
estate. Respondent undoubtedly placed his law firm in a position where his loyalty to his client could be
doubted. In the estate proceedings, the duty of respondent’s law firm was to contest the claims of
these two creditors but which claims were prepared by respondent’s accounting firm. Even if the claims
were valid and did not prejudice the estate, the set-up is still undesirable. The test to determine whether
there is a conflict of interest in the representation is probability, not certainty of conflict. It was
respondent’s duty to inhibit either of his firms from said proceedings to avoid the probability of conflict
of interest.
Public confidence in law and lawyers may be eroded by the irresponsible and improper conduct
of a member of the bar.
hus, a lawyer should determine
his conduct by acting in a
manner that would
promote public confidence in the
integrity of the legal profession.
Members of the
bar are expected to always
live up to the standards
embodied in the Code of
Professional Responsibility as the
relationship between an attorney
and his client is
highly fiduciary in nature and
demands utmost fidelity and good
faith. In the case at
bar, respondent exhibited less
than full fidelity to his duty
to observe candor,
fairness and loyalty in his dealings
and transactions with his clients.
Thus, a lawyer should determine his conduct by acting in a manner that would promote
public confidence in the integrity of the legal profession. Members of the bar are expected to always
live up to the standards embodied in the Code of Professional Responsibility as the
relationship between an attorney and his client is highly fiduciary in nature and demands utmost fidelity
and good faith. In the case at bar, respondent exhibited less than full fidelity to his duty to
observe candor, fairness and loyalty in his dealings and transactions with his clients.