In re Santiago (1940) -done

In Re Atty. Roque Santiago

June 21, 1940

Original Action in the Supreme Court. Malpractice.

Facts:
In this administrative case, the Solicitor General charged the respondent Atty. Roque Santiago with
malpractice and prayed that disciplinary action be taken against him.
The respondent gave legal advice to one Ernesto Baniquit who was living separately from his wife for
some nine consecutive years and seeking to contract a second marriage. The respondent assured
Baniquit that he could secure a separation from his wife and marry again. The lawyer prepared a
document (Exhibit A) stating that the contracting parties, husband and wife, were authorized to marry
again and at the same time giving the authorization to renounce or waive each members right against
the party marrying.

The respondent, upon realizing his mistake, sent for the parties and let them sign the deed of
cancellation (Exhibit C) a month later but after the second marriage of Baniquit.

Issue:
1. Did the lawyer commit malpractice in his acts regarding the dispensation of such advice and
preparation of document?
2. Is the document regarding separation (Exhibit A) valid?

Held:
1. Yes. The advice given by the respondent and his preparation and acknowledgment by of the contract
constitute malpractice which justifies disbarment from the practice of law.
2. No. Marriage separation should have should be sanctioned in the proper court and before the
separation (see Selanova). Apart from this, the document subverts the vital foundation of the family,
marriage, and is contrary to law, morals and public policy.

Decision:
Respondent suspended from practice of law for one year.
Chua vs. mesina ,A.C no.4904 August 12 2004, -done

Facts:
Complainants Ana Alvaran Chua and Marcelina Has administratively charged respondent Atty. Simeon
M. Mesina, Jr., for breach of professional ethics, gross professional misconduct, and culpable
malpractice.

Complainants were lessees of the property of respondent's mother. Respondent's mother defaulted in
paying a loan that she obtained in a bank, thus respondent convinced complainants to help her mother
if paying the said obligation, to which the complainants acceded. It was agreed among that that in
consideration for the act of complainants, the property which they are leasing will be transferred to
their name. The complainants complied with the terms of the agreement. A deed of sale concerning
such property was executed.

However, to evade liability for paying capital gains tax, respondent instructed complainants to execute
another deed of sale which will be antedated 1979, wherein the capital gains tax was not yet in
effective.

Issue:
Whether or not respondent is guilty of gross misconduct.

Held:
Yes, said the Court- "This Court finds that indeed, respondent is guilty of gross misconduct.

By advising complainants to execute another Deed of Absolute Sale antedated to 1979 to evade
payment of capital gains taxes, he violated his duty to promote respect for law and legal processes, and
not to abet activities aimed at defiance of the law; That respondent intended to, as he did defraud not a
private party but the government is aggravating.

Samar Mining Corporation., vs. Armando (24 SCRA 402)

In 1958, Rufino Abuyen won a labor case against Samar Mining Company. Abuyen was awarded
compensation plus hospitalization expenses for a disease he incurred while working for Samar Mining.
The decision was rendered by Pompeyo Tan, a labor lawyer duly appointed by Francisco Arnado, a
regional administrator of the Department of Labor. In 1961, Samar Minings lawyer, Atty. Benedicto
Arcinas, filed an action for certiorari before CFI Cebu contending that Tan has no authority or
jurisdiction over said case because he was a mere labor lawyer who had no authority to render the
award being complained of. CFI Cebu dismissed the petition of Arcinas.

Meanwhile, in the same year, the Supreme Court made a ruling in the case of Caltex v. Villanueva (L-
15658, August 21, 1961) that duly appointed hearing officers by regional administrators of the labor
department may issue awards. Notwithstanding this ruling, Arcinas still filed an appeal before the
Supreme Court.

ISSUE: Whether or not the appeal has merit.

HELD: No. It is obvious that the purpose of the filing is just to delay and prolong the litigation in the hope
of draining the resources of the poorer party and of compelling it to submit out of sheer exhaustion.
The conduct of Atty. Arcinas is hardly compatible with the duty of the Bar to assist in the Administration
of Justice, not to obstruct or defeat the same. The Supreme Court ordered Samar Mining and Atty.
Arcinas to shoulder the litigation costs of this case jointly and severally.

Adelino H. Ledesma v. Hon. Rafael C. Climaco

G.R. No. L- 23815 (June 28, 1974)

Facts:

Petitioner Ledesma was assigned as counsel de parte for an accused in a case pending in the sala of the
respondent judge. On October 13, 1964, Ledesma was appointed Election Registrar for the Municipality
of Cadiz, Negros Occidental. He commenced discharging his duties, and filed a motion to withdraw from
his position as counsel de parte. The respondent Judge denied him and also appointed him as counsel de
oficio for the two defendants. On November 6, Ledesma filed a motion to be allowed to withdraw as
counsel de oficio, because the Comelec requires full time service which could prevent him from handling
adequately the defense. Judge denied the motion. So Ledesma instituted this certiorari proceeding.

Issue:

Whether or not the order of the respondent judged in denying the motion of the petitioner is a grave
abuse of discretion?

Holding:

No, Ledesma's withdrawal would be an act showing his lack of fidelity to the duty required of the legal
profession. He ought to have known that membership in the bar is burdened with conditions. The legal
profession is dedicated to the ideal of service, and is not a mere trade. A lawyer may be required to act
as counsel de oficio to aid in the performance of the administration of justice. The fact that such services
are rendered without pay should not diminish the lawyer's zeal.
Ratio:

The only attorneys who cannot practice law by reason of their office are Judges, or other officials or
employees of the superior courts or the office of the solicitor General (Section 32 Rule 127 of the Rules
of Court [Section 35 of Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court]. The lawyer involved not being among
them, remained as counsel of record since he did not file a motion to withdraw as defendant-appellants
counsel after his appointment as Register of Deeds. Nor was substitution of attorney asked either by
him or by the new counsel for the defendant-appellant (People vs. Williams CA G.R. Nos. 00375-76,
February 28, 1963)

To avoid any frustration thereof, especially in the case of an indigent defendant, a lawyer may be
required to act as counsel de officio (People v. Daban) Moreover, The right of an accused in a criminal
case to be represented by counsel is a constitutional right of the highest importance, and there can be
no fair hearing with due process of law unless he is fully informed of his rights in this regard and given
opportunity to enjoy them (People vs. Holgado, L-2809, March 22, 1950)

The trial court in a criminal case has authority to provide the accused with a counsel de officio
for such action as it may deem fit to safeguard the rights of the accused (Provincial Fiscal of Rizal vs.
Judge Muoz Palma, L-15325, August 31, 1930)

In re Sycip
92 SCRA 1 (1979)/ July 30, 1979; J. Melencio-Herrera
Facts:

Two separate Petitions were filed before this Court 1) by the surviving partners of Atty.
Alexander Sycip, who died on May 5, 1975, and 2) by the surviving partners of Atty.
Herminio Ozaeta, who died on February 14, 1976, praying that they be allowed to
continue using, in the names of their firms, the names of partners who had passed
away. In the Court's Resolution of September 2, 1976, both Petitions were ordered
consolidated.
Xxx.

Issue/s:
Whether the names of the deceased partners should be dropped.

Held:
Yes, the names should be dropped, but they may be included in the listings of
individuals who have been partners in their firms indicating the years which they served
as such.
The reason for this is, the names are being retained to improperly exploit their advertisement value.
Director of Religion Affairs vs. bayot, 74 phil 579

Facts: Respondent is charged with malpractice for having published an advertisement in Sunday Tribunal
on June 13, 1943 which reads as follows

Marriage license promptly secured thru our assistance and 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

Issue: Whether or not the advertisement is ethical.

Held: It is undeniable that the 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 through paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice. It is highly unethical
for an attorney to advertise his talents or skill as a merchant advertises his wares. This cannot be forced
but must be the outcome of character and conduct. (Canon 27, Code of Ethics.

Law is a profession and a trade. The lawyer degrades himself and his profession who stoops to and
adopts the practice of merchantilism by advertising his services or offering them to the public. As a
member of the bar, he defiles the temple of justice with mercenary activities as the money-changers of
old defiled the temple of Jehovah. The most worthy and effective advertisement possible, even for a
young lawyer 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. (Canon 27, Code of
Ethics.

In re: tagorda, 53 P.42

FACTS: The respondent Atty. Luis Tagorda, a member of the provincial board of Isabela, admits that in
the last general elections he made use of a card written in Spanish and Ilocano, which in translation,
read as follows:

LUIS B. TAGORDA Attoney; Notary Public; CANDIDATE FOR BOARD MEMBER, Province of Isabela.
(NOTE.- as notaty public, he can execute for 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.)
HELD: Application is give to sec. 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as amended by Act NO. 2828,
providing The practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either personally or through
paid agents or brokets, constitutes malpractice, and to Canon 27 and 28 of the Code of Ethics adopted
by the American Bar Association in 1908 and by the Philippines Bar Association in 1917, to the case of
the respondent lawyer. The law is a profession and not a business. The solicitation of employment by
an attorney is a ground for disbarment or suspension.

1. Respondent Tagorda is suspended from the practice of law for 1 month.

2. For advertising his services in the Sunday Tribune respondent attorney is reprimanded.

PEOPLE vs. TUANDA (A.M. No. 3360 01/30/1990) -done

FACTS: Respondent Fe T. Tuanda, a member of the Philippine Bar, asks this Court to lift the suspension
from the practice of law imposed upon her by a decision of the Court of Appeals. In 1983, Atty. Fe Tuanda
received from one Herminia A. Marquez several pieces of jewelry with a total value of P36,000 for sale on
commission basis. In 1984, instead of returning the unsold pieces of jewelry worth P26,250, she issued 3
checks. These checks were dishonored by the drawee bank, Traders Royal Bank, for insufficiency of funds
.Notwithstanding receipt of the notice of dishonor, Tuanda made no effort to settle her obligation.
Criminal cases were filed, wherein she was acquitted of estafa but was found guilty of violation of BP 22
(The Anti-Bouncing Check Law).

The appellate court affirmed the decision of the trial court and imposed further suspension against
Tuanda in the practice of law, on the ground that the offense involves moral turpitude. Tuanda is now
appealing to the Supreme Court for her suspension to be lifted arguing that her suspension was a penalty
so harsh on top of the fines imposed to her in violation of the aforementioned law. Arguing further that
she intends no damage to the plaintiff-appellee (Herminia A. Marquez)and she is not guilty of the offense
charged.

ISSUE: Whether or not the suspension of Atty. Tuanda be lifted.

HELD: NO. The Court of Appeals correctly ruled that "the offense [of] which she is found guilty involved
moral turpitude. Sections 27 and 28 of Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court provide as follows:
Sec. 27. Attorneys renewed or suspended by Supreme Court on what grounds. A member of the bar may
be removed or suspended from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court of 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.

Sanchez vs. somoso (412 SCRA 569) -done

Dr. Raul C. Sanchez, a member of the medical staff of Sta. Lucia General Hospital, stated that he was the
attending physician of respondent Atty. Salustino Somoso during the latters confinement at the hospital
from 31 March to 09 April 1998. When respondent was discharged on 09 April 1998, he urged
complainant that, since it was a public holiday and banks were closed that day for business, the latter be
good enough to accept a check in payment of the hospital bills due complainant totalling P44,347.00.

Complainant in his administrative complaint submits that respondent is a disgrace to the law profession
and unfit to be a member of the bar, and that he should be disbarred and his name stricken off from the
Roll of Attorneys.

In its report and recommendation, the IBP-CBD found sufficient evidence on record to substantiate the
charges made by complainant against respondent and

HELD

The Court finds respondent Atty. Salustino Somoso GUILTY of misconduct, and he is ordered suspended
from the practice of law for a period of six (6) months effective from receipt of this decision, with a
warning that any further infraction by him shall be dealt with most severely.

(2003 bar Examination,421 SCRA 703 -done

In the case at bar, the report of the Bar Confidant stated that it was of no question that petitioners act
in copying the examination questions from Atty. Balgos computer without the latters knowledge and
consent, and which questions later turned out to be the bar examinations questions in Mercantile Law
in the 2003 Bar Examinations, is not at all commendable. While we do believe that petitioner sincerely
did not intend to cause the damage that his action ensued, still, he must be sanctioned for unduly
compromising the integrity of the bar examinations as well as of this Court. However, the Court
convinced that petitioner had since reformed and had sincerely reflected on his transgressions. Thus, in
view of the circumstances and likewise for humanitarian considerations, the penalty of disbarment may
now be commuted to suspension. Considering the fact, however, that petitioner had already been
disbarred for more than five (5) years, the same may be considered as proper service of said commuted
penalty and thus, may now be allowed to resume practice of law.

In fine, the Court stated that the recommendation of the Office of the Bar Confidant was well-taken in
part. It deemed petitioner worthy of clemency to the extent of commuting his penalty to seven (7) years
suspension from the practice of law, inclusive of the five (5) years he had already served his disbarment.
According to the Court, penalties, such as disbarment, are imposed not to punish but to correct
offenders. While the Court was ever mindful of its duty to discipline its erring officers, it also knew how
to show compassion when the penalty imposed had already served its purpose.

In cases where the Court had deigned to lift or commute the supreme penalty of disbarment imposed
on the lawyer, it had taken into account the remorse of the disbarred lawyer and the conduct of his
public life during his years outside of the bar.
In re: tagorda, 53 P.42 -done

FACTS: The respondent Atty. Luis Tagorda, a member of the provincial board of Isabela, admits that in
the last general elections he made use of a card written in Spanish and Ilocano, which in translation,
read as follows:

LUIS B. TAGORDA Attoney; Notary Public; CANDIDATE FOR BOARD MEMBER, Province of Isabela.
(NOTE.- as notaty public, he can execute for 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 reads as follow:

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 Iligan 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 your kind favor to transmit this information to your barrio people in any of your meeting 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.

HELD: Application is give to se. 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as amended by Act NO. 2828,
providing The practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either personally or through
paid agents or brokets, constitutes malpractice, and to Canon 27 and 28 of the Code of Ethics adopted
by the American Bar Association in 1908 and by the Philippines Bar Association in 1917, to the case of
the respondent lawyer. The law is a profession and not a business. The solicitation of employment by
an attorney is a ground for disbarment or suspension.

1. Respondent Tagorda is suspended from the practice of law for 1 month.

2. For advertising his services in the Sunday Tribune respondent attorney is reprimanded.
Ulep vs. The Legal Clinic, Inc, Bar matter No. 553, June 17, 1993

In 1984, The Legal Clinic was formed by Atty. Rogelio Nogales. Its aim, according to Nogales was to move
toward specialization and to cater to clients who cannot afford the services of big law firms. Now, Atty.
Mauricio Ulep filed a complaint against The Legal Clinic because of the latters advertisements which
contain the following:

In 1984, The Legal Clinic was formed by Atty. Rogelio Nogales. Its aim, according to Nogales was to move
toward specialization and to cater to clients who cannot afford the services of big law firms. Now, Atty.
Mauricio Ulep filed a complaint against The Legal Clinic because of the latters advertisements which
contain the following:

SECRET MARRIAGE?

P560.00 for a valid marriage.

Info on DIVORCE. ABSENCE. ANNULMENT. VISA.

THE LEGAL CLINIC, INC.

Please call: 521-0767; 521-7232; 522-2041

8:30am 6:00pm

7th Flr. Victoria Bldg., UN Ave., Manila

GUAM DIVORCE

DON PARKINSON

An attorney in Guam is giving FREE BOOKS on Guam Divorce through The Legal Clinic beginning Monday
to Friday during office hours.

Guam divorce. Annulment of Marriage. Immigration Problems, Visa Ext. Quota/Non-quota Res. & Special
Retirees Visa. Declaration of Absence. Remarriage to Filipina Fiancees. Adoption. Investment in the Phil.
US/Foreign Visa for Filipina Spouse/Children.

Call Marivic.

THE LEGAL CLINIC, INC.

7th Flr. Victoria Bldg., UN Ave., Manila nr. US Embassy

 Tel. 521-7232, 521-7251, 522-2041, 521-0767

It is also alleged that The Legal Clinic published an article entitled Rx for Legal Problems in Star Week
of Philippine Star wherein Nogales stated that they The Legal Clinic is composed of specialists that can
take care of a clients problem no matter how complicated it is even if it is as complicated as the Sharon
Cuneta-Gabby Concepcion situation. He said that he and his staff of lawyers, who, like doctors, are
specialists in various fields, can take care of it. The Legal Clinic, Inc. has specialists in taxation and
criminal law, medico-legal problems, labor, litigation and family law. These specialists are backed up by a
battery of paralegals, counselors and attorneys.

As for its advertisement, Nogales said it should be allowed in view of the jurisprudence in the US which
now allows it (John Bates vs The State Bar of Arizona). And that besides, the advertisement is merely
making known to the public the services that The Legal Clinic offers.

ISSUE: Whether or not The Legal Clinic is engaged in the practice of law; whether such is allowed;
whether or not its advertisement may be allowed.

HELD: Yes, The Legal Clinic is engaged in the practice of law however, such practice is not allowed. The
Legal Clinic is composed mainly of paralegals. The services it offered include various legal problems
wherein a client may avail of legal services from simple documentation to complex litigation and
corporate undertakings. Most of these services are undoubtedly beyond the domain of paralegals, but
rather, are exclusive functions of lawyers engaged in the practice of law. Under Philippine jurisdiction
however, the services being offered by Legal Clinic which constitute practice of law cannot be
performed by paralegals. Only a person duly admitted as a member of the bar and who is in good and
regular standing, is entitled to practice law.

Anent the issue on the validity of the questioned advertisements, the Code of Professional
Responsibility provides that a lawyer in making known his legal services shall use only true, honest, fair,
dignified and objective information or statement of facts. The standards of the legal profession
condemn the lawyers advertisement of his talents. A lawyer cannot, without violating the ethics of his
profession, advertise his talents or skills as in a manner similar to a merchant advertising his
goods. Further, the advertisements of Legal Clinic seem to promote divorce, secret marriage, bigamous
marriage, and other circumventions of law which their experts can facilitate. Such is highly
reprehensible.

The Supreme Court also noted which forms of advertisement are allowed. The best advertising possible
for a lawyer is a well-merited reputation for professional capacity and fidelity to trust, which must be
earned as the outcome of character and conduct. Good and efficient service to a client as well as to the
community has a way of publicizing itself and catching public attention. That publicity is a normal by-
product of effective service which is right and proper. A good and reputable lawyer needs no artificial
stimulus to generate it and to magnify his success. He easily sees the difference between a normal by-
product of able service and the unwholesome result of propaganda. The Supreme Court also
enumerated the following as allowed forms of advertisement:

1. Advertisement in a reputable law list

2. Use of ordinary simple professional card
3. Listing in a phone directory but without designation as to his specialization
Piatt vs. abordo (58 Phil. 350)

Facts

On February 19, 1932, Perfecto Abordo, a member of the Philippine Bar, accepted the offer of two
individuals to sell him a quantity of opium, a prohibited drug, and agreed to pay P1.50 per tin for the
opium.

Abordo admits that he entered into the transaction detailed above, adding that "he is sincerely sorry for
it and vows not to repeat". His defense is that "there being no evidence in the record establishing the
relationship of attorney and client between the respondent and the malefactors", and "the act
complained of not having been committed in the exercise of his profession of attorney-at-law", the acts
he committed could not affect his status as attorney-at-law and could not, therefore, constitute a
ground for disciplinary action.

It will be recalled that Perfecto Abordo, a member of the Philippine Bar, attempted to engage in an
opium deal in direct contravention of the criminal law of the Philippine Islands. All that kept the
nefarious plan from succeeding was the treacherous conduct of his co-conspirators.

HELD

It is the order of the court that the respondent Perfecto Abordo be suspended from the practice of law
for a period of one year to begin on September 1, 1933.
.5 Committing acts of treachery and disloyalty to complainant who was his client;

6 Harassing the complainant by filing several complaints without legal basis before the Court of First
Instance and the Fiscal's Office of Quezon City;

7. Deliberately misleading the Court of First Instance and the Fiscal's Office by making false assertion of
facts in his pleadings;

8. Filing petitions "cleverly prepared (so) that while he does not intentionally tell a he, he does not tell
the truth either."

ISSUE: Whether or not respondent committed the acts of misconduct

Held:

The Court finds clearly established in this case that on four counts the respondent violated the law and
the rules governing the conduct of a member of the legal profession. Sworn to assist in the
administration of justice and to uphold the rule of law, he has "miserably failed to live up to the
standards expected of a member of the Bar."
Lim-Santiago vs.Sagucio (486 SCRA 11)

Sometime in July 1997, 21 employees of Taggat ("Taggat employees") filed a criminal complaint entitled
"Jesus Tagorda, Jr. et al. v. Ruthie Lim-Santiago," docketed as I.S. No. 97-240 ("criminal complaint"). 7
Taggat employees alleged that complainant, who took over the management and control of Taggat after
the death of her father, withheld payment of their salaries and wages without valid cause from 1 April
1996 to 15 July 1997. 8

Complainant seeks the disbarment of respondent for violating Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility and for defying the prohibition against private practice of law while working as
government prosecutor.

Respondent refutes complainants allegations and counters that complainant was merely aggrieved by
the resolution of the criminal complaint which was adverse and contrary to her expectation.

The Ruling of the Court

The Court exonerates respondent from the charge of violation of Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility ("Code"). However, the Court finds respondent liable for violation of Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility against unlawful conduct. 42 Respondent committed unlawful
conduct when he violated Section 7(b)(2) of the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public
Officials and Employees or Republic Act No. 6713 ("RA 6713").