LEGAL ETHICS FEBRUARY 5, 2018 ACJUCO 1

ENCOURAGE CLIENT TO AVOID As farm administrator, petitioner was responsible

CONTROVERSY for the supervision of daily activities and
operations of the sugarcane farm such as land
G.R. No. 104599 March 11, 1994 preparation, planting, weeding, fertilizing,
harvesting, dealing with third persons in all matters
JON DE YSASI III, petitioner, relating to the hacienda and attending to such
vs. other tasks as may be assigned to him by private
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION respondent. For this purpose, he lived on the farm,
(FOURTH DIVISION), CEBU CITY, and JON DE occupying the upper floor of the house there.
YSASI, respondents.
Following his marriage on June 6, 1982, petitioner
F.B. Santiago, Nalus & Associates for petitioner. moved to Bacolod City with his wife and commuted
to work daily. He suffered various ailments and
Ismael A. Serfino for private respondent. was hospitalized on two separate occasions in
June and August, 1982. In November, 1982, he
underwent fistulectomy, or the surgical removal of
the fistula, a deep sinuous ulcer. During his
REGALADO, J.: recuperation which lasted over four months, he
was under the care of Dr. Patricio Tan. In June,
The adage that blood is thicker than water 1983, he was confined for acute gastroenteritis
obviously stood for naught in this case, and, thereafter, for infectious hepatitis from
notwithstanding the vinculum of paternity and December, 1983 to January, 1984.
filiation between the parties. It would indeed have
been the better part of reason if herein petitioner During the entire periods of petitioner's illnesses,
and private respondent had reconciled their private respondent took care of his medical
differences in an extrajudicial atmosphere of expenses and petitioner continued to receive
familial amity and with the grace of reciprocal compensation. However, in April, 1984, without
concessions. Father and son opted instead for due notice, private respondent ceased to pay the
judicial intervention despite the inevitable latter's salary. Petitioner made oral and written
acrimony and negative publicity. Albeit with demands for an explanation for the sudden
distaste, the Court cannot proceed elsewise but to withholding of his salary from Atty. Apolonio
resolve their dispute with the same reasoned Sumbingco, private respondent's auditor and legal
detachment accorded any judicial proceeding adviser, as well as for the remittance of his salary.
before it. Both demands, however, were not acted upon.

The records of this case reveal that petitioner was
employed by his father, herein private respondent,
as farm administrator of Hacienda Manucao in
Hinigaran, Negros Occidental sometime in April,
1980. Prior thereto, he was successively employed
as sales manager of Triumph International (Phil.),
Inc. and later as operations manager of Top Form
Manufacturing (Phil.), Inc. His employment as farm
administrator was on a fixed salary, with other
allowances covering housing, food, light, power,
telephone, gasoline, medical and dental expenses.
Petitioner then filed an action with the National
Labor Relations Commission (NLRC, for brevity),
Regional Arbitration Branch No. VI, Bacolod City,
on October 17, 1984, docketed therein as RAB
Case No. 0452-84, against private respondent for
illegal dismissal with prayer for reinstatement
without loss of seniority rights and payment of full
back wages, thirteenth month pay for 1983,
consequential, moral and exemplary damages, as
well as attorney's fees.
 LEGAL ETHICS FEBRUARY 5, 2018 ACJUCO 2

On July 31, 1991, said complaint for illegal position in support of the findings of the Executive
dismissal was dismissed by the NLRC,1 holding Labor Arbiter.8
that petitioner abandoned his work and that the
termination of his employment was for a valid Before proceeding with a discussion of the issues,
cause, but ordering private respondent to pay the observation of the labor arbiter is worth noting:
petitioner the amount of P5,000.00 as penalty for
his failure to serve notice of said termination of This case is truly unique. What
employment to the Department of Labor and makes this case unique is the fact
Employment as required by Batas Pambansa Blg. that because of the special
130 and consonant with this Court's ruling relationship of the parties and the
in Wenphil Corporation vs. National Labor nature of the action involved, this
Relations Commission, et al.2 On appeal to the case could very well go down (in) the
Fourth Division of the NLRC, Cebu City, said annals of the Commission as
decision was affirmed in toto.3 perhaps the first of its kind. For this
case is an action filed by an only son,
His motion for reconsideration4 of said decision his father's namesake, the only child
having been denied for lack of merit,5 petitioner and therefore the only heir against
filed this petition presenting the following issues for his own father.9
resolution: (1) whether or not the petitioner was
illegally dismissed; (2) whether or not he is entitled Additionally, the Solicitor General remarked:
to reinstatement, payment of back wages,
thirteenth month pay and other benefits; and (3) . . . After an exhaustive reading of the
whether or not he is entitled to payment of moral records, two (2) observations were
and exemplary damages and attorney's fees noted that may justify why this labor
because of illegal dismissal. The discussion of case deserves special
these issues will necessarily subsume the considerations. First, most of the
corollary questions presented by private complaints that petitioner and private
respondent, such as the exact date when respondent had with each other,
petitioner ceased to function as farm administrator, were personal matters affecting
the character of the pecuniary amounts received father and son relationship. And
by petitioner from private respondent, that is, secondly, if any of the complaints
whether the same are in the nature of salaries or pertain to their work, they allow their
pensions, and whether or not there was personal relationship to come in the
abandonment by petitioner of his functions as farm way.10
administrator.
I. Petitioner maintains that his dismissal from
In his manifestation dated September 14, 1992, employment was illegal because of want of just
the Solicitor General recommended a modification cause therefor and non-observance of the
of the decision of herein public respondent requirements of due process. He also charges the
sustaining the findings and conclusions of the NLRC with grave abuse of discretion in relying
Executive Labor Arbiter in RAB Case No. 0452- upon the findings of the executive labor arbiter who
84,6 for which reason the NLRC was required to decided the case but did not conduct the hearings
submit its own comment on the petition. In thereof.
compliance with the Court's resolution of
November 16, 1992,7 NLRC filed its comment on Private respondent, in refutation, avers that there
February 12, 1992 largely reiterating its earlier was abandonment by petitioner of his functions as
 LEGAL ETHICS FEBRUARY 5, 2018 ACJUCO 3

farm administrator, thereby arming private there is a presumption of regularity in the

respondent with a ground to terminate his performance of a public officer's functions,13 which
employment at Hacienda Manucao. It is also petitioner has not successfully rebutted.
contended that it is wrong for petitioner to question
the factual findings of the executive labor arbiter We are constrained to heed the underlying policy
and the NLRC as only questions of law may be in the Labor Code relaxing the application of
appealed for resolution by this Court. Furthermore, technical rules of procedure in labor cases in the
in seeking the dismissal of the instant petition, interest of due process, ever mindful of the long-
private respondent faults herein petitioner for standing legal precept that rules of procedure must
failure to refer to the corresponding pages of the be interpreted to help secure, not defeat, justice.
transcripts of stenographic notes, erroneously For this reason, we cannot indulge private
citing Sections 15(d) and 16(d), Rule 44 (should be respondent in his tendency to nitpick on trivial
Section 16[c] and [d], technicalities to boost his arguments. The strength
Rule 46 and Section 1[g], Rule 50) of the Rules of of one's position cannot be hinged on mere
Court, which provide that want of page references procedural niceties but on solid bases in law and
to the records is a ground for dismissal of an jurisprudence.
appeal.
The fundamental guarantees of security of tenure
Prefatorily, we take advertence of the provisions of and due process dictate that no worker shall be
Article 221 of the Labor Code that technical rules dismissed except for just and authorized cause
of evidence prevailing in courts of law and equity provided by law and after due process.14 Article
shall not be controlling, and that every and all 282 of the Labor Code enumerates the causes for
reasonable means to speedily and objectively which an employer may validly terminate an
ascertain the facts in each case shall be availed of, employment, to wit:
without regard to technicalities of law or procedure (a) serious misconduct or willful disobedience by
in the interest of due process. the employee of the lawful orders of his employer
or representative in connection with his work; (b)
It is settled that it is not procedurally objectionable gross and habitual neglect by the employee of his
for the decision in a case to be rendered by a duties; (c) fraud or willful breach by the employee
judge, or a labor arbiter for that matter, other than of the trust reposed in him by his employer or duly
the one who conducted the hearing. The fact that authorized representative; (d) commission of a
the judge who heard the case was not the judge crime or offense by the employee against the
who penned the decision does not impair the person of his employer or any immediate member
validity of the judgment,11 provided that he draws of his family or his duly authorized representative;
up his decision and resolution with due care and and (e) other causes analogous to the foregoing.
makes certain that they truly and accurately reflect
conclusions and final dispositions on the bases of The employer may also terminate the services of
the facts of and evidence submitted in the case. 12 any employee due to the installation of labor
saving devices, redundancy, retrenchment to
Thus, the mere fact that the case was initially prevent losses or the closing or cessation of
assigned to Labor Arbiter Ricardo T. Octavio, who operation of the establishment or undertaking,
conducted the hearings therein from December 5, unless the closing is for the purpose of
1984 to July 11, 1985, and was later transferred to circumventing the pertinent provisions of the Labor
Executive Labor Arbiter Oscar S. Uy, who Code, by serving a written notice on the workers
eventually decided the case, presents no and the Department of Labor and Employment at
procedural infirmity, especially considering that least one (1) month before the intended date
 LEGAL ETHICS FEBRUARY 5, 2018 ACJUCO 4

thereof, with due entitlement to the corresponding
separation pay rates provided by law.15Suffering
from a disease by reason whereof the continued
employment of the employee is prohibited by law
or is prejudicial to his and his co-employee's
health, is also a ground for termination of his
services provided he receives the prescribed
separation pay.16 On the other hand, it is well-
settled that abandonment by an employee of his
work authorizes the employer to effect the former's
dismissal from employment.17
After a careful review of the records of this case,
we find that public respondent gravely erred in
affirming the decision of the executive labor arbiter
holding that petitioner abandoned his employment
and was not illegally dismissed from such
employment. For want of substantial bases, in fact
or
in law, we cannot give the stamp of finality and
conclusiveness normally accorded to the factual
findings of an administrative agency, such as
herein public respondent NLRC, 18 as even
decisions of administrative agencies which are
declared "final" by law are not exempt from judicial
review when so warranted. 19
The following perceptive disquisitions of the
Solicitor General on this point deserve
acceptance:
sent to Hacienda Manucao (Tsn, Vol.
III, Dr. Tan, January 22, 1987 at 49-
50).
During the period of his illness and
recovery, petitioner stayed in
Bacolod City upon the instruction(s)
of private respondent to recuperate
thereat and to handle only
administrative matters of the
hacienda in that city. As a manager,
petitioner is not really obliged to live
and stay 24 hours a day inside
Hacienda Manucao.
xxx xxx xxx
After evaluating the evidence within
the context of the special
circumstances involved and basic
human experience, petitioner's
illness and strained family relation
with respondent Jon de Ysasi II may
be considered as justifiable reason
for petitioner Jon de Ysasi III's
absence from work during the period
of October 1982 to December 1982.
In any event, such absence does not
warrant outright dismissal without
notice and hearing.

It is submitted that the absences of xxx xxx xxx

petitioner in his work from October
1982 to December 1982, cannot be The elements of abandonment as a
construed as abandonment of work ground for dismissal of an employee
because he has a justifiable excuse. are as follows:
Petitioner was suffering from
perennial abscess in the peri-anal (1) failure to report for
around the anus and fistula under work or absence
the medical attention of Dr. Patricio without valid or
Tan of Riverside Medical Center, justifiable reason; and
Inc., Bacolod City (Tsn, Vol. III, Dr. (2) clear intention to
Tan, February 19, 1986 at 20-44). sever the employer-
employee tie (Samson
This fact (was) duly communicated Alcantara, Reviewer in
to private respondent by medical bills Labor and Social
 LEGAL ETHICS FEBRUARY 5, 2018 ACJUCO 5
Legislation, 1989
edition, p. 133).
This Honorable Court, in several
cases, illustrates what constitute
abandonment. In Dagupan Bus
Company v. NLRC (191 SCRA 328),
the Court rules that for abandonment
to arise, there must be a
concurrence of the intention to
abandon and some overt act from
which it may be inferred that the
employee has no more interest to
work. Similarly, in Nueva Ecija I
Electric Cooperative,
Inc. v. NLRC (184 SCRA 25), for
abandonment to constitute a valid
cause for termination of
employment, there must be a
deliberate, unjustified refusal of the
employee to resume his
employment. . . Mere absence is not
sufficient; it must be accompanied by
overt acts unerringly pointing to the
fact that the employee simply does
not want to work anymore.
There are significant indications in
this case, that there is no
abandonment. First, petitioner's
absence and his decision to leave
his residence inside Hacienda
Manucao, is justified by his illness
and strained family relations. Second
he has some medical certificates to
show his frail health. Third, once able
to work, petitioner wrote a letter
(Annex "J") informing private
respondent of his intention to
assume again his employment. Last,
but not the least, he at once
instituted a complaint for illegal
dismissal when he realized he was
unjustly dismissed. All these are
indications that petitioner had no
intention to abandon his
20
employment.
The records show that the parties herein do not
dispute the fact of petitioner's confinement in the
hospital for his various afflictions which required
medical treatment. Neither can it be denied that
private respondent was well aware of petitioner's
state of health as the former admittedly shouldered
part of the medical and hospital bills and even
advised the latter to stay in Bacolod City until he
was fit to work again. The disagreement as to
whether or not petitioner's ailments were so
serious as to necessitate hospitalization and
corresponding periods for recuperation is beside
the point. The fact remains that on account of said
illnesses, the details of which were amply
substantiated by the attending physician, 21 and as
the records are bereft of any suggestion of
malingering on the part of petitioner, there was
justifiable cause for petitioner's absence from
work. We repeat, it is clear, deliberate and
unjustified refusal to resume employment and not
mere absence that is required to constitute
abandonment as a valid ground for termination of
employment.22
With his position as farm administrator of Hacienda
Manucao, petitioner unmistakably may be
classified as a managerial employee23 to whom
the law grants an amount of discretion in the
discharge of his duties. This is why when petitioner
stated that "I assigned myself where I want to
go,"24 he was simply being candid about what he
could do within the sphere of his authority. His
duties as farm administrator did not strictly require
him to keep regular hours or to be at the office
premises at all times, or to be subjected to specific
control from his employer in every aspect of his
work. What is essential only is that he runs the
farm as efficiently and effectively as possible and,
while petitioner may definitely not qualify as a
model employee, in this regard he proved to be
quite successful, as there was at least a showing
of increased production during the time that
petitioner was in charge of farm operations.
 LEGAL ETHICS FEBRUARY 5, 2018 ACJUCO 6
If, as private respondent contends, he had no
control over petitioner during the years 1983 to
1984, this is because that was the period when
petitioner was recuperating from illness and on
account of which his attendance and direct
involvement in farm operations were irregular and
minimal, hence the supervision and control
exercisable by private respondent as employer
was necessarily limited. It goes without saying that
the control contemplated refers only to matters
relating to his functions as farm administrator and
could not extend to petitioner's personal affairs and
activities.
While it was taken for granted that for purposes of
discharging his duties as farm administrator,
petitioner would be staying at the house in the
farm, there really was no explicit contractual
stipulation (as there was no formal employment
contract to begin with) requiring him to stay therein
for the duration of his employment or that any
transfer of residence would justify the termination
of his employment. That petitioner changed his
residence should not be taken against him, as this
is undeniably among his basic rights, nor can such
fact of transfer of residence per se be a valid
ground to terminate an employer-employee
relationship.
Private respondent, in his pleadings, asserted that
as he was yet uncertain of his son's intention of
returning to work after his confinement in the
hospital, he kept petitioner on the payroll, reported
him as an employee of the haciendafor social
security purposes, and paid his salaries and
benefits with the mandated deductions therefrom
until the end of December, 1982. It was only in
January, 1983 when he became convinced that
petitioner would no longer return to work that he
considered the latter to have abandoned his work
and, for this reason, no longer listed him as an
employee. According to private respondent,
whatever amount of money was given to petitioner
from that time until
April, 1984 was in the nature of a pension or an To stress what was earlier mentioned, in order that
allowance or mere gratuitous doles from a father a finding of abandonment may justly be made
to a son, and not salaries as, in fact, none of the
usual deductions were made therefrom. It was only
in April, 1984 that private respondent completely
stopped giving said pension or allowance when he
was angered by what he heard petitioner had been
saying about sending him to jail.
Private respondent capitalizes on the testimony of
one Manolo Gomez taken on oral deposition
regarding petitioner's alleged statement to him,
"(h)e quemado los (p)ue(n)tes de Manucao" ("I
have burned my bridges with Manucao") as
expressive of petitioner's intention to abandon his
job. In addition to insinuations of sinister motives
on the part of petitioner in working at the farm and
thereafter abandoning the job upon
accomplishment of his objectives, private
respondent takes the novel position that the
agreement to support his son after the latter
abandoned the administration of the farm legally
converts the initial abandonment to implied
voluntary resignation.25
As earlier mentioned, petitioner ripostes that
private respondent undoubtedly knew about
petitioner's illness and even paid for his hospital
and other medical bills. The assertion regarding
abandonment of work, petitioner argues, is further
belied by his continued performance of various
services related to the operations of the farm from
May to the last quarter of 1983, his persistent
inquiries from his father's accountant and legal
adviser about the reason why his pension or
allowance was discontinued since April, 1984, and
his indication of having recovered and his
willingness and capability to resume his work at the
farm as expressed in a letter dated September 14,
1984.26 With these, petitioner contends that it is
immaterial how the monthly pecuniary amounts
are designated, whether as salary, pension or
allowance, with or without deductions, as he was
entitled thereto in view of his continued service as
farm administrator.27
 LEGAL ETHICS FEBRUARY 5, 2018 ACJUCO 7
there must be a concurrence of two elements, viz.:
(1) the failure to report for work or absence without
valid or justifiable reason, and (2) a clear intention
to sever the employer-employee relationship, with
the second element as the more determinative
factor and being manifested by some overt acts.
Such intent we find dismally wanting in this case.
It will be recalled that private respondent himself
admitted being unsure of his son's plans of
returning to work. The absence of petitioner from
work since mid-1982, prolonged though it may
have been, was not without valid causes of which
private respondent had full knowledge. As to what
convinced or led him to believe that petitioner was
no longer returning to work, private respondent
neither explains nor substantiates by any
reasonable basis how he arrived at such a
conclusion.
Moreover, private respondent's claim of by private respondent on June 26, 1980 in favor of
abandonment cannot be given credence as even petitioner, specifically stating —
after January, 1983, when private respondent
supposedly "became convinced" that petitioner
would no longer work at the farm, the latter
continued to perform services directly required by
his position as farm administrator. These are duly
and correspondingly evidenced by such acts as
picking up some farm machinery/equipment from
G.A. Machineries, Inc.,28 claiming and paying for
additional farm equipment and machinery shipped
by said firm from Manila to Bacolod through Zip
29
Forwarders, getting the payment of the
additional cash advances for molasses for crop
year 1983-1984 from Agrotex Commodities,
Inc.,30 and remitting to private respondent through
Atty. Sumbingco the sums collected along with
receipts for medicine and oil.31
It will be observed that all of these chores, which
petitioner took care of, relate to the normal
activities and operations of the farm. True, it is a
father's prerogative to request or even command
his child to run errands for him. In the present case,
however, considering the nature of these
transactions, as well as the property values and
monetary sums involved, it is unlikely that private
respondent would leave the matter to just anyone.
Prudence dictates that these matters be handled
by someone who can be trusted or at least be held
accountable therefor, and who is familiar with the
terms, specifications and other details relative
thereto, such as an employee. If indeed petitioner
had abandoned his job or was considered to have
done so by private respondent, it would be
awkward, or even out of place, to expect or to
oblige petitioner to concern himself with matters
relating to or expected of him with respect to what
would then be his past and terminated
employment. It is hard to imagine what further
authority an employer can have over a dismissed
employee so as to compel him to continue to
perform work-related tasks:
It is also significant that the special power of
attorney32 executed
xxx xxx xxx
That I, JON de YSASI, Filipino, of
legal age, married, and a resident of
Hda. Manucao, hereinafter called
and referred to as PRINCIPAL, am a
sugarcane planter, BISCOM Mill
District, and a duly accredited
planter-member of the
BINALBAGAN-ISABELA
PLANTERS' ASSOCIATION, INC.;
That as such planter-member of
BIPA, I have check/checks with BIPA
representing payment for all checks
and papers to which I am entitled to
(sic) as such planter-member;
That I have named, appointed and
constituted as by these presents
I HEREBY NAME, APPOINT AND
CONSTITUTE as my true and lawful
ATTORNEY-IN-FACT
 LEGAL ETHICS FEBRUARY 5, 2018 ACJUCO 8
JON de YSASI III
whose specimen signature is
hereunder affixed, TO GET FOR ME
and in my name, place and stead,
my check/checks aforementioned,
said ATTORNEY-IN-FACT being
herein given the power and authority
to sign for me and in my name, place
and stead, the receipt or receipts or
payroll for the said check/checks.
PROVIDED, HOWEVER, that my
said ATTORNEY-IN-FACT cannot
cash the said check/checks, but to
turn the same over to me for my
proper disposition.
That I HEREBY RATIFY AND
CONFIRM the acts of my
Attorney-in-Fact in getting the said
check/checks and signing the
receipts therefor.
That I further request that my said
check/checks be made a respondent cannot be deemed to be determinative
"CROSSED CHECK".
xxx xxx xxx
remained in force even after petitioner's
employment was supposed to have been
terminated by reason of abandonment.
Furthermore, petitioner's numerous requests for
an explanation regarding the stoppage of his
salaries and benefits,33 the issuance of
withholding tax reports,34 as well as
correspondence reporting his full recovery and
readiness to go back to work,35 and, specifically,
his filing of the complaint for illegal dismissal are
hardly the acts of one who has abandoned his
work.
We are likewise not impressed by the deposition of
Manolo Gomez, as witness for private respondent,
ascribing statements to petitioner supposedly
indicative of the latter's intention to abandon his
work. We perceive the irregularity in the taking of
such deposition without the presence of
petitioner's counsel, and the failure of private
respondent to serve reasonably advance notice of
its taking to said counsel, thereby foreclosing his
opportunity to
cross-examine the deponent. Private respondent
also failed to serve notice thereof on the Regional
Arbitration Branch No. VI of the NLRC, as certified
to by Administrative Assistant Celestina G.
Ovejera of said office.36 Fair play dictates that at
such an important stage of the proceedings, which
involves the taking of testimony, both parties must
be afforded equal opportunity to examine and
cross-examine a witness.
As to the monthly monetary amounts given to
petitioner, whether denominated as salary,
pension, allowance or ex gratia handout, there is
no question as to petitioner's entitlement thereto
inasmuch as he continued to perform services in
his capacity as farm administrator. The change in
description of said amounts contained in the pay
slips or in the receipts prepared by private
of petitioner's employment status in view of the
peculiar circumstances above set out. Besides, if
such amounts were truly in the nature of
allowances given by a parent out of concern for his
child's welfare, it is rather unusual that receipts
therefor37 should be necessary and required as if
they were ordinary business expenditures.
Neither can we subscribe to private respondent's
theory that petitioner's alleged abandonment was
converted into an implied voluntary resignation on
account of the father's agreement to support his
son after the latter abandoned his work. As we
have determined that no abandonment took place
in this case, the monthly sums received by
petitioner, regardless of designation, were in
consideration for services rendered emanating
from an employer-employee relationship and were
not of a character that can qualify them as mere
civil support given out of parental duty and
solicitude. We are also hard put to imagine how
 LEGAL ETHICS FEBRUARY 5, 2018 ACJUCO 9

abandonment can be impliedly converted into a ample opportunity to be heard and to

voluntary resignation without any positive act on defend himself with the assistance of
the part of the employee conveying a desire to his representative, if he so desires.
terminate his employment. The very concept of
resignation as a ground for termination by the Sec. 6. Decision to dismiss. — The
employee of his employment38 does not square employer shall immediately notify a
with the elements constitutive of abandonment. worker in writing of a decision to
dismiss him stating clearly the
On procedural considerations, petitioner posits reasons therefor.
that there was a violation by private respondent of
the due process requirements under the Labor Sec. 7. Right to contest dismissal. —
Code for want of notice and hearing.39 Private Any decision taken by the employer
respondent, in opposition, argues that Section 2, shall be without prejudice to the right
Rule XIV, Book V of the Omnibus Rules of the worker to contest the validity
Implementing the Labor Code applies only to or legality of his dismissal by filing a
cases where the employer seeks to terminate the complaint with the Regional Branch
services of an employee on any of the grounds of the Commission.
enumerated under Article 282 of the Labor Code,
but not to the situation obtaining in this case where xxx xxx xxx
private respondent did not dismiss petitioner on
any ground since it was petitioner who allegedly Sec. 11. Report of dismissal. — The
abandoned his employment.40 employer shall submit a monthly
report to the Regional Office having
The due process requirements of notice and jurisdiction over the place of work at
hearing applicable to labor cases are set out in all dismissals effected by him during
Rule XIV, Book V of the Omnibus Rules the month, specifying therein the
Implementing the Labor Code in this wise: names of the dismissed workers, the
reasons for their dismissal, the dates
Sec. 2. Notice of Dismissal. — Any of commencement and termination
employer who seeks to dismiss a of employment, the positions last
worker shall furnish him a written held by them and such other
notice stating the particular acts or information as may be required by
omission(s) constituting the grounds the Ministry for policy guidance and
for his dismissal. In cases of statistical purposes.
abandonment of work, notice shall
be served at the worker's last known Private respondent's argument is without merit as
address. there can be no question that petitioner was
denied his right to due process since he was never
xxx xxx xxx given any notice about his impending dismissal
and the grounds therefor, much less a chance to
Sec. 5. Answer and hearing. — The be heard. Even as private respondent controverts
worker may answer the allegations the applicability of the mandatory twin
as stated against him in the notice of requirements of procedural due process in this
dismissal within a reasonable period particular case, he in effect admits that no notice
from receipt of such notice. The was served by him on petitioner. This fact is
employer shall afford the worker corroborated by the certification issued on
 LEGAL ETHICS FEBRUARY 5, 2018 ACJUCO 10

September 5, 1984 by the Regional Director for employer was not

Region VI of the Department of Labor that no complied with. This
notice of termination of the employment of however, would not
petitioner was submitted thereto.41 work to invalidate the
otherwise (sic)
Granting arguendo that there was abandonment in existence of a valid
this case, it nonetheless cannot be denied that cause for dismissal.
notice still had to be served upon the employee The validity of the
sought to be dismissed, as the second sentence of cause of dismissal
Section 2 of the pertinent implementing rules must be upheld at all
explicitly requires service thereof at the times provided
employee's last known address, by way of however that sanctions
substantial compliance. While it is conceded that it must be imposed on
is the employer's prerogative to terminate an the respondent for his
employee, especially when there is just cause failure to observe the
therefor, the requirements of due process cannot notice on due process
be lightly taken. The law does not countenance the requirement. (Wenphil
arbitrary exercise of such a power or prerogative Corp. v. NLRC, G.R.
when it has the effect of undermining the No. 80587). (Decision
fundamental guarantee of security of tenure in Labor Arbiter, at 11-12,
favor of the employee.42 Annex "C" Petition), . .
.
On the executive labor arbiter's misplaced reliance
on the Wenphil case, the Solicitor General rejoins This is thus a very different case
as follows: from Wenphil Corporation v. NLRC,
170 SCRA 69. In Wenphil, the rule
The Labor Arbiter held thus: applied to the facts is: once an
employee is dismissed for just
While we are in full cause, he must not be rewarded
agreement with the re-employment and backwages for
respondent as to his failure of his employer to observe
defense of implied procedural due process. The public
resignation and/or policy behind this is that, it may
abandonment, records encourage the employee to do even
somehow showed that worse and render a mockery of the
he failed to notify the rules of discipline required to be
Department of observed. However, the employer
Labor and must be penalized for his infraction
Employment for his of due process. In the present case,
sons' however, not only was petitioner
(sic)/complainants' dismissed without due process, but
(sic) aba(n)donment his dismissal is without just cause.
as required by BP 130. Petitioner did not abandon his
And for this failure, the employment because he has a
other requisite for a justifiable excuse.43
valid termination by an
 LEGAL ETHICS FEBRUARY 5, 2018 ACJUCO 11
II. Petitioner avers that the executive labor arbiter
erred in disregarding the mandatory provisions of
Article 279 of the Labor Code which entitles an
illegally dismissed employee to reinstatement and
back wages and, instead, affirmed the imposition
of the penalty of P5,000.00 on private respondent
for violation of the due process requirements.
Private respondent, for his part, maintains that
there was error in imposing the fine because that
penalty contemplates the failure to submit the
employer's report on dismissed employees to the
DOLE regional office, as required under Section 5
(now, Section 11), Rule XIV of the implementing
rules, and not the failure to serve notice upon the
employee sought to be dismissed by the employer.
Both the Constitution and the Labor Code
enunciate in no uncertain terms the right of every
worker to security of tenure.44 To give teeth to this
constitutional and statutory mandates, the Labor
Code spells out the relief available to an employee
in case of its denial:
Art. 279. Security of Tenure. — In
cases of regular employment, the
employer shall not terminate the
services of an employee except for a
just cause or when authorized by this
Title. An employee who is unjustly
dismissed from work shall be entitled
to reinstatement without loss of
seniority rights and other privileges
and to his full backwages, inclusive
of allowances, and to his other
benefits of their monetary equivalent
computed from the time his
compensation was withheld from him
up to the time of actual
reinstatement.
Clearly, therefore, an employee is entitled to
reinstatement with full back wages in the absence
of just cause for dismissal.45 The Court, however,
on numerous occasions has tempered the rigid
application of said provision of the Labor Code,
recognizing that in some cases certain events may
have transpired as would militate against the
practicability of granting the relief thereunder
provided, and declares that where there are
strained relations between the employer and the
employee, payment of back wages and severance
pay may be awarded instead of
reinstatement,46 and more particularly when
managerial employees are concerned.47 Thus,
where reinstatement is no longer possible, it is
therefore appropriate that the dismissed employee
be given his fair and just share of what the law
accords him.48
We note with favor and give our imprimatur to the
Solicitor General's ratiocination, to wit:
As a general rule, an employee who
is unjustly dismissed from work shall
be entitled to reinstatement without
loss of seniority rights and to his
backwages computed from the time
his compensation was withheld up to
the time of his reinstatement.
(Morales vs. NLRC, 188 SCRA 295).
But in Pacific Cement Company,
Inc. vs. NLRC, 173 SCRA 192, this
Honorable Court held that when it
comes to reinstatement, differences
should be made between managers
and the ordinary workingmen. The
Court concluded that a company
which no longer trusts its managers
cannot operate freely in a
competitive and profitable manner.
The NLRC should know the
difference between managers and
ordinary workingmen. It cannot
imprudently order the reinstatement
of managers with the same ease and
liberality as that of rank and file
workers who had been terminated.
Similarly, a reinstatement may not be
appropriate or feasible in case of
antipathy or antagonism between the
parties (Morales, vs. NLRC, 188
SCRA 295).
 LEGAL ETHICS FEBRUARY 5, 2018 ACJUCO 12
In the present case, it is submitted
that petitioner should not be
reinstated as farm administrator of
Hacienda Manucao. The present
relationship of petitioner and private
respondent (is) so strained that a
harmonious and peaceful employee-
employer relationship is hardly
possible.49
III. Finally, petitioner insists on an award of moral
damages, arguing that his dismissal from
employment was attended by bad faith or fraud, or
constituted oppression, or was contrary to morals,
good customs or public policy. He further prays for
exemplary damages to serve as a deterrent
against similar acts of unjust dismissal by other
employers.
Moral damages, under Article 2217 of the Civil
Code, may be awarded to compensate one for On this score, we are once again persuaded by the
diverse injuries such as mental anguish, validity of the following recommendation of the
besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, and Solicitor General:
social humiliation, provided that such injuries
spring from a wrongful act or omission of the
defendant which was the proximate cause
thereof.50 Exemplary damages, under Article
2229, are imposed by way of example or correction
for the public good, in addition to moral, temperate,
liquidated or compensatory damages. They are
not recoverable as a matter of right, it being left to
the court to decide whether or not they should be
51
adjudicated.
We are well aware of the Court's rulings in a
number of cases in the past allowing recovery of
moral damages where the dismissal of the
employee was attended by bad faith or fraud, or
constituted an act oppressive to labor, or was done
in a manner contrary to morals, good customs or
public policy,52 and of exemplary damages if the
dismissal was effected in a wanton, oppressive or
malevolent manner.53 We do not feel, however,
that an award of the damages prayed for in this
petition would be proper even if, seemingly, the
facts of the case justify their allowance. In the
aforestated cases of illegal dismissal where moral
and exemplary damages were awarded, the
dismissed employees were genuinely without fault
and were undoubtedly victims of the erring
employers' capricious exercise of power.
In the present case, we find that both petitioner and
private respondent can equally be faulted for
fanning the flames which gave rise to and
ultimately aggravated this controversy, instead of
sincerely negotiating a peaceful settlement of their
disparate claims. The records reveal how their
actuations seethed with mutual antagonism and
the undeniable enmity between them negates the
likelihood that either of them acted in good faith. It
is apparent that each one has a cause for
damages against the other. For this reason, we
hold that no moral or exemplary damages can
rightfully be awarded to petitioner.
The Labor Arbiter's decision in RAB
Case No. 0452-84 should be
modified. There was no voluntary
abandonment in this case because
petitioner has a justifiable excuse for
his absence, or such absence does
not warrant outright dismissal
without notice and hearing. Private
respondent, therefore, is guilty of
illegal dismissal. He should be
ordered to pay backwages for a
period not exceeding three years
from date of dismissal. And in lieu of
reinstatement, petitioner may be
paid separation pay equivalent to
one (1) month('s) salary for every
year of service, a fraction of six
months being considered as one (1)
year in accordance with recent
jurisprudence (Tan, Jr. vs. NLRC,
183 SCRA 651). But all claims for
 LEGAL ETHICS FEBRUARY 5, 2018 ACJUCO 13

damages should be dismissed, for or at least entertained the thought, the copious
both parties are equally at fault.54 records of the proceedings in this controversy are
barren of any reflection of the same.
The conduct of the respective counsel of the
parties, as revealed by the records, sorely One final word. This is one decision we do not
disappoints the Court and invites reproof. Both particularly relish having been obliged to make.
counsel may well be reminded that their ethical The task of resolving cases involving disputes
duty as lawyers to represent their clients with among members of a family leaves a bad taste in
zeal55 goes beyond merely presenting their clients' the mouth and an aversion in the mind, for no truly
respective causes in court. It is just as much their meaningful and enduring resolution is really
responsibility, if not more importantly, to exert all achieved in such situations. While we are
reasonable efforts to smooth over legal conflicts, convinced that we have adjudicated the legal
preferably out of court and especially in issues herein squarely on the bases of law and
consideration of the direct and immediate jurisprudence, sans sentimentality, we are
consanguineous ties between their clients. Once saddened by the thought that we may have failed
again, we reiterate that the useful function of a to bring about the reconciliation of the father and
lawyer is not only to conduct litigation but to avoid son who figured as parties to this dispute, and that
it whenever possible by advising settlement or our adherence here to law and duty may
withholding suit. He is often called upon less for unwittingly contribute to the breaking, instead of
dramatic forensic exploits than for wise counsel in the strengthening, of familial bonds. In fine, neither
every phase of life. He should be a mediator for of the parties herein actually emerges victorious. It
concord and a conciliator for compromise, rather is the Court's earnest hope, therefore, that with the
than a virtuoso of technicality in the conduct of impartial exposition and extended explanation of
litigation.56 their respective rights in this decision, the parties
may eventually see their way clear to an ultimate
Rule 1.04 of the Code of Professional resolution of their differences on more convivial
Responsibility explicitly provides that "(a) lawyer terms.
shall encourage his client to avoid, end or settle
the controversy if it will admit of a fair settlement." WHEREFORE, the decision of respondent
On this point, we find that both counsel herein fell National Labor Relations Commission is hereby
short of what was expected of them, despite their SET ASIDE. Private respondent is ORDERED to
avowed duties as officers of the court. The records pay petitioner back wages for a period not
do not show that they took pains to initiate steps exceeding three (3) years, without qualification or
geared toward effecting a rapprochement between deduction,58 and, in lieu of reinstatement,
their clients. On the contrary, their acerbic and separation pay equivalent to one (1) month for
protracted exchanges could not but have every year of service, a fraction of six (6) months
exacerbated the situation even as they may have being considered as one (1) whole year.
found favor in the equally hostile eyes of their
respective clients. SO ORDERED.

In the same manner, we find that the labor arbiter Narvasa, C.J., Padilla, Nocon and Puno, JJ.,
who handled this regrettable case has been less concur.
than faithful to the letter and spirit of the Labor
Code mandating that a labor arbiter "shall exert all
efforts towards the amicable settlement of a labor
dispute within his jurisdiction."57 If he ever did so,
LEGAL ETHICS FEBRUARY 5, 2018 ACJUCO 14

G.R. No. L-28546 July 30, 1975

VENANCIO CASTANEDA and NICETAS

HENSON, petitioners,
vs.
PASTOR D. AGO, LOURDES YU AGO and THE
COURT OF APPEALS, respondents.

Quijano and Arroyo for petitioners.

Jose M. Luison for respondents.

CASTRO, J.:

The parties in this case, except Lourdes Yu Ago,

have been commuting to this Court for more than
a decade.

In 1955 the petitioners Venancio Castañeda and

Nicetas Henson filed a replevin suit against Pastor
Ago in the Court of First Instance of Manila to
recover certain machineries (civil case 27251). In
1957 judgment was rendered in favor of the
plaintiffs, ordering Ago to return the machineries or
pay definite sums of money. Ago appealed, and on
June 30, 1961 this Court, in Ago vs. Castañeda, L-
 LEGAL ETHICS FEBRUARY 5, 2018 ACJUCO 15
14066, affirmed the judgment. After remand, the
trial court issued on August 25, 1961 a writ of
execution for the sum of P172,923.87. Ago moved
for a stay of execution but his motion was denied,
and levy was made on Ago's house and lots
located in Quezon City. The sheriff then advertised
them for auction sale on October 25, 1961. Ago
moved to stop the auction sale, failing in which he
filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of
Appeals. The appellate court dismissed the
petition and Ago appealed. On January 31,1966
this Court, in Ago vs. Court of Appeals, et al., L-
19718, affirmed the dismissal. Ago thrice
attempted to obtain a writ of preliminary injunction
to restrain the sheriff from enforcing the writ of
execution "to save his family house and lot;" his
motions were denied, and the sheriff sold the
house and lots on March 9, 1963 to the highest
bidders, the petitioners Castañeda and Henson.
Ago failed to redeem, and on April 17, 1964 the
sheriff executed the final deed of sale in favor of
the vendees Castañeda and Henson. Upon their
petition, the Court of First Instance
of Manila issued a writ of possession to the
properties.
However, on May 2, 1964 Pastor Ago, now joined
by his wife, Lourdes Yu Ago, as his co-plaintiff,
filed a complaint in the Court of First Instance
of Quezon City (civil case Q-7986) to annul the
sheriff's sale on the ground that the obligation of
Pastor Ago upon which judgment was rendered
against him in the replevin suit was his personal
obligation, and that Lourdes Yu Ago's one-half
share in their conjugal residential house and lots
which were levied upon and sold by the sheriff
could not legally be reached for the satisfaction of
the judgment. They alleged in their complaint that
wife Lourdes was not a party in the replevin suit,
that the judgment was rendered and the writ of
execution was issued only against husband
Pastor, and that wife Lourdes was not a party to
her husband's venture in the logging business
which failed and resulted in the replevin suit and
which did not benefit the conjugal partnership.
The Court of First Instance of Quezon City issued
an ex parte writ of preliminary injunction
restraining the petitioners, the Register of Deeds
and the sheriff of Quezon City, from registering the
latter's final deed of sale, from cancelling the
respondents' certificates of title and issuing new
ones to the petitioners and from carrying out any
writ of possession. A situation thus arose where
what the Manila court had ordered to be done,
the Quezon City court countermanded. On
November 1, 1965, however, the latter court lifted
the preliminary injunction it had previously issued,
and the Register of deeds of Quezon City
cancelled the respondents' certificates of title and
issued new ones in favor of the petitioners. But
enforcement of the writ of possession was again
thwarted as the Quezon City court again issued a
temporary restraining order which it later lifted but
then re-restored. On May 3, 1967 the court finally,
and for the third time, lifted the restraining order.
While the battle on the matter of the lifting and
restoring of the restraining order was being fought
in the Quezon City court, the Agos filed a petition
for certiorari and prohibition with this Court under
date of May 26, 1966, docketed as L-26116,
praying for a writ of preliminary injunction to enjoin
the sheriff from enforcing the writ of possession.
This Court found no merit in the petition and
dismissed it in a minute resolution on June 3, 1966;
reconsideration was denied on July 18, 1966. The
respondents then filed on August 2, 1966 a similar
petition for certiorari and prohibition with the Court
of Appeals (CA-G.R. 37830-R), praying for the
same preliminary injunction. The Court of Appeals
also dismissed the petition. The respondents then
appealed to this Court (L-27140).1äwphï1.ñët We
dismissed the petition in a minute resolution on
February 8, 1967.
The Ago spouses repaired once more to the Court
of Appeals where they filed another petition
for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary
injunction (CA-G.R. 39438-R). The said court gave
due course to the petition and granted preliminary
 LEGAL ETHICS FEBRUARY 5, 2018 ACJUCO 16

injunction. After hearing, it rendered decision, the 3. Relying upon Omnas vs. Rivera, 67 Phil. 419,
dispositive portion of which reads: the Court of Appeals held that a writ of possession
may not issue until the claim of a third person to
WHEREFORE, writ of preliminary half-interest in the property is adversely
injunction from enforcement of the determined, the said appellate court assuming that
writ of possession on and ejectment Lourdes Yu Ago was a "stranger" or a "third-party"
from the one-half share in the to her husband. The assumption is of course
properties involved belonging to obviously wrong, for, besides living with her
Lourdes Yu Ago dated June 15, husband Pastor, she does not claim ignorance of
1967 is made permanent pending his business that failed, of the relevant cases in
decision on the merits in Civil Case which he got embroiled, and of the auction sale
No. Q-7986 and ordering respondent made by the sheriff of their conjugal properties.
Court to proceed with the trial of Civil Even then, the ruling in Omnas is not that a writ of
Case No. Q-7986 on the merits possession may not issue until the claim of a third
without unnecessary delay. No person is adversely determined, but that the writ of
pronouncement as to costs. possession being a complement of the writ of
execution, a judge with jurisdiction to issue the
Failing to obtain reconsideration, the petitioners latter also has jurisdiction to issue the former,
Castañeda and Henson filed the present petition unless in the interval between the judicial sale and
for review of the aforesaid decision. the issuance of the writ of possession, the rights of
third parties to the property sold have supervened.
1. We do not see how the doctrine that a court may The ruling in Omnas is clearly inapplicable in the
not interfere with the orders of a co-equal court can present case, for, here, there has been no change
apply in the case at bar. The Court of First Instance in the ownership of the properties or of any interest
of Manila, which issued the writ of possession, therein from the time the writ of execution was
ultimately was not interfered with by its co-equal issued up to the time writ of possession was
court, the Court of First Instance of Quezon City as issued, and even up to the present.
the latter lifted the restraining order it had
previously issued against the enforcement of the 4. We agree with the trial court (then presided by
Manila court's writ of possession; it is the Court of Judge Lourdes P. San Diego) that it is much too
Appeals that enjoined, in part, the enforcement of late in the day for the respondents Agos to raise
the writ. the question that part of the property is unleviable
because it belongs to Lourdes Yu Ago, considering
2. Invoking Comilang vs. Buendia, et al.,1 where that (1) a wife is normally privy to her husband's
the wife was a party in one case and the husband activities; (2) the levy was made and the properties
was a party in another case and a levy on their advertised for auction sale in 1961; (3) she lives in
conjugal properties was upheld, the petitioners the very properties in question; (4) her husband
would have Lourdes Yu Ago similarly bound by the had moved to stop the auction sale; (5) the
replevin judgment against her husband for which properties were sold at auction in 1963; (6) her
their conjugal properties would be answerable. husband had thrice attempted to obtain a
The case invoked is not at par with the present preliminary injunction to restrain the sheriff from
case. In Comilang the actions were admittedly enforcing the writ of execution; (7) the sheriff
instituted for the protection of the common interest executed the deed of final sale on April 17, 1964
of the spouses; in the present case, the Agos deny when Pastor failed to redeem; (8) Pastor had
that their conjugal partnership benefited from the impliedly admitted that the conjugal properties
husband's business venture. could be levied upon by his pleas "to save his
 LEGAL ETHICS FEBRUARY 5, 2018 ACJUCO 17

family house and lot" in his efforts to prevent
execution; and (9) it was only on May 2, 1964 when
he and his wife filed the complaint for annulment of
the sheriff's sale upon the issue that the wife's
share in the properties cannot be levied upon on
the ground that she was not a party to the logging
business and not a party to the replevin suit. The
spouses Ago had every opportunity to raise the
issue in the various proceedings hereinbefore
discussed but did not; laches now effectively bars
them from raising it.
Laches, in a general sense, is failure
or neglect, for an unreasonable and
unexplained length of time, to do that
which, by exercising due diligence,
could or should have been done
earlier; it is negligence or omission to
assert a right within a reasonable
time, warranting a presumption that
the party entitled to assert it either
has abandoned it or declined to
assert it.2
which part of the house would be vacated by
Pastor and which part would Lourdes continue to
stay in? The absurdity does not stop here; the
decision would actually separate husband and
wife, prevent them from living together, and in
effect divide their conjugal properties during
coverture and before the dissolution of the
conjugal union.
6. Despite the pendency in the trial court of the
complaint for the annulment of the sheriff's sale
(civil case Q-7986), elementary justice demands
that the petitioners, long denied the fruits of their
victory in the replevin suit, must now enjoy them,
for, the respondents Agos, abetted by their lawyer
Jose M. Luison, have misused legal remedies and
prostituted the judicial process to thwart the
satisfaction of the judgment, to the extended
prejudice of the petitioners. The respondents, with
the assistance of counsel, maneuvered for
fourteen (14) years to doggedly resist execution of
the judgment thru manifold tactics in and from one
court to another (5 times in the Supreme Court).

5. The decision of the appellate court under review We condemn the attitude of the respondents and
suffers from two fatal infirmities. their counsel who,

(a) It enjoined the enforcement of the writ of far from viewing courts as
possession to and ejectment from the one-half sanctuaries for those who seek
share in the properties involved belonging to justice, have tried to use them to
Lourdes Yu Ago. This half-share is not in esse, but subvert the very ends of justice.6
is merely an inchoate interest, a mere expectancy,
constituting neither legal nor equitable estate, andForgetting his sacred mission as a sworn public
will ripen into title when only upon liquidation andservant and his exalted position as an officer of the
settlement there appears to be assets of the court, Atty. Luison has allowed himself to become
community.3 The decision sets at naught the well- an instigator of controversy and a predator of
settled rule that injunction does not issue to protect
conflict instead of a mediator for concord and a
a right not in esse and which may never arise.4 conciliator for compromise, a virtuoso of
technicality in the conduct of litigation instead of a
(b) The decision did not foresee the absurdity, or true exponent of the primacy of truth and moral
even the impossibility, of its enforcement. The Ago justice.
spouses admittedly live together in the same
house5 which is conjugal property. By the Manila A counsel's assertiveness in
court's writ of possession Pastor could be ousted espousing with candour and honesty
from the house, but the decision under review his client's cause must be
would prevent the ejectment of Lourdes. Now, encouraged and is to be
 LEGAL ETHICS FEBRUARY 5, 2018 ACJUCO 18

commended; what we do not and (d) the defendants have not filed an answer to the
cannot countenance is a lawyer's admitted supplemental complaint; and
insistence despite the patent futility
of his client's position, as in the case (e) the last order of the Court of First Instance,
at bar. dated April 20, 1974, grants an extension to the
suspension of time to file answer. (Expediente, p.
It is the duty of a counsel to advise 815)
his client, ordinarily a layman to the
intricacies and vagaries of the law, We also find that the alleged causes of action in
on the merit or lack of merit of his the complaint, supplemental complaint and
case. If he finds that his client's amended supplemental complaint are all
cause is defenseless, then it is his untenable, for the reasons hereunder stated. The
bounden duty to advise the latter to Complaint
acquiesce and submit, rather than
traverse the incontrovertible. A Upon the first cause of action, it is alleged that the
lawyer must resist the whims and sheriff levied upon conjugal properties of the
caprices of his client, and temper his spouses Ago despite the fact that the judgment to
clients propensity to litigate. A be satisfied was personal only to Pastor Ago, and
lawyer's oath to uphold the cause of the business venture that he entered into, which
justice is superior to his duty to his resulted in the replevin suit, did not redound to the
client; its primacy is indisputable.7 benefit of the conjugal partnership. The issue here,
which is whether or not the wife's inchoate share
7. In view of the private respondents' propensity to in the conjugal property is leviable, is the same
use the courts for purposes other than to seek issue that we have already resolved, as barred by
justice, and in order to obviate further delay in the laches, in striking down the decision of the Court
disposition of the case below which might again of Appeals granting preliminary injunction, the
come up to the appellate courts but only to fail in dispositive portion of which was herein-before
the end, we have motu proprio examined the quoted. This ruling applies as well to the first cause
record of civil case Q-7986 (the mother case of the of action of the complaint.
present case). We find that
Upon the second cause of action, the Agos allege
(a) the complaint was filed on May 2, 1964 (more that on January 5, 1959 the Castañedas and the
than 11 years ago) but trial on the merits has not sheriff, pursuant to an alias writ of seizure, seized
even started; and took possession of certain machineries,
depriving the Agos of the use thereof, to their
(b) after the defendants Castañedas had filed their damage in the sum of P256,000 up to May 5, 1964.
answer with a counterclaim, the plaintiffs Agos This second cause of action fails to state a valid
filed a supplemental complaint where they cause of action for it fails to allege that the order of
impleaded new parties-defendants; seizure is invalid or illegal.

(c) after the admission of the supplemental
complaint, the Agos filed a motion to admit an
amended supplemental complaint, which impleads
an additional new party-defendant (no action has
yet been taken on this motion);
It is averred as a third cause of action that the
sheriff's sale of the conjugal properties was
irregular, illegal and unlawful because the sheriff
did not require the Castañeda spouses to pay or
liquidate the sum of P141,750 (the amount for
which they bought the properties at the auction
 LEGAL ETHICS FEBRUARY 5, 2018 ACJUCO 19

sale) despite the fact that there was annotated at compelled to retain the services of counsel for not
the back of the certificates of title a mortgage of less than P7,500; that because the Agos obtained
P75,000 in favor of the Philippine National Bank; a preliminary injunction enjoining the transfer of
moreover, the sheriff sold the properties for titles and possession of the properties to the
P141,750 despite the pendency of L-19718 where Castañedas, they were unlawfully deprived of the
Pastor Ago contested the amount of P99,877.08 use of the properties from April 17, 1964, the value
out of the judgment value of P172,923.37 in civil of such deprived use being 20% annually of their
case 27251; and because of said acts, the Agos actual value; and that the filing of the unfounded
suffered P174,877.08 in damages. action besmirched their feelings, the pecuniary
worth of which is for the court to assess.
Anent this third cause of action, the sheriff was
under no obligation to require payment of the The Supplemental Complaint
purchase price in the auction sale because "when
the purchaser is the judgment creditor, and no Upon the first cause of action, it is alleged that after
third-party claim has been filed, he need not pay the filing of the complaint, the defendants, taking
the amount of the bid if it does not exceed the advantage of the dissolution of the preliminary
amount of his judgment." (Sec. 23, Rule 39, Rules injunction, in conspiracy and with gross bad faith
of Court) and evident intent to cause damage to the
plaintiffs, caused the registration of the sheriff's
The annotated mortgage in favor of the PNB is the final deed of sale; that, to cause more damage, the
concern of the vendees Castañedas but did not defendants sold to their lawyer and his wife two of
affect the sheriff's sale; the cancellation of the the parcels of land in question; that the purchasers
annotation is of no moment to the Agoo. acquired the properties in bad faith; that the
defendants mortgaged the two other parcels to the
Case L-19718 where Pastor Ago contested the Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation while the
sum of P99,877.08 out of the amount of the defendants' lawyer and his wife also mortgaged
judgment was dismissed by this Court on January the parcels bought by them to the Rizal
31, 1966. Commercial Bank; and that the bank also acted in
bad faith.
This third cause of action, therefore, actually states
no valid cause of action and is moreover barred by The second cause of action consists of an
prior judgment. allegation of additional damages caused by the
defendants' bad faith in entering into the aforesaid
The fourth cause of action pertains to moral agreements and transactions.
damages allegedly suffered by the Agos on
account of the acts complained of in the preceding The Amended Supplemental Complaint
causes of action. As the fourth cause of action
derives its life from the preceding causes of action, The amendment made pertains to the first cause
which, as shown, are baseless, the said fourth of action of the supplemental complaint, which is,
cause of action must necessarily fail. the inclusion of a paragraph averring that, still to
cause damage and prejudice to the plaintiffs, Atty.
The Counterclaim & Mrs. Juan Quijano, in bad faith sold the two
parcels of land they had previously bought to Eloy
As a counterclaim against the Agos, the Ocampo who acquired them also in bad faith, while
Castañedas aver that the action was unfounded Venancio Castañeda and Nicetas Henson in bad
and as a consequence of its filing they were faith sold the two other parcels to Juan Quijano
 LEGAL ETHICS FEBRUARY 5, 2018 ACJUCO 20

(60%) and Eloy Ocampo (40%) who acquired them Makasiar, Esguerra, Muñoz Palma and Martin, JJ.,
in bad faith and with knowledge that the properties concur.
are the subject of a pending litigation.
Teehankee, J., is on leave.
Discussion on The Causes of Action
of The Supplemental Complaint And NOT TO REFUSE TO GIVE LEGAL
The Amended Supplemental Complaint
ADVICE
Assuming hypothetically as true the allegations in
the first cause of action of the supplemental
complaint and the amended supplemental JONAR SANTIAGO, A.C. No. 6252
complaint, the validity of the cause of action would Complainant,
depend upon the validity of the first cause of action Vs. Atty. EDISON V. RAFANAN,
of the original complaint, for, the Agos would suffer Respondent. October 5, 2004
no transgression upon their rights of ownership
and possession of the properties by reason of the x -- -- -- -- -- -- --- -- -- -- -- -- -- --- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -x- x
agreements subsequently entered into by the
Castañedas and their lawyer if the sheriff's levy DECISION
and sale are valid. The reverse is also true: if the
sheriff's levy and sale are invalid on the ground PANGANIBAN, J.:
that the conjugal properties could not be levied
upon, then the transactions would perhaps
prejudice the Agos, but, we have already indicated N otaries public are expected to exert utmost
that the issue in the first cause of action of the care in the performance of their duties, which are
original complaint is barred by laches, and it must impressed with public interest. They are enjoined
therefore follow that the first cause of action of the to comply faithfully with the solemnities and
supplemental complaint and the amended requirements of the Notarial Law. This Court will
supplemental complaint is also barred. not hesitate to mete out appropriate sanctions to
those who violate it or neglect observance thereof.
For the same reason, the same holding applies to
the remaining cause of action in the supplemental The Case and the Facts
complaint and the amended supplemental
complaint. Before us is a verified Complaint[1] filed by
Jonar Santiago, an employee of the Bureau of Jail
ACCORDINGLY, the decision of the Court of Management and Penology (BJMP), for the
Appeals under review is set aside. Civil case Q- disbarment of Atty. Edison V. Rafanan. The
7986 of the Court of First Instance of Rizal is Complaint was filed with the Commission on Bar
ordered dismissed, without prejudice to the re- Discipline (CBD) of the Integrated Bar of the
filing of the petitioners' counterclaim in a new and Philippines (IBP) on January 16, 2001. It charged
independent action. Treble costs are assessed Atty. Rafanan with deceit; malpractice or other
against the spouses Pastor Ago and Lourdes Yu gross misconduct [2]
in office under Section 27 of
Ago, which shall be paid by their lawyer, Atty. Jose Rule 138 of the Rules of Court; and violation of
[3], Canon 5[4], and
M. Luison. Let a copy of this decision be made a Canons 1.01, 1.02 and 1.03
part of the personal file of Atty. Luison in the Canons 12.07[5] and 12.08
custody of the Clerk of Court. of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR).
 LEGAL ETHICS FEBRUARY 5, 2018 ACJUCO 21
In his Report, IBP Investigating
Commissioner Leland R. Villadolid Jr. summarized certificates
the allegations of the complainant in this wise:
x x x. In his Letter-Complaint,
Complainant alleged, among others,
that Respondent in notarizing
several documents on different dates
failed and/or refused to: a)make the
proper notation regarding the cedula
or community tax certificate of the
affiants; b) enter the details of the
notarized documents in the notarial
register; and c) make and execute
the certification and enter his PTR
and IBP numbers in the documents
he had notarized, all in violation of
the notarial provisions of the Revised
Administrative Code.
Complainant likewise alleged
that Respondent executed an
Affidavit in favor of his client and
offered the same as evidence in the
case wherein he was actively
representing his client. Finally,
Complainant alleges that on a
certain date, Respondent
accompanied by several persons
waited for Complainant after the
hearing and after confronting the
latter disarmed him of his sidearm
and thereafter uttered insulting
words and veiled threats.[6]
On March 23, 2001, pursuant to the January 19,
2001 Order of the CBD,[7] Atty. Rafanan filed his
verified Answer.[8] He admitted having
administered the oath to the affiants whose
Affidavits were attached to the verified
Complaint. He believed, however, that the
non-notation of their Residence Certificates in the
Affidavits and the Counter-affidavits was allowed.
He opined that the notation of residence
applied only to documents
acknowledged by a notary public and was not
mandatory for affidavits related to cases pending
before courts and other government offices. He
pointed out that in the latter, the affidavits, which
were sworn to before government prosecutors, did
not have to indicate the residence certificates of
the affiants. Neither did other notaries public in
Nueva Ecija -- some of whom were older
practitioners -- indicate the affiants residence
certificates on the documents they notarized, or
have entries in their notarial register for these
documents.
As to his alleged failure to comply with the
certification required by Section 3 of Rule 112[9] of
the Rules of Criminal Procedure, respondent
explained that as counsel of the affiants, he had
the option to comply or not with the certification. To
nullify the Affidavits, it was complainant who was
duty-bound to bring the said noncompliance to the
attention of the prosecutor conducting the
preliminary investigation.
As to his alleged violation of Rule 12.08 of the
CPR, respondent argued that lawyers could testify
on behalf of their clients on substantial matters, in
cases where [their] testimony is essential to the
ends of justice. Complainant charged respondents
clients with attempted murder. Respondent
averred that since they were in his house when the
alleged crime occurred, his testimony is very
essential to the ends of justice.
Respondent alleged that it was complainant who
had threatened and harassed his clients after the
hearing of their case by the provincial prosecutor
on January 4, 2001.Respondent requested the
assistance of the Cabanatuan City Police the
following day, January 5, 2001, which was the next
scheduled hearing, to avoid a repetition of the
incident and to allay the fears of his clients. In
support of his allegations, he submitted
Certifications[10] from the Cabanatuan City Police
 LEGAL ETHICS FEBRUARY 5, 2018 ACJUCO 22

and the Joint Affidavit[11] of the two police officers certification in the notarial register, and the
who had assisted them. indication of the affiants residence certificate. The
IBP Board of Governors found his excuse for the
Lastly, he contended that the case had been violations unacceptable. It modified, however, the
initiated for no other purpose than to harass him, recommendation[20] of the investigating
because he was the counsel of Barangay Captain commissioner by increasing the fine to P3,000 with
Ernesto Ramos in the cases filed by the latter a warning that any repetition of the violation will be
before the ombudsman and the BJMP against dealt with a heavier penalty.
complainant.
The other charges -- violation of Section 27 of Rule
After receipt of respondents Answer, the CBD, 138 of the Rules of Court; and Canons 1.01 to
through Commissioner Tyrone R. Cimafranca, set 1.03, 12.07 and 12.08 of the CPR -- were
the case for hearing on June 5, 2001, at two oclock dismissed for insufficiency of evidence.
in the afternoon.Notices[12] of the hearing were
sent to the parties by registered mail. On the The Courts Ruling
scheduled date and time of the hearing, only
complainant appeared. Respondent was unable to
do so, apparently because he had received the We agree with the Resolution of the IBP Board of
Notice only on June 8, 2001.[13] The hearing was Governors.
reset to July 3, 2001 at two oclock in the afternoon.
Respondents Administrative Liability
On the same day, June 5, 2001, complainant filed
his Reply[14] to the verified Answer of
respondent. The latters Rejoinder was received by Violation of the Notarial Law
the CBD on July 13, 2001.[15] It also received
complainants Letter-Request[16] to dispense with
the hearings. Accordingly, it granted that request The Notarial Law is explicit on the obligations and
in its Order[17] dated July 24, 2001, issued duties of notaries public. They are required to
through Commissioner Cimafranca. It thereby certify that the party to every document
directed the parties to submit their respective acknowledged before them has presented the
memoranda within fifteen days from receipt of the proper residence certificate (or exemption from the
Order, after which the case was to be deemed residence tax); and to enter its number, place of
submitted for resolution. issue and date as part of such
certification.[21] They are also required to maintain
The CBD received complainants and keep a notarial register; to enter therein all
Memorandum[18] on September 26, instruments notarized by them; and to give to each
2001. Respondent did not file any. instrument executed, sworn to, or acknowledged
before [them] a number corresponding to the one
The IBPs Recommendation in [their] register [and to state therein] the page or
pages of [their] register, on which the same is
On September 27, 2003, the IBP Board of recorded.[22] Failure to perform these duties
Governors issued Resolution No. XVI-2003- would result in the revocation of their commission
172[19] approving and adopting the Investigating as notaries public.[23]
Commissioners Report that respondent had
violated specific requirements of the Notarial Law
on the execution of a certification, the entry of such
 LEGAL ETHICS FEBRUARY 5, 2018 ACJUCO 23

These formalities are mandatory and cannot be before the courts and government agencies. He
simply neglected, considering the degree of points to similar practices of older notaries in
importance and evidentiary weight attached to Nueva Ecija.
notarized documents. Notaries public entering into
their commissions are presumed to be aware of We cannot give credence to, much less honor, his
these elementary requirements. claim. His belief that the requirements do not apply
to affidavits is patently irrelevant. No law
In Vda. de Rosales v. Ramos,[24] the Court dispenses with these formalities. Au contraire, the
explained the value and meaning of notarization as Notarial Law makes no qualification or
follows: exception. It is appalling and inexcusable that he
did away with the basics of notarial procedure
The importance attached to the act of notarization allegedly because others were doing so. Being
cannot be overemphasized. Notarization is not an swayed by the bad example of others is not an
empty, meaningless, routinary act. It is invested acceptable justification for breaking the law.
with substantive public interest, such that only We note further that the documents attached to the
those who are qualified or authorized may act as verified Complaint are the Joint Counter-Affidavit
notaries public. Notarization converts a private of respondents clients Ernesto Ramos and Rey
document into a public document thus making that Geronimo, as well as their witnesses Affidavits
document admissible in evidence without further relative to Criminal Case No. 69-2000 for
proof of its authenticity. A notarial document is by attempted murder, filed by complainants brother
law entitled to full faith and credit upon its against the aforementioned clients. These
face. Courts, administrative agencies and the documents became the basis of the present
public at large must be able to rely upon the Complaint.
acknowledgment executed by a notary public and
appended to a private instrument. As correctly pointed out by the investigating
commissioner, Section 3 of Rule 112 of the Rules
of Criminal Procedure expressly requires
For this reason, notaries public should not take for respondent as notary -- in the absence of any
granted the solemn duties pertaining to their fiscal, state prosecutor or government official
office. Slipshod methods in their performance of authorized to administer the oath -- to certify that
the notarial act are never to be he has personally examined the affiants and that
countenanced. They are expected to exert utmost he is satisfied that they voluntarily executed and
care in the performance of their duties,[25] which understood their affidavits. Respondent failed to
are dictated by public policy and are impressed do so with respect to the subject Affidavits and
with public interest. Counter-Affidavits in the belief that -- as counsel
for the affiants -- he was not required to comply
It is clear from the pleadings before us -- and with the certification requirement.
respondent has readily admitted -- that he violated
the Notarial Law by failing to enter in the
documents notations of the residence certificate,
as well as the entry number and the pages of the It must be emphasized that the primary duty of
notarial registry. lawyers is to obey the laws of the land and promote
respect for the law and legal processes.[26] They
Respondent believes, however, that are expected to be in the forefront in the
noncompliance with those requirements is not observance and maintenance of the rule of
mandatory for affidavits relative to cases pending law. This duty carries with it the obligation to be
 LEGAL ETHICS FEBRUARY 5, 2018 ACJUCO 24

well-informed of the existing laws and to keep Rule 12.08 A lawyer shall avoid testifying in behalf
abreast with legal developments, recent of his client, except:
enactments and jurisprudence.[27] It is imperative
that they be conversant with basic legal a) on formal matters, such as the
principles. Unless they faithfully comply with such mailing, authentication or custody of an instrument
duty, they may not be able to discharge and the like;
competently and diligently their obligations as
members of the bar. Worse, they may become b) on substantial matters, in cases
susceptible to committing mistakes. where his testimony is essential to the ends of
justice, in which event he must, during his
Where notaries public are lawyers, a graver testimony, entrust the trial of the case to another
responsibility is placed upon them by reason of counsel.
their solemn oath to obey the laws.[28] No custom
or age-old practice provides sufficient excuse or
justification for their failure to adhere to the
provisions of the law. In this case, the excuse Parenthetically, under the law, a lawyer is not
given by respondent exhibited his clear ignorance disqualified from being a witness,[31] except only
of the Notarial Law, the Rules of Criminal in certain cases pertaining to privileged
Procedure, and the importance of his office as a communication arising from an attorney-client
notary public. relationship.[32]
Nonetheless, we do not agree with complainants
plea to disbar respondent from the practice of The reason behind such rule is the difficulty posed
law. The power to disbar must be exercised with upon lawyers by the task of dissociating their
great caution.[29]Disbarment will be imposed as a relation to their clients as witnesses from that as
penalty only in a clear case of misconduct that advocates. Witnesses are expected to tell the facts
seriously affects the standing and the character of as they recall them. In contradistinction, advocates
the lawyer as an officer of the court and a member are partisans -- those who actively plead and
of the bar. Where any lesser penalty can defend the cause of others. It is difficult to
accomplish the end desired, disbarment should distinguish the fairness and impartiality of a
not be decreed.[30] Considering the nature of the disinterested witness from the zeal of an
infraction and the absence of deceit on the part of advocate. The question is one of propriety rather
respondent, we believe that the penalty than of competency of the lawyers who testify for
recommended by the IBP Board of Governors is a their clients.
sufficient disciplinary measure in this case.

Lawyer as Witness for Client
Complainant further faults respondent for
executing before Prosecutor Leonardo Padolina
an affidavit corroborating the defense of alibi
proffered by respondents clients, allegedly in
violation of Rule 12.08 of the CPR: A lawyer shall
avoid testifying in behalf of his client.
Rule 12.08 of Canon 12 of the CPR states:
Acting or appearing to act in the double capacity of
lawyer and witness for the client will provoke
unkind criticism and leave many people to suspect
the truthfulness of the lawyer because they cannot
believe the lawyer as disinterested. The people will
have a plausible reason for thinking, and if their
sympathies are against the lawyers client, they will
have an opportunity, not likely to be neglected, for
charging, that as a witness he fortified it with his
own testimony. The testimony of the lawyer
 LEGAL ETHICS FEBRUARY 5, 2018 ACJUCO 25

becomes doubted and is looked upon as partial Second, paragraph (b) of Rule 12.08 contemplates
and untruthful.[33] a situation in which lawyers give their testimonies
during the trial. In this instance, the Affidavit was
Thus, although the law does not forbid lawyers submitted during the preliminary investigation
from being witnesses and at the same time which, as such, was merely inquisitorial.[37] Not
counsels for a cause, the preference is for them to being a trial of the case on the merits, a preliminary
refrain from testifying as witnesses, unless they investigation has the oft-repeated purposes of
absolutely have to; and should they do so, to securing innocent persons against hasty,
withdraw from active management of the case.[34] malicious and oppressive prosecutions; protecting
them from open and public accusations of crime
Notwithstanding this guideline and the existence of and from the trouble as well as expense and
the Affidavit executed by Atty. Rafanan in favor of anxiety of a public trial; and protecting the State
his clients, we cannot hastily make him from useless and expensive prosecutions.[38] The
administratively liable for the following reasons: investigation is advisedly called preliminary, as it is
First, we consider it the duty of a lawyer to assert yet to be followed by the trial proper.
every remedy and defense that is authorized by
law for the benefit of the client, especially in a Nonetheless, we deem it important to stress and
criminal action in which the latters life and liberty remind respondent to refrain from accepting
are at stake.[35] It is the fundamental right of the employment in any matter in which he knows or
accused to be afforded full opportunity to rebut the has reason to believe that he may be an essential
charges against them. They are entitled to suggest witness for the prospective client. Furthermore, in
all those reasonable doubts that may arise from future cases in which his testimony may become
the evidence as to their guilt; and to ensure that if essential to serve the ends of justice, the canons
they are convicted, such conviction is according to of the profession require him to withdraw from the
law. active prosecution of these cases.

Having undertaken the defense of the accused, No Proof of Harassment

respondent, as defense counsel, was thus
expected to spare no effort to save his clients from The charge that respondent harassed complainant
a wrong conviction. He had the duty to present -- and uttered insulting words and veiled threats is
by all fair and honorable means -- every defense not supported by evidence. Allegation is never
and mitigating circumstance that the law permitted, equivalent to proof, and a bare charge cannot be
to the end that his clients would not be deprived of equated with liability.[39] It is not the self-serving
life, liberty or property, except by due process of claim of complainant but the version of respondent
law.[36] that is more credible, considering that the latters
allegations are corroborated by the Affidavits of the
The Affidavit executed by Atty. Rafanan was police officers and the Certifications of the
clearly necessary for the defense of his clients, Cabanatuan City Police.
since it pointed out the fact that on the alleged date
and time of the incident, his clients were at his WHEREFORE, Atty. Edison V. Rafanan is found
residence and could not have possibly committed guilty of violating the Notarial Law and Canon 5 of
the crime charged against them. Notably, in his the Code of Professional Responsibility and is
Affidavit, complainant does not dispute the hereby FINED P3,000 with a warning that similar
statements of respondent or suggest the falsity of infractions in the future will be dealt with more
its contents. severely.
 LEGAL ETHICS FEBRUARY 5, 2018 ACJUCO 26

A.C. No. 6672 September 4, 2009

SO ORDERED. PEDRO L. LINSANGAN, Complainant,

vs.
ATTY. NICOMEDES TOLENTINO, Respondent.

RESOLUTION

CORONA, J.:

This is a complaint for disbarment1 filed by Pedro

Linsangan of the Linsangan Linsangan &
Linsangan Law Office against Atty. Nicomedes
Tolentino for solicitation of clients and
encroachment of professional services.

Complainant alleged that respondent, with the help

of paralegal Fe Marie Labiano, convinced his
clients2 to transfer legal representation.
Respondent promised them financial
3
assistance and expeditious collection on their
claims.4To induce them to hire his services, he
persistently called them and sent them text
messages.

To support his allegations, complainant presented

the sworn affidavit5 of James Gregorio attesting
that Labiano tried to prevail upon him to sever his
lawyer-client relations with complainant and utilize
respondent’s services instead, in exchange for a
loan of ₱50,000. Complainant also attached
"respondent’s" calling card:6

Front

NICOMEDES TOLENTINO

LAW OFFFICE

CONSULTANCY &
MARITIME SERVICES
W/ FINANCIAL
ASSISTANCE
NO SOLICITATION
 LEGAL ETHICS FEBRUARY 5, 2018 ACJUCO 27

Fe Marie L. Labiano The complaint was referred to the Commission on

Paralegal Bar Discipline (CBD) of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and
recommendation.8
Tel: 362-
1st MIJI
7820 Based on testimonial and documentary evidence,
Mansion, 2nd
Fax: the CBD, in its report and recommendation,9 found
Flr. Rm. M-
(632) that respondent had encroached on the
01
362- professional practice of complainant, violating
6th Ave., cor
7821 Rule 8.0210 and other canons11of the Code of
M.H. Del Pilar
Cel.: Professional Responsibility (CPR). Moreover, he
Grace Park,
(0926) contravened the rule against soliciting cases for
Caloocan City
2701719 gain, personally or through paid agents or brokers
as stated in Section 27, Rule 13812 of the Rules of
Court. Hence, the CBD recommended that
Back respondent be reprimanded with a stern warning
that any repetition would merit a heavier penalty.

We adopt the findings of the IBP on the unethical

conduct of respondent but we modify the
SERVICES OFFERED: recommended penalty.

CONSULTATION AND The complaint before us is rooted on the alleged

ASSISTANCE intrusion by respondent into complainant’s
TO OVERSEAS SEAMEN professional practice in violation of Rule 8.02 of the
REPATRIATED DUE TO CPR. And the means employed by respondent in
ACCIDENT, furtherance of the said misconduct themselves
INJURY, ILLNESS, constituted distinct violations of ethical rules.
SICKNESS, DEATH
AND INSURANCE BENEFIT Canons of the CPR are rules of conduct all lawyers
CLAIMS must adhere to, including the manner by which a
ABROAD. lawyer’s services are to be made known. Thus,
Canon 3 of the CPR provides:
1avvphi1
CANON 3 - A lawyer in making known his legal
services shall use only true, honest, fair, dignified
and objective information or statement of facts.

(emphasis supplied) Time and time again, lawyers are reminded that
the practice of law is a profession and not a
Hence, this complaint. business; lawyers should not advertise their
talents as merchants advertise their wares.13 To
Respondent, in his defense, denied knowing allow a lawyer to advertise his talent or skill is to
Labiano and authorizing the printing and commercialize the practice of law, degrade the
circulation of the said calling card.7 profession in the public’s estimation and impair its
ability to efficiently render that high character of
 LEGAL ETHICS FEBRUARY 5, 2018 ACJUCO 28

service to which every member of the bar is Based on the foregoing, respondent clearly
called.14 solicited employment violating Rule 2.03, and Rule
1.03 and Canon 3 of the CPR and Section 27, Rule
Rule 2.03 of the CPR provides: 138 of the Rules of Court.1avvphi1

RULE 2.03. A lawyer shall not do or permit to be With regard to respondent’s violation of Rule 8.02
done any act designed primarily to solicit legal of the CPR, settled is the rule that a lawyer should
business. not steal another lawyer’s client nor induce the
latter to retain him by a promise of better service,
Hence, lawyers are prohibited from soliciting cases good result or reduced fees for his
for the purpose of gain, either personally or services.20 Again the Court notes that respondent
through paid agents or brokers.15 Such actuation never denied having these seafarers in his client
constitutes malpractice, a ground for disbarment.16 list nor receiving benefits from Labiano’s
"referrals." Furthermore, he never denied
Rule 2.03 should be read in connection with Rule Labiano’s connection to his office.21Respondent
1.03 of the CPR which provides: committed an unethical, predatory overstep into
another’s legal practice. He cannot escape liability
RULE 1.03. A lawyer shall not, for any corrupt under Rule 8.02 of the CPR.
motive or interest, encourage any suit or
proceeding or delay any man’s cause. Moreover, by engaging in a money-lending
venture with his clients as borrowers, respondent
This rule proscribes "ambulance chasing" (the violated Rule 16.04:
solicitation of almost any kind of legal business by
an attorney, personally or through an agent in Rule 16.04 – A lawyer shall not borrow money from
order to gain employment)17 as a measure to his client unless the client’s interests are fully
protect the community from barratry and protected by the nature of the case or by
champerty.18 independent advice. Neither shall a lawyer lend
money to a client except, when in the interest of
Complainant presented substantial justice, he has to advance necessary expenses in
evidence19 (consisting of the sworn statements of a legal matter he is handling for the client.
the very same persons coaxed by Labiano and
referred to respondent’s office) to prove that The rule is that a lawyer shall not lend money to
respondent indeed solicited legal business as well his client. The only exception is, when in the
as profited from referrals’ suits. interest of justice, he has to advance necessary
expenses (such as filing fees, stenographer’s fees
Although respondent initially denied knowing for transcript of stenographic notes, cash bond or
Labiano in his answer, he later admitted it during premium for surety bond, etc.) for a matter that he
the mandatory hearing. is handling for the client.

Through Labiano’s actions, respondent’s law
practice was benefited. Hapless seamen were
enticed to transfer representation on the strength
of Labiano’s word that respondent could produce
a more favorable result.
The rule is intended to safeguard the lawyer’s
independence of mind so that the free exercise of
his judgment may not be adversely affected.22 It
seeks to ensure his undivided attention to the case
he is handling as well as his entire devotion and
fidelity to the client’s cause. If the lawyer lends
money to the client in connection with the client’s
 LEGAL ETHICS FEBRUARY 5, 2018 ACJUCO 29

case, the lawyer in effect acquires an interest in (c) address;

the subject matter of the case or an additional
stake in its outcome.23Either of these (d) telephone number and
circumstances may lead the lawyer to consider his
own recovery rather than that of his client, or to (e) special branch of law practiced.28
accept a settlement which may take care of his
interest in the verdict to the prejudice of the client Labiano’s calling card contained the phrase "with
in violation of his duty of undivided fidelity to the financial assistance." The phrase was clearly used
client’s cause.24 to entice clients (who already had representation)
to change counsels with a promise of loans to
As previously mentioned, any act of solicitation finance their legal actions. Money was dangled to
constitutes malpractice25 which calls for the lure clients away from their original lawyers,
exercise of the Court’s disciplinary powers. thereby taking advantage of their financial distress
Violation of anti-solicitation statutes warrants and emotional vulnerability. This crass
serious sanctions for initiating contact with a commercialism degraded the integrity of the bar
prospective client for the purpose of obtaining and deserved no place in the legal profession.
employment.26 Thus, in this jurisdiction, we adhere However, in the absence of substantial evidence
to the rule to protect the public from the to prove his culpability, the Court is not prepared
Machiavellian machinations of unscrupulous to rule that respondent was personally and directly
lawyers and to uphold the nobility of the legal responsible for the printing and distribution of
profession. Labiano’s calling cards.

Considering the myriad infractions of respondent WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Nicomedes

(including violation of the prohibition on lending Tolentino for violating Rules 1.03, 2.03, 8.02 and
money to clients), the sanction recommended by 16.04 and Canon 3 of the Code of Professional
the IBP, a mere reprimand, is a wimpy slap on the Responsibility and Section 27, Rule 138 of the
wrist. The proposed penalty is grossly Rules of Court is hereby SUSPENDEDfrom the
incommensurate to its findings. practice of law for a period of one year effective
immediately from receipt of this resolution. He
A final word regarding the calling card presented is STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the
in evidence by petitioner. A lawyer’s best same or similar acts in the future shall be dealt with
advertisement is a well-merited reputation for more severely.
professional capacity and fidelity to trust based on
his character and conduct.27 For this reason, Let a copy of this Resolution be made part of his
lawyers are only allowed to announce their records in the Office of the Bar Confidant,
services by publication in reputable law lists or use Supreme Court of the Philippines, and be
of simple professional cards. furnished to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
and the Office of the Court Administrator to be
Professional calling cards may only contain the circulated to all courts.
following details:
SO ORDERED.
(a) lawyer’s name;

(b) name of the law firm with which he is

connected;
 LEGAL ETHICS FEBRUARY 5, 2018 ACJUCO 30
CANON 3: NO FALSE OR UNFAIR CLAIM RE:
QUALIFICATIONS
[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.
[G.R. No. 157053. August 19, 2003]
ATTY. RIZALINO T. SIMBILLO, petitioner, vs.
IBP COMMISSION ON BAR DISCIPLINE
and ATTY. ISMAEL G. KHAN, JR., in his
capacity as Assistant Court
Administrator and Chief, Public
Information Office, respondents.
RESOLUTION
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
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.[1]
Ms. Ma. Theresa B. Espeleta, a staff member
of the Public Information Office of the Supreme
Court, 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 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 similar advertisements were
published in the August 2 and 6, 2000 issues of
the Manila Bulletin and August 5, 2000 issue of
The Philippine Star.[2]
 LEGAL ETHICS FEBRUARY 5, 2018 ACJUCO 31
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.[3]
In his answer, respondent admitted the acts
imputed to him, but argued that advertising and
solicitation per se are not prohibited acts; that the
time has come to change our views about the
prohibition on advertising and solicitation; that the
interest of the public is not served by the absolute
prohibition on lawyer advertising; that the Court
can lift the ban on lawyer advertising; and that the
rationale behind the decades-old prohibition
should be abandoned. Thus, he prayed that he be
exonerated from all the charges against him and
that the Court promulgate a ruling that
advertisement of legal services offered by a lawyer
is not contrary to law, public policy and public order
as long as it is dignified.[4]
The case was referred to the Integrated Bar of
the Philippines for investigation, report and
recommendation.[5] On June 29, 2002, the IBP
Commission on Bar Discipline passed Resolution
No. XV-2002-306,[6] finding respondent guilty of
violation of Rules 2.03 and 3.01 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility and Rule 138, Section
27 of the Rules of Court, and suspended him from
the practice of law for one (1) year with the warning
that a repetition of similar acts would be dealt with
more severely. The IBP Resolution was noted by
this Court on November 11, 2002.[7]
In the meantime, respondent filed an Urgent
Motion for Reconsideration,[8] which was denied
by the IBP in Resolution No. XV-2002-606 dated
October 19, 2002[9]
Hence, the instant petition for certiorari, which
was docketed as G.R. No. 157053 entitled, Atty.
Rizalino T. Simbillo, Petitioner versus IBP
Commission on Bar Discipline, Atty. Ismael G.
Khan, Jr., Asst. Court Administrator and Chief,
Public Information Office, Respondents. This
petition was consolidated with A.C. No. 5299 per
the Courts Resolution dated March 4, 2003.
In a Resolution dated March 26, 2003, the
parties were required to manifest whether or not
they were willing to submit the case for resolution
on the basis of the pleadings.[10] Complainant filed
his Manifestation on April 25, 2003, stating that he
is not submitting any additional pleading or
evidence and is submitting the case for its early
resolution on the basis of pleadings and records
thereof. [11]Respondent, on the other hand, filed a
Supplemental Memorandum on June 20, 2003.
We agree with the IBPs Resolutions Nos. XV-
2002-306 and XV-2002-606.
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.
Rule 138, Section 27 of the Rules of Court
states:
SEC. 27. Disbarment and suspension of attorneys
by Supreme Court, grounds therefor. A member of
the bar may be disbarred or suspended from his
office as attorney by the Supreme Court for 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, or for any violation of the oath which he
is required to take before the admission to practice,
or for a willful disobedience appearing as attorney
for a party without authority to do so.
It has been repeatedly stressed that the
practice of law is not a business.[12] It is a
 LEGAL ETHICS FEBRUARY 5, 2018 ACJUCO 32
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.[13] The gaining of a livelihood should
be a secondary consideration.[14] 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.[15] 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.[16]
There is no question that respondent
committed the acts complained of. He himself
admits that he caused the publication of the
advertisements. While he professes repentance
and begs for the Courts indulgence, his contrition
rings hollow considering the fact that he advertised
his legal services again after he pleaded for
compassion and after claiming that he had no
intention to violate the rules. Eight months after
filing his answer, he again advertised his legal
services in the August 14, 2001 issue of the Buy &
Sell Free Ads Newspaper.[17] Ten months later, he
caused the same advertisement to be published in
the October 5, 2001 issue of Buy & Sell.[18] Such
acts of respondent are a deliberate and
contemptuous affront on the Courts authority.
What adds to the gravity of respondents 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,[19] he in fact encourages
people, who might have otherwise been
disinclined and would have refrained from
dissolving their marriage bonds, to do so.
Nonetheless, the 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. If it is made in a
modest and decorous manner, it would bring no
injury to the lawyer and to the bar.[20] 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. Even the use of calling cards is now
acceptable.[21] Publication in reputable law lists, in
a manner consistent with the standards of conduct
imposed by the canon, of brief biographical and
informative data is likewise allowable. As explicitly
stated in Ulep v. Legal Clinic, Inc.:[22]
Such data must not be misleading and may include
only a statement of the lawyers name and the
names of his professional associates; addresses,
telephone numbers, cable addresses; branches of
law practiced; date and place of birth and
admission to the bar; schools attended with dates
of graduation, degrees and other educational
distinctions; public or quasi-public offices; posts of
honor; legal authorships; legal teaching positions;
membership and offices in bar associations and
committees thereof, in legal and scientific societies
 LEGAL ETHICS FEBRUARY 5, 2018 ACJUCO 33

and legal fraternities; the fact of listings in other Bar of the Philippines and all courts in the country
reputable law lists; the names and addresses of for their information and guidance.
references; and, with their written consent, the
SO ORDERED.
names of clients regularly represented.
Vitug, (Acting Chairman),Carpio, and Azcuna,
The law list must be a reputable law list published JJ., concur.
primarily for that purpose; it cannot be a mere Davide, Jr., C.J., (Chairman ), abroad, on
supplemental feature of a paper, magazine, trade official business.
journal or periodical which is published principally
for other purposes. For that reason, a lawyer may
not properly publish his brief biographical and
informative data in a daily paper, magazine,
trade journal or society program. Nor may a
lawyer permit his name to be published in a law list
the conduct, management, or contents of which
are calculated or likely to deceive or injure the
public or the bar, or to lower dignity or standing of
the profession.

The use of an ordinary simple professional card is

also permitted. The card may contain only a
statement of his name, the name of the law firm
which he is connected with, address, telephone
number and special branch of law practiced. The
publication of a simple announcement of the
opening of a law firm or of changes in the
partnership, associates, firm name or office
address, being for the convenience of the
profession, is not objectionable. He may likewise
have his name listed in a telephone directory but
not under a designation of special branch of
law. (emphasis and italics supplied)

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing,

respondent RIZALINO T. SIMBILLO is found
GUILTY of violation of Rules 2.03 and 3.01 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility and Rule 138,
Section 27 of the Rules of Court. 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.
Let copies of this Resolution be entered in his
record as attorney and be furnished the Integrated
 LEGAL ETHICS FEBRUARY 5, 2018 ACJUCO 34
Bar Matter No. 553 June 17, 1993
MAURICIO C. ULEP, petitioner,
vs.
THE LEGAL CLINIC, INC., respondent.
R E SO L U T I O N
REGALADO, J.:
Petitioner prays this Court "to order the respondent
to cease and desist from issuing advertisements
similar to or of the same tenor as that of annexes
"A" and "B" (of said 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."
The advertisements complained of by herein
petitioner are as follows:
Annex A
SECRET MARRIAGE?
P560.00 for a valid marriage.
Info on DIVORCE. ABSENCE.
ANNULMENT. VISA.
THE Please call: 521-0767 LEGAL
5217232, 5222041 CLINIC, INC.
8:30 am— 6:00 pm 7-Flr. Victoria
Bldg., UN Ave., Mla.
Annex B
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 Retiree's Visa. Declaration
of Absence. Remarriage to Filipina
Fiancees. Adoption. Investment in
the Phil. US/Foreign Visa for Filipina
Spouse/Children. Call Marivic.
THE 7F Victoria Bldg. 429 UN Ave.,
LEGAL Ermita, Manila nr. US
Embassy CLINIC, INC.1 Tel. 521-
7232; 521-7251; 522-2041; 521-
0767
It is the submission of petitioner that the
advertisements above reproduced are
champterous, unethical, demeaning of the law
profession, and destructive of the confidence of
the community in the integrity of the members of
 LEGAL ETHICS FEBRUARY 5, 2018 ACJUCO 35
the bar and that, as a member of the legal aforementioned bar associations and the
profession, he is ashamed and offended by the memoranda submitted by them on the issues
said advertisements, hence the reliefs sought in involved in this bar matter.
his petition as hereinbefore quoted.
In its answer to the petition, respondent admits the
fact of publication of said advertisement at its
instance, but claims that it is not engaged in the
practice of law but in the rendering of "legal
support services" through paralegals with the use
of modern computers and electronic machines.
Respondent further argues that assuming that the
services advertised are legal services, the act of
advertising these services should be allowed
supposedly
in the light of the case of John R. Bates and Van
O'Steen vs. State Bar of Arizona,2 reportedly
decided by the United States Supreme Court on
June 7, 1977.
Considering the critical implications on the legal
profession of the issues raised herein, we required
the (1) Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), (2)
Philippine Bar Association (PBA), (3) Philippine
Lawyers' Association (PLA), (4) U.P. Womens
Lawyers' Circle (WILOCI), (5) Women Lawyers
Association of the Philippines (WLAP), and (6)
Federacion International de Abogadas (FIDA) to
submit their respective position papers on the
controversy and, thereafter, their
memoranda. 3 The said bar associations readily
responded and extended their valuable services
and cooperation of which this Court takes note with
appreciation and gratitude.
The main issues posed for resolution before the
Court are whether or not the services offered by
respondent, The Legal Clinic, Inc., as advertised
by it constitutes practice of law and, in either case,
whether the same can properly be the subject of
the advertisements herein complained of.
Before proceeding with an in-depth analysis of the
merits of this case, we deem it proper and
enlightening to present hereunder excerpts from
the respective position papers adopted by the
1. Integrated Bar of the Philippines:
xxx xxx xxx
Notwithstanding the subtle manner
by which respondent endeavored to
distinguish the two terms, i.e., "legal
support services" vis-a-vis "legal
services", common sense would
readily dictate that the same are
essentially without substantial
distinction. For who could deny that
document search, evidence
gathering, assistance to layman in
need of basic institutional services
from government or non-government
agencies like birth, marriage,
property, or business registration,
obtaining documents like clearance,
passports, local or foreign visas,
constitutes practice of law?
xxx xxx xxx
The Integrated Bar of the Philippines
(IBP) does not wish to make issue
with respondent's foreign citations.
Suffice it to state that the IBP has
made its position manifest, to wit,
that it strongly opposes the view
espoused by respondent (to the
effect that today it is alright to
advertise one's legal services).
The IBP accordingly declares in no
uncertain terms its opposition to
respondent's act of establishing a
"legal clinic" and of concomitantly
advertising the same through
newspaper publications.
 LEGAL ETHICS FEBRUARY 5, 2018 ACJUCO 36
The IBP would therefore invoke the
administrative supervision of this
Honorable Court to perpetually
restrain respondent from
undertaking highly unethical
activities in the field of law practice
as aforedescribed.4
xxx xxx xxx
A. The use of the name "The Legal
Clinic, Inc." gives the impression that
respondent corporation is being
operated by lawyers and that it
renders legal services.
While the respondent repeatedly
denies that it offers legal services to
the public, the advertisements in
question give the impression that
respondent is offering legal services.
The Petition in fact simply assumes
this to be so, as earlier mentioned,
apparently because this (is) the
effect that the advertisements have
on the reading public.
The impression created by the
advertisements in question can be
traced, first of all, to the very name
being used by respondent — "The
Legal Clinic, Inc." Such a name, it is
respectfully submitted connotes the
rendering of legal services for legal
problems, just like a medical clinic
connotes medical services for
medical problems. More importantly,
the term "Legal Clinic" connotes
lawyers, as the term medical clinic
connotes doctors.
Furthermore, the respondent's
name, as published in the
advertisements subject of the
present case, appears with (the)
scale(s) of justice, which all the more
reinforces the impression that it is
being operated by members of the
bar and that it offers legal services.
In addition, the advertisements in
question appear with a picture and
name of a person being represented
as a lawyer from Guam, and this
practically removes whatever doubt
may still remain as to the nature of
the service or services being offered.
It thus becomes irrelevant whether
respondent is merely offering "legal
support services" as claimed by it, or
whether it offers legal services as
any lawyer actively engaged in law
practice does. And it becomes
unnecessary to make a distinction
between "legal services" and "legal
support services," as the respondent
would have it. The advertisements in
question leave no room for doubt in
the minds of the reading public that
legal services are being offered by
lawyers, whether true or not.
B. The advertisements in question
are meant to induce the performance
of acts contrary to law, morals, public
order and public policy.
It may be conceded that, as the
respondent claims, the
advertisements in question are only
meant to inform the general public of
the services being offered by it. Said
advertisements, however,
emphasize to Guam divorce, and
any law student ought to know that
under the Family Code, there is only
one instance when a foreign divorce
is recognized, and that is:
Article 26. . . .
 LEGAL ETHICS FEBRUARY 5, 2018 ACJUCO 37
Where a marriage
between a Filipino
citizen and a foreigner
is validly celebrated
and a divorce is
thereafter validly
obtained abroad by the
alien spouse
capacitating him or her
to remarry, the Filipino
spouse shall have
capacity to remarry
under Philippine Law.
It must not be forgotten, too, that the
Family Code (defines) a marriage as
follows:
Article 1. Marriage
is special contract of
permanent
union between a man
and woman entered
into accordance with
law for the
establishment of
conjugal and family
life. It is the foundation
of the family and an
inviolable social
institution whose
nature, consequences,
and incidents are
governed by law and
not subject to
stipulation, except that
marriage settlements
may fix the property
relation during the
marriage within the
limits provided by this
Code.
By simply reading the questioned
advertisements, it is obvious that the
message being conveyed is that
Filipinos can avoid the legal
consequences of a marriage
celebrated in accordance with our
law, by simply going to Guam for a
divorce. This is not only misleading,
but encourages, or serves to induce,
violation of Philippine law. At the very
least, this can be considered "the
dark side" of legal practice, where
certain defects in Philippine laws are
exploited for the sake of profit. At
worst, this is outright malpractice.
Rule 1.02. — A lawyer
shall not counsel or
abet activities aimed at
defiance of the law or
at lessening
confidence in the legal
system.
In addition, it may also be relevant to
point out that advertisements such
as that shown in Annex "A" of the
Petition, which contains a cartoon of
a motor vehicle with the words "Just
Married" on its bumper and seems to
address those planning a "secret
marriage," if not suggesting a "secret
marriage," makes light of the "special
contract of permanent union," the
inviolable social institution," which is
how the Family Code describes
marriage, obviously to emphasize its
sanctity and inviolability. Worse, this
particular advertisement appears to
encourage marriages celebrated in
secrecy, which is suggestive of
immoral publication of applications
for a marriage license.
If the article "Rx for Legal Problems"
is to be reviewed, it can readily be
concluded that the above
impressions one may gather from
the advertisements in question are
 LEGAL ETHICS FEBRUARY 5, 2018 ACJUCO 38
accurate. The Sharon Cuneta-
Gabby Concepcion example alone
confirms what the advertisements
suggest. Here it can be seen that
criminal acts are being encouraged
or committed
(a bigamous marriage in Hong Kong
or Las Vegas) with impunity simply
because the jurisdiction of Philippine
courts does not extend to the place
where the crime is committed.
Even if it be assumed, arguendo,
(that) the "legal support services"
respondent offers do not constitute
legal services as commonly
understood, the advertisements in
question give the impression that
respondent corporation is being
operated by lawyers and that it offers
legal services, as earlier discussed.
Thus, the only logical consequence
is that, in the eyes of an ordinary
newspaper reader, members of the
bar themselves are encouraging or
inducing the performance of acts
which are contrary to law, morals,
good customs and the public good,
thereby destroying and demeaning
the integrity of the Bar.
xxx xxx xxx
It is respectfully submitted that
respondent should be enjoined from
causing the publication of the
advertisements in question, or any
other advertisements similar thereto.
It is also submitted that respondent
should be prohibited from further
performing or offering some of the
services it presently offers, or, at the
very least, from offering such
services to the public in general.
The IBP is aware of the fact that
providing computerized legal
research, electronic data gathering,
storage and retrieval, standardized
legal forms, investigators for
gathering of evidence, and like
services will greatly benefit the legal
profession and should not be stifled
but instead encouraged. However,
when the conduct of such business
by non-members of the Bar
encroaches upon the practice of law,
there can be no choice but to prohibit
such business.
Admittedly, many of the services
involved in the case at bar can be
better performed by specialists in
other fields, such as computer
experts, who by reason of their
having devoted time and effort
exclusively to such field cannot fulfill
the exacting requirements for
admission to the Bar. To prohibit
them from "encroaching" upon the
legal profession will deny the
profession of the great benefits and
advantages of modern technology.
Indeed, a lawyer using a computer
will be doing better than a lawyer
using a typewriter, even if both are
(equal) in skill.
Both the Bench and the Bar,
however, should be careful not to
allow or tolerate the illegal practice of
law in any form, not only for the
protection of members of the Bar but
also, and more importantly, for the
protection of the public.
Technological development in the
profession may be encouraged
without tolerating, but instead
ensuring prevention of illegal
practice.
 LEGAL ETHICS FEBRUARY 5, 2018 ACJUCO 39
There might be nothing
objectionable if respondent is
allowed to perform all of its services,
but only if such services are made
available exclusively to members of
the Bench and Bar. Respondent
would then be offering technical
assistance, not legal services.
Alternatively, the more difficult task
of carefully distinguishing between
which service may be offered to the
public in general and which should
be made available exclusively to
members of the Bar may be
undertaken. This, however, may
require further proceedings because
of the factual considerations
involved.
It must be emphasized, however,
that some of respondent's services
ought to be prohibited outright, such
as acts which tend to suggest or
induce celebration abroad of
marriages which are bigamous or
otherwise illegal and void under
Philippine law. While respondent
may not be prohibited from simply
disseminating information regarding
such matters, it must be required to
include, in the information given, a
disclaimer that it is not authorized to
practice law, that certain course of
action may be illegal under
Philippine law, that it is not
authorized or capable of rendering a
legal opinion, that a lawyer should be
consulted before deciding on which
course of action to take, and that it
cannot recommend any particular
lawyer without subjecting itself to
possible sanctions for illegal practice
of law.
If respondent is allowed to advertise,
advertising should be directed
exclusively at members of the Bar,
with a clear and unmistakable
disclaimer that it is not authorized to
practice law or perform legal
services.
The benefits of being assisted by
paralegals cannot be ignored. But
nobody should be allowed to
represent himself as a "paralegal" for
profit, without such term being
clearly defined by rule or regulation,
and without any adequate and
effective means of regulating his
activities. Also, law practice in a
corporate form may prove to be
advantageous to the legal
profession, but before allowance of
such practice may be considered,
the corporation's Article of
Incorporation and By-laws must
conform to each and every provision
of the Code of Professional
Responsibility and the Rules of
Court.5
2. Philippine Bar Association:
xxx xxx xxx.
Respondent asserts that it "is not
engaged in the practice of law but
engaged in giving legal support
services to lawyers and laymen,
through experienced paralegals,
with the use of modern computers
and electronic machines" (pars. 2
and 3, Comment). This is absurd.
Unquestionably, respondent's acts
of holding out itself to the public
under the trade name "The Legal
Clinic, Inc.," and soliciting
employment for its enumerated
services fall within the realm of a
practice which thus yields itself to the
regulatory powers of the Supreme
 LEGAL ETHICS FEBRUARY 5, 2018 ACJUCO 40
Court. For respondent to say that it is
merely engaged in paralegal work is
to stretch credulity. Respondent's
own commercial advertisement
which announces a certain Atty. Don
Parkinson to be handling the fields of
law belies its pretense. From all
indications, respondent "The Legal
Clinic, Inc." is offering and
rendering legal services through its
reserve of lawyers. It has been held
that the practice of law is not limited
to the conduct of cases in court, but
includes drawing of deeds,
incorporation, rendering
opinions, and advising clients as to
their legal right and then take them to
an attorney and ask the latter to look
after their case in court See Martin,
Legal and Judicial Ethics, 1984 ed.,
p. 39).
It is apt to recall that only natural
persons can engage in the practice
of law, and such limitation cannot be
evaded by a corporation employing
competent lawyers to practice for it.
Obviously, this is the scheme or
device by which respondent "The
Legal Clinic, Inc." holds out itself to
the public and solicits employment of
its legal services. It is an odious
vehicle for deception, especially so
when the public cannot ventilate any
grievance for malpractice against
the business conduit. Precisely, the
limitation of practice of law to
persons who have been duly
admitted as members of the Bar
(Sec. 1, Rule 138, Revised Rules of
Court) is to subject the members to
the discipline of the Supreme Court.
Although respondent uses
its business name, the persons and
the lawyers who act for it are subject
to court discipline. The practice of
law is not a profession open to all
who wish to engage in it nor can it be
assigned to another (See 5 Am. Jur.
270). It is a personal right limited to
persons who have qualified
themselves under the law. It follows
that not only respondent but also all
the persons who are acting for
respondent are the persons engaged
in unethical law practice.6
3. Philippine Lawyers' Association:
The Philippine Lawyers'
Association's position, in answer to
the issues stated herein, are wit:
1. The Legal Clinic is engaged in the
practice of law;
2. Such practice is unauthorized;
3. The advertisements complained of
are not only unethical, but also
misleading and patently immoral;
and
4. The Honorable Supreme Court
has the power to supress and punish
the Legal Clinic and its corporate
officers for its unauthorized practice
of law and for its unethical,
misleading and immoral advertising.
xxx xxx xxx
Respondent posits that is it not
engaged in the practice of law. It
claims that it merely renders "legal
support services" to answers,
litigants and the general public as
enunciated in the Primary Purpose
Clause of its Article(s) of
Incorporation. (See pages 2 to 5 of
Respondent's Comment). But its
advertised services, as enumerated
 LEGAL ETHICS FEBRUARY 5, 2018 ACJUCO 41
above, clearly and convincingly
show that it is indeed engaged in law
practice, albeit outside of court.
As advertised, it offers the general
public its advisory services on
Persons and Family Relations Law,
particularly regarding foreign
divorces, annulment of marriages,
secret marriages, absence and
adoption; Immigration Laws,
particularly on visa related problems,
immigration problems; the
Investments Law of the Philippines
and such other related laws.
Its advertised services unmistakably
require the application of the
aforesaid law, the legal principles
and procedures related thereto, the
legal advices based thereon and
which activities call for legal training,
knowledge and experience.
Applying the test laid down by the
Court in the aforecited Agrava Case,
the activities of respondent fall
squarely and are embraced in what
lawyers and laymen equally term as
"the practice of law."7
4. U.P. Women Lawyers' Circle:
In resolving, the issues before this
Honorable Court, paramount
consideration should be given to the
protection of the general public from
the danger of being exploited by
unqualified persons or entities who
may be engaged in the practice of
law.
At present, becoming a lawyer
requires one to take a rigorous four-
year course of study on top of a four-
year bachelor of arts or sciences
course and then to take and pass the
bar examinations. Only then, is a
lawyer qualified to practice law.
While the use of a paralegal is
sanctioned in many jurisdiction as an
aid to the administration of justice,
there are in those jurisdictions,
courses of study and/or standards
which would qualify these paralegals
to deal with the general public as
such. While it may now be the
opportune time to establish these
courses of study and/or standards,
the fact remains that at present,
these do not exist in the Philippines.
In the meantime, this Honorable
Court may decide to make measures
to protect the general public from
being exploited by those who may be
dealing with the general public in the
guise of being "paralegals" without
being qualified to do so.
In the same manner, the general
public should also be protected from
the dangers which may be brought
about by advertising of legal
services. While it appears that
lawyers are prohibited under the
present Code of Professional
Responsibility from advertising, it
appears in the instant case that legal
services are being advertised not by
lawyers but by an entity staffed by
"paralegals." Clearly, measures
should be taken to protect the
general public from falling prey to
those who advertise legal services
without being qualified to offer such
services. 8
A perusal of the questioned
advertisements of Respondent,
however, seems to give the
impression that information
 LEGAL ETHICS FEBRUARY 5, 2018 ACJUCO 42
regarding validity of marriages,
divorce, annulment of marriage,
immigration, visa extensions,
declaration of absence, adoption and
foreign investment, which are in
essence, legal matters , will be given
to them if they avail of its services.
The Respondent's name — The
Legal Clinic, Inc. — does not help
matters. It gives the impression
again that Respondent will or can
cure the legal problems brought to
them. Assuming that Respondent is,
as claimed, staffed purely by
paralegals, it also gives the
misleading impression that there are
lawyers involved in The Legal Clinic,
Inc., as there are doctors in any
medical clinic, when only
"paralegals" are involved in The
Legal Clinic, Inc.
Respondent's allegations are further
belied by the very admissions of its
President and majority stockholder,
Atty. Nogales, who gave an insight
on the structure and main purpose of
Respondent corporation in the
aforementioned "Starweek" article."9
5. Women Lawyer's Association of
the Philippines:
Annexes "A" and "B" of the petition
are clearly advertisements to solicit
cases for the purpose of gain which,
as provided for under the above cited
law, (are) illegal and against the
Code of Professional Responsibility
of lawyers in this country.
Annex "A" of the petition is not only
illegal in that it is an advertisement to
solicit cases, but it is illegal in that in
bold letters it announces that the
Legal Clinic, Inc., could work
out/cause the celebration of a secret
marriage which is not only illegal but
immoral in this country. While it is
advertised that one has to go to said
agency and pay P560 for a valid
marriage it is certainly fooling the
public for valid marriages in the
Philippines are solemnized only by
officers authorized to do so under the
law. And to employ an agency for
said purpose of contracting marriage
is not necessary.
No amount of reasoning that in the
USA, Canada and other countries
the trend is towards allowing lawyers
to advertise their special skills to
enable people to obtain from
qualified practitioners legal services
for their particular needs can justify
the use of advertisements such as
are the subject matter of the petition,
for one (cannot) justify an illegal act
even by whatever merit the illegal act
may serve. The law has yet to be
amended so that such act could
become justifiable.
We submit further that these
advertisements that seem to project
that secret marriages and divorce
are possible in this country for a fee,
when in fact it is not so, are highly
reprehensible.
It would encourage people to consult
this clinic about how they could go
about having a secret marriage here,
when it cannot nor should ever be
attempted, and seek advice on
divorce, where in this country there
is none, except under the Code of
Muslim Personal Laws in the
Philippines. It is also against good
morals and is deceitful because it
falsely represents to the public to be
 LEGAL ETHICS FEBRUARY 5, 2018 ACJUCO 43

able to do that which by our laws consultant's)

cannot be done (and) by our Code of knowledge of the law,
Morals should not be done. and his use of that
knowledge as a factor
In the case (of) In re Taguda, 53 Phil. in determining what
37, the Supreme Court held that measures he shall
solicitation for clients by an attorney recommend, do not
by circulars of advertisements, is constitute the practice
unprofessional, and offenses of this of law . . . . It is not only
character justify permanent presumed that all men
10 know the law, but it is a
elimination from the Bar.
fact that most men
6. Federacion Internacional de have considerable
Abogados: acquaintance with
broad features of the
xxx xxx xxx law . . . . Our
knowledge of the law
1.7 That entities admittedly not — accurate or
engaged in the practice of law, such inaccurate — moulds
as management consultancy firms or our conduct not only
travel agencies, whether run by when we are acting for
lawyers or not, perform the services ourselves, but when
rendered by Respondent does not we are serving others.
necessarily lead to the conclusion Bankers, liquor dealers
that Respondent is not unlawfully and laymen generally
practicing law. In the same vein, possess rather precise
however, the fact that the business knowledge of the laws
of respondent (assuming it can be touching their
engaged in independently of the particular business or
practice of law) involves knowledge profession. A good
of the law does not necessarily make example is the
respondent guilty of unlawful architect, who must be
practice of law. familiar with zoning,
building and fire
. . . . Of necessity, no prevention codes,
one . . . . acting as a factory and tenement
consultant can render house statutes, and
effective service who draws plans and
unless he is familiar specification in
with such statutes and harmony with the law.
regulations. He must This is not practicing
be careful not to law.
suggest a course of
conduct which the law But suppose the
forbids. It seems . . . architect, asked by his
.clear that (the client to omit a fire
 LEGAL ETHICS FEBRUARY 5, 2018 ACJUCO 44

tower, replies that it is this is not the case.

required by the statute. The most important
Or the industrial body of the industrial
relations expert cites, relations experts are
in support of some the officers and
measure that he business agents of the
recommends, a labor unions and few of
decision of the them are lawyers.
National Labor Among the larger
Relations Board. Are corporate employers, it
they practicing law? In has been the practice
my opinion, they are for some years to
not, provided no delegate special
separate fee is responsibility in
charged for the legal employee matters to a
advice or information, management group
and the legal question chosen for their
is subordinate and practical knowledge
incidental to a major and skill in such
non-legal problem. matter, and without
regard to legal thinking
It is largely a matter of or lack of it. More
degree and of custom. recently, consultants
like the defendants
If it were usual for one have the same service
intending to erect a that the larger
building on his land to employers get from
engage a lawyer to their own specialized
advise him and the staff.
architect in respect to
the building code and The handling of
the like, then an industrial relations is
architect who growing into a
performed this function recognized profession
would probably be for which appropriate
considered to be courses are offered by
trespassing on territory our leading
reserved for licensed universities. The court
attorneys. Likewise, if should be very
the industrial relations cautious about
field had been pre- declaring [that] a
empted by lawyers, or widespread, well-
custom placed a established method of
lawyer always at the conducting business is
elbow of the lay unlawful, or that the
personnel man. But considerable class of
 LEGAL ETHICS FEBRUARY 5, 2018 ACJUCO 45

men who customarily does not transform his

perform a certain activities into the
function have no right practice of law. Let me
to do so, or that the add that if, even as a
technical education minor feature of his
given by our schools work, he performed
cannot be used by the services which are
graduates in their customarily reserved
business. to members of the bar,
he would be practicing
In determining whether law. For instance, if as
a man is practicing law, part of a welfare
we should consider his program, he drew
work for any particular employees' wills.
client or customer, as a
whole. I can imagine Another branch of
defendant being defendant's work is the
engaged primarily to representations of the
advise as to the law employer in the
defining his client's adjustment of
obligations to his grievances and in
employees, to guide collective bargaining,
his client's obligations with or without a
to his employees, to mediator. This is not
guide his client along per se the practice of
the path charted by law. Anyone may use
law. This, of course, an agent for
would be the practice negotiations and may
of the law. But such is select an agent
not the fact in the case particularly skilled in
before me. the subject under
Defendant's primarily discussion, and the
efforts are along person appointed is
economic and free to accept the
psychological lines. employment whether
The law only provides or not he is a member
the frame within which of the bar. Here,
he must work, just as however, there may be
the zoning code limits an exception where
the kind of building the the business turns on a
limits the kind of question of law. Most
building the architect real estate sales are
may plan. The negotiated by brokers
incidental legal advice who are not lawyers.
or information But if the value of the
defendant may give, land depends on a
 LEGAL ETHICS FEBRUARY 5, 2018 ACJUCO 46

disputed right-of-way power to interfere with

and the principal role of such determination or
the negotiator is to to forbid
assess the probable representation before
outcome of the dispute the agency by one
and persuade the whom the agency
opposite party to the admits. The rules of
same opinion, then it the National Labor
may be that only a Relations Board give
lawyer can accept the to a party the right to
assignment. Or if a appear in person, or by
controversy between counsel, or by other
an employer and his representative. Rules
men grows from and Regulations,
differing interpretations September 11th, 1946,
of a contract, or of a S. 203.31. 'Counsel'
statute, it is quite likely here means a licensed
that defendant should attorney, and ther
not handle it. But I representative' one not
need not reach a a lawyer. In this phase
definite conclusion of his work, defendant
here, since the may lawfully do
situation is not whatever the Labor
presented by the Board allows, even
proofs. arguing questions
purely legal.
Defendant also (Auerbacher v. Wood,
appears to represent 53 A. 2d 800, cited in
the employer before Statsky, Introduction to
administrative Paralegalism [1974], at
agencies of the federal pp. 154-156.).
government,
especially before trial 1.8 From the foregoing, it can be said
examiners of the that a person engaged in a lawful
National Labor calling (which may involve
Relations Board. An knowledge of the law) is not engaged
agency of the federal in the practice of law provided that:
government, acting by
virtue of an authority (a) The legal question is subordinate
granted by the and incidental to a major non-legal
Congress, may problem;.
regulate the
representation of (b) The services performed are not
parties before such customarily reserved to members of
agency. The State of the bar; .
New Jersey is without
 LEGAL ETHICS FEBRUARY 5, 2018 ACJUCO 47

(c) No separate fee is charged for the materials on the subject and
legal advice or information. determines on the subject and
determines by himself what courses
All these must be considered in of action to take.
relation to the work for any particular
client as a whole. It is not entirely improbable,
however, that aside from purely
1.9. If the person involved is both giving information, the Legal Clinic's
lawyer and non-lawyer, the Code of paralegals may apply the law to the
Professional Responsibility succintly particular problem of the client, and
states the rule of conduct: give legal advice. Such would
constitute unauthorized practice of
Rule 15.08 — A lawyer who is law.
engaged in another profession or
occupation concurrently with the It cannot be claimed
practice of law shall make clear to his that the publication of a
client whether he is acting as a legal text which
lawyer or in another capacity. publication of a legal
text which purports to
1.10. In the present case. the Legal say what the law is
Clinic appears to render wedding amount to legal
services (See Annex "A" Petition). practice. And the mere
Services on routine, straightforward fact that the principles
marriages, like securing a marriage or rules stated in the
license, and making arrangements text may be accepted
with a priest or a judge, may not by a particular reader
constitute practice of law. However, as a solution to his
if the problem is as complicated as problem does not
that described in "Rx for Legal affect this. . . . .
Problems" on the Sharon Cuneta- Apparently it is urged
Gabby Concepcion-Richard Gomez that the conjoining of
case, then what may be involved is these two, that is, the
actually the practice of law. If a non- text and the forms, with
lawyer, such as the Legal Clinic, advice as to how the
renders such services then it is forms should be filled
engaged in the unauthorized out, constitutes the
practice of law. unlawful practice of
law. But that is the
1.11. The Legal Clinic also appears situation with many
to give information on divorce, approved and
absence, annulment of marriage and accepted texts.
visas (See Annexes "A" and "B" Dacey's book is sold to
Petition). Purely giving informational the public at
materials may not constitute of law. large. There is no
The business is similar to that of a personal contact or
bookstore where the customer buys relationship with a
 LEGAL ETHICS FEBRUARY 5, 2018 ACJUCO 48

particular individual. defendant maintaining

Nor does there exist an office for the
that relation of purpose of selling to
confidence and trust persons seeking a
so necessary to the divorce, separation,
status of attorney and annulment or
client. THIS IS THE separation agreement
ESSENTIAL OF any printed material or
LEGAL PRACTICE — writings relating to
THE matrimonial law or the
REPRESENTATION prohibition in the
AND ADVISING OF A memorandum of
PARTICULAR modification of the
PERSON IN A judgment against
PARTICULAR defendant having an
SITUATION. At most interest in any
the book assumes to publishing house
offer general advice on publishing his
common problems, manuscript on divorce
and does not purport to and against his having
give personal advice any personal contact
on a specific problem with any prospective
peculiar to a purchaser. The record
designated or readily does fully support,
identified person. however, the finding
Similarly the that for the change of
defendant's $75 or $100 for the kit,
publication does not the defendant gave
purport to give legal advice in the
personal advice on a course of personal
specific problem contacts concerning
peculiar to a particular problems
designated or readily which might arise in
identified person in a the preparation and
particular situation — presentation of the
in their publication and purchaser's asserted
sale of the kits, such matrimonial cause of
publication and sale action or pursuit of
did not constitutes the other legal remedies
unlawful practice of and assistance in the
law . . . . There being preparation of
no legal impediment necessary documents
under the statute to the (The injunction
sale of the kit, there therefore sought to)
was no proper basis for enjoin conduct
the injunction against constituting the
 LEGAL ETHICS FEBRUARY 5, 2018 ACJUCO 49

practice of law, necessarily related to the first

particularly with paragraph) fails to state the limitation
reference to the giving that only "paralegal services?" or
of advice and counsel "legal support services", and not
by the defendant legal services, are available." 11
relating to specific
problems of particular A prefatory discussion on the meaning of the
individuals in phrase "practice of law" becomes exigent for the
connection with a proper determination of the issues raised by the
divorce, separation, petition at bar. On this score, we note that the
annulment of clause "practice of law" has long been the subject
separation agreement of judicial construction and interpretation. The
sought and should be courts have laid down general principles and
affirmed. (State v. doctrines explaining the meaning and scope of the
Winder, 348, NYS 2D term, some of which we now take into account.
270 [1973], cited in
Statsky, supra at p. Practice of law means any activity, in or out of
101.). court, which requires the application of law, legal
procedures, knowledge, training and experience.
1.12. Respondent, of course, states To engage in the practice of law is to perform those
that its services are "strictly non- acts which are characteristic of the profession.
diagnostic, non-advisory. "It is not Generally, to practice law is to give advice or
controverted, however, that if the render any kind of service that involves legal
services "involve giving legal advice knowledge or skill. 12
or counselling," such would
constitute practice of law (Comment, The practice of law is not limited to the conduct of
par. 6.2). It is in this light that FIDA cases in court. It includes legal advice and
submits that a factual inquiry may be counsel, and the preparation of legal instruments
necessary for the judicious and contract by which legal rights are secured,
disposition of this case. although such matter may or may not be pending
in a court. 13
xxx xxx xxx
In the practice of his profession, a licensed
2.10. Annex "A" may be ethically attorney at law generally engages in three principal
objectionable in that it can give the
types of professional activity: legal advice and
impression (or perpetuate the wrong instructions to clients to inform them of their rights
notion) that there is a secret and obligations, preparation for clients of
marriage. With all the solemnities, documents requiring knowledge of legal principles
formalities and other requisites of not possessed by ordinary layman, and
marriages (See Articles 2, et seq., appearance for clients before public tribunals
Family Code), no Philippine
which possess power and authority to determine
marriage can be secret. rights of life, liberty, and property according to law,
in order to assist in proper interpretation and
2.11. Annex "B" may likewise be enforcement of law. 14
ethically objectionable. The second
paragraph thereof (which is not
 LEGAL ETHICS FEBRUARY 5, 2018 ACJUCO 50
When a person participates in the a trial and
advertises himself as a lawyer, he is in the practice
of law. 15 One who confers with clients, advises
them as to their legal rights and then takes the
business to an attorney and asks the latter to look
after the case in court, is also practicing
law. 16 Giving advice for compensation regarding
the legal status and rights of another and the
conduct with respect thereto constitutes a practice
of law. 17 One who renders an opinion as to the
proper interpretation of a statute, and receives pay
for it, is, to that extent, practicing law. 18
In the recent case of Cayetano vs.
19
Monsod, after citing the doctrines in several
cases, we laid down the test to determine whether
certain acts constitute "practice of law," thus:
Black defines "practice of law" as:
The rendition of services requiring
the knowledge and the application of
legal principles and technique to
serve the interest of another with his
consent. It is not limited to appearing This Court,
in court, or advising and assisting in Association
the conduct of litigation, but 177),stated:
embraces the preparation of
pleadings, and other papers incident
to actions and special proceedings,
conveyancing, the preparation of
legal instruments of all kinds, and the
giving of all legal advice to clients. It
embraces all advice to clients and all
actions taken for them in matters
connected with the law.
The practice of law is not limited to the conduct of
cases on court.(Land Title Abstract and Trust Co.
v. Dworken , 129 Ohio St. 23, 193N. E. 650). A
person is also considered to be in the practice of
law when he:
. . . . for valuable consideration
engages in the business of advising
person, firms, associations or
corporations as to their right under
the law, or appears in a
representative capacity as an
advocate in proceedings, pending or
prospective, before any court,
commissioner, referee, board, body,
committee, or commission
constituted by law or authorized to
settle controversies and there, in
such representative capacity,
performs any act or acts for the
purpose of obtaining or defending
the rights of their clients under the
law. Otherwise stated, one who, in a
representative capacity, engages in
the business of advising clients as to
their rights under the law, or while so
engaged performs any act or acts
either in court or outside of court for
that purpose, is engaged in the
practice of law. (State ex. rel.
Mckittrick v. C.S. Dudley and Co.,
102 S. W. 2d 895, 340 Mo. 852).
in the case of Philippines Lawyers
v. Agrava (105 Phil. 173, 176-
The practice of law is not limited to
the conduct of cases or litigation in
court; it embraces the preparation of
pleadings and other papers incident
to actions and special proceedings,
the management of such actions and
proceedings on behalf of clients
before judges and courts, and in
addition, conveying. In general, all
advice to clients, and all action taken
for them in matters connected with
the law incorporation services,
assessment and condemnation
services contemplating an
appearance before a judicial body,
the foreclosure of a mortgage,
enforcement of a creditor's claim in
bankruptcy and insolvency
 LEGAL ETHICS FEBRUARY 5, 2018 ACJUCO 51
proceedings, and conducting
proceedings in attachment, and in
matters or estate and guardianship
have been held to constitute law
practice, as do the preparation and
drafting of legal instruments, where
the work done involves the
determination by the trained legal
mind of the legal effect of facts and
conditions. (5 Am. Jr. p. 262, 263).
Practice of law under modern
conditions consists in no small part
of work performed outside of any
court and having no immediate
relation to proceedings in court. It
embraces conveyancing, the giving
of legal advice on a large variety of
subjects and the preparation and
execution of legal instruments
covering an extensive field of
business and trust relations and
other affairs. Although these
transactions may have no direct
connection with court proceedings,
they are always subject to become
involved in litigation. They require in
many aspects a high degree of legal
skill, a wide experience with men and
affairs, and great capacity for
adaptation to difficult and complex
situations. These customary
functions of an attorney or counselor
at law bear an intimate relation to the
administration of justice by the
courts. No valid distinction, so far as
concerns the question set forth in the
order, can be drawn between that
part of the work of the lawyer which
involves appearance in court and
that part which involves advice and
drafting of instruments in his office. It
is of importance to the welfare of the
public that these manifold customary
functions be performed by persons
possessed of adequate learning and
skill, of sound moral character, and
acting at all times under the heavy
trust obligations to clients which
rests upon all attorneys. (Moran,
Comments on the Rules o Court,
Vol. 3 [1973 ed.], pp. 665-666, citing
In Re Opinion of the Justices [Mass],
194 N. E. 313, quoted in Rhode Is.
Bar Assoc. v. Automobile Service
Assoc. [R.I.] 197 A. 139, 144).
The practice of law, therefore, covers a wide range
of activities in and out of court. Applying the
aforementioned criteria to the case at bar, we
agree with the perceptive findings and
observations of the aforestated bar associations
that the activities of respondent, as advertised,
constitute "practice of law."
The contention of respondent that it merely offers
legal support services can neither be seriously
considered nor sustained. Said proposition is
belied by respondent's own description of the
services it has been offering, to wit:
Legal support services basically
consists of giving ready information
by trained paralegals to laymen and
lawyers, which are strictly non-
diagnostic, non-advisory, through
the extensive use of computers and
modern information technology in
the gathering, processing, storage,
transmission and reproduction of
information and communication,
such as computerized legal
research; encoding and reproduction
of documents and pleadings
prepared by laymen or lawyers;
document search; evidence
gathering; locating parties or
witnesses to a case; fact finding
investigations; and assistance to
laymen in need of basic institutional
services from government or non-
government agencies, like birth,
 LEGAL ETHICS FEBRUARY 5, 2018 ACJUCO 52
marriage, property, or business
registrations; educational or
employment records or
certifications, obtaining
documentation like clearances,
passports, local or foreign visas;
giving information about laws of
other countries that they may find
useful, like foreign divorce, marriage
or adoption laws that they can avail
of preparatory to emigration to the
foreign country, and other matters
that do not involve representation of
clients in court; designing and
installing computer systems,
programs, or software for the
efficient management of law offices,
corporate legal departments, courts
and other entities engaged in
dispensing or administering legal
services. 20
While some of the services being offered by
respondent corporation merely involve mechanical
and technical knowhow, such as the installation of
computer systems and programs for the efficient
management of law offices, or the computerization
of research aids and materials, these will not
suffice to justify an exception to the general rule.
What is palpably clear is that respondent
corporation gives out legal information to laymen
and lawyers. Its contention that such function is
non-advisory and non-diagnostic is more apparent
than real. In providing information, for example,
about foreign laws on marriage, divorce and
adoption, it strains the credulity of this Court that
all the respondent corporation will simply do is look
for the law, furnish a copy thereof to the client, and
stop there as if it were merely a bookstore. 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
advertisements represent and for the which
services it will consequently charge and be paid.
That activity falls squarely within the jurisprudential
definition of "practice of law." Such a conclusion
will not be altered by the fact that respondent
corporation does not represent clients in court
since law practice, as the weight of authority holds,
is not limited merely giving legal advice, contract
drafting and so forth.
The aforesaid conclusion is further strengthened
by an article published in the January 13, 1991
issue of the Starweek/The Sunday Magazine of
the Philippines Star, entitled "Rx for Legal
Problems," where an insight into the structure,
main purpose and operations of respondent
corporation was given by its own "proprietor," Atty.
Rogelio P. Nogales:
This is the kind of business that is
transacted everyday at The Legal
Clinic, with offices on the seventh
floor of the Victoria Building along U.
N. Avenue in Manila. No matter what
the client's problem, and even if it is
as complicated as the Cuneta-
Concepcion domestic situation, Atty.
Nogales 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 specialist are
backed up by a battery of paralegals,
counsellors and attorneys.
Atty. Nogales set up The Legal Clinic
in 1984. Inspired by the trend in the
medical field toward specialization, it
caters to clients who cannot afford
the services of the big law firms.
The Legal Clinic has regular and
walk-in clients. "when they come, we
start by analyzing the problem.
That's what doctors do also. They
 LEGAL ETHICS FEBRUARY 5, 2018 ACJUCO 53
ask you how you contracted what's
bothering you, they take your
temperature, they observe you for
the symptoms and so on. That's how
we operate, too. And once the
problem has been categorized, then
it's referred to one of our specialists.
There are cases which do not, in
medical terms, require surgery or
follow-up treatment. These The
Legal Clinic disposes of in a matter
of minutes. "Things like preparing a
simple deed of sale or an affidavit of
loss can be taken care of by our staff
or, if this were a hospital the
residents or the interns. We can take
care of these matters on a while you
wait basis. Again, kung baga sa
hospital, out-patient, hindi
kailangang ma-confine. It's just like a
common cold or diarrhea," explains
Atty. Nogales.
Those cases which requires more
extensive "treatment" are dealt with
accordingly. "If you had a rich
relative who died and named you her
sole heir, and you stand to inherit
millions of pesos of property, we
would refer you to a specialist in
taxation. There would be real estate
taxes and arrears which would need
to be put in order, and your relative
is even taxed by the state for the right
to transfer her property, and only a
specialist in taxation would be
properly trained to deal with the
problem. Now, if there were other
heirs contesting your rich relatives
will, then you would need a litigator,
who knows how to arrange the
problem for presentation in court,
and gather evidence to support the
case. 21
That fact that the corporation employs paralegals
to carry out its services is not controlling. What is
important is that it is engaged in the practice of law
by virtue of the nature of the services it renders
which thereby brings it within the ambit of the
statutory prohibitions against the advertisements
which it has caused to be published and are now
assailed in this proceeding.
Further, as correctly and appropriately pointed out
by the U.P. WILOCI, said reported facts sufficiently
establish that the main purpose of respondent is to
serve as a one-stop-shop of sorts for 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. 22
It should be noted that in our jurisdiction the
services being offered by private respondent which
constitute practice of law cannot be performed by
paralegals. Only a person duly admitted as a
member of the bar, or hereafter admitted as such
in accordance with the provisions of the Rules of
Court, and who is in good and regular standing, is
entitled to practice law. 23
Public policy requires that the practice of law be
limited to those individuals found duly qualified in
education and character. The permissive right
conferred on the lawyers is an individual and
limited privilege subject to withdrawal if he fails to
maintain proper standards of moral and
professional conduct. The purpose is to protect the
public, the court, the client and the bar from the
incompetence or dishonesty of those unlicensed to
practice law and not subject to the disciplinary
control of the court. 24
The same rule is observed in the american
jurisdiction wherefrom respondent would wish to
draw support for his thesis. The doctrines there
also stress that the practice of law is limited to
 LEGAL ETHICS FEBRUARY 5, 2018 ACJUCO 54

those who meet the requirements for, and have States with their own code of professional ethics,
been admitted to, the bar, and various statutes or such as the National Association of Legal
rules specifically so provide. 25 The practice of law Assistants, Inc. and the American Paralegal
is not a lawful business except for members of the Association. 29
bar who have complied with all the conditions
required by statute and the rules of court. Only In the Philippines, we still have a restricted concept
those persons are allowed to practice law who, by and limited acceptance of what may be considered
reason of attainments previously acquired through as paralegal service. As pointed out by FIDA,
education and study, have been recognized by the some persons not duly licensed to practice law are
courts as possessing profound knowledge of legal or have been allowed limited representation in
science entitling them to advise, counsel with, behalf of another or to render legal services, but
protect, or defend the rights claims, or liabilities of such allowable services are limited in scope and
their clients, with respect to the construction, extent by the law, rules or regulations granting
interpretation, operation and effect of law. 26 The permission therefor. 30
justification for excluding from the practice of law
those not admitted to the bar is found, not in the Accordingly, we have adopted the American
protection of the bar from competition, but in the judicial policy that, in the absence of constitutional
protection of the public from being advised and or statutory authority, a person who has not been
represented in legal matters by incompetent and admitted as an attorney cannot practice law for the
unreliable persons over whom the judicial proper administration of justice cannot be hindered
department can exercise little control.27 by the unwarranted intrusion of an unauthorized
and unskilled person into the practice of
We have to necessarily and definitely reject law. 31 That policy should continue to be one of
respondent's position that the concept in the encouraging persons who are unsure of their legal
United States of paralegals as an occupation rights and remedies to seek legal assistance only
separate from the law profession be adopted in this from persons licensed to practice law in the
jurisdiction. Whatever may be its merits, state. 32
respondent cannot but be aware that this should
first be a matter for judicial rules or legislative Anent the issue on the validity of the questioned
action, and not of unilateral adoption as it has advertisements, the Code of Professional
done. Responsibility provides that a lawyer in making
known his legal services shall use only true,
Paralegals in the United States are trained honest, fair, dignified and objective information or
professionals. As admitted by respondent, there statement of facts. 33 He is not supposed to use or
are schools and universities there which offer permit the use of any false, fraudulent, misleading,
studies and degrees in paralegal education, while deceptive, undignified, self-laudatory or unfair
there are none in the Philippines. 28As the concept statement or claim regarding his qualifications or
of the "paralegals" or "legal assistant" evolved in legal services. 34 Nor shall he pay or give
the United States, standards and guidelines also something of value to representatives of the mass
evolved to protect the general public. One of the media in anticipation of, or in return for, publicity to
major standards or guidelines was developed by attract legal business. 35 Prior to the adoption of
the American Bar Association which set up the code of Professional Responsibility, the
Guidelines for the Approval of Legal Assistant Canons of Professional Ethics had also warned
Education Programs (1973). Legislation has even that lawyers should not resort to indirect
been proposed to certify legal assistants. There advertisements for professional employment, such
are also associations of paralegals in the United as furnishing or inspiring newspaper comments, or
 LEGAL ETHICS FEBRUARY 5, 2018 ACJUCO 55

procuring his photograph to be published in justice with mercenary activities as

connection with causes in which the lawyer has the money-changers of old defiled
been or is engaged or concerning the manner of the temple of Jehovah. "The most
their conduct, the magnitude of the interest worthy and effective advertisement
involved, the importance of the lawyer's position, possible, even for a young lawyer, . .
and all other like self-laudation. 36 . . is the establishment of a well-
merited reputation for professional
The standards of the legal profession condemn the capacity and fidelity to trust. This
lawyer's advertisement of his talents. A lawyer cannot be forced but must be the
cannot, without violating the ethics of his outcome of character and conduct."
profession. advertise his talents or skill as in a (Canon 27, Code of Ethics.).
manner similar to a merchant advertising his
goods. 37 The prescription against advertising of We repeat, the canon of the profession tell us that
legal services or solicitation of legal business rests
the best advertising possible for a lawyer is a well-
on the fundamental postulate that the that the merited reputation for professional capacity and
practice of law is a profession. Thus, in the case of
fidelity to trust, which must be earned as the
The Director of Religious Affairs. vs. Estanislao R.outcome of character and conduct. Good and
Bayot 38 an advertisement, similar to those of efficient service to a client as well as to the
respondent which are involved in the present community has a way of publicizing itself and
proceeding, 39 was held to constitute improper catching public attention. That publicity is a normal
advertising or solicitation. by-product of effective service which is right and
proper. A good and reputable lawyer needs no
The pertinent part of the decision therein reads: artificial stimulus to generate it and to magnify his
success. He easily sees the difference between a
It is undeniable that the normal by-product of able service and the
advertisement in question was a unwholesome result of propaganda. 40
flagrant violation by the respondent
of the ethics of his profession, it Of course, not all types of advertising or solicitation
being a brazen solicitation of are prohibited. The canons of the profession
business from the public. Section 25 enumerate exceptions to the rule against
of Rule 127 expressly provides advertising or solicitation and define the extent to
among other things that "the practice which they may be undertaken. The exceptions
of soliciting cases at law for the are of two broad categories, namely, those which
purpose of gain, either personally or are expressly allowed and those which are
thru paid agents or brokers, necessarily implied from the restrictions. 41
constitutes malpractice." It is highly
unethical for an attorney to advertise The first of such exceptions is the publication in
his talents or skill as a merchant reputable law lists, in a manner consistent with the
advertises his wares. Law is a standards of conduct imposed by the canons, of
profession and not a trade. The brief biographical and informative data. "Such data
lawyer degrades himself and his must not be misleading and may include only a
profession who stoops to and adopts statement of the lawyer's name and the names of
the practices of mercantilism by his professional associates; addresses, telephone
advertising his services or offering numbers, cable addresses; branches of law
them to the public. As a member of practiced; date and place of birth and admission to
the bar, he defiles the temple of the bar; schools attended with dates of graduation,
 LEGAL ETHICS FEBRUARY 5, 2018 ACJUCO 56

degrees and other educational distinction; public
or quasi-public offices; posts of honor; legal
authorships; legal teaching positions; membership
and offices in bar associations and committees
thereof, in legal and scientific societies and legal
fraternities; the fact of listings in other reputable
law lists; the names and addresses of references;
and, with their written consent, the names of clients
regularly represented." 42
The law list must be a reputable law list published
primarily for that purpose; it cannot be a mere
supplemental feature of a paper, magazine, trade
journal or periodical which is published principally
for other purposes. For that reason, a lawyer may
not properly publish his brief biographical and
informative data in a daily paper, magazine, trade
journal or society program. Nor may a lawyer
permit his name to be published in a law list the
conduct, management or contents of which are
calculated or likely to deceive or injure the public
or the bar, or to lower the dignity or standing of the
profession. 43
The use of an ordinary simple professional card is
also permitted. The card may contain only a
statement of his name, the name of the law firm
which he is connected with, address, telephone
number and special branch of law practiced. The
publication of a simple announcement of the
opening of a law firm or of changes in the
partnership, associates, firm name or office
address, being for the convenience of the
profession, is not objectionable. He may likewise
have his name listed in a telephone directory but
not under a designation of special branch of law. 44
Verily, taking into consideration the nature and
contents of the advertisements for which
respondent is being taken to task, which even
includes a quotation of the fees charged by said
respondent corporation for services rendered, we
find and so hold that the same definitely do not and Secondly, it is our firm belief that with the present
conclusively cannot fall under any of the above- situation of our legal and judicial systems, to allow
mentioned exceptions. the publication of advertisements of the kind used
by respondent would only serve to aggravate what
The ruling in the case of Bates, et al. vs. State Bar
of Arizona, 45 which is repeatedly invoked and
constitutes the justification relied upon by
respondent, is obviously not applicable to the case
at bar. Foremost is the fact that the disciplinary rule
involved in said case explicitly allows a lawyer, as
an exception to the prohibition against
advertisements by lawyers, to publish a statement
of legal fees for an initial consultation or the
availability upon request of a written schedule of
fees or an estimate of the fee to be charged for the
specific services. No such exception is provided
for, expressly or impliedly, whether in our former
Canons of Professional Ethics or the present Code
of Professional Responsibility. Besides, even the
disciplinary rule in the Bates case contains a
proviso that the exceptions stated therein are "not
applicable in any state unless and until it is
implemented by such authority in that
state." 46 This goes to show that an exception to
the general rule, such as that being invoked by
herein respondent, can be made only if and when
the canons expressly provide for such an
exception. Otherwise, the prohibition stands, as in
the case at bar.
It bears mention that in a survey conducted by the
American Bar Association after the decision in
Bates, on the attitude of the public about lawyers
after viewing television commercials, it was found
that public opinion dropped significantly 47 with
respect to these characteristics of lawyers:
Trustworthy from 71%
to 14%
Professional from 71%
to 14%
Honest from 65% to
14%
Dignified from 45% to
14%
 LEGAL ETHICS FEBRUARY 5, 2018 ACJUCO 57
is already a deteriorating public opinion of the legal
profession whose integrity has consistently been
under attack lately by media and the community in
general. At this point in time, it is of utmost
importance in the face of such negative, even if
unfair, criticisms at times, to adopt and maintain
that level of professional conduct which is beyond
reproach, and to exert all efforts to regain the high
esteem formerly accorded to the legal profession.
In sum, it is undoubtedly a misbehavior on the part
of the lawyer, subject to disciplinary action, to
advertise his services except in allowable
instances 48 or to aid a layman in the unauthorized
practice of law. 49 Considering that Atty. Rogelio P.
Nogales, who is the prime incorporator, major
stockholder and proprietor of The Legal Clinic, Inc.
is a member of the Philippine Bar, he is hereby
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.
While we deem it necessary that the question as
to the legality or illegality of the purpose/s for which
the Legal Clinic, Inc. was created should be
passed upon and determined, we are constrained
to refrain from lapsing into an obiter on that aspect
since it is clearly not within the adjudicative
parameters of the present proceeding which is
merely administrative in nature. It is, of course,
imperative that this matter be promptly
determined, albeit in a different proceeding and
forum, since, under the present state of our law
and jurisprudence, a corporation cannot be
organized for or engage in the practice of law in
this country. This interdiction, just like the rule
against unethical advertising, cannot be subverted
by employing some so-called paralegals
supposedly rendering the alleged support
services.
The remedy for the apparent breach of this
prohibition by respondent is the concern and
province of the Solicitor General who can institute
the corresponding quo warranto action, 50 after
due ascertainment of the factual background and
basis for the grant of respondent's corporate
charter, in light of the putative misuse thereof. That
spin-off from the instant bar matter is referred to
the Solicitor General for such action as may be
necessary under the circumstances.
ACCORDINGLY, the Court Resolved to
RESTRAIN and ENJOIN herein respondent, The
Legal Clinic, Inc., from issuing or causing the
publication or dissemination of any advertisement
in any form which is of the same or similar tenor
and purpose as Annexes "A" and "B" of this
petition, and from conducting, directly or indirectly,
any activity, operation or transaction proscribed by
law or the Code of Professional Ethics as indicated
herein. Let copies of this resolution be furnished
the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, the Office of
the Bar Confidant and the Office of the Solicitor
General for appropriate action in accordance
herewith.
Narvasa, C.J., Cruz, Feliciano, Padilla, Bidin,
Griño-Aquino, Davide, Jr., Romero, Nocon,
Bellosillo, Melo and Quiason, JJ., concur
March 23, 1929
In re LUIS B. TAGORDA,
Duran & Lim for respondent.
Attorney-General Jaranilla and Provincial Fiscal
Jose for the Government.
MALCOLM, J.:
The respondent, Luis B. Tagorda, a practising
attorney and a member of the provincial board of
Isabela, admits that previous to the last general
elections he made use of a card written in Spanish
and Ilocano, which, in translation, reads as follows:
LUIS B. TAGORDA
Attorney
Notary Public
CANDIDATE FOR THIRD MEMBER
Province of Isabela
 LEGAL ETHICS FEBRUARY 5, 2018 ACJUCO 58
(NOTE. — As notary public, he can execute
for you 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,
in translation, reads as follows:
ECHAGUE, ISABELA, September 18, 1928
MY DEAR LIEUTENANT: I would like to
inform you of the approaching date for our
induction into office as member of the
Provincial Board, that is on the 16th of next
month. Before my induction into office I
should be very glad to hear your
suggestions or recommendations for the
good of the province in general and for your
barrio in particular. You can come to my
house at any time here in Echague, to
submit to me any kind of suggestion or
recommendation as you may desire.
I also inform you that despite my
membership in the Board I will have my
residence here in Echague. I will attend the
session of the Board of Ilagan, but will come
back home on the following day here in
Echague to live and serve with you as a
lawyer and notary public. Despite my
election as member of the Provincial Board,
I will exercise my legal profession as a
lawyer and notary public. In case you
cannot see me at home on any week day, I
assure you that you can always find me
there on every Sunday. I also inform you
that I will receive any work regarding
preparations of documents of contract of
sales and affidavits to be sworn to before
me as notary public even on Sundays.
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 Ilagan 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 you kind favor 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. 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.
Yours respectfully,
(Sgd.) LUIS TAGORDA
Attorney
Notary Public.
The facts being conceded, it is next in order to
write down the applicable legal provisions. Section
21 of the Code of Civil Procedure as originally
conceived related to disbarments of members of
the bar. In 1919 at the instigation of the Philippine
Bar Association, said codal section was amended
by Act No. 2828 by adding at the end thereof the
following: "The practice of soliciting cases at law
for the purpose of gain, either personally or
 LEGAL ETHICS FEBRUARY 5, 2018 ACJUCO 59

through paid agents or brokers, constitutes cases where ties of blood, relationship or
malpractice." trust make it his duty to do so. Stirring up
strife and litigation is not only
The statute as amended conforms in principle to unprofessional, but it is indictable at
the Canons of Professionals Ethics adopted by the common law. It is disreputable to hunt up
American Bar Association in 1908 and by the defects in titles or other causes of action
Philippine Bar Association in 1917. Canons 27 and and inform thereof in order to the employed
28 of the Code of Ethics provide: to bring suit, or to breed litigation by seeking
out those with claims for personal injuries or
27. ADVERTISING, DIRECT OR those having any other grounds of action in
INDIRECT. — The most worthy and order to secure them as clients, or to
effective advertisement possible, even for a employ agents or runners for like purposes,
young lawyer, and especially with his or to pay or reward directly or indirectly,
brother lawyers, is the establishment of a those who bring or influence the bringing of
well-merited reputation for professional such cases to his office, or to remunerate
capacity and fidelity to trust. This cannot be policemen, court or prison officials,
forced, but must be the outcome of physicians, hospital attaches or others who
character and conduct. The publication or may succeed, under the guise of giving
circulation of ordinary simple business disinterested friendly advice, in influencing
cards, being a matter of personal taste or the criminal, the sick and the injured, the
local custom, and sometimes of ignorant or others, to seek his professional
convenience, is not per se improper. But services. A duty to the public and to the
solicitation of business by circulars or profession devolves upon every member of
advertisements, or by personal the bar having knowledge of such practices
communications or interview not warranted upon the part of any practitioner
by personal relations, is unprofessional. It is immediately to inform thereof to the end that
equally unprofessional to procure business the offender may be disbarred.
by indirection through touters of any kind,
whether allied real estate firms or trust Common barratry consisting of frequently stirring
companies advertising to secure the up suits and quarrels between individuals was a
drawing of deeds or wills or offering crime at the common law, and one of the penalties
retainers in exchange for executorships or for this offense when committed by an attorney
trusteeships to be influenced by the lawyer.was disbarment. Statutes intended to reach the
Indirect advertisement for business by same evil have been provided in a number of
furnishing or inspiring newspaperjurisdictions usually at the instance of the bar itself,
comments concerning the manner of their and have been upheld as constitutional. The
conduct, the magnitude of the interest reason behind statutes of this type is not difficult to
involved, the importance of the lawyer's discover. The law is a profession and not a
position, and all other like self-laudation,business. The lawyer may not seek or obtain
employment by himself or through others for to do
defy the traditions and lower the tone of our
high calling, and are intolerable. so would be unprofessional. (State vs. Rossman
[1909], 53 Wash., 1; 17 Ann. Cas., 625;
28. STIRRING UP LITIGATION, People vs. Mac Cabe [1893], 19 L. R. A., 231; 2 R.
DIRECTLY OR THROUGH AGENTS. — It C. L., 1097.)
is unprofessional for a lawyer to volunteer
advice to bring a lawsuit, except in rare
 LEGAL ETHICS FEBRUARY 5, 2018 ACJUCO 60

It becomes our duty to condemn in no uncertain
terms the ugly practice of solicitation of cases by
lawyers. It is destructive of the honor of a great
profession. It lowers the standards of that
profession. It works against the confidence of the
community in the integrity of the members of the
bar. It results in needless litigation and in incenting
to strife otherwise peacefully inclined citizens.
practice as an attorney-at-law for the period of one
month from April 1, 1929,
Street, Johns, Romualdez, and Villa-Real, JJ.,
concur.
Johnson, J., reserves his vote.

The solicitation of employment by an attorney is a

ground for disbarment or suspension. That should
be distinctly understood.

Giving application of the law and the Canons of

Ethics to the admitted facts, the respondent stands
convicted of having solicited cases in defiance of
the law and those canons. Accordingly, the only
remaining duty of the court is to fix upon the action
which should here be taken. The provincial fiscal
of Isabela, with whom joined the representative of
the Attorney-General in the oral presentation of the
case, suggests that the respondent be only NO FALSE OF MISLEADING FIRM
reprimanded. We think that our action should go
further than this if only to reflect our attitude toward NAME
cases of this character of which unfortunately the
respondent's is only one. The commission of Adm. Case No. 2131 May 10, 1985
offenses of this nature would amply justify
permanent elimination from the bar. But as ADRIANO E. DACANAY, complainant
mitigating, circumstances working in favor of the vs.
respondent there are, first, his intimation that he BAKER & MCKENZIE and JUAN G. COLLAS
was unaware of the impropriety of his acts, JR., LUIS MA. GUERRERO, VICENTE A.
second, his youth and inexperience at the bar, TORRES, RAFAEL E. EVANGELISTA, JR.,
and, third, his promise not to commit a similar ROMEO L. SALONGA, JOSE R. SANDEJAS,
mistake in the future. A modest period of LUCAS M. NUNAG, J. CLARO TESORO,
suspension would seem to fit the case of the erring NATIVIDAD B. KWAN and JOSE A.
attorney. But it should be distinctly understood that CURAMMENG, JR., respondents.
this result is reached in view of the considerations
which have influenced the court to the relatively Adriano E. Dacanay for and his own behalf.
lenient in this particular instance and should,
therefore, not be taken as indicating that future Madrid, Cacho, Angeles, Dominguez & Pecson
convictions of practice of this kind will not be dealt Law Office for respondents.
with by disbarment.
AQUINO, J.:
In view of all the circumstances of this case, the
judgment of the court is that the respondent Luis Lawyer Adriano E. Dacanay, admitted to the bar in
B. Tagorda be and is hereby suspended from the 1954, in his 1980 verified complaint, sought to
enjoin Juan G. Collas, Jr. and nine other lawyers
 LEGAL ETHICS FEBRUARY 5, 2018 ACJUCO 61

from practising law under the name of Baker & SO ORDERED.

McKenzie, a law firm organized in Illinois.
Teehankee, Acting CJ., Makasiar, Abad Santos,
In a letter dated November 16, 1979 respondent Melencio-Herrera, Escolin, Relova, Gutierrez, Jr.,
Vicente A. Torres, using the letterhead of Baker & De la Fuente, Cuevas and Alampay, JJ., concur.
McKenzie, which contains the names of the ten
lawyers, asked Rosie Clurman for the release of Plana, J., took no part.
87 shares of Cathay Products International, Inc. to
H.E. Gabriel, a client. Fernando, C.J., and Concepcion, Jr., J., are on
leave.
Attorney Dacanay, in his reply dated December 7,
1979, denied any liability of Clurman to Gabriel. He
requested that he be informed whether the lawyer
of Gabriel is Baker & McKenzie "and if not, what is
your purpose in using the letterhead of another law
office." Not having received any reply, he filed the
instant complaint.

We hold that Baker & McKenzie, being an alien law

firm, cannot practice law in the Philippines (Sec. 1,
Rule 138, Rules of Court). As admitted by the
respondents in their memorandum, Baker & A.M. No. P-99-1292 February 26, 1999
McKenzie is a professional partnership organized
in 1949 in Chicago, Illinois with members and JULIETA BORROMEO
associates in 30 cities around the world. SAMONTE, complainant,
Respondents, aside from being members of the vs.
Philippine bar, practising under the firm name of ATTY. ROLANDO R. GATDULA, Branch Clerk
Guerrero & Torres, are members or associates of of Court, respondent.
Baker & Mckenzie.
RESOLUTION
As pointed out by the Solicitor General,
respondents' use of the firm name Baker & GONZAGA-REYES, J.:
McKenzie constitutes a representation that being
associated with the firm they could "render legal The complaint filed by Julieta Borremeo Samonte
services of the highest quality to multinational charges Rolando R. Gatdula, RTC, Branch 220,
business enterprises and others engaged in Quezon City with grave misconduct consisting in
foreign trade and investment" (p. 3, respondents' the alleged engaging in the private practice of law
memo). This is unethical because Baker & which is in conflict with his official functions as
McKenzie is not authorized to practise law here. Branch Clerk of Court.
(See Ruben E. Agpalo, Legal Ethics, 1983 Ed., p.
115.) Complainant alleges that she is the authorized
representative of her sister Flor Borromeo de
WHEREFORE, the respondents are enjoined from Leon, the plaintiff, in Civil Case No. 37-14552 for
practising law under the firm name Baker & ejectment, filed with the Metropolitan Trial Court of
McKenzie. Quezon City, Branch 37. A typographical error was
committed in the complaint which stated that the
 LEGAL ETHICS FEBRUARY 5, 2018 ACJUCO 62
address of defendant is No. 63-C instead of 63-B,
P. Tuazon Blvd., Cubao, Quezon City. The
mistake was rectified by the filing of an amended
complaint which was admitted by the Court. A
decision was rendered in favor of the plaintiff who
subsequently filed a motion for execution.
Complainant, however, was surprised to receive a
temporary restraining order signed by Judge
Prudencio Castillo of Branch 220, RTC, Quezon
City, where Atty. Rolando Gatdula is the Branch
Clerk Court, enjoining the execution of the decision
of the Metropolitan Trial Court. Complainant
alleges that the issuance of the temporary
restraining order was hasty and irregular as she
was never notified of the application for preliminary
injunction.
Complainant further alleges that when she went to
Branch 220, RTC, Quezon City, to inquire about
the reason for the issuance of the temporary
restraining order, respondent Atty. Rolando
Gatdula, blamed her lawyer for writing the wrong
address in the complaint for ejectment, and told
her that if she wanted the execution to proceed,
she should change her lawyer and retain the law
office of respondent, at the same time giving his
calling card with the name "Baligod, Gatdula,
Tacardon, Dimailig and Celera" with office at Rm.
220 Mariwasa Bldg., 717 Aurora Blvd., Cubao,
Quezon City; otherwise she will not be able to eject
the defendant Dave Knope. Complainant told
respondent that she could not decide because she
was only representing her sister. To her
consternation, the RTC Branch 220 issued an
order granting the preliminary injunction as
threatened by the respondent despite the fact that
the MTC, Brach 37 had issued an Order directing
the execution of the Decision in Civil Case No. 37-
14552.
Asked to comment, respondent Atty. Gatdula
recited the antecedents in the ejectment case and
the issuance of the restraining order by the
Regional Trial Court, and claimed that contrary to
complainant Samonte's allegation that she was not
notified of the raffle and the hearing, the Notice of
Hearing on the motion for the issuance of a
Temporary Retraining Order was duly served upon
the parties, and that the application for injunctive
relief was heard before the temporary restraining
order was issued. The preliminary injunction was
also set for hearing on August 7, 1996.
The respondent's version of the incident is that
sometime before the hearing of the motion for the
issuance of the temporary restraining order,
complainant Samonte went to court "very mad"
because of the issuance of the order stopping the
execution of the decision in the ejectment case.
Respondent tried to calm her down, and assured
her that the restraining order was only temporary
and that the application for preliminary injunction
would still be heard. Later the Regional Trial Court
granted the application for a writ of preliminary
injunction. The complainant went back to court
"fuming mad" because of the alleged
unreasonableness of the court in issuing the
injunction.
Respondent Gatdula claims that thereafter
complainant returned to his office, and informed
him that she wanted to change counsel and that a
friend of hers recommended the Law Firm of
"Baligod, Gatdula, Tacardon, Dimailig and Celera,"
at the same time showing a calling card, and
asking if he could handle her case. Respondent
refused as he was not connected with the law firm,
although he was invited to join but he choose to
remain in the judiciary. Complainant returned to
court a few days later and told him that if he cannot
convince the judge to recall the writ of preliminary
injunction, she will file an administrative case
against respondent and the judge. The threat was
repeated but the respondent refused to be
pressured. Meanwhile, the Complainant's Motion
to Dissolve the Writ of Preliminary Injunction was
denied. Respondent Gatdula claims that the
complainant must have filed this administrative
charge because of her frustration in procuring the
ejectment of the defendant lessee from the
premises. Respondent prays for the dismissal of
the complainant against him.
 LEGAL ETHICS FEBRUARY 5, 2018 ACJUCO 63
The case was referred to Executive Judge Estrella
Estrada, RTC, Quezon City, for investigation,
report and recommendation.
In her report, Judge Estrada states that the case
was set for hearing three times, on September 7,
1997, on September 17, and on September 24,
1997, but neither complainant nor her counsel
appeared, despite due notice. The return of
service of the Order setting the last hearing stated
that complainant is still abroad. There being no
definite time conveyed to the court for the return of
the complainant, the investigating Judge
proceeded with the investigation by "conducting
searching question" upon respondent based on
the allegations in the complaint, and asked for the
record of Civil Case No. Q-96-28187 for
evaluation. The case was set for hearing for the
last time on October 22, 1997, to give complainant
a last chance to appear, but there was again no
appearance despite notice.
The respondent testified in his own behalf to affirm
the statements in his Comment, and submitted
documentary evidence consisting mainly of the
pleadings in MTC Civil Case No. 37-14552, and in
RTC Civil Case No. Q-9628187 to show that the
questioned orders of the court were not improperly
issued.
The investigating judge made the following
findings:
For failure of the complainant to
appear at the several hearings
despite notice, she failed to
substantiate her allegations in the
complaint, particularly that herein
respondent gave her his calling card
and tried to convince her to change
her lawyer. This being the case, it
cannot be established with certainty
that respondent indeed gave her his
calling card even convinced her to
change her lawyer. Moreover, as
borne by the records of the Civil
Case No. Q-96-28187, complainant
was duly notified of all the
proceedings leading to the issuance
of the TRO and the subsequent
orders of Judge Prudencio Altre
Castillo, Jr. of RTC, Branch 220.
Complainant's lack of interest in
prosecuting this administrative case
could be an indication that her filing
of the charge against the respondent
is only intended to harass the
respondent for her failure to obtain a
favorable decision from the Court.
However, based on the record of this
administrative case, the calling card
attached as Annex "B" of the
complainant's affidavit dated
September 25, 1996 allegedly given
by respondent to complainant would
show that the name of herein
respondent was indeed include in
the BALIGOD, GATDULA,
TACARDON, DIMAILIG & CELERA
LAW OFFICES. While respondent
denied having assumed any position
in said office, the fact remains that
his name is included therein which
may therefore tend to show that he
has dealings with said office. Thus,
while he may not be actually and
directly employed with the firm, the
fact that his name appears on the
calling card as partner in the Baligod,
Gatdula, Tacardon, Dimailig &
Celera Law Offices give the
impression that he is connected
therein and may constitute an act of
solicitation and private practice
which is declared unlawful under
Republic Act. No. 6713. It is to be
noted, however, that complainant
failed to establish by convincing
evidence that respondent actually
offered to her the services of their
law office. Thus, the violation
 LEGAL ETHICS FEBRUARY 5, 2018 ACJUCO 64
committed by respondent in having
his name included/retained in the
calling card may only be considered
as a minor infraction for which he
must also be administratively
sanctioned.
and recommended that Atty. Gatdula be
admonished and censured for the minor
infraction he has committed.
Finding: We agree with the investigating judge that
the respondent is guilty of an infraction. The
complainant by her failure to appear at the
hearings, failed to substantiate her allegation that
it was the respondent who gave her calling card
"Baligod, Gatdula, Tacardon, Dimailig and Celera
Law Offices" and that he tried to convince her to
change counsels. We find however, that while the
respondent vehemently denies the complainant's
allegations, he does not deny that his name
appears on the calling card attached to the
complaint, which admittedly came into the hands
of the complainant. The respondent testified
before the Investigating Judge as follows:
Q: How about your
statement that you
even gave her a calling
card of the "Baligod,
Gatdula, Pardo,
Dimailig and Celera
law Offices at Room
220 Mariwasa
building?
A: I vehemently deny
the allegation of the
complainant that I
gave her a calling card.
I was surprised when
she presented (it) to
me during one of her
follow-ups of the case
before the court. She
told me that a friend of
hers recommended
such firm and she
found out that my
name is included in
that firm. I told her that
I have not assumed
any position in the law
firm. And I am with the
Judiciary since I
passed the bar. It is
impossible for me to
enter an appearance
as her counsel in the
very same court where
I am the Branch Clerk
of Court.
The above explanation tendered by the
Respondent is an admission that it is his
name appears on the calling card, a
permissible form of advertising or
solicitation of legal services. 1 Respondent
does not claim that the calling card was
printed without his knowledge or consent,
and the calling card 2 carries his name
primarily and the name "Baligod, Gatdula,
Tacardon, Dimailig and Celera with address
at 220 Mariwasa Bldg., 717 Aurora Blvd.,
Cubao, Quezon City" in the left corner. The
card clearly gives the impression that he is
connected with the said law firm. The
inclusion/retention of his name in the
professional card constitutes an act of
solicitation which violates Section 7 sub-
par. (b)(2) of Republic Act No. 6713,
otherwise known as "Code of Conduct and
Ethical Standards for the Public Officials
and Employees" which declares it unlawful
for a public official or employee to, among
others:
(2) Engage in the private practice of their
profession unless authorized by the Constitution or
law, provided that such practice will not conflict or
tend to conflict with official functions.
 LEGAL ETHICS FEBRUARY 5, 2018 ACJUCO 65

Time and again this Court has said that the

conduct and behavior of every one connected with
an office charged with the dispensation of justice,
from the presiding judge to the lowliest clerk,
should be circumscribed with the heavy burden of
responsibility. His conduct, at all times must only
be characterized by propriety and decorum but
above all else must be above suspicion. 3

WHEREFORE, respondent Rolando R. Gatdula.

Branch Clerk of Court, RTC, Branch 220, Quezon
City is hereby reprimanded for engaging in the
private practice of law with the warning that a
repetition of the same offense will be dealt with
more severely. He is further ordered to cause the
exclusion of his name in the firm name of any office
engaged in the private practice of law.

SO ORDERED.

Romero, Vitug, Panganiban and Purisima, JJ.,

concur.