Director of Religious Affairs vs.
Bayot  Herrera owns 8 parcels of land (6, according to
 Bayot is an attorney charged with malpractice for
having published an advertisement in the Sunday
Tribune
 “Secure Marriage License promptly, avoid delay or
publicity, marriage arranged to wishes of parties,
consultation free for poor, and everything
confidential, secured through their assistance”
 He first denied having published the said
advertisement but subsequently admitted of doing
it through his lawyer
 He prayed for the mercy and indulgence of the
Court promising not to repeat such act again
 He alleged that said advertisement was published
only once and he did not gain any case as a result
of it
 The law states that “"the practice of soliciting
cases at law for the purpose of gain constitutes
malpractice."
 Law is a profession and not a trade. It is highly
unethical for an attorney to advertise his talents or
skill.
 Considering his plea for leniency and his promise
not to repeat the misconduct, the Court the
respondent should be reprimanded
Ledesma vs. Climaco
 Atty. Ledesma was the counsel de parte of one of
the accused in a criminal case
 He was appointed as Election Registrar by the
Commission on Elections in Cadiz, Negros
Occidental
 He then filed a motion to withdraw as the counsel
de parte in the criminal case
 Judge Climaco denied it and appointed him as
counsel de officio for the two defendants
 Atty. Ledesma filed a motion again to withdraw on
the ground that his appointment as Election
Registrar requires his full time
 Judge Climaco still denied it
 The proceedings obtained 8 postponements
because of Ledesma’s motions for withdrawal
 If Judge Climaco would allow the petition of
Ledesma, it would prejudice the welfare of the
accused
 A lawyer’s duty to court and to client should take
precedence over self-interest
Canlas vs. Court of Appeals and Herrera
Canlas) located in Quezon City
 He obtained various loans from L & R Corporation,
a financing institution (P420K)
 He executed deeds of mortgage over the parcels
of land as security of his loans
 L&R initiated an extrajudicial foreclosure of the
properties after private respondent failed to pay
 Respondent filed a complaint for injunction
over the said foreclosure and for redemption of
the parcels of land
 2 years after the filing of the petition, Herrera and
L&R entered into a compromise agreement that
gives respondent another year to redeem his
properties by payment of P600,000 with interest
at 1% per month and P100,000 attorney’s fees to
his Atty., Canlas
 However, Herrera remained to be financially
unstable and still wasn’t able to pay
 Herrera and Canlas discussed in private the relief,
and executed a document to transfer rights to
petitioner to redeem the parcels of land of the
respondent
 To his dismay, he found out that the properties
are already registered in the name of the
petitioner
 Consequently, respondent filed an adverse
claim upon the respective certificates of title
embracing the properties and likewise alleges
that he commenced disbarment proceedings
 Issue is whether Canlas is rightful to have
acquired in his name the properties of his client
 The Court held that lawyering is not a money-
making business and that a lawyer should not
take advantage of the shortcomings of his own
client
 P100K attorney’s fees was held unreasonable
for the fact that his client was known to be
financially unstable to him, thus, it was reduced
to just P20K
 Still, both should pay their obligations to one
another
 Canlas was ordered to pay Herrera for
damages, and to show cause within 10 days
why no disciplinary action should be imposed
to him as a lawyer
Albano vs. Coloma
 Coloma served as counsel of Albano and his
mother for a period of about 7 yrs.
 Albano alleged that Coloma failed to expedite
the hearing and termination of a civil case
 involving Albano and that lead them to have
another lawyer to represent them
 They were surprised when Coloma intervened
in the hearing of the case to collect her
attorney’s fees and contingent fees
amounting to 1/3 of whatever could be
recovered in the damages
 Albano also alleged that their signatures were
falsified in the agreement to pay such
 This led Albano to file a complaint for
disbarment against Atty. Coloma
 Albano said that he is a poor man and cannot
afford services of another lawyer to assist him
in the disbarment proceedings against Coloma
who is a very influential woman in Ilocos
Norte
 Coloma contended that petitioners had
already benefited from her services as their
lawyer as she has lead their cases to
judgements favorable on their part
 She has more than 20 papers and pleadings
during the case and filed 35-pages report to
CA
 She also contended that in her 20 years of
service as a lawyer, she has never used her
influence to corrupt anyone and that people
of Ilocos Norte have faithfully supported her
by electing her first as a council and then a
board member
 Thus, the court held that if there is anyone
who acted in bad faith in this case, it would be
the petitioner
 Any counsel should be entitled of being fully
compensated for her services
 Therefore, disbarment complaint for Coloma
was dismissed
Soriano vs. Dizon
 Taxi driver, Soriano, was driving on his way
home when he has overtaken the car of Atty.
Dizon, a lawyer and a prominent member of
Baguio community, who was drunk at that
time
 Dizon tailed the taxi driver until the latter
stopped to make a turn, he then scolded
Soriano and held him by his shirt
 Soriano forced opened the door of his car
which caused Dizon to fall on the ground
 Soriano felt pity and helped Dizon to get up
 Enraged, Dizon stoop up immediately and was
about to box Soriano, when the latter boxed
him on the chest instead
 He fell down the second time, he was about to
box Soriano again when the latter caught his
fist and turned his arm around. He later
released Dizon when he thought he was
already calmed
 Dizon went back to his car, wrapped a
revolver with handkerchief. Soriano picked up
the eyeglass of Dizon and when he was
handing the same to the latter, Dizon fired the
gun and shot Soriano on his neck.
 He fell on the thigh of Dizon but he was just
pushed out and Dizon sped off.
 The incident was witness by a certain Antonio
and his testimonies matched those of Soriano.
 Dizon contended that the allegations against
him were not true and that he was the one
who was mauled by Soriano and 2 other
unidentified men
 Because of his acts of moral turpitude, refusal
to render civil liabilities, illegal possession of
firearms, and frustrated homicide, he was
disbarred.
In Re Rothman
 Rothman and Irving are both lawyers who had
established a law partnership and mortgage
company with services offered to the public
 The mortgage business and practice of law
firm were conducted as a single enterprise
 Rothman shared in all the profits of the law
partnership including the annual payment
from the mortgage company to the law
partnership
 The company employed several advertising
firms and public relations counsel extolling the
services of the mortgage business
 He saw that the mortgage company and the
law firm were so intertwined that it was
impossible to separate them
 Rothman himself could not satisfactorily
explain the arrangement between the
mortgage company and the law firm where
the law firm agreed to provide legal services
for all real estate and mortgage transactions
of the company
 Issue is whether Rothman and Irving are guilty
of violation of the Canons of Professional
Ethics
 The court ruled that the advertisements are
inconsistent with the contention of the
respondents that they are innocent and are of
good faith
 They did nothing that would interfere with
their business enterprise and resolved all
doubts in their own favor against the Canons
of Professional Ethics
 By using such advertisements, respondents
are guilty of professional misconduct
 If the respondents wish to retain and carry on
the business which is so valuable to them they
may do so outside their profession as lawyers
in a conduct that would not violate the
Canons of Professional Ethics, for if they do,
they cannot remain to be a member of the bar
of their state
 They were severely reprimanded
In Re Sycip
 These are 2 petitions regarding the two law
firms mentioned in the title praying that they
may retain the names of their former
partners “Sycip” and “Ozaeta” who both
passed away.
 The Court ruled that they should remove the
names of the deceased partners for the
following reasons:
 Previous jurisprudence: The Court already
ruled before in two cases that the names of
deceased members should be removed
 Art 1815 of the Civil Code: states that “those
who, not being members of the
partnership, include their names in the firm
name, shall be subject to the liability, of a
partner” which implies that implies that the
partner must be living for his/her name to
be included
 Practical obligations: A lawyer can just ride on
the reputation of the old firm
 Law is a profession, not a business: A
professional partnership rides on the
individual skill of the members.
 Petition suffers legal and ethical impediment.
Burbe vs. Magulta
 Petitioner engaged the services of the
respondent to help him recover a claim of
money against a creditor.
 Respondent prepared demand letters for the
petitioner, which were not successful and so
the former intimated that a case should
already be filed.
 As a result, petitioner paid the lawyer his fees
and included also amounts for the filing of the
case.
 A couple of months passed but the petitioner
has not yet received any feedback as to the
status of his case. Petitioner made several
follow-ups in the lawyer’s office but to no
avail.
 Suspicious of the acts of the lawyer, petitioner
personally went to the office of the clerk of
court to see for himself the status of his case.
Petitioner found out that no such case has
been filed.
 Petitioner confronted Atty. Magulta where he
continued to lie to with the excuse that the
delay was being caused by the court
personnel, and only when shown the
certification did he admit that he has not at all
filed the complaint because he had spent the
money for the filing fee for his own purpose.
 To appease petitioner’s feelings, he offered to
reimburse him by issuing two (2) checks, in
the amounts of P12,000.00 and P8,000.00,
respectively.
 The failure of respondent to fulfill this
obligation due to his misuse of the filing
fees deposited by complainant, and his
attempts to cover up this misuse of funds of
the client, which caused complainant
additional damage and prejudice, constitutes
highly dishonest conduct on his part,
unbecoming a member of the law profession.
 The subsequent reimbursement by the
respondent of part of the money deposited by
complainant for filing fees, does not exculpate
the respondent for his misappropriation of
said funds.
 Atty. Magulta was suspended from the
practice of law for a period of one (1) year