CANON 2 – PROVIDE EFFICIENT AND CONVENIENT LEGAL SERVICES and free the people from poverty through policies
m poverty through policies and programs that
RULE 2.01 – NOT TO REJECT OR OPPRESSED DEFENSELESS OR OPPRESSED
SERVICES
GUIDELINES ON LEGAL AID GUIDELINES GOVERNING
THEESTABLISHMENTAND OPERATION OF LEGAL AID OFFICES IN ALL
CHAPTERS OF THEINTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES
ARTICLE I (Section 1 to 5)
PUBLIC RESPONSIBILITY
SECTION. 1. Public service.
– the application of law, legal procedure, knowledge, training and experiences
Legal Aid is not a matter of charity. It is a means for the correction of social
imbalances that may and often do lead to injustice, for which reason it is a
public responsibility of the Bar. The spirit of public service should, therefore,
underlie all legal aid offices. The same should be so administered as to give
maximum possible assistance to indigent and deserving members of the
community in all cases, matters and situations in which legal aid may be
necessary to forestall an injustice.
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9999
AN ACT PROVIDING A MECHANISM FOR FREE LEGAL ASSISTANCE AND FOR
OTHER PURPOSES
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Philippines
in Congress assembled:
Section 1. Short Title. - This Act shall be known as the "Free Legal Assistance
Act of 2010".
Section 2. Declaration of Policy. - It is the declared policy of the State to
value the dignity of every human person and guarantee the rights of every
individual, particularly those who cannot afford the services of legal
counsel.
Furthermore, it is the policy of the State to promote a just and dynamic
social order that will ensure the prosperity and independence of the nation
provide adequate social services and improve the quality of life for all.
In addition, the State shall guarantee free legal assistance to the poor and
ensure that every person who cannot afford the services of a counsel is
provided with a competent and independent counsel preferably of his/her
own choice, if upon determination it appears that the party cannot afford
the services of a counsel, and that services of a counsel are necessary to
secure the ends of justice and protect of the party.
Section 3. Definition of Terms. - As provided for in this Act, the term legal
services to be performed by a lawyer refers to any activity which requires
which shall include, among others, legal advice and counsel, and the
preparation of instruments and contracts, including appearance before the
administrative and quasi-judicial offices, bodies and tribunals handling cases
in court, and other similar services as may be defined by the Supreme Court.
Section 4. Requirements for Availment. - For purposes of availing of the
benefits and services as envisioned in this Act, a lawyer or professional
partnership shall secure a certification from the Public Attorney's Office
(PAO), the Department of Justice (DOJ) or accredited association of the
Supreme Court indicating that the said legal services to be provided are
within the services defined by the Supreme Court, and that the agencies
cannot provide the legal services to be provided by the private counsel.
For purpose of determining the number of hours actually provided by the
lawyer and/or professional firm in the provision of legal services, the
association and/or organization duly accredited by the Supreme Court shall
issue the necessary certification that said legal services were actually
undertaken.
The certification issued by, among others, the PAO, the DOJ and other
accredited association by the Supreme Court shall be submitted to the
Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) for purposes of availing the tax deductions
as provided for in this Act and to the DOJ for purposes of monitoring.
Section 5. Incentives to Lawyers. - For purposes of this Act, a lawyer or
professional partnerships rendering actual free legal services, as defined by
the Supreme Court, shall be entitled to an allowable deduction from the
gross income, the amount that could have been collected for the actual free
legal services rendered or up to ten percent (10%) of the gross income
derived from the actual performance of the legal profession, whichever is
lower: Provided, That the actual free legal services herein contemplated
shall be exclusive of the minimum sixty (60)-hour mandatory legal aid
services rendered to indigent litigants as required under the Rule on
Mandatory Legal Aid Services for Practicing Lawyers, under BAR Matter No.
2012, issued by the Supreme Court.
Section 6. Information, Education and Communication (IEC) Campaign. - The
DOJ, in cooperation with the Philippine Information Agency (PIA), is hereby
mandated to conduct an annual IEC campaign in order to inform the lawyers
of the procedures and guidelines in availing tax deductions and inform the
general public that a free legal assistance to those who cannot afford
counsel is being provided by the State.
Section 7. Reportorial Requirement. - For purposes of determining the
effectiveness and social impact of the provisions of this Act, the DOJ shall
submit an annual report to both Houses of Congress indicating therewith
the number of parties who benefited from this Act.
The report shall state in detail, among others, the geographic location,
demographic characteristics and socioeconomic profile of the beneficiaries
of this Act.
Section 8. Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR). - Within ninety (90)
days from the date effectivity of this Act, the BIR shall formulate the
necessary revenue regulations for the proper implementation of the tax
component as envisioned in this Act.
The Supreme Court shall formulate the necessary implementing rules and
regulations with respect to the legal services covered under this Act and the
process of accreditation of organizations and/or associations which will
provide free legal assistance.
Section 9. Separability Clause. - If any provision of this Act is declared
unconstitutional or invalid, the other provisions not affected by such
declaration shall remain in full force and effect.
Section 10. Repealing Clause. - Any law, decree, ordinance or administrative
circular not consistent with any provision of this Act is hereby amended,
repealed or modified accordingly.
Section 11. Effectivity Clause. - This Act shall take effect fifteen (15) days
after its complete publication in the Official Gazette or in two (2)
newspapers of general circulation.
REPUBLIC ACT No. 10389
AN ACT INSTITUTIONALIZING RECOGNIZANCE AS A MODE OF GRANTING
THE RELEASE OF AN INDIGENT PERSON IN CUSTODY AS AN ACCUSED IN A
CRIMINAL CASE AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Philippines
in Congress assembled:
Section 1. Short Title. – This Act shall be known as the "Recognizance Act of
2012″.
Section 2. Statement of Policy. – It is the declared policy of the State to
promote social justice in all phases of national development, including the
promotion of restorative justice as a means to address the problems
confronting the criminal justice system such as protracted trials, prolonged
resolution of cases, lack of legal representation, lack of judges, inability to
post bail bond, congestion in jails, and lack of opportunity to reform and
rehabilitate offenders. In consonance with the principle of presumption of
innocence, the 1987 Philippine Constitution recognizes and guarantees the
right to bail or to be released on recognizance as may be provided by law. In
furtherance of this policy, the right of persons, except those charged with
crimes punishable by death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment, to be
released on recognizance before conviction by the Regional Trial Court,
irrespective of whether the case was originally filed in or appealed to it,
upon compliance with the requirements of this Act, is hereby affirmed,
recognized and guaranteed.
Section 3. Recognizance Defined. – Recognizance is a mode of securing the
release of any person in custody or detention for the commission of an
offense who is unable to post bail due to abject poverty. The court where
the case of such person has been filed shall allow the release of the accused
on recognizance as provided herein, to the custody of a qualified member of
the barangay, city or municipality where the accused resides.
Section 4. Duty of the Courts. – For purposes of stability and uniformity, the
courts shall use their discretion, in determining whether an accused should
be deemed an indigent even if the salary and property requirements are not
met. The courts may also consider the capacity of the accused to support
not just himself/herself but also his/her family or other people who are
dependent on him/her for support and subsistence.
Other relevant factors and conditions demonstrating the financial incapacity
of the accused at the time that he/she is facing charges in court may also be
considered by the courts for the purpose of covering as many individuals
belonging to the marginalized and poor sectors of society.
Section 5. Release on Recognizance as a Matter of Right Guaranteed by the
Constitution. – The release on recognizance of any person in custody or
detention for the commission of an offense is a matter of right when the
offense is not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua, or life
imprisonment: Provided, That the accused or any person on behalf of the
accused files the application for such:
(a) Before or after conviction by the Metropolitan Trial Court, Municipal
Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court in Cities and Municipal Circuit Trial Court;
and
(b) Before conviction by the Regional Trial Court: Provided, further, That a
person in custody for a period equal to or more than the minimum of the
principal penalty prescribed for the offense charged, without application of
the Indeterminate Sentence Law, or any modifying circumstance, shall be
released on the person’s recognizance.
Section 6. Requirements. – The competent court where a criminal case has
been filed against a person covered under this Act shall, upon motion, order
the release of the detained person on recognizance to a qualified custodian:
Provided, That all of the following requirements are complied with:
(a) A sworn declaration by the person in custody of his/her indigency or
incapacity either to post a cash bail or proffer any personal or real property
acceptable as sufficient sureties for a bail bond;
(b) A certification issued by the head of the social welfare and development
office of the municipality or city where the accused actually resides, that the
accused is indigent;
(c) The person in custody has been arraigned;
(d) The court has notified the city or municipal sanggunian where the
accused resides of the application for recognizance. The sanggunian shall
include in its agenda the notice from the court upon receipt and act on the
request for comments or opposition to the application within ten (10) days
from receipt of the notice. The action of the sanggunian shall be in the form
of a resolution, and shall be duly approved by the mayor, and subject to the
following conditions:
(1) Any motion for the adoption of a resolution for the purpose of this Act
duly made before the sanggunian shall he considered as an urgent matter
and shall take precedence over any other business thereof: Provided, That a
special session shall be called to consider such proposed resolution if
necessary;
The resolution of the sanggunian shall include in its resolution a list of
recommended organizations from whose members the court may appoint a
custodian.
(2) The presiding officer of the sanggunian shall ensure that its secretary
shall submit any resolution adopted under this Act within twenty-four (24)
hours from its passage to the mayor who shall act on it within the same
period of time from receipt thereof;
(3) If the mayor or any person acting as such, pursuant to law, fails to act on
the said resolution within twenty-four (24) hours from receipt thereof, the
same shall be deemed to have been acted upon favorably by the mayor;
(4) If the mayor or any person acting as such, pursuant to law, disapproves
the resolution, the resolution shall be returned within twenty-four (24)
hours from disapproval thereof to the sanggunian presiding officer or
secretary who shall be responsible in informing every member thereof that
the sanggunian shall meet in special session within twenty-four (24) hours
from receipt of the veto for the sole purpose of considering to override the
veto made by the mayor.
For the purpose of this Act, the resolution of the sanggunian of the
municipality or city shall be considered final and not subject to the review of
the Sangguniang Panlalawigan, a copy of which shall be forwarded to the
trial court within three (3) days from date of resolution.
(e) The accused shall be properly documented, through such processes as,
but not limited to, photographic image reproduction of all sides of the face
and fingerprinting: Provided, That the costs involved for the purpose of this
subsection shall be shouldered by the municipality or city that sought the
release of the accused as provided herein, chargeable to the mandatory five
percent (5%) calamity fund in its budget or to any other available fund in its
treasury; and
(f) The court shall notify the public prosecutor of the date of hearing
therefor within twenty-four (24) hours from the filing of the application for
release on recognizance in favor of the accused: Provided, That such hearing
shall be held not earlier than twenty-four (24) hours nor later than forty-
eight (48) hours from the receipt of notice by the prosecutor: Provided,
further, That during said hearing, the prosecutor shall be ready to submit
the recommendations regarding the application made under this Act,
wherein no motion for postponement shall be entertained.
Section 7. Disqualifications for Release on Recognizance. – Any of the
following circumstances shall be a valid ground for the court to disqualify an
accused from availing of the benefits provided herein:
(a) The accused bad made untruthful statements in his/her sworn affidavit
prescribed under Section 5(a);
(b) The accused is a recidivist, quasi-recidivist, habitual delinquent, or has
committed a crime aggravated by the circumstance of reiteration;
(c) The accused had been found to have previously escaped from legal
confinement, evaded sentence or has violated the conditions of bail or
release on recognizance without valid justification;
(d) The accused had previously committed a crime while on probation,
parole or under conditional pardon;
(e) The personal circumstances of the accused or nature of the facts
surrounding his/her case indicate the probability of flight if released on
recognizance;
(f) There is a great risk that the accused may commit another crime during
the pendency of the case; and
(g) The accused has a pending criminal case which has the same or higher
penalty to the new crime he/she is being accused of.
Section 8. Qualifications of the Custodian of the Person Released on
Recognizance. – Except in cases of children in conflict with the law as
provided under Republic Act No. 9344, the custodian of the person released
on recognizance must have the following qualifications:
(a) A person of good repute and probity;
(b) A resident of the barangay where the applicant resides;
(c) Must not be a relative of the applicant within the fourth degree of
consanguinity or affinity; and
(d) Must belong to any of the following sectors and institutions: church,
academe, social welfare, health sector, cause-oriented groups, charitable
organizations or organizations engaged in the rehabilitation of offenders
duly accredited by the local social welfare and development officer.
If no person in the barangay where the applicant resides belongs to any of
the sectors and institutions listed under paragraph (d) above, the custodian
of the person released on recognizance may be from the qualified residents
of the city or municipality where the applicant resides.
Section 9. Duty of the Custodian. – The custodian shall undertake to
guarantee the appearance of the accused whenever required by the court.
The custodian shall be required to execute an undertaking before the court
to produce the accused whenever required. The said undertaking shall be
part of the application for recognizance. The court shall duly notify, within a
reasonable period of time, the custodian whenever the presence of the
accused is required. A penalty of six (6) months to two (2) years
imprisonment shall be imposed upon the custodian who failed to deliver or
produce the accused before the court, upon due notice, without justifiable
reason.
Section 10. Role of the Probation Officer. – Upon release of the person on
recognizance to the custodian, the court shall issue an order directing the
Probation Office concerned to monitor and evaluate the activities of such
person. The Probation Office concerned shall submit a written report
containing its findings and recommendations on the activities of the person
released on recognizance on a monthly basis to determine whether or not
the conditions for his/her release have been complied with. The prosecution
including the private complainant, if any, shall be given a copy of such
report.
Section 11. Arrest of a Person Released on Recognizance. – The court shall
order the arrest of the accused, who shall forthwith be placed under
detention, due to any of the following circumstances:
(a) If it finds meritorious a manifestation made under oath by any person
after a summary healing, giving the accused an opportunity to be heard;
(b) If the accused fails to appear at the trial or whenever required by the
abovementioned court or any other competent court without justification,
despite due notice;
(c) If the accused is the subject of a complaint for the commission of
another offense involving moral turpitude and the public prosecutor or the
mayor in the area where the offense is committed recommends the arrest
to the court; or
(d) If it is shown that the accused committed an act of harassment such as,
but not limited to, stalking, intimidating or otherwise vexing private
complainant, prosecutor or witnesses in the case pending against the
accused: Provided, That upon the issuance by the court of such order, the
accused shall likewise become the proper subject of a citizen’s arrest
pursuant to the Rules of Court.
Section 12. No Release on Recognizance After Final Judgment or
Commencement of Sentence; Exception. – The benefits provided under this
Act shall not be allowed in favor of an accused after the judgment has
become final or when the accused has started serving the sentence:
Provided, That this prohibition shall not apply to an accused who is entitled
to the benefits of the Probation Law if the application for probation is made
before the convict starts serving the sentence imposed, in which case, the
court shall allow the release on recognizance of the convict to the custody
of a qualified member of the barangay, city or municipality where the
accused actually resides.
Section 13. Separability Clause. – If any provision of this Act or the
application of such provision to any person or circumstance is declared
invalid, the remainder of this Act or the application of such provision to
other persons or circumstances shall not be affected by such declaration.
Section 14. Repealing Clause. – All laws, decrees and orders or parts thereof
inconsistent herewith are deemed repealed or modified accordingly, unless
the same are more beneficial to the accused.
Section 15. Effectivity. – This Act shall take effect fifteen (15) days after its
publication in the Official Gazette or in at least two (2) newspapers of
general circulation.
LEDESMA vs. CLIMACO
G.R. No. L-23815 June 28, 1974
Petitioner, on October 13, 1964, was appointed Election Registrar for the
Municipality of Cadiz, Province of Negros Occidental. Then and there, he
commenced to discharge its duties. As he was counsel de parte for one of
the accused in a case pending in the sala of respondent Judge, he filed a
motion to withdraw as such. Not only did respondent Judge deny such
motion, but he also appointed him counsel de oficio for the two defendants.
Subsequently, on November 3, 1964, petitioner filed an urgent motion to be
allowed to withdraw as counsel de oficio, premised on the policy of the
Commission on Elections to require full time service as well as on the
volume or pressure of work of petitioner, which could prevent him from
handling adequately the defense. Respondent Judge, in the challenged
order of November 6, 1964, denied said motion. A motion for
reconsideration having proved futile, he instituted this certiorari
proceeding.
Court Held that s such counsel de oficio, he has as high a duty to the
accused as one employed and paid by defendant himself. Because, as in the
case of the latter, he must exercise his best efforts and professional ability
in behalf of the person assigned to his care. He is to render effective
assistance. The accused-defendant expects of him due diligence, not mere
perfunctory representation. For, indeed a lawyer who is a vanguard in the
bastion of justice is expected to have a bigger dose of social conscience and
a little less of self-interest."
The right to be heard would be of little avail if it does not include the right
to be heard by counsel. Even the most intelligent or educated man may
have no skill in the science of law, particularly in the rules of procedure,
and; without counsel, he may be convicted not because he is guilty but
because he does not know how to establish his innocence. And this can
happen more easily to persons who are ignorant or uneducated. It is for this
reason that the right to be assisted by counsel is deemed so important that
it has become a constitutional right and it is so implemented that under
rules of procedure it is not enough for the Court to apprise an accused of his
right to have an attorney, it is not enough to ask him whether he desires the
aid of an attorney, but it is essential that the court should assign one de
oficio for him if he so desires and he is poor or grant him a reasonable time
to procure an attorney of his own."
The Constitution provides that "Any person under investigation for the
commission of an offense shall have the right to remain silent and to
counsel, and to be informed of such right. No force, violence, threat,
intimidation, or any other means which vitiates the free will shall be used
against him. Any confession obtained in violation of this section shall be
inadmissible in evidence."
RULE 2.02 – NOT TO REFUSE TO GIVE LEGAL ADVICE
RULE 2.03 – NO SOLICITATION
RULE 138 SECTION 27, RULES OF COURT
Section 27. Attorneys removed or suspended by Supreme Court on
what grounds. — A member of the bar may be removed or suspended from
his office as attorney by the Supreme Court 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 wilfull disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court, or for
corruptly or willful appearing as an attorney for a party to a case without
authority so to do. The practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of
gain, either personally or through paid agents or brokers, constitutes
malpractice.
In re LUIS B. TAGORDA
March 23, 1929
Atty Tagorda, prior to his election to the provincial board of Isabela made
use of a card written in Spanish and Ilocano which states that he is an
Attorney, Notary Public and a candidate of third member of the Province of
Isabela. The same card also has a notice on his function as a notary public
such as he may execute a deed of sale for the purchase of land as required
by the cadastral office, renew lost documents of your animals, application
and final requisites for your homestead, execute any kind of affidavit. Also,
it states the assistance he can provide as a lawyer and finally an invitation to
come or write to him in his town, Echague, Isabela.
Subsequently, he won the election and sent a letter to a lieutenant of the
barrio which states that despite him winning the election, he would like the
official to make known during meetings or social gatherings that he intends
to stay in Echague and what services he can offer and the cost for every
registration.
The statute as amended conforms in principle to the Canons of
Professionals Ethics adopted by the American Bar Association in 1908 and
by the Philippine Bar Association in 1917. Canons 27 and 28 of the Code of
Ethics provide:
27. ADVERTISING, DIRECT OR INDIRECT. — The most worthy and effective
advertisement possible, even for a young lawyer, and especially with his
brother lawyers, is the establishment of a well-merited reputation for
professional capacity and fidelity to trust. This cannot be forced, but must
be the outcome of character and conduct. The publication or circulation of
ordinary simple business cards, being a matter of personal taste or local
custom, and sometimes of convenience, is not per se improper. But
solicitation of business by circulars or advertisements, or by personal
communications or interview not warranted by personal relations, is
unprofessional. It is equally unprofessional to procure business by
indirection through touters of any kind, whether allied real estate firms or
trust companies advertising to secure the drawing of deeds or wills or
offering retainers in exchange for executorships or trusteeships to be
influenced by the lawyer. Indirect advertisement for business by furnishing
or inspiring newspaper comments concerning the manner of their conduct,
the magnitude of the interest involved, the importance of the lawyer's
position, and all other like self-laudation, defy the traditions and lower the
tone of our high calling, and are intolerable.
28. STIRRING UP LITIGATION, DIRECTLY OR THROUGH AGENTS. — It is
unprofessional for a lawyer to volunteer advice to bring a lawsuit, except in
rare cases where ties of blood, relationship or trust make it his duty to do
so. Stirring up strife and litigation is not only unprofessional, but it is
indictable at common law. It is disreputable to hunt up defects in titles or
other causes of action and inform thereof in order to the employed to bring
suit, or to breed litigation by seeking out those with claims for personal
injuries or those having any other grounds of action in order to secure them
as clients, or to employ agents or runners for like purposes, or to pay or
reward directly or indirectly, those who bring or influence the bringing of
such cases to his office, or to remunerate policemen, court or prison
officials, physicians, hospital attaches or others who may succeed, under the
guise of giving disinterested friendly advice, in influencing the criminal, the
sick and the injured, the ignorant or others, to seek his professional
services. A duty to the public and to the profession devolves upon every
member of the bar having knowledge of such practices upon the part of any
practitioner immediately to inform thereof to the end that the offender may
be disbarred.
Court HELD that:
Common barratry consisting of frequently stirring up suits and quarrels
between individuals was a crime at the common law, and one of the
penalties for this offense when committed by an attorney was disbarment.
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.
The solicitation of employment by an attorney is a ground for disbarment or
suspension. That should be distinctly understood.
The commission of offenses of this nature would amply justify permanent
elimination from the bar. But as mitigating, circumstances working in favor
of the respondent there are,
 first, his intimation that he was unaware of the impropriety of his
acts,
 second, his youth and inexperience at the bar, and,
 third, his promise not to commit a similar mistake in the future.
A modest period of suspension would seem to fit the case of the erring
attorney. But it should be distinctly understood that this result is reached in
view of the considerations which have influenced the court to the relatively
lenient in this particular instance and should, therefore, not be taken as
indicating that future convictions of practice of this kind will not be dealt
with by disbarment.
Thus, suspended for one month.
ULEP vs THE LEGAL CLINIC, INC A. The use of the name "The Legal Clinic, Inc." gives the impression that
Bar Matter No. 553 June 17, 1993 respondent corporation is being operated by lawyers and that it renders
legal services.
The petitioner contends that the advertisements reproduced by the
respondents are champertous, unethical, demeaning of the law profession, While the respondent repeatedly denies that it offers legal services to the
and destructive of the confidence of the community in the integrity of the public, the advertisements in question give the impression that respondent
members of the bar and that, to which as a member of the legal profession, is offering legal services. The Petition in fact simply assumes this to be so, as
he is ashamed and offended by the following advertisements: earlier mentioned, apparently because this (is) the effect that the
advertisements have on the reading public.
Annex A
SECRET MARRIAGE? The impression created by the advertisements in question can be traced,
P560.00 for a valid marriage. first of all, to the very name being used by respondent — "The Legal Clinic,
Info on DIVORCE. ABSENCE. Inc." Such a name, it is respectfully submitted connotes the rendering of
ANNULMENT. VISA. legal services for legal problems, just like a medical clinic connotes medical
THE Please call:521-0767, services for medical problems. More importantly, the term "Legal Clinic"
LEGAL 5217232,5222041 connotes lawyers, as the term medical clinic connotes doctors.
CLINIC, INC. 8:30 am-6:00 pm
7-Flr. Victoria Bldg., UN Ave., Mla. Furthermore, the respondent's name, as published in the advertisements
subject of the present case, appears with (the) scale(s) of justice, which all
Annex B the more reinforces the impression that it is being operated by members of
GUAM DIVORCE the bar and that it offers legal services. In addition, the advertisements in
DON PARKINSON question appear with a picture and name of a person being represented as a
an Attorney in Guam, is giving FREE BOOKS on Guam Divorce through The lawyer from Guam, and this practically removes whatever doubt may still
Legal Clinic beginning Monday to Friday during office hours. remain as to the nature of the service or services being offered.
Guam divorce. Annulment of Marriage. Immigration Problems, Visa Ext.
Quota/Non-quota Res. & Special Retiree's Visa. Declaration of Absence It thus becomes irrelevant whether respondent is merely offering "legal
Remarriage to Filipina Fiancees. Adoption. Investment in the Phil. US/Force support services" as claimed by it, or whether it offers legal services as any
Visa for Filipina Spouse/Children. Call Marivic. lawyer actively engaged in law practice does. And it becomes unnecessary
to make a distinction between "legal services" and "legal support services,"
THE 7F Victoria Bldg. 429 UN Ave., as the respondent would have it. The advertisements in question leave no
LEGAL Ermita, Manila nr. US Embassy room for doubt in the minds of the reading public that legal services are
CLINIC, INC. Tel. 521-7232; 521-7251; being offered by lawyers, whether true or not.
522-2041; 521-0767

We repeat, the canon of the profession tell us that the best advertising
possible for a lawyer is a well-merited reputation for professional capacity
and fidelity to trust, which must be earned as the outcome of character and
conduct.
LINSANGAN vs. TOLENTINO
A.C. No. 6672 September 4, 2009
This is a complaint for disbarment 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 clients to transfer legal representation. Respondent
promised them financial assistance and expeditious collection on their
claims To induce them to hire his services, he persistently called them and
sent them text messages.
To support his allegations, complainant presented the sworn affidavit of
James Gregorio attesting that Labiano tried to prevail upon him to sever his
lawyer-client relations with complainant and utilize respondents services
instead, in exchange for a loan of P50,000. Complainant also attached
respondents calling card
Respondent, in his defense, denied knowing Labiano and authorizing the
printing and circulation of the said calling card.
Time and time again, lawyers are reminded that the practice of law is a
profession and not a business; lawyers should not advertise their talents as
merchants advertise their wares. To allow a lawyer to advertise his talent or
skill is to commercialize the practice of law, degrade the profession in the
publics estimation and impair its ability to efficiently render that high
character of service to which every member of the bar is called.
A final word regarding the calling card presented in evidence by petitioner.
A lawyers best advertisement is a well-merited reputation for professional
capacity and fidelity to trust based on his character and conduct. For this
reason, lawyers are only allowed to announce their services by publication
in reputable law lists or use of simple professional cards.
Professional calling cards may only contain the following details:

Front (a) lawyers name;

NICOMEDES TOLENTINO (b) name of the law firm with which he is connected;
LAW OFFFICE (c) address;
CONSULTANCY & MARITIME SERVICES (d) telephone number and
W/ FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE (e) special branch of law practiced.

Fe Marie L. Labiano Labianos calling card contained the phrase with financial assistance. The
Paralegal phrase was clearly used to entice clients (who already had representation)
to change counsels with a promise of loans to finance their legal actions.
1st MIJI Mansion, 2nd Flr. Rm. M-01 Tel: 362-7820 Money was dangled to lure clients away from their original lawyers, thereby
6th Ave., cor M.H. Del Pilar Fax: (632) 362-7821 taking advantage of their financial distress and emotional vulnerability. This
Grace Park, Caloocan City Cel.: (0926) 2701719 crass commercialism degraded the integrity of the bar and deserved no
Back place in the legal profession. However, in the absence of substantial
evidence to prove his culpability, the Court is not prepared to rule that
SERVICES OFFERED: respondent was personally and directly responsible for the printing and
CONSULTATION AND ASSISTANCE distribution of Labianos calling cards.
TO OVERSEAS SEAMEN
REPATRIATED DUE TO ACCIDENT, SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of one year
INJURY, ILLNESS, SICKNESS, DEATH
AND INSURANCE BENEFIT CLAIMS
ABROAD.
VILLATUYA vs. TABALINGCOS the allegations, respondent had agreed to share with complainant the legal
A.C. No. 6622 July 10, 2012 fees paid by clients that complainant solicited for the respondent.
Complainant, however, failed to proffer convincing evidence to prove the
A complaint for disbarment filed in the OBC. The complainant alleges three existence of that agreement.
things

1. Non-payment of fees
2. Unlawful solicitation
3. Immoral conduct for having married thrice.
Complainant was employed as a financial consultant to assist the latter on
technical and financial matters in the latter’s numerous petitions for
corporate rehabilitation filed with different courts.
Complainant was promised 50,000.00 for every Stay Order issued by the
court as well as 10% of the fees paid by the clients. The respondent claims
that he was employed by Jesi and Jane Management, and his salary has
been compensated with. However, due to him being unprofessional and
incompetent in the job he was dismissed by the company.
From February – December 2012 the fees amounted to 900k and 4.539M
respectively which has not been paid.
Second Issue: Rule 15.0850 of the Code mandates that the lawyer is
mandated to inform the client whether the former is acting as a lawyer or in
another capacity. This duty is a must in those occupations related to the
practice of law. The reason is that certain ethical considerations governing
the attorney-client relationship may be operative in one and not in the
other.51 In this case, it is confusing for the client if it is not clear whether
respondent is offering consultancy or legal services. Considering, however,
that complainant has not proven the degree of prevalence of this practice
by respondent, we affirm the recommendation to reprimand the latter for
violating Rules 2.03 and 15.08 of the Code.
Third Issue: We have consistently held that a disbarment case is sui generis.
Its focus is on the qualification and fitness of a lawyer to continue
membership in the bar and not the procedural technicalities in filing the
case. Thus, we explained in Garrido v. Garrido:53 We find him guilty of gross
immorality under the Code.

Complainant alleged that respondent was using his two financial RULE 2.04 – NO RATES LOWER THAN CUSTOMARILY CHARGED
consultancy firms as fronts to advertise his legal services and solicit cases.
The respondent claimed that he had an agreement with Jesi and Jane
Management where his firm would handle the legal aspect of the corporate
rehabilitation case as evidenced by a JVA.

Lastly, respondent is accused of two counts of bigamy. Respondent claimed

that it should not be entertained since, the person who filed the
information has retracted the same.

Court HELD that:

The first charge of complainant against respondent for the nonpayment of

the former’s share in the fees, if proven to be true is based on an agreement
that is violative of Rule 9.0245 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. A
lawyer is proscribed by the Code to divide or agree to divide the fees for
legal services rendered with a person not licensed to practice law. Based on