Spouses FRANKLIN and LOURDES OLBES, complainants, vs. Atty. VICTOR V.
TOR V. by their four PNB checks that were, however, subsequently dishonored due to ACCOUNT CLOSED. Thus, he
DECIEMBRE, respondent.
PANGANIBAN, J.:
Constituting a serious transgression of the Code of Professional Responsibility was the malevolent act
of respondent, who filled up the blank checks entrusted to him as security for a loan by writing on those checks
amounts that had not been agreed upon at all, despite his full knowledge that the loan they were meant to secure
had already been paid.
The Case
Before us is a verified Petition[1] for the disbarment of Atty. Victor V. Deciembre, filed by Spouses
Franklin and Lourdes Olbes with the Office of the Bar Confidant of this Court. Petitioners charged respondent
with willful and deliberate acts of dishonesty, falsification and conduct unbecoming a member of the Bar. After
he had filed his Comment[2] on the Petition, the Court referred the case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
(IBP) for investigation, report and recommendation.
The IBPs Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD), through Commissioner Caesar R. Dulay, held several
hearings. During those hearings, the last of which was held on May 12, 2003, [3] the parties were able to present
their respective witnesses and documentary evidence. After the filing of the parties respective formal offers of evidence,
as well as petitioners Memorandum,[4] the case was considered submitted for resolution. Subsequently, the
commissioner rendered his Report and Recommendation dated January 30, 2004, which was later adopted and
approved by the IBP Board of Governors in its Resolution No. XV-2003-177 dated July 30, 2004.
The Facts
In their Petition, Spouses Olbes allege that they were government employees working at the Central Post
Office, Manila; and that Franklin was a letter carrier receiving a monthly salary of P6,700, and Lourdes, a mail
sorter, P6,000.[5]
Through respondent, Lourdes renewed on July 1, 1999 her application for a loan from Rodela Loans,
Inc., in the amount of P10,000. As security for the loan, she issued and delivered to respondent five Philippine
National Bank (PNB) blank checks (Nos. 0046241-45), which served as collateral for the approved loan as well
as any other loans that might be obtained in the future.[6]
On August 31, 1999, Lourdes paid respondent the amount of P14,874.37 corresponding to the loan plus
surcharges, penalties and interests, for which the latter issued a receipt, [7] herein quoted as follows:
August 31, 1999
Received the amount of P14,874.37 as payment of the loan of P10,000.00 taken earlier by Lourdes
Olbes.
(Sgd.) Atty. Victor V. Deciembre
8-31-99
P10,000.00
PNB Check No. 46241 8/15/99[8]
Notwithstanding the full payment of the loan, respondent filled up four (of the five) blank PNB Checks
(Nos. 0046241, 0046242, 0046243 and 0046244) for the amount of P50,000 each, with different dates of
maturity -- August 15, 1999, August 20, 1999, October 15, 1999 and November 15, 1999, respectively. [9]
On October 19, 1999, respondent filed before the Provincial Prosecution Office of Rizal an Affidavit-
Complaint against petitioners for estafa and violation of Batas Pambansa (BP) 22. He alleged therein that on
July 15, 1999, around one-thirty in the afternoon at Cainta, Rizal, they personally approached him and requested
that he immediately exchange with cash their postdated PNB Check Nos. 0046241 and 0046242
totaling P100,000.[10]
Several months after, or on January 20, 2000, respondent filed against petitioners another Affidavit-
Complaint for estafa and violation of BP 22. He stated, among others, that on the same day, July 15, 1999,
around two oclock in the afternoon at Quezon City, they again approached him and requested that he exchange
with cash PNB Check Nos. 0046243 and 0046244 totaling P100,000.[11]
Petitioners insisted that on the afternoon of July 15, 1999, they never went either to Cainta, Rizal, or to
Quezon City to transact business with respondent. Allegedly, they were in their office at the time, as shown by
their Daily Time Records; so it would have been physically impossible for them to transact business in Cainta,
Rizal, and, after an interval of only thirty minutes, in Quezon City, especially considering the heavy traffic
conditions in those places.[12]
Petitioners averred that many of their office mates -- among them, Juanita Manaois, Honorata Acosta
and Eugenia Mendoza -- had suffered the same fate in their dealings with respondent. [13]
In his Comment,[14] respondent denied petitioners claims, which he called baseless and devoid of any
truth and merit. Allegedly, petitioners were the ones who had deceived him by not honoring their commitment
regarding their July 15, 1999 transactions. Those transactions, totaling P200,000, had allegedly been covered
filed criminal cases against them. He claimed that the checks had already been fully filled up when petitioners
signed them in his presence. He further claimed that he had given them the amounts of money indicated in the
checks, because his previous satisfactory transactions with them convinced him that they had the capacity to
pay.
Moreover, respondent said that the loans were his private and personal transactions, which were not in
any way connected with his profession as a lawyer. The criminal cases against petitioners were allegedly private
actions intended to vindicate his rights against their deception and violation of their obligations. He maintained
that his right to litigate should not be curtailed by this administrative action.
Report of the Investigating Commissioner
In his Report and Recommendation, Commissioner Dulay recommended that respondent be suspended
from the practice of law for two years for violating Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
The commissioner said that respondents version of the facts was not credible. Commissioner Dulay
rendered the following analysis and evaluation of the evidence presented:
In his affidavit-complaint x x x executed to support his complaint filed before the Provincial Prosecution Office
of Rizal respondent stated that:
2. That last July 15, 1999, in the jurisdiction of Cainta, Rizal, both LOURDES E. OLBES and FRANKLIN A.
OLBES x x x, personally met and requested me to immediately exchange with cash, right there and then, their
postdated checks totaling P100,000.00 then, to be immediately used by them in their business venture.
Again in his affidavit-complaint executed to support his complaint filed with the Office of the City Prosecutor
of Quezon City respondent stated that:
2. That last July 15, 1999, at around 2PM, in the jurisdiction of Quezon City, M.M., both LOURDES E. OLBES
and FRANKLIN A. OLBES x x x, personally met and requested me to immediately exchange with cash, right
there and then, their postdated checks totaling P100,000.00 then, to be immediately used by them in their
business venture.
The above statements executed by respondent under oath are in direct contrast to his testimony before this
Commission on cross-examination during the May 12, 2003 hearing, thus:
ATTY PUNZALAN: (continuing)
Q. Based on these four (4) checks which you claimed the complainant issued to you, you filed two
separate criminal cases against them, one, in Pasig City and the other in Quezon City, is
that correct?
A. Yes, Your Honor, because the checks were deposited at different banks.
Q. These four checks were accordingly issued to you by the complainants on July 15, 1999, is that
correct?
A. I will consult my records, You Honor, because its quite a long time. Yes, Your Honor, the first
two checks is in the morning and the next two checks is in the afternoon (sic).
COMM. DULAY:
Which are the first two checks?
ATTY. DECIEMBRE:
The first two checks covering check Nos. 46241 and 46242 in the morning. And Check No.
46243 and 46244 in the afternoon, Your Honor.
ATTY. PUNZALAN:
Q. Could you recall what particular time in the morning that these two checks with number
0046241 and 0046242 xxx have been issued to you?
A. I could not remember exactly but in the middle part of the morning around 9:30 to 10:00.
Q. This was issued to you in what particular place?
A. Here in my office at Garnet Road, Ortigas Center, Pasig City.
Q. Is that your house?
A. No, its not my house?
Q. What is that, is that your law office?
A. That is my retainer client.
Q. What is the name of that retainer client of yours?
ATTY. DECIEMBRE:
Your Honor, may I object because what is the materiality of the question?
ATTY. PUNZALAN:
That is very material. I am trying to test your credibility because according to you these checks
have been issued in Pasig in the place of your client on a retainer. Thats why I am asking
your client
 COMM. DULAY:
The name of the client is not material I think. It is enough that he said it was issued here in
Pasig. What building?
ATTY. DECIEMBRE:
AIC Corporate Center, Your Honor.
COMM. DULAY:
What is the materiality of knowing the name of his clients office?
ATTY. PUNZALAN:
Because, Your Honor, the materiality is to find out whether he is telling the truth. The place,
Your Honor, according to the respondent is his client. Now I am asking who is that client?
COMM. DULAY:
Your answer.
ATTY. DECIEMBRE:
A. It is AIC Realty Corporation at AIC Building.
Q. And the same date likewise, the complainants in the afternoon issued PNB Check Nos. 0046243
and 0046244, is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. So would you want to tell this Honorable office that there were four checks issued in the place
of your client in Pasig City, two in the morning and two in the afternoon?
A. That is correct, sir.
Respondent was clearly not being truthful in his narration of the transaction with the complainants. As between
his version as to when the four checks were given, we find the story of complainant[s] more credible.
Respondent has blatantly distorted the truth, insofar as the place where the transaction involving the four checks
took place. Such distortion on a very material fact would seriously cast doubt on his version of the transaction
with complainants.
Furthermore respondents statements as to the time when the transactions took place are also obviously and
glaringly inconsistent and contradicts the written statements made before the public prosecutors. Thus further
adding to the lack of credibility of respondents version of the transaction.
Complainants version that they issued blank checks to respondent as security for the payment of a loan
of P10,000.00 plus interest, and that respondent filled up the checks in amounts not agreed upon appears to be
more credible. Complainants herein are mere employees of the Central Post Office in Manila who had a previous
loan of P10,000.00 from respondent and which has since been paid x x x. Respondent does not deny the said
transaction. This appears to be the only previous transaction between the parties. In fact, complainants were
even late in paying the loan when it fell due such that they had to pay interest. That respondent would trust them
once more by giving them another P200,000.00 allegedly to be used for a business and immediately release the
amounts under the circumstances described by respondent does not appear credible given the background of the
previous transaction and personal circumstances of complainants. That respondent who is a lawyer would not
even bother to ask from complainants a receipt for the money he has given, nor bother to verify and ask them
what businesses they would use the money for contributes further to the lack of credibility of respondents
version. These circumstances really cast doubt as to the version of respondent with regard to the transaction.
The resolution of the public prosecutors notwithstanding we believe respondent is clearly lacking in honesty in
dealing with the complainants. Complainant Franklin Olbes had to be jailed as a result of respondents filing of
the criminal cases. Parenthetically, we note that respondent has also filed similar cases against the co-employees
of complainants in the Central Post Office and respondent is facing similar complaints in the IBP for his
actions.[15]
The Courts Ruling
We agree with the findings and conclusions of Commissioner Dulay, as approved and adopted by the
IBP Board of Governors. However, the penalty should be more severe than what the IBP recommended.
Respondents Administrative Liability
Membership in the legal profession is a special privilege burdened with conditions. [16] It is bestowed
upon individuals who are not only learned in the law, but also known to possess good moral character.[17] A
lawyer is an oath-bound servant of society whose conduct is clearly circumscribed by inflexible norms of law
and ethics, and whose primary duty is the advancement of the quest for truth and justice, for which he [or she]
has sworn to be a fearless crusader.[18]
By taking the lawyers oath, an attorney becomes a guardian of truth and the rule of law, and an
indispensable instrument in the fair and impartial administration of justice. [19] Lawyers should act and comport
themselves with honesty and integrity in a manner beyond reproach, in order to promote the publics faith in the
legal profession.[20]
The Code of Professional Responsibility specifically mandates the following:
Canon 1. A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law and
legal processes.
xxxxxxxxx
Canon 7. A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession and support the
activities of the Integrated Bar.
xxxxxxxxx
Rule 7.03. A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor should
he, whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession.
A high standard of excellence and ethics is expected and required of members of the bar. [21] Such conduct
of nobility and uprightness should remain with them, whether in their public or in their private lives. As officers
of the courts and keepers of the publics faith, they are burdened with the highest degree of social responsibility
and are thus mandated to behave at all times in a manner consistent with truth and honor. [22]
The oath that lawyers swear to likewise impresses upon them the duty of exhibiting the highest degree
of good faith, fairness and candor in their relationships with others. The oath is a sacred trust that must be upheld
and kept inviolable at all times. Thus, lawyers may be disciplined for any conduct, whether in their professional
or in their private capacity, if such conduct renders them unfit to continue to be officers of the court. [23]
In the present case, the IBP commissioner gave credence to the story of petitioners, who said that they
had given five blank personal checks to respondent at the Central Post Office in Manila as security for
the P10,000 loan they had contracted. Found untrue and unbelievable was respondents assertion that they had
filled up the checks and exchanged these with his cash at Quezon City and Cainta, Rizal. After a careful review
of the records, we find no reason to deviate from these findings.
Under the circumstances, there is no need to stretch ones imagination to arrive at an inevitable
conclusion. Respondent does not deny the P10,000 loan obtained from him by petitioners. According to
Franklin Olbes testimony on cross-examination, they asked respondent for the blank checks after the loan had
been paid. On the pretext that he was not able to bring the checks with him, [24] he was not able to return them.
He thus committed abominable dishonesty by abusing the confidence reposed in him by petitioners. It was their
high regard for him as a member of the bar that made them trust him with their blank checks. [25]
It is also glaringly clear that the Code of Professional Responsibility was seriously transgressed by his
malevolent act of filling up the blank checks by indicating amounts that had not been agreed upon at all and
despite respondents full knowledge that the loan supposed to be secured by the checks had already been paid.
His was a brazen act of falsification of a commercial document, resorted to for his material gain.
And he did not stop there. Because the checks were dishonored upon presentment, respondent had the
temerity to initiate unfounded criminal suits against petitioners, thereby exhibiting his vile intent to have them
punished and deprived of liberty for frustrating the criminal duplicity he had wanted to foist on them. As a
matter of fact, one of the petitioners (Franklin) was detained for three months [26] because of the Complaints.
Respondent is clearly guilty of serious dishonesty and professional misconduct. He committed an act indicative
of moral depravity not expected from, and highly unbecoming, a member of the bar.
Good moral character is an essential qualification for the privilege to enter into the practice of law. It is
equally essential to observe this norm meticulously during the continuance of the practice and the exercise of
the privilege.[27] Good moral character includes at least common honesty.[28] No moral qualification for bar
membership is more important than truthfulness and candor.[29] The rigorous ethics of the profession places a
premium on honesty and condemns duplicitous behavior. [30] Lawyers must be ministers of truth. Hence, they
must not mislead the court or allow it to be misled by any artifice. In all their dealings, they are expected to act
in good faith.[31]
Deception and other fraudulent acts are not merely unacceptable practices that are disgraceful and
dishonorable;[32] they reveal a basic moral flaw. The standards of the legal profession are not satisfied by
conduct that merely enables one to escape the penalties of criminal laws. [33]
Considering the depravity of the offense committed by respondent, we find the penalty recommended by
the IBP of suspension for two years from the practice of law to be too mild. His propensity for employing deceit
and misrepresentation is reprehensible. His misuse of the filled-up checks that led to the detention of one
petitioner is loathsome.
In Eustaquio v. Rimorin,[34] the forging of a special power of attorney (SPA) by the respondent to make
it appear that he was authorized to sell anothers property, as well as his fraudulent and malicious inducement
of Alicia Rubis to sign a Memorandum of Agreement to give a semblance of legality to the SPA, were
sanctioned with suspension from the practice of law for five years. Here, the conduct of herein respondent is
even worse. He used falsified checks as bases for maliciously indicting petitioners and thereby caused the
detention of one of them.
 WHEREFORE, Atty. Victor V. Deciembre is found guilty of gross misconduct and violation of Rules
1.01 and 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He is hereby indefinitely SUSPENDED from the
practice of law effective immediately. Let copies of this Decision be furnished all courts as well as the Office
of the Bar Confidant, which is directed to append a copy to respondents personal record. Let another copy be
furnished the National Office of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.
SO ORDERED.
TAN TEK BENG, Complainant, v. TIMOTEO A. DAVID, Respondent.
AQUINO, J.:
The issue in this case is whether disciplinary action should be taken against lawyer Timoteo A. David
(admitted to the bar in 1945) for not giving Tan Tek Beng, a nonlawyer (alleged missionary of the Seventh
Day Adventists), one-half of the attorney’s fees received by David from the clients supplied by Tan Tek
Beng. Their agreement reads:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"December 3, 1970
"Mr. Tan Tek Beng
"Manila
"Dear Mr. Tan:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
In compliance with your request, I am now putting into writing our agreement which must be followed in
connection with the accounts that you will entrust to me for collection. Our terms and conditions shall be as
follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"1. On all commission or attorney’s fees that we shall receive from our clients by virtue of the collection that
we shall be able to effect on their accounts, we shall divide fifty-fifty. Likewise you are entitled to
commission, 50/50 from domestic, inheritance and commercial from our said clients or in any criminal cases
where they are involved.
"2. I shall not deal directly with our clients without your consent.
"3. You shall take care of collecting our fees as well as advances for expenses for the cases referred to us by
our clients and careful in safeguarding our interest.
"4. It is understood that legal expenses that we shall recover from the debtors shall be turned over to our
clients. Other clients who directly or indirectly have been approached or related (sic) to you as a result of your
labor are your clients.
"I hereby pledge in the name of God, our Heavenly Father, that I will be sincere, honest and fair with you in
connection with our transactions with our clients. Likewise you must be sincere, honest and fair with me.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) Illegible
TIMOTEO A. DAVID
"P.S.
I will be responsible for all documents entrusted me by our clients.
(Sgd.) Initial
"CONFORME to the above and likewise will reciprocate my sincerity to Atty. David as stated in the last
paragraph of this letter.
(Sgd.) Tan Tek Beng
MR. TAN TEK BENG"
The foregoing was a reiteration of an agreement dated August 5, 1969. Note that in said agreement lawyer
David not only agreed to give one-half of his professional fees to an intermediary or commission agent but he
also bound himself not to deal directly with the clients.
The business relationship between David and Tan Tek Beng did not last. There were mutual accusations of
doublecross. For allegedly not living up to the agreement, Tan Tek Beng in 1973 denounced David to
Presidential Assistant Ronaldo B. Zamora, to the Office of Civil Relations at Camp Crame and to this Court.
He did not file any civil action to enforce the agreement.
In his 1974 comment, David clarified that the partnership was composed of himself as manager, Tan Tek
Beng as assistant manager and lawyer Pedro Jacinto as president and financier. When Jacinto became ill and
the costs of office maintenance mounted, David suggested that Tan Tek Beng should also invest some money
or shoulder a part of the business expenses but Tan Tek Beng refused.chanrobles.com : virtual law library
This case was referred to the Solicitor General for investigation, report and recommendation. Hearings were
scheduled from 1974 to 1981. It was proposed that respondent should submit a stipulation of facts but that did
not materialize because the scheduled hearings were not held due to the nonavailability of Tan Tek Beng and
his counsel.
On September 16, 1977 Tan Tek Beng died at the Philippine Union Colleges Compound, Baesa, Caloocan
City but it was only in the manifestation of his counsel dated August 10, 1981 that the Solicitor General’s
Office was informed of that fact. A report on this case dated March 21, 1983 was submitted by the Solicitor
General to this Court.
We hold that the said agreement is void because it was tantamount to malpractice which is "the practice of
soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either personally or through paid agents or brokers" Sec. 27,
Rule 138, Rules of Court). Malpractice ordinarily refers to any malfeasance or dereliction of duty committed
by a lawyer. Section 27 gives a special and technical meaning to the term "malpractice" (Act No. 2828,
amending sec. 21 of Act No. 190).
That meaning is in consonance with the elementary notion that the practice of law is a profession, not a
business. "The lawyer may not seek or obtain employment by himself or through others for to do so would be
unprofessional" (2 R.C.L. 1097 cited in In re Tagorda, 53 Phil. 37, 42; Malcolm, J., Jayme v. Bualan, 58 Phil.
422; Arce v. Philippine National Bank, 62 Phil. 569). The commercialization of law practice is condemned in
certain canons of professional ethics adopted by the American Bar Association:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"34. Division of Fees. — No division of fees for legal services is proper, except with another lawyer, based
upon a division of service or responsibility."cralaw virtua1aw library
"35. Intermediaries. — The professional services of a lawyer should not be controlled or exploited by any law
agency, personal or corporate, which intervenes between client and lawyer. A lawyer’s responsibilities and
qualifications are individual. He should avoid all relations which direct the performance of his duties by or in
the interest of such intermediary. A lawyer’s relation to his client should be personal, and the responsibility
should be direct to the client. . . ."cralaw virtua1aw library
"38. Compensation, Commissions and Rebates. — A lawyer should accept no compensation, commissions,
rebates or other advantages from others without the knowledge and consent of his client after full disclosure."
(Appendix, Malcolm, Legal Ethics).
We censure lawyer David for having entered and acted upon such void and unethical agreement. We
discountenance his conduct, not because of the complaint of Tan Tek Beng (who did not know legal ethics)
but because David should have known better.chanrobles law library
"Unprofessional conduct in an attorney is that which violates the rules or ethical code of his profession or
which is unbecoming a member of that profession" (Note 14, 7 C.J.S. 743).
WHEREFORE, respondent is reprimanded for being guilty of malpractice. A copy of this decision should be
attached to his record in the Bar Confidant’s office.
SO ORDERED.
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.
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]
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 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 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.
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 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 Bar of
the Philippines and all courts in the country for their information and guidance.
SO ORDERED