CANON 3

3 - A LAWYER IN MAKING KNOWN HIS LEGAL SERVICES SHALL USE ONLY TRUE,
HONEST, FAIR, DIGNIFIED AND OBJECTIVE INFORMATION OR STATEMENT OF FACTS.
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 3.02 - In the choice of a firm name, no false, misleading or assumed name shall be used.
The continued use of the name of a deceased partner is permissible provided that the firm
indicates in all its communications that said partner is deceased.
Rule 3.03 - Where a partner accepts public office, he shall withdrawal from the firm and his
name shall be dropped from the firm name unless the law allows him to practice law currently.
Rule 3.04 - A lawyer shall not pay or give anything of value to representatives of the mass
media in anticipation of, or in return for, publicity to attract legal business.

Ulep vs. Legal Clinic, 223 SCRA 378 (1993)

FACTS: The petitioner contends that the advertisements reproduced by the respondents are
champertous, unethical, demeaning of the law profession, and destructive of the confidence of
the community in the integrity of the members of the bar and that, to which as a member of the
legal profession, he is ashamed and offended by the following advertisements:

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/Force Visa for Filipina Spouse/Children. Call Marivic.

THE 7F Victoria Bldg. 429 UN Ave.,

LEGAL Ermita, Manila nr. US Embassy
CLINIC, INC. Tel. 521-7232; 521-7251;
522-2041; 521-0767

In its answer to the petition, respondent admits the fact of publication of said advertisements 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, reportedly decided by the
United States Supreme Court on June 7, 1977. ISSUE:Whether or not, the advertised services
offered by the Legal Clinic, Inc., constitutes practice of law and whether the same are in
violation of the Code of Professional responsibility RULING: The advertisement of the
respondent is covered in the term practice of law as defined in the case of Cayetano vs.
Monsod. There is a restricted concept and limited acceptance of paralegal services in the
Philippines. It is allowed that some persons not duly licensed to practice law are or have been
permitted with a limited representation in behalf of another or to render legal services, but such
allowable services are limited in scope and extent by the law, rules or regulations granting
permission therefore. Canon 3 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that a lawyer
in making known his legal services shall use only true, honest, fair, dignified and objective
information or statement of facts. Canon 3.01 adds that he is not supposed to 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. Nor shall he pay or give
something of value to representatives of the mass media in anticipation of, or in return for,
publicity to attract legal business (Canon 3.04). The Canons of Professional Ethics, before the
adoption of the CPR, had also warned that lawyers should not resort to indirect advertisements
for professional employment, such as furnishing or inspiring newspaper comments, or procuring
his photograph to be published in connection with causes in which the lawyer have been
engaged of concerning the manner of the conduct, the magnitude of the interest involved, the
importance the lawyer's position, and all other like self-laudation. There are existing exceptions
under the law on the rule prohibiting the advertisement of a lawyers services. However, 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, the court found and held that the same definitely do not and
conclusively cannot fall under any of the exceptions. The respondents defense with the case of
Bates vs. State Bar applies only when there is 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
stand therein are "not applicable in any state unless and until it is implemented by such
authority in that state. The Court Resolved to RESTRAIN and ENJOIN 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.

CASE 33
Khan vs Simbillo
AC # 5299
8/19/2003

Facts:
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
Petitioner:

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

Respondent:
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
Issue:
Whether or not Respondent violated the Canons?
Ruling:
Yes.
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)
DECISION:

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.

Vitug, (Acting Chairman),Carpio, and Azcuna, JJ., concur.

Davide, Jr., C.J., (Chairman ), abroad, on official business
CASE 34
A.C. No. 6672
PEDRO

September 4, 2009
L.

LINSANGAN,

Complainant,

vs.
ATTY. NICOMEDES TOLENTINO, Respondent
A.C. No. 6672
PEDRO

September 4, 2009
L.

LINSANGAN,

vs.
ATTY. NICOMEDES TOLENTINO, Respondent

Facts:

Complainant,

A complaint for disbarment was 1filed 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 assistance 3
and expeditious collection on their claims.4 To induce them to hire his services, he persistently
called them and sent them text messages. Further, in his business card, dangles with financial
assistance.

Issue:

Whether or not respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibility deserving to be

meted with the penalty of disbarment.

Held:

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. 13 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.

With regard to respondents violation of Rule 8.02 of the CPR, settled is the rule that a lawyer
should not steal another lawyers client nor induce the latter to retain him by a promise of better
service, good result or reduced fees for his services. 20 Again the Court notes that respondent
never denied having these seafarers in his client list nor receiving benefits from Labianos
"referrals." Furthermore, he never denied Labianos connection to his office. 21 Respondent

committed an unethical, predatory overstep into anothers legal practice. He cannot escape
liability under Rule 8.02 of the CPR.
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.27 For this reason, lawyers are only allowed to announce their
services by publication in reputable law lists or use of simple professional cards.
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Nicomedes Tolentino for violating Rules 1.03, 2.03, 8.02 and
16.04 and Canon 3 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Section 27, Rule 138 of the
Rules of Court is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of one year.

Facts:

A complaint for disbarment was 1filed 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 assistance 3
and expeditious collection on their claims.4 To induce them to hire his services, he persistently
called them and sent them text messages. Further, in his business card, dangles with financial
assistance.

Issue:

Whether or not respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibility deserving to be

meted with the penalty of disbarment.

Held:

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. 13 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.

With regard to respondents violation of Rule 8.02 of the CPR, settled is the rule that a lawyer
should not steal another lawyers client nor induce the latter to retain him by a promise of better
service, good result or reduced fees for his services. 20 Again the Court notes that respondent
never denied having these seafarers in his client list nor receiving benefits from Labianos
"referrals." Furthermore, he never denied Labianos connection to his office. 21 Respondent
committed an unethical, predatory overstep into anothers legal practice. He cannot escape
liability under Rule 8.02 of the CPR.
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.27 For this reason, lawyers are only allowed to announce their
services by publication in reputable law lists or use of simple professional cards.
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Nicomedes Tolentino for violating Rules 1.03, 2.03, 8.02 and
16.04 and Canon 3 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Section 27, Rule 138 of the
Rules of Court is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of one year.

Case 35
MANUEL G. VILLATUYA v. ATTY. BEDE S. TABALINGCOS A.C. No. 6622, July 10, 2012
Case Digest
FACTS:

Complainant, Manuel G. Villatuya filed a Complaint for Disbarment on December 06, 2004
against respondent, Atty. Bede S. Tabalingcos. In a resolution, the court required the
respondent to file a comment, which the respondent did. The complaint was then referred to the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines for investigation.

In a mandatory conference called for by the Commission on Bar Discipline of the IBP,
complainant and his counsel, and the respondent appeared and submitted issues for resolution.
The commission ordered the parties to submit their verified position papers.

In the position paper submitted by the complainant on August 1, 2005, he averred that he was
employed by the respondent as financial consultant to assist the respondent in a number of
corporate rehabilitation cases. Complainant claimed that they had a verbal agreement whereby
he would be entitled to 50,000 for every Stay Order issued by the court in the cases they
would handle, in addition to ten percent (10%) of the fees paid by their clients. Notwithstanding,
18 Stay Orders that was issued by the courts as a result of his work and the respondent being
able to rake in millions from the cases that they were working on together, the latter did not pay
the amount due to him. He also alleged that respondent engaged in unlawful solicitation of
cases by setting up two financial consultancy firms as fronts for his legal services. On the third
charge of gross immorality, complainant accused respondent of committing two counts of
bigamy for having married two other women while his first marriage was subsisting.

In his defense, respondent denied charges against him and asserted that the complainant was
not an employee of his law firm but rather an employee of Jesi and Jane Management, Inc., one
of the financial consultancy firms. Respondent alleged that complainant was unprofessional and
incompetent in performing his job and that there was no verbal agreement between them
regarding the payment of fees and the sharing of professional fees paid by his clients. He
proffered documents showing that the salary of complainant had been paid. Respondent also
denied committing any unlawful solicitation. To support his contention, respondent attached a
Joint Venture Agreement and an affidavit executed by the Vice-President for operations of Jesi
and Jane Management, Inc. On the charge of gross immorality, respondent assailed the
Affidavit of a dismissed messenger of Jesi and Jane Management, Inc., as having no probative

value, since it had been retracted by the affiant himself. Respondent did not specifically address
the allegations regarding his alleged bigamous marriages with two other women

On January 9, 2006, complainant filed a Motion to Admit Copies of 3 Marriage Contracts of

respondent wherein he attached the certified true copies of the Marriage Contracts referred to in
the Certification issued by the NSO.

On January 16, 2006, respondent submitted his Opposition to the Motion to Admit filed by
complainant, claiming that he was not given the opportunity to controvert them. He disclosed
that criminal cases for bigamy were filed against him by the complainant before the Office of the
City Prosecutor of Manila. He also informed the Commission that he filed Petition for
Declaration of Nullity of the first two marriage contracts. In both petitions, he claimed that he had
recently discovered that there were Marriage Contracts in the records of the NSO bearing his
name and allegedly executed with Rowena Pion and Pilar Lozano on different occasions.

The Commission scheduled a clarificatory hearing on 20 November 2007. Respondent moved

for the suspension of the resolution of the administrative case against him, pending outcome of
petition for nullification he filed with RTC, but was denied. The Commission resolved that the
administrative case against him be submitted for resolution.

On February 27, 2008, the Commission promulgated its Report and Recommendation
addressing the specific charges against respondent. The first charge, for dishonesty for the
nonpayment of certain shares in the fees, was dismissed for lack of merit. On the second
charge, the Commission found respondent to have violated the rule on the solicitation of client
for having advertised his legal services and unlawfully solicited cases. It recommended that he
be reprimanded for the violation. As for the third charge, the Commission found respondent to
be guilty of gross immorality for violating Rules 1.01 and 7.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility and Section 27 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court. Due to the gravity of the acts of
respondent, the Commission recommended that he be disbarred, and that his name be stricken
off the roll of attorneys.

On April 15, 2008, the IBP Board of Governors, through its Resolution No. XVIII-2008-154,
adopted and approved the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner.

On August 1, 2008, respondent filed a Motion for Reconsideration, arguing that the
recommendation to disbar him was premature.

On June 26, 2011, the IBP Board of Governors denied the Motions for Reconsideration and
affirmed their Resolution dated April 15, 2008 recommending respondents disbarment.

ISSUES:

1. Whether respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibility by nonpayment of fees

to complainant;

2. Whether respondent violated the rule against unlawful solicitation; and

3. Whether respondent is guilty of gross immoral conduct for having married thrice.

RULING:

First charge: Dishonesty for non-payments of share in the fees.

Supreme Court affirmed the IBPs dismissal of the first charge against respondent, but did not
concur with the rationale behind it. The first charge, if proven to be true is based on an
agreement that is violative of Rule 9.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. A lawyer is
proscribed by the Code to divide or agree to divide the fees for legal services rende-red with a
person not licensed to practice law. In the case of Tan Tek Beng v. David, Supreme Court held
that an agreement between a lawyer and a layperson to share the fees collected from clients
secured by the layperson is null and void, and that the lawyer involved may be disciplined for
unethical conduct. Considering that complainants allegations in this case had not been proven,
the IBP correctly dismissed the charge against respondent on this matter.

Second charge: Unlawful solicitation of clients.

In its Report, the IBP established the truth of these allegations and ruled that respondent had
violated the rule on the solicitation of clients, but it failed to point out the specific provision that
was breached. Based on the facts of the case, he violated Rule 2.03 of the Code, which
prohibits lawyers from soliciting cases for the purpose of profit.

A lawyer is not prohibited from engaging in business or other lawful occupation. Impropriety
arises, though, when the business is of such a nature or is conducted in such a manner as to be
inconsistent with the lawyers duties as a member of the bar. This inconsistency arises when the
business is one that can readily lend itself to the procurement of professional employment for
the lawyer; or that can be used as a cloak for indirect solicitation on the lawyers behalf; or is of
a nature that, if handled by a lawyer, would be regarded as the practice of law.

It is clear from the documentary evidence submitted by complainant that Jesi & Jane
Management, Inc., which purports to be a financial and legal consultant, was indeed a vehicle
used by respondent as a means to
procure professional employment; specifically for corporate rehabilitation cases.

Rule 15.08 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. 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, the Supreme Court affirm the recommendation to reprimand the latter for
violating Rules 2.03 and 15.08 of the Code.

Third charge: Bigamy.

The Supreme Court 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, in Garrido v. Garrido:
Laws dealing with double jeopardy or with procedure such as the verification of pleadings
and prejudicial questions, or in this case, prescription of offenses or the filing of affidavits of
desistance by the complainant do not apply in the determination of a lawyer's qualifications
and fitness for membership in the Bar. We have so ruled in the past and we see no reason to
depart from this ruling. First, admission to the practice of law is a component of the
administration of justice and is a matter of public interest because it involves service to the
public. The admission qualifications are also qualifications for the continued enjoyment of the
privilege to practice law. Second, lack of qualifications or the violation of the standards for the
practice of law, like criminal cases, is a matter of public concern that the State may inquire into
through this Court.
In disbarment proceedings, the burden of proof rests upon the complainant. In this case,
complainant submitted NSO-certified true copies to prove that respondent entered into two
marriages while the latters first marriage was still subsisting. While respondent denied entering
into the second and the third marriages, he resorted to vague assertions tantamount to a
negative pregnant.

What has been clearly established here is the fact that respondent entered into marriage twice
while his first marriage was still subsisting. In Bustamante-Alejandro v. Alejandro, 56 we held
thus:

[W]e have in a number of cases disciplined members of the Bar whom we found guilty of
misconduct which demonstrated a lack of that good moral character required of them not only
as a condition precedent for their admission to the Bar but, likewise, for their continued
membership therein. No distinction has been made as to whether the misconduct was
committed in the lawyers professional capacity or in his private life. This is because a lawyer
may not divide his personality so as to be an attorney at one time and a mere citizen at another.
He is expected to be competent, honorable and reliable at all times since he who cannot apply
and abide by the laws in his private affairs, can hardly be expected to do so in his professional
dealings nor lead others in doing so. Professional honesty and honor are not to be expected as
the accompaniment of dishonesty and dishonor in other relations. The administration of justice,
in which the lawyer plays an important role being an officer of the court, demands a high degree
of intellectual and moral competency on his part so that the courts and clients may rightly
repose confidence in him.

Respondent exhibited a deplorable lack of that degree of morality required of him as a member
of the bar. He made a mockery of marriage, a sacred institution demanding respect and
dignity.57 His acts of committing bigamy twice constituted grossly immoral conduct and are
grounds for disbarment under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court.58

The Supreme Court adopted the recommendation of the IBP to disbar respondent and ordered
that his name be stricken from the Roll of Attorneys.
Posted by gemendio at 11:44 PM