Legal Ethics - Assignment #3

Legal Ethics Assignment #3
Lawyer's Oath
I, do solemnly swear that I will maintain allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines, I will support the
Constitution and obey the laws as well as the legal orders of the duly constituted authorities therein; I will do no
falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court; I will not wittingly or willingly promote or sue any
groundless, false or unlawful suit, or give aid nor consent to the same; I will delay no man for money or malice,
and will conduct myself as a lawyer according to the best of my knowledge and discretion, with all good fidelity
as well to the courts as to my clients; and I impose upon myself these voluntary obligations without any mental
reservation or purpose of evasion. So help me God.
CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY

(Promulgated June 21, 1988)
CHAPTER I. THE LAWYER AND SOCIETY
CANON 1 - A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF THE LAND
AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW OF AND LEGAL PROCESSES.
Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
Rule 1.02 - A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening confidence
in the legal system.
Rule 1.03 - A lawyer shall not, for any corrupt motive or interest, encourage any suit or proceeding or delay any
man's cause.
Rule 1.04 - A lawyer shall encourage his clients to avoid, end or settle a controversy if it will admit of a fair
settlement.
CANON 2 - A LAWYER SHALL MAKE HIS LEGAL SERVICES AVAILABLE IN AN EFFICIENT AND
CONVENIENT MANNER COMPATIBLE WITH THE INDEPENDENCE, INTEGRITY AND
EFFECTIVENESS OF THE PROFESSION.
Rule 2.01 - A lawyer shall not reject, except for valid reasons, the cause of the defenseless or the oppressed.
Rule 2.02 - In such cases, even if the lawyer does not accept a case, he shall not refuse to render legal advice to
the person concerned if only to the extent necessary to safeguard the latter's rights.
Rule 2.03 - A lawyer shall not do or permit to be done any act designed primarily to solicit legal business.
Rule 2.04 - A lawyer shall not charge rates lower than those customarily prescribed unless the circumstances so
warrant.
1
CANON 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.
CANON 4 - A LAWYER SHALL PARTICIPATE IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE LEGAL SYSTEM BY

INITIATING OR SUPPORTING EFFORTS IN LAW REFORM AND IN THE IMPROVEMENT OF THE
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE.
CANON 5 - A LAWYER SHALL KEEP ABREAST OF LEGAL DEVELOPMENTS, PARTICIPATE IN

CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS, SUPPORT EFFORTS TO ACHIEVE HIGH
STANDARDS IN LAW SCHOOLS AS WELL AS IN THE PRACTICAL TRAINING OF LAW STUDENTS
AND ASSIST IN DISSEMINATING THE LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE.
CANON 6 - THESE CANONS SHALL APPLY TO LAWYERS IN GOVERNMENT SERVICES IN THE

DISCHARGE OF THEIR TASKS.
Rule 6.01 - The primary duty of a lawyer engaged in public prosecution is not to convict but to see that justice
is done. The suppression of facts or the concealment of witnesses capable of establishing the innocence of the
accused is highly reprehensible and is cause for disciplinary action.
Rule 6.02 - A lawyer in the government service shall not use his public position to promote or advance his
private interests, nor allow the latter to interfere with his public duties.
Rule 6.03 - A lawyer shall not, after leaving government service, accept engagement or employment in
connection with any matter in which he had intervened while in said service.
2
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
B.M. No. 850 August 22, 2000
MANDATORY CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION (MCLE)

ADOPTING THE RULES ON MANDATORY CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION FOR MEMBERS
OF THE INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES
EN BANC
RESOLUTION
Considering the Rules on Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) for members of the Integrated Bar
of the Philippines (IBP), recommended by the IBP, endorsed by the Philippine Judicial Academy, and reviewed
and passed upon by the Supreme Court Committee on Legal Education, the Court hereby resolves to adopt, as it
hereby adopts, the following rules for proper implementation:
RULE 1
PURPOSE
Section 1. Purpose of the MCLE
Continuing legal education is required of members of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) to ensure that
throughout their career, they keep abreast with law and jurisprudence, maintain the ethics of the profession and
enhance the standards of the practice of law.
RULE 2
MANDATORY CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION
Section 1. Constitution of the MCLE Committee
Within two (2) months from the approval of these Rules by the Supreme Court En Banc, the MCLE Committee
shall be constituted in accordance with these Rules.
Section 2. Requirements of completion of MCLE
Members of the IBP not exempt under Rule 7 shall complete, every three (3) years, at least thirty-six (36) hours
of continuing legal education activities approved by the MCLE Committee. Of the 36 hours:
(a) At least six (6) hours shall be devoted to legal ethics.
(b) At least (4) hours shall be devoted to trial and pretrial skills.
(c) At least five (5) hours shall be devoted to alternative dispute resolution.
3
(d) At least nine (9) hours shall be devoted to updates on substantive and procedural laws, and
jurisprudence.
(e) At least four (4) hours shall be devoted to legal writing and oral advocacy.
(f) At least two (2) hours shall be devoted to international law and international conventions.
(g) The remaining six (6) hours shall be devoted to such subjects as may be prescribed by the MCLE
Committee.
RULE 3
COMPLIANCE PERIOD
Section 1. Initial compliance period
The initial compliance period shall begin not later than three (3) months from the constitution of the MCLE
Committee. Except for the initial compliance period for members admitted or readmitted after the establishment
of the program, all compliance periods shall be for thirty-six (36) months and shall begin the day after the end
of the previous compliance period.
Section 2. Compliance Group 1.
Members in the National Capital Region (NCR) or Metro Manila shall be permanently assigned to Compliance
Group 1.
Members in Luzon outside NCR shall be permanently assigned to Compliance Group 2.
Members in Visayas and Mindanao shall be permanently assigned to Compliance Group 3.
Section 5. Compliance period for members admitted or readmitted after establishment of the program.
Members admitted or readmitted to the Bar after the establishment of the program shall be permanently
assigned to the appropriate Compliance Group based on their Chapter membership on the date of admission or
readmission.
The initial compliance period after admission or readmission shall begin on the first day of the month of
admission or readmission and shall end on the same day as that of all other members in the same Compliance
Group.
(a) Where four (4) months or less remain of the initial compliance period after admission or
readmission, the member is not required to comply with the program requirement for the initial
compliance.
4
(b) Where more than four (4) months remain of the initial compliance period after admission or
readmission, the member shall be required to complete a number of hours of approved continuing legal
education activities equal to the number of months remaining in the compliance period in which the
member is admitted or readmitted. Such member shall be required to complete a number of hours of
education in legal ethics in proportion to the number of months remaining in the compliance period.
Fractions of hours shall be rounded up to the next whole number.
RULE 4
COMPUTATION OF CREDIT UNITS
Section 1. Guidelines
The following are the guidelines for computation of credit units (CU):
PROGRAMS CREDIT UNITS SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS
1. SEMINARS, CONVENTIONS, CONFERENCES, SYMPOSIA, IN-HOUSE EDUCATION

PROGRAMS, WORKSHOPS, DIALOGUES, ROUND TABLE DISCUSSIONS BY APPROVED
PROVIDERS UNDER RULE 7 AND OTHER RELATED RULES
1.1 PARTICIPANT 1 CU PER HOUR CERTIFICATE OF ATTENDANCE WITH NUMBER

OF HOURS
1.2 LECTURER 5 CU PER HOUR PHOTOCOPY OF PLAQUE OR SPONSOR'S

CERTIFICATION
1.3 RESOURCE 3 CU PER HOUR PHOTOCOPY OF PLAQUE OR SPONSOR'S SPEAKER

CERTIFICATION
1.4 ASSIGNED 2 CU PER HOUR CERTIFICATION FROM SPONSORING PENALIST/

ORGANIZATION REACTOR/COMMENTATOR
1.5 MODERATOR/ 2 CU PER HOUR CERTIFICATION FROM SPONSORING

COORDINATOR/ ORGANIZATION FACILITATOR
2. AUTHORSHIP, EDITING AND REVIEW
2.1 RESEARCH/ 5-10 CREDIT UNITS DULY CERTIFIED/PUBLISHED INNOVATIVE

TECHNICAL REPORT/PAPER PROGRAM/CREATIVE PROJECT
2.2 BOOK 50-100 PP 101+ PUBLISHED BOOK SINGLE AUTHOR 12-16 CU 17-20 CU
2 AUTHORS 10-12 CU 13-16 CU
3 OR MORE 5-6 CU 7-11 CU
2.3 BOOK EDITOR 1/2 OF THE CU OF PUBLISHED BOOK WITH PROOF AUTHORSHIP
AS EDITOR CATEGORY
5
2.4 LEGAL ARTICLE 5-10 PP 11+ PUBLISHED ARTICLE SINGLE AUTHOR 6 CU 8 CU
2 AUTHORS 4 CU 6 CU
3 OR MORE 2 CU 4 CU
2.5 LEGAL 3-6 CU PER ISSUE PUBLISHED NEWSLETTER/JOURNAL

NEWSLETTER/LAW JOURNAL EDITOR
3. PROFESSIONAL 6 CU PER CHAIR CERTIFICATION OF LAW DEAN CHAIR/BAR 1 CU PER

LECTURE OR BAR REVIEW DIRECTOR REVIEW/ HOUR LECTURE/LAW TEACHING
Section 2. Limitation on certain credit units
In numbers 2 and 3 of the guidelines in the preceding Section, the total maximum credit units shall not exceed
twenty (20) hours per three (3) years.
RULE 5
CATEGORIES OF CREDIT
Section 1. Classes of credits
The credits are either participatory or non-participatory.
Section 2. Claim for participatory credit
Participatory credit may be claimed for:
(a) Attending approved education activities like seminars, conferences, symposia, in-house education
programs, workshops, dialogues or round table discussions.
(b) Speaking or lecturing, or acting as assigned panelist, reactor, commentator, resource speaker,
moderator, coordinator or facilitator in approved education activities.
(c) Teaching in a law school or lecturing in a bar review class.
Section 3. Claim for non-participatory credit
Non-participatory credit may be claimed per compliance period for:
(a) Preparing, as an author or co-author, written materials published or accepted for publication, e.g., in
the form of an article, chapter, book, or book review which contribute to the legal education of the
author member, which were not prepared in the ordinary course of the member's practice or
employment.
(b) Editing a law book, law journal or legal newsletter.
RULE 6
COMPUTATION OF CREDIT HOURS
6
Section 1. Computation of credit hours
Credit hours are computed based on actual time spent in an activity (actual instruction or speaking time), in
hours to the nearest one-quarter hour.
RULE 7
EXEMPTIONS
Section 1. Parties exempted from the MCLE
The following members of the Bar are exempt from the MCLE requirement:
(a) The President and the Vice President of the Philippines, and the Secretaries and Undersecretaries of
Executives Departments;
(b) Senators and Members of the House of Representatives;
(c) The Chief Justice and Associate Justices of the Supreme Court, incumbent and retired members of
the judiciary, incumbent members of the Judicial and Bar Council and incumbent court lawyers covered
by the Philippine Judicial Academy program of continuing judicial education;
(d) The Chief State Counsel, Chief State Prosecutor and Assistant Secretaries of the Department of
Justice;
(e) The Solicitor General and the Assistant Solicitor General;
(f) The Government Corporate Counsel, Deputy and Assistant Government Corporate Counsel;
(g) The Chairmen and Members of the Constitutional Commissions;
(h) The Ombudsman, the Overall Deputy Ombudsman, the Deputy Ombudsmen and the Special
Prosecutor of the Office of the Ombudsman;
(i) Heads of government agencies exercising quasi-judicial functions;
(j) Incumbent deans, bar reviews and professors of law who have teaching experience for at least 10
years accredited law schools;
(k) The Chancellor, Vice-Chancellor and members of the Corps of Professors and Professorial Lectures
of the Philippine Judicial Academy; and
(l) Governors and Mayors.
Section 2. Other parties exempted from the MCLE
The following Members of the Bar are likewise exempt:
(a) Those who are not in law practice, private or public.
7
(b) Those who have retired from law practice with the approval of the IBP Board of Governors.
Section 3. Good cause for exemption from or modification of requirement
A member may file a verified request setting forth good cause for exemption (such as physical disability,
illness, post graduate study abroad, proven expertise in law, etc.) from compliance with or modification of any
of the requirements, including an extension of time for compliance, in accordance with a procedure to be
established by the MCLE Committee.
Section 4. Change of status
The compliance period shall begin on the first day of the month in which a member ceases to be exempt under
Sections 1, 2, or 3 of this Rule and shall end on the same day as that of all other members in the same
Compliance Group.
Section 5. Proof of exemption
Applications for exemption from or modification of the MCLE requirement shall be under oath and supported
by documents.
RULE 8
STANDARDS FOR APPROVAL OF EDUCATION ACTIVITIES
Section 1. Approval of MCLE program
Subject to the rules as may be adopted by the MCLE Committee, continuing legal education program may be
granted approval in either of two (2) ways: (1) the provider of the activity is an approved provider and certifies
that the activity meets the criteria of Section 3 of this Rules; and (2) the provider is specially mandated by law
to provide continuing legal education.
Section 2. Standards for all education activities
All continuing legal education activities must meet the following standards:
(a) The activity shall have significant current intellectual or practical content.
(b) The activity shall constitute an organized program of learning related to legal subjects and the legal
profession, including cross profession activities (e.g., accounting-tax or medical-legal) that enhance
legal skills or the ability to practice law, as well as subjects in legal writing and oral advocacy.
(c) The activity shall be conducted by a provider with adequate professional experience.
(d) Where the activity is more than one (1) hour in length, substantive written materials must be
distributed to all participants. Such materials must be distributed at or before the time the activity is
offered.
(e) In-house education activities must be scheduled at a time and location so as to be free from
interruption like telephone calls and other distractions.
8
RULE 9
APPROVAL OF PROVIDERS
Section 1. Approval of providers
Approval of providers shall be done by the MCLE Committee.
Section 2. Requirements for approval of providers
Any persons or group may be approved as a provider for a term of two (2) years, which may be renewed, upon
written application. All providers of continuing legal education activities, including in-house providers, are
eligible to be approved providers. Application for approval shall:
(a) Be submitted on a form provided by the IBP;
(b) Contain all information requested on the form;
(c) Be accompanied by the approval fee;
Section 3. Requirements of all providers
All approved providers shall agree to the following:
(a) An official record verifying the attendance at the activity shall be maintained by the provider for at
least four (4) years after the completion date. The provider shall include the member on the official
record of attendance only if the member's signature was obtained at the time of attendance at the
activity. The official record of attendance shall contain the member's name and number in the Roll of
Attorneys and shall identify the time, date, location, subject matter, and length of the education activity.
A copy of such record shall be furnished the IBP.
(b) The provider shall certify that:
(1) This activity has been approved for MCLE by the IBP in the amount of ________ hours of
which hours will apply in (legal ethics, etc.), as appropriate to the content of the activity;
(2) The activity conforms to the standards for approved education activities prescribed by these
Rules and such regulations as may be prescribed by the IBP pertaining to MCLE.
(c) The provider shall issue a record or certificate to all participants identifying the time, date, location,
subject matter and length of the activity.
(d) The provider shall allow in-person observation of all approved continuing legal education activities
by members of the IBP Board of Governors, the MCLE Committee, or designees of the Committee and
IBP staff for purposes of monitoring compliance with these Rules.
(e) The provider shall indicate in promotional materials, the nature of the activity, the time devoted to
each devoted to each topic and identify of the instructors. The provider shall make available to each
participant a copy of IBP-approved Education Activity Evaluation Form.
9
(f) The provider shall maintain the completed Education Activity Evaluation Forms for a period of not
less than one (1) year after the activity, copy furnished the IBP.
(g) Any person or group who conducts an unauthorized activity under this program or issues a spurious
certificate in violation of these Rules shall be subject to appropriate sanctions.
Section 4. Renewal of provider approval
The approval of a provider may be renewed every two (2) years. It may be denied if the provider fails to comply
with any of the requirements of these Rules or fails to provide satisfactory education activities for the preceding
period.
Section 5. Revocation of provider approval
The approval of any provider referred to in Rule 9 may be revoked by a majority vote of the IBP Board of
Governors, upon recommendation of the MCLE Committee, after notice and hearing and for good cause.
RULE 10
ACTIVITY AND PROVIDER APPROVAL FEE
Section 1. Payment of fees
Application for approval of an education activity or as a provider requires payment of an appropriate fee.
RULE 11
GENERAL COMPLIANCE PROCEDURES
Section 1. Compliance card
Each member shall secure from the MCLE Committee a Compliance Card before the end of his compliance
period. He shall complete the card by attesting under oath that he has complied with the education requirement
or that he is exempt, specifying the nature of the exemption. Such Compliance Card must be returned to the
address indicated therein not later than the day after the end of the member's compliance period.
Section 2. Member record keeping requirement
Each member shall maintain sufficient record of compliance or exemption, copy furnished the MCLE
Committee. The record required to be provided to the members by the provider pursuant to Section 3(c) of Rule
9 should be sufficient record of attendance at a participatory activity. A record of non-participatory activity
shall also be maintained by the member, as referred to in Section 3 of Rule 5.
RULE 12
NON-COMPLIANCE PROCEDURES
Section 1. What constitutes non-compliance
The following shall constitute non-compliance
10
(a) Failure to complete the education requirement within the compliance period;
(b) Failure to provide attestation of compliance or exemption;
(c) Failure to provide satisfactory evidence of compliance (including evidence of exempt status) within
the prescribed period;
(d) Failure to satisfy the education requirement and furnish evidence of such compliance within sixty
(60) days from receipt of a non-compliance notice;
(e) Any other act or omission analogous to any of the foregoing or intended to circumvent or evade
compliance with the MCLE requirements.
Section 2. Non-compliance notice and 60-day period to attain compliance
A member failing to comply will receive a Non-Compliance Notice stating the specific deficiency and will be
given sixty (60) days from the date of notification to explain the deficiency or otherwise show compliance with
the requirements. Such notice shall contain, among other things, the following language in capital letters:
YOUR FAILURE TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE JUSTIFICATION FOR NON-COMPLIANCE OR

PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE MCLE REQUIREMENT BY (INSERT DATE 60 DAYS
FROM THE DATE OF NOTICE), SHALL BE A CAUSE FOR LISTING AS A DELINQUENT
MEMBER.
The Member may use this period to attain the adequate number of credit hours for compliance. Credit hours
earned during this period may only be counted toward compliance with the prior compliance period requirement
unless hours in excess of the requirement are earned, in which case, the excess hours may be counted toward
meeting the current compliance period requirement.lawphil.net
RULE 13
CONSEQUENCES OF NON-COMPLIANCE
Section 1. Non-compliance fee
A member who, for whatever reason, is in non-compliance at the end of the compliance period shall pay a non-
compliance fee.
Section 2. Listing as delinquent member
Any member who fails to satisfactorily comply with Section 2 of Rule 12 shall be listed as a delinquent member
by the IBP Board of Governors upon the recommendation of the MCLE Committee, in which case, Rule 139-A
of the Rules of Court shall apply.
11
RULE 14
REINSTATEMENT
Section 1. Process
The involuntary listing as a delinquent member shall be terminated when the member provides proof of
compliance with the MCLE requirement, including payment of non-compliance fee. A member may attain the
necessary credit hours to meet the requirement for the period of non-compliance during the period the member
is on inactive status. These credit hours may not be counted toward meeting the current compliance period
requirement. Credit hours attained during the period of non-compliance in excess of the number needed to
satisfy the prior compliance period requirement may be counted toward meeting the current compliance period
requirement.lawphil.net
Section 2. Termination of delinquent listing administrative process
The termination of listing as a delinquent member is administrative in nature but it shall be made with notice
and hearing by the MCLE Committee.
RULE 15
MANDATORY CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION COMMITTEE
Section 1. Composition
The MCLE Committee shall be composed of five (5) members, namely: a retired Justice of the Supreme Court,
as Chair, and four (4) members, respectively, nominated by the IBP, the Philippine Judicial Academy, a law
center designated by the Supreme Court and associations of law schools and/or law professors.
The members of the Committee shall be of proven probity and integrity. They shall be appointed by the
Supreme Court for a term of three (3) years and shall receive such compensation as may be determined by the
Court.
Section 2. Duty of the Committee
The MCLE Committee shall administer and adopt such implementing rules as may be necessary subject to the
approval by the Supreme Court. It shall, in consultation with the IBP Board of Governors, prescribe a schedule
of MCLE fees with the approval of the Supreme Court.
Section 3. Staff of the IBP
The IBP shall employ such staff as may be necessary to perform the record-keeping, auditing, reporting,
approval and other necessary functions.
Section 4. Submission of annual budget
The IBP shall submit to the Supreme Court an annual budget for a subsidy to establish, operate and maintain the
MCLE Program.
This resolution shall take effect in October 2000, following its publication in two (2) newspaper of general
circulation in the Philippines.
12
Adopted this 22nd day of August, 2000.
Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Purisima,
Pardo, Buena, Gonzaga-Reyes, Ynares-Santiago and De Leon, Jr., JJ.,concur.
CASES
[ADM. CASE No. 3319. June 8, 2000.]
LESLIE UI, Complainant, v. ATTY. IRIS BONIFACIO, Respondent.
DECISION
DE LEON, JR., J.:
Before us is an administrative complaint for disablement against Atty. Iris Bonifacio for allegedly carrying on
an immoral relationship with Carlos L. Ui, husband of complainant, Leslie Ui.
The relevant facts are:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
On January 24, 1971 complainant Leslie Ui married Carlos L. Ui at the Our Lady of Lourdes Church in Quezon
City 1 and as a result of their marital union, they had four (4) children, namely, Leilani, Lianni, Lindsay and
Carl Cavin, all surnamed Ui. Sometime in December 1987, however, complainant found out that her husband,
Carlos Ui, was carrying on an illicit relationship with respondent Atty. Iris Bonifacio with whom he begot a
daughter sometime in 1986, and that they had been living together at No. 527 San Carlos Street, Ayala Alabang
Village in Muntinlupa City. Respondent who is a graduate of the College of Law of the University of the
Philippines was admitted to the Philippine Bar in 1982.chanrobles.com.ph:red
Carlos Ui admitted to complainant his relationship with the Respondent. Complainant then visited respondent at
her office in the later part of June 1988 and introduced herself as the legal wife of Carlos Ui. Whereupon,
respondent admitted to her that she has a child with Carlos Ui and alleged, however, that everything was over
between her and Carlos Ui. Complainant believed the representations of respondent and thought things would
turn out well from then on and that the illicit relationship between her husband and respondent would come to
an end.
However, complainant again discovered that the illicit relationship between her husband and respondent
continued, and that sometime in December 1988, respondent and her husband, Carlos Ui, had a second child.
Complainant then met again with respondent sometime in March 1989 and pleaded with respondent to
discontinue her illicit relationship with Carlos Ui but to no avail. The illicit relationship persisted and
complainant even came to know later on that respondent had been employed by her husband in his company.
A complaint for disbarment, docketed as Adm. Case No. 3319, was then filed on August 11, 1989 by the
complainant against respondent Atty. Iris Bonifacio before the Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated
Bar of the Philippines (hereinafter, Commission) on the ground of immorality, more particularly, for carrying
on an illicit relationship with the complainant’s husband, Carlos Ui. In her Answer, 2 respondent averred that
13
she met Carlos Ui sometime in 1983 and had known him all along to be a bachelor, with the knowledge,
however, that Carlos Ui had children by a Chinese woman in Amoy, China, from whom he had long been
estranged. She stated that during one of their trips abroad, Carlos Ui formalized his intention to marry her and
they in fact got married in Hawaii, USA in 1985. 3 Upon their return to Manila, respondent did not live with
Carlos Ui. The latter continued to live with his children in their Greenhills residence because respondent and
Carlos Ui wanted to let the children gradually to know and accept the fact of his second marriage before they
would live together. 4chanrobles virtuallawlibrary
In 1986, respondent left the country and stayed in Honolulu, Hawaii and she would only return occasionally to
the Philippines to update her law practice and renew legal ties. During one of her trips to Manila sometime in
June 1988, respondent was surprised when she was confronted by a woman who insisted that she was the lawful
wife of Carlos Ui. Hurt and desolate upon her discovery of the true civil status of Carlos Ui, respondent then left
for Honolulu, Hawaii sometime in July 1988 and returned only in March 1989 with her two (2) children. On
March 20, 1989, a few days after she reported to work with the law firm 5 she was connected with, the woman
who represented herself to be the wife of Carlos Ui again came to her office, demanding to know if Carlos Ui
has been communicating with her.
It is respondent’s contention that her relationship with Carlos Ui is not illicit because they were married abroad
and that after June 1988 when respondent discovered Carlos Ui’s true civil status, she cut off all her ties with
him. Respondent averred that Carlos Ui never lived with her in Alabang, and that he resided at 26 Potsdam
Street, Greenhills, San Juan, Metro Manila. It was respondent who lived in Alabang in a house which belonged
to her mother, Rosalinda L. Bonifacio; and that the said house was built exclusively from her parents’ funds. 6
By way of counterclaim, respondent sought moral damages in the amount of Ten Million Pesos
(Php10,000,000.00) against complainant for having filed the present allegedly malicious and groundless
disbarment case against Respondent.
In her Reply 7 dated April 6, 1990, complainant states, among others, that respondent knew perfectly well that
Carlos Ui was married to complainant and had children with her even at the start of her relationship with Carlos
Ui, and that the reason respondent went abroad was to give birth to her two (2) children with Carlos
Ui.chanrobles.com : law library
During the pendency of the proceedings before the Integrated Bar, complainant also charged her husband,
Carlos Ui, and respondent with the crime of Concubinage before the Office of the Provincial Fiscal of Rizal,
docketed as I.S. No. 89-5247, but the same was dismissed for insufficiency of evidence to establish probable
cause for the offense charged. The resolution dismissing the criminal complaint against respondent
reads:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
Complainant’s evidence had prima facie established the existence of the "illicit relationship" between the
respondents allegedly discovered by the complainant in December 1987. The same evidence however show that
respondent Carlos Ui was still living with complainant up to the latter part of 1988 and/or the early part of 1989.
It would therefore be logical and safe to state that the "relationship" of respondents started and was discovered
by complainant sometime in 1987 when she and respondent Carlos were still living at No. 26 Potsdam Street,
Northeast Greenhills, San Juan, Metro Manila and they, admittedly, continued to live together at their conjugal
home up to early (sic) part of 1989 or later 1988, when respondent Carlos left the same.
From the above, it would not be amiss to conclude that altho (sic) the relationship, illicit as complainant puts it,
had been prima facie established by complainant’s evidence, this same evidence had failed to even prima facie
establish the "fact of respondent’s cohabitation in the concept of husband and wife at the 527 San Carlos St.,
14
Ayala Alabang house, proof of which is necessary and indispensable to at least create probable cause for the
offense charged. The statement alone of complainant, worse, a statement only of a conclusion respecting the
fact of cohabitation does not make the complainant’s evidence thereto any better/stronger (U.S. v. Casipong and
Mongoy, 20 Phil. 178).chanrobles.com : virtual law library
It is worth stating that the evidence submitted by respondents in support of their respective positions on the
matter support and bolster the foregoing conclusion/recommendation.
WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully recommended that the instant complaint be dismissed for want of
evidence to establish probable cause for the offense charged.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED. 8
Complainant appealed the said Resolution of the Provincial Fiscal of Rizal to the Secretary of Justice, but the
same was dismissed 9 on the ground of insufficiency of evidence to prove her allegation that respondent and
Carlos Ui lived together as husband and wife at 527 San Carlos Street, Ayala Alabang, Muntinlupa, Metro
Manila.
In the proceedings before the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline, complainant filed a Motion to Cite
Respondent in Contempt of the Commission 10 wherein she charged respondent with making false allegations
in her Answer and for submitting a supporting document which was altered and intercalated. She alleged that in
the Answer of respondent filed before the Integrated Bar, respondent averred, among others, that she was
married to Carlos Ui on October 22, 1985 and attached a Certificate of Marriage to substantiate her averment.
However, the Certificate of Marriage 11 duly certified by the State Registrar as a true copy of the record on file
in the Hawaii State Department of Health, and duly authenticated by the Philippine Consulate General in
Honolulu, Hawaii, USA revealed that the date of marriage between Carlos Ui and respondent Atty. Iris
Bonifacio was October 22, 1987, and not October 22, 1985 as claimed by respondent in her Answer. According
to complainant, the reason for that false allegation was because respondent wanted to impress upon the said IBP
that the birth of her first child by Carlos Ui was within the wedlock. 12 It is the contention of complainant that
such act constitutes a violation of Articles 183 13 and 184 14 of the Revised Penal Code, and also contempt of
the Commission; and that the act of respondent in making false allegations in her Answer and submitting an
altered/intercalated document are indicative of her moral perversity and lack of integrity which make her
unworthy to be a member of the Philippine Bar.chanrobles.com : virtual law library
In her Opposition (To Motion To Cite Respondent in Contempt), 15 respondent averred that she did not have
the original copy of the marriage certificate because the same was in the possession of Carlos Ui, and that she
annexed such copy because she relied in good faith on what appeared on the copy of the marriage certificate in
her possession.
Respondent filed her Memorandum 16 on February 22, 1995, and raised the lone issue of whether or not she has
conducted herself in an immoral manner for which she deserves to be barred from the practice of law.
Respondent averred that the complaint should be dismissed on two (2) grounds, namely:chanrob1es virtual 1aw
library
(i) Respondent conducted herself in a manner consistent with the requirement of good moral character for the
practice of the legal profession; and
(ii) Complainant failed to prove her allegation that respondent conducted herself in an immoral manner. 17
15
In her defense, respondent contends, among others, that it was she who was the victim in this case and not
Leslie Ui because she did not know that Carlos Ui was already married, and that upon learning of this fact,
respondent immediately cut-off all her ties with Carlos Ui. She stated that there was no reason for her to doubt
at that time that the civil status of Carlos Ui was that of a bachelor because he spent so much time with her, and
he was so open in his courtship. 18chanrobles virtual lawlibrary
On the issue of the falsified marriage certificate, respondent alleged that it was highly incredible for her to have
knowingly attached such marriage certificate to her Answer had she known that the same was altered.
Respondent reiterated that there was no compelling reason for her to make it appear that her marriage to Carlos
Ui took place either in 1985 or 1987, because the fact remains that respondent and Carlos Ui got married before
complainant confronted respondent and informed the latter of her earlier marriage to Carlos Ui in June 1988.
Further, respondent stated that it was Carlos Ui who testified and admitted that he was the person responsible
for changing the date of the marriage certificate from 1987 to 1985, and complainant did not present evidence to
rebut the testimony of Carlos Ui on this matter.
Respondent posits that complainant’s evidence, consisting of the pictures of respondent with a child, pictures of
respondent with Carlos Ui, a picture of a garage with cars, a picture of a light colored car with Plate No. PNS
313, a picture of the same car, and portion of the house and ground, and another picture of the same car bearing
Plate No. PNS 313 and a picture of the house and the garage, 19 does not prove that she acted in an immoral
manner. They have no evidentiary value according to her. The pictures were taken by a photographer from a
private security agency and who was not presented during the hearings. Further, the respondent presented the
Resolution of the Provincial Fiscal of Pasig in I.S. Case No. 89-5427 dismissing the complaint filed by Leslie
Ui against respondent for lack of evidence to establish probable cause for the offense charged 20 and the
dismissal of the appeal by the Department of Justice 21 to bolster her argument that she was not guilty of any
immoral or illegal act because of her relationship with Carlos Ui. In fine, respondent claims that she entered the
relationship with Carlos Ui in good faith and that her conduct cannot be considered as willful, flagrant, or
shameless, nor can it suggest moral indifference. She fell in love with Carlos Ui whom she believed to be
single, and, that upon her discovery of his true civil status, she parted ways with him.chanrobles.com.ph : red
In the Memorandum 22 filed on March 20, 1995 by complainant Leslie Ui, she prayed for the disbarment of
Atty. Iris Bonifacio and reiterated that respondent committed immorality by having intimate relations with a
married man which resulted in the birth of two (2) children. Complainant testified that respondent’s mother,
Mrs. Linda Bonifacio, personally knew complainant and her husband since the late 1970s because they were
clients of the bank where Mrs. Bonifacio was the Branch Manager. 23 It was thus highly improbable that
respondent, who was living with her parents as of 1986, would not have been informed by her own mother that
Carlos Ui was a married man. Complainant likewise averred that respondent committed disrespect towards the
Commission for submitting a photocopy of a document containing an intercalated date.
In her Reply to Complainant’s Memorandum, 24 respondent stated that complainant miserably failed to show
sufficient proof to warrant her disbarment. Respondent insists that contrary to the allegations of complainant,
there is no showing that respondent had knowledge of the fact of marriage of Carlos Ui to complainant. The
allegation that her mother knew Carlos Ui to be a married man does not prove that such information was made
known to Respondent.
Hearing on the case ensued, after which the Commission on Bar Discipline submitted its Report and
Recommendation, finding that:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
In the case at bar, it is alleged that at the time respondent was courted by Carlos Ui, the latter represented
himself to be single. The Commission does not find said claim too difficult to believe in the light of
16
contemporary human experience.
Almost always, when a married man courts a single woman, he represents himself to be single, separated, or
without any firm commitment to another woman. The reason therefor is not hard to fathom. By their very
nature, single women prefer single men.
The records will show that when respondent became aware the (sic) true civil status of Carlos Ui, she left for
the United States (in July of 1988). She broke off all contacts with him. When she returned to the Philippines in
March of 1989, she lived with her brother, Atty. Teodoro Bonifacio, Jr. Carlos Ui and respondent only talked to
each other because of the children whom he was allowed to visit. At no time did they live together.
Under the foregoing circumstances, the Commission fails to find any act on the part of respondent that can be
considered as unprincipled or disgraceful as to be reprehensible to a high degree. To be sure, she was more of a
victim that (sic) anything else and should deserve compassion rather than condemnation. Without cavil, this sad
episode destroyed her chance of having a normal and happy family life, a dream cherished by every single girl.
x x x"
Thereafter, the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines issued a Notice of Resolution dated
December 13, 1997, the dispositive portion of which reads as follows:chanrobles.com : virtual law library
RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby ADOPTED and APPROVED, the Report and
Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner in the above-entitled case, herein made part of this
Resolution/Decision as Annex "A", and, finding the recommendation fully supported by the evidence on record
and the applicable laws and rules, the complaint for Gross Immorality against Respondent is DISMISSED for
lack of merit. Atty. Iris Bonifacio is REPRIMANDED for knowingly and willfully attaching to her Answer a
falsified Certificate of Marriage with a stern warning that a repetition of the same will merit a more severe
penalty."cralaw virtua1aw library
We agree with the findings aforequoted.
The practice of law is a privilege. A bar candidate does not have the right to enjoy the practice of the legal
profession simply by passing the bar examinations. It is a privilege that can be revoked, subject to the mandate
of due process, once a lawyer violates his oath and the dictates of legal ethics. The requisites for admission to
the practice of law are:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
a. he must be a citizen of the Philippines;
b. a resident thereof;
c. at least twenty-one (21) years of age;
d. a person of good moral character;
e. he must show that no charges against him involving moral turpitude, are filed or pending in court;
f. possess the required educational qualifications; and
g. pass the bar examinations. 25 (Emphasis supplied)

17
Clear from the foregoing is that one of the conditions prior to admission to the bar is that an applicant must
possess good moral character. More importantly, possession of good moral character must be continuous as a
requirement to the enjoyment of the privilege of law practice, otherwise, the loss thereof is a ground for the
revocation of such privilege. It has been held: —
If good moral character is a sine qua non for admission to the bar, then the continued possession of good moral
character is also a requisite for retaining membership in the legal profession. Membership in the bar may be
terminated when a lawyer ceases to have good moral character. (Royong v. Oblena, 117 Phil. 865).
A lawyer may be disbarred for "grossly immoral conduct, or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving
moral turpitude." A member of the bar should have moral integrity in addition to professional probity. It is
difficult to state with precision and to fix an inflexible standard as to what is "grossly immoral conduct" or to
specify the moral delinquency and obliquity which render a lawyer unworthy of continuing as a member of the
bar. The rule implies that what appears to be unconventional behavior to the straight-laced may not be the
immoral conduct that warrants disbarment.
Immoral conduct has been defined as "that conduct which is willful, flagrant, or shameless, and which shows a
moral indifference to the opinion of the good and respectable members of the community." (7 C.J.S. 959).
26chanrobles virtual lawlibrary
In the case at bar, it is the claim of respondent Atty. Bonifacio that when she met Carlos Ui, she knew and
believed him to be single. Respondent fell in love with him and they got married and as a result of such
marriage, she gave birth to two (2) children. Upon her knowledge of the true civil status of Carlos Ui, she left
him
Simple as the facts of the case may sound, the effects of the actuations of respondent are not only far from
simple, they will have a rippling effect on how the standard norms of our legal practitioners should be defined.
Perhaps morality in our liberal society today is a far cry from what it used to be before. This permissiveness
notwithstanding, lawyers, as keepers of public faith, are burdened with a higher degree of social responsibility
and thus must handle their personal affairs with greater caution. The facts of this case lead us to believe that
perhaps respondent would not have found herself in such a compromising situation had she exercised prudence
and been more vigilant in finding out more about Carlos Ui’s personal background prior to her intimate
involvement with him.
Surely, circumstances existed which should have at least aroused respondent’s suspicion that something was
amiss in her relationship with Carlos Ui, and moved her to ask probing questions. For instance, respondent
admitted that she knew that Carlos Ui had children with a woman from Amoy, China, yet it appeared that she
never exerted the slightest effort to find out if Carlos Ui and this woman were indeed unmarried. Also, despite
their marriage in 1987, Carlos Ui never lived with respondent and their first child, a circumstance that is simply
incomprehensible considering respondent’s allegation that Carlos Ui was very open in courting her.chanrobles
virtuallawlibrary
All these taken together leads to the inescapable conclusion that respondent was imprudent in managing her
personal affairs. However, the fact remains that her relationship with Carlos Ui, clothed as it was with what
respondent believed was a valid marriage, cannot be considered immoral. For immorality connotes conduct that
shows indifference to the moral norms of society and the opinion of good and respectable members of the
community. 27 Moreover, for such conduct to warrant disciplinary action, the same must be "grossly immoral,"
that is, it must be so corrupt and false as to constitute a criminal act or so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to
18
a high degree. 28
We have held that "a member of the Bar and officer of the court is not only required to refrain from adulterous
relationships . . . but must also so behave himself as to avoid scandalizing the public by creating the belief that
he is flouting those moral standards." 29 Respondent’s act of immediately distancing herself from Carlos Ui
upon discovering his true civil status belies just that alleged moral indifference and proves that she had no
intention of flaunting the law and the high moral standard of the legal profession. Complainant’s bare assertions
to the contrary deserve no credit. After all, the burden of proof rests upon the complainant, and the Court will
exercise its disciplinary powers only if she establishes her case by clear, convincing and satisfactory evidence.
30 This, herein complainant miserably failed to do.
On the matter of the falsified Certificate of Marriage attached by respondent to her Answer, we find improbable
to believe the averment of respondent that she merely relied on the photocopy of the Marriage Certificate which
was provided her by Carlos Ui. For an event as significant as a marriage ceremony, any normal bride would
verily recall the date and year of her marriage. It is difficult to fathom how a bride, especially a lawyer as in the
case at bar, can forget the year when she got married. Simply stated, it is contrary to human experience and
highly improbable.
Furthermore, any prudent lawyer would verify the information contained in an attachment to her pleading,
especially so when she has personal knowledge of the facts and circumstances contained therein. In attaching
such Marriage Certificate with an intercalated date, the defense of good faith of respondent on that point cannot
stand.
It is the bounden duty of lawyers to adhere unwaveringly to the highest standards of morality. The legal
profession exacts from its members nothing less. Lawyers are called upon to safeguard the integrity of the Bar,
free from misdeeds and acts constitutive of malpractice. Their exalted positions as officers of the court demand
no less than the highest degree of morality.chanrobles.com : virtual law library
WHEREFORE, the complaint for disbarment against respondent Atty. Iris L. Bonifacio, for alleged immorality,
is hereby DISMISSED.
However, respondent is hereby REPRIMANDED for attaching to her Answer a photocopy of her Marriage
Certificate, with an altered or intercalated date thereof, with a STERN WARNING that a more severe sanction
will be imposed on her for any repetition of the same or similar offense in the future.
SO ORDERED.
Bellosillo, Mendoza, Quisumbing and Buena, JJ., concur.
19
A.C. No. 6486 September 22, 2004
EMMA T. DANTES, complainant,

vs.
ATTY. CRISPIN G. DANTES, respondent.
DECISION
PER CURIAM:
Despite variations in the specific standards and provisions, one requirement remains constant in all the
jurisdictions where the practice of law is regulated: the candidate must demonstrate that he or she has "good
moral character," and once he becomes a lawyer he should always behave in accordance with the standard. In
this jurisdiction too, good moral character is not only a condition precedent1 to the practice of law, but an
unending requirement for all the members of the bar. Hence, when a lawyer is found guilty of grossly immoral
conduct, he may be suspended or disbarred.2
In an Affidavit-Complaint3 dated June 6, 2001, filed with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), Emma T.
Dantes, sought the disbarment of her husband, Atty. Crispin G. Dantes on the ground of immorality,
abandonment, and violation of professional ethics and law. The case was docketed as CBD Case No. 01-851.
Complainant alleged that respondent is a philanderer. Respondent purportedly engaged in illicit relationships
with two women, one after the other, and had illegitimate children with them. From the time respondent’s illicit
affairs started, he failed to give regular support to complainant and their children, thus forcing complainant to
work abroad to provide for their children’s needs. Complainant pointed out that these acts of respondent
constitute a violation of his lawyer’s oath and his moral and legal obligation to be a role model to the
community.
On July 4, 2001, the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline issued an Order4 requiring respondent to submit his
answer to the Affidavit-Complaint.
Respondent submitted his Answer5 on November 19, 2001. Though admitting the fact of marriage with the
complainant and the birth of their children, respondent alleged that they have mutually agreed to separate
eighteen (18) years before after complainant had abandoned him in their Balintawak residence and fled to San
Fernando, Pampanga. Respondent claimed that when complainant returned after eighteen years, she insisted that
she be accommodated in the place where he and their children were residing. Thus, he was forced to live alone
in a rented apartment.
Respondent further alleged that he sent their children to the best school he could afford and provided for their
needs. He even bought two lots in Pampanga for his sons, Dandelo and Dante, and gave complainant adequate
financial support even after she had abandoned him in 1983.
Respondent asserted that complainant filed this case in order to force him to remit seventy percent (70%) of his
monthly salary to her.
Subsequently, the IBP conducted its investigation and hearings on the complaint. Complainant presented her
evidence, both oral and documentary,6 to support the allegations in her Affidavit-Complaint.
20
From the evidence presented by the complainant, it was established that on January 19, 1979, complainant and
respondent were married7 and lived with the latter’s mother in Balintawak. At that time, respondent was just a
fourth year law student. To make ends meet, complainant engaged in the buy and sell business and relied on
dole-outs from the respondent’s mother.
Three children were born to the couple, namely, Dandelo, Dante and Daisy, who were born on February 20,
1980,8 October 14, 19819 and August 11, 1983,10 respectively. Complainant narrated that their relationship was
marred by frequent quarrels because of respondent’s extra-marital affairs.11 Sometime in 1983, she brought their
children to her mother in Pampanga to enable her to work because respondent had failed to provide adequate
support. From 1986 to 2001, complainant worked abroad as a domestic helper.
Denying that there was a mutual agreement between her and respondent to live separately, complainant
asseverated that she was just compelled to work abroad to support their children. When she returned to the
Philippines, she learned that respondent was living with another woman. Respondent, then bluntly told her, that
he did not want to live with her anymore and that he preferred his mistresses.
Complainant presented documentary evidence consisting of the birth certificates of Ray Darwin, Darling, and
Christian Dave,12 all surnamed Dantes, and the affidavits of respondent and his paramour13 to prove the fact that
respondent sired three illegitimate children out of his illicit affairs with two different women. Letters of
complainant’s legitimate children likewise support the allegation that respondent is a womanizer.14
In an Order dated April 17, 2002, respondent was deemed to have waived his right to cross-examine
complainant, after he failed to appear during the scheduled hearings despite due notice. He, however, submitted
his Comment/Opposition to the Complainant’s Formal Offer of Evidence with Motion to Exclude the Evidence
from the Records of the Proceedings15 on August 1, 2002.
Subsequently, on May 29, 2003, respondent submitted a Motion to Adopt Alternative Dispute Resolution
Mechanism. Respondent’s motion was denied because it was filed after the complainant had already presented
her evidence.16 Respondent was given a final chance to present his evidence on July 11, 2003. Instead of
presenting evidence, respondent filed a Motion for Reconsideration with Motion to Dismiss, which was likewise
denied for being a prohibited pleading under the Rules of Procedure of the Commission on Bar Discipline.
Respondent submitted his Position Paper on August 4, 2003.
In respondent’s Position Paper,17 he reiterated the allegations in his Answer except that this time, he argued that
in view of the resolution of the complaint for support with alimony pendente lite18 filed against him by the
complainant before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City,19 the instant administrative case should be
dismissed for lack of merit.
On July 7, 2004, the IBP submitted to us through the Office of the Bar Confidant its Report20 and Resolution
No. XVI-2004-230 involving CBD Case No. 01-851.21 The IBP recommended that the respondent be suspended
indefinitely from the practice of law.
Except for the penalty, we find the above recommendation well-taken.
The Code of Professional Responsibility provides:
"Rule 1.01- A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct."
21
"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."
"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."
The Code of Professional Responsibility forbids lawyers from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
deceitful conduct. Immoral conduct has been defined as that conduct which is so willful, flagrant, or shameless
as to show indifference to the opinion of good and respectable members of the community.22 To be the basis of
disciplinary action, the lawyer’s conduct must not only be immoral, but grossly immoral. That is, it must be so
corrupt as to constitute a criminal act or so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high degree23 or committed
under such scandalous or revolting circumstances as to shock the common sense of decency.24
In Barrientos vs. Daarol,25 we ruled that as officers of the court, lawyers must not only in fact be of good moral
character but must also be seen to be of good moral character and leading lives in accordance with the highest
moral standards of the community. More specifically, a member of the Bar and officer of the court is not only
required to refrain from adulterous relationships or keeping mistresses but must also so behave himself as to
avoid scandalizing the public by creating the belief that he is flouting those moral standards. If the practice of
law is to remain an honorable profession and attain its basic ideals, those enrolled in its ranks should not only
master its tenets and principles but should also, in their lives, accord continuing fidelity to them. The
requirement of good moral character is of much greater import, as far as the general public is concerned, than
the possession of legal learning.
It should be noted that the requirement of good moral character has three ostensible purposes, namely: (i) to
protect the public; (ii) to protect the public image of lawyers; and (iii) to protect prospective clients. A writer
added a fourth: to protect errant lawyers from themselves.26
Lawyers are expected to abide by the tenets of morality, not only upon admission to the Bar but also throughout
their legal
career, in order to maintain their good standing in this exclusive and honored fraternity.27 They may be
suspended from the practice of law or disbarred for any misconduct, even if it pertains to his private activities,
as long as it shows him to be wanting in moral character, honesty, probity or good demeanor.28
Undoubtedly, respondent’s acts of engaging in illicit relationships with two different women during the
subsistence of his marriage to the complainant constitutes grossly immoral conduct warranting the imposition
appropriate sanctions. Complainant’s testimony, taken in conjunction with the documentary evidence,
sufficiently established respondent’s commission of marital infidelity and immorality. Evidently, respondent
had breached the high and exacting moral standards set for members of the law profession. He has made a
mockery of marriage which is a sacred institution demanding respect and dignity.29
In Toledo vs. Toledo,30 we disbarred respondent for abandoning his lawful wife and cohabiting with another
woman who had borne him a child. Likewise, in Obusan vs. Obusan,31 we ruled that abandoning one’s wife and
resuming carnal relations with a paramour fall within that conduct which is willful, flagrant, or shameless, and
which shows moral indifference to the opinion of the good and respectable members of the community.
22
We reiterate our ruling in Cordova vs. Cordova,32 that moral delinquency which affects the fitness of a member
of the bar to continue as such, includes conduct that outrages the generally accepted moral standards of the
community as exemplified by behavior which makes a mockery of the inviolable social institution of marriage.
The power to disbar must be exercised with great caution, and only in a clear case of misconduct that seriously
affects the standing and character of the lawyer as an officer of the Court and as a member of the bar.33 Where a
lesser penalty, such as temporary suspension, could accomplish the end desired, disbarment should never be
decreed.34 However, in the present case, the seriousness of the offense compels the Court to wield its power to
disbar as it appears to be the most appropriate penalty.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing Atty. Crispin G. Dantes is hereby DISBARRED and his name
is ORDERED STRICKEN from the Roll of Attorneys. Let a copy of this Decision be entered in the
respondent’s record as a member of the Bar, and notice of the same be served on the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines, and on the Office of the Court Administrator for circulation to all courts in the country.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., Puno, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio, Austria-Martinez,

Corona, Carpio-Morales*, Callejo, Sr., Azcuna, Tinga, and Chico-Nazario**, JJ., concur.
EN BANC
[A.C. NO. 2474. June 30, 2005]
EDUARDO M. COJUANGCO, JR., Complainant, v. ATTY. LEO J. PALMA, Respondent.
RESOLUTION
PER CURIAM:
Providing one's children with a comfortable life and good education does not render marriage a fait accompli.
Leo J. Palma, respondent herein, may have provided well for his children but this accomplishment is not
sufficient to wipe away the penalty for his transgression. He ought to remember that before he became a father,
he was a husband first. As such, he should have loved, respected and remained faithful to his wife.
At bar is respondent's Motion to Vacate1 our Decision dated September 15, 2004 finding him guilty of grossly
immoral conduct and violation of his oath as a lawyer and imposing upon him the penalty of disbarment from
the practice of law.
In resolving the instant motion, a brief revisit of the facts is imperative. On June 22, 1982, respondent, despite
his subsisting marriage with Elizabeth Hermosisima, married Maria Luisa Cojuangco, the 22-year old daughter
of complainant Eduardo M. Cojuangco, Jr. This prompted the latter to file with this Court, on November 8,
1982, a complaint for disbarment against respondent.
23
Respondent moved to dismiss the complaint.
In our Resolution2 dated March 2, 1983, we referred the case to the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) for
investigation, report and recommendation. Then Assistant Solicitor General Oswaldo D. Agcaoili heard the
testimonies of the complainant and his witness in the presence of respondent's counsel.
On March 19, 1984, respondent filed with the OSG an urgent motion to suspend proceedings3 on the ground
that the final outcome of Civil Case No. Pq0401-P,4 for declaration of nullity of marriage between him and his
wife Lisa, poses a prejudicial question to the disbarment proceeding. The motion was denied.
Respondent then filed with this Court an urgent motion for issuance of a restraining order.5 On December 19,
1984, we issued a Resolution enjoining the OSG from continuing the disbarment proceedings.6 Ï‚rÎ½ll
In the interim, Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court took effect. Hence, the OSG transferred the disbarment case to
the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP). On October 19, 1998, IBP Commissioner Julio C. Elamparo
required the parties to manifest within ten (10) days from notice whether they are still interested in pursuing the
case.7 Ï‚rÎ½ll
In his manifestation,8 complainant confirmed his continuing interest in prosecuting the case.
For his part, respondent moved to postpone the hearing eight (8) times. In one of those instances, particularly on
August 28, 2001, complainant moved 'that respondent be deemed to have waived his right to present
evidence and for the case to be deemed submitted for resolution in view of his continuing failure to
present his evidence. However, complainant withdrew such motion upon the promise of the respondent's
counsel that on the next hearing, scheduled on October 4, 2001, he would definitely present his client's
evidence. But even before that date, respondent already manifested that he would not be able to return to the
Philippines for his direct testimony. Instead, he promised to submit his 'direct testimony in affidavit form.9 In an
Order issued that day, the IBP Commissioner reset the hearing for the last time on January 24, 2002 and warned
respondent that should he fail to appear or present his 'direct testimony in affidavit form, the case will be
deemed submitted for resolution.10 On January 24, 2002, respondent neither appeared nor presented his
'direct testimony in affidavit form, hence, the case was deemed submitted for resolution. 11 Ï‚rÎ½ll
On March 20, 2003, the IBP Commissioner submitted a Report and Recommendation finding respondent guilty
of gross immoral conduct and violation of his oath as a lawyer and recommending that he be suspended from
the practice of law for a period of three (3) years.
The IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the above Report and Recommendation, but reduced the
penalty of suspension to only one (1) year.
On September 15, 2004, we rendered the assailed Decision.
In his motion for reconsideration, respondent raised the following

issues:Ï‚Î·Î±Ã±rÎ¿blÎµÅ¡ Î½Î¹râ€ Ï…Î±l lÎ±Ï‰ lÎ¹brÎ±rÃ¿
First, the complaint for disbarment was filed by an improper party, complainant not being the offended party.
Second, he was denied due process because the case was submitted for resolution on January 24, 2002 without
his 'direct testimony in affidavit form.
24
Third, the disbarment proceedings before the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline is void because our
Resolution dated December 19, 1984 restraining the OSG from continuing such proceedings has not been lifted.
Fourth, our Decision is barred by laches because of the lapse of almost fourteen (14) years from December 19,
1984, the date we restrained the OSG from continuing the disbarment proceedings, until October 19, 1998, the
date the IBP Commissioner required the parties to 'manifest whether or not they are still interested in
prosecuting the case.
Fifth, the Resolution dated June 21, 2003 of the IBP Board of Governors imposing upon him the penalty of one
(1) year suspension 'has attained finality and should be deemed served already.
And sixth, he acted under a 'firm factual and legal conviction in declaring before the Hong Kong Marriage
Registry that he is a 'bachelor because his first marriage is void even if there is no judicial declaration of
nullity.
In his comment, complainant countered that: first, respondent cannot claim denial of due process because his
failure to adduce evidence was due to his own fault; second, it is now too late to invoke this Court's Resolution
of December 19, 1984 restraining the OSG from continuing the disbarment proceedings; third, laches does not
apply because the 14-year hiatus was brought about by the said Resolution; fourth, the penalty of one-year
suspension imposed by the IBP Board of Governors cannot be deemed 'final and served already because it is a
mere recommendation to this Court; and fifth, although his previous marriage was annulled, it can not erase the
betrayal of trust and abuse of confidence he committed against complainant.
Respondent's motion is bereft of merit.
We observe that in his motion, respondent alleged new issues12 which were not considered below. Nonetheless,
in view of the caveat that the power to disbar must be exercised with great caution, we shall resolve all these
new issues.
I - Improper Party
We find no merit in respondent's contention that the complainant, being the father of the offended party, does
not have the standing to file the instant complaint.
Disbarment proceedings are undertaken solely for public welfare. The only question for determination is
whether respondent is fit to be a member of the Bar. The complainant or the person who called the attention of
this Court to the lawyer's alleged misconduct is in no sense a party and generally has no interest in the outcome
except as all good citizens may have in the proper administration of justice.13 Thus, this Court may investigate
charges against lawyers, regardless of complainant's standing. In fact, it can do so motu proprio. Our ruling
in Rayos-Ombac v. Rayos 14 applies four-square, thus:Ï‚Î·Î±Ã±rÎ¿blÎµÅ¡ Î½Î¹râ€ Ï…Î±l lÎ±Ï‰ lÎ¹brÎ±rÃ¿
x x x A case of suspension or disbarment may proceed regardless of interest or lack of interest of the
complainant. What matters is whether, on the basis of the facts borne out by the record, the charge of
deceit and grossly immoral conduct has been duly proven. 'This rule is premised on the nature of
disciplinary proceedings. A proceeding for suspension or disbarment is not in any sense a civil action where the
complainant is a plaintiff and the respondent lawyer is a defendant. Disciplinary proceedings involve no
private interest and afford no redress for private grievance. They are undertaken and prosecuted solely
for the public welfare. 'They are undertaken for the purpose of preserving courts of justice from the official
ministration of persons unfit to practice in them. The attorney is called to answer to the court for his conduct as
25
an officer of the court. The complainant or the person who called the attention of the court to the attorney's
alleged misconduct is in no sense a party, and has generally no interest in the outcome except as all good
citizens may have in the proper administration of justice. Hence, if the evidence on record warrants, the
respondent may be suspended or disbarred despite the desistance of complainant or his withdrawal of the
charges.
II - Due Process
Neither do we find merit in respondent's claim that the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline violated his right to
due process when it considered the case submitted for resolution on January 24, 2002 without his direct
testimony in affidavit form. The records show that the case dragged on for three (3) years after the IBP
Commission on Bar Discipline resumed its investigation on October 19, 1998. Of the fifteen15 (15) settings
from February 2, 1999 to January 24, 2002, respondent had the hearing postponed for eight (8) times.
Indisputably, it was respondent's failure to submit his 'direct testimony in affidavit form that caused delay. Since
the proceedings had been dragging on a lethargic course, the IBP Commissioner is correct in considering the
case submitted for resolution. At this juncture, it must be stressed that the essence of due process in
administrative proceedings is the opportunity to explain one's side or seek a reconsideration of the action or
ruling complained of. As long as the parties are given the opportunity to be heard before judgment is rendered,
the demands of due process are sufficiently met.16 Here, respondent was given sufficient opportunity to explain
his side and adduce his evidence. Despite his sudden 'flight into oblivion, the IBP Commissioner notified him of
the proceedings. Significantly, he was duly represented by a counsel who attended the hearings and submitted
manifestations and motions on his behalf, the latest of which is the instant Motion to Vacate. In short, the active
participation of his lawyer in every stage of the proceedings rules out any badge of procedural deficiency
therein. Of course, we need not mention the fact that respondent was able to file with this Court a motion to
dismiss the complaint, as well as to confront and cross-examine the complainant and his witness during the
investigation in the OSG.
III - Restraining Order
The restraining order was anchored on the ground that the final outcome of Civil Case No. Pq0401-P poses a
prejudicial question to the disbarment proceedings. It appears from complainant's allegation, which respondent
does not deny, that Civil Case No. Pq0401-P was dismissed without prejudice.17 Necessarily, there is no more
prejudicial question to speak of.
IV - Laches
Respondent cannot find solace in the principle of laches. While it is true that there was a hiatus or delay of 14
years before the IBP Commissioner resumed the investigation, the same was pursuant to the said restraining
order of December 19, 1984.
V ' Finality of the Penalty Imposed
by the IBP-Board of Governors
The penalty of one-year suspension imposed by the IBP Board of Governors cannot attain finality. Section 12 of
Rule 139-B provides:Ï‚Î·Î±Ã±rÎ¿blÎµÅ¡ Î½Î¹râ€ Ï…Î±l lÎ±Ï‰ lÎ¹brÎ±rÃ¿
Section 12. Review and Decision by the Board of Governors.-

26
xxx
(b) If the Board, by the vote of a majority of its total membership, determines that the respondent should be
suspended from the practice of law or disbarred, it shall issue a resolution setting forth its findings and
recommendations which, together with the whole record of the case shall forthwith be transmitted to the
Supreme Court for final action.
Clearly, the resolution of the IBP Board of Governors is merely recommendatory. The 'power to recommend
includes the power to give 'advice, exhortation or indorsement, which is essentially persuasive in character, not
binding upon the party to whom it is made.18 Necessarily, the 'final action on the resolution of the IBP Board of
Governors still lies with this Court. Obviously, respondent's argument that we affirmed such resolution when
we 'noted it is certainly misplaced. In Re: Problem of Delays in Cases Before the Sandiganbayan ,19 we held
that the term 'noted means that the Court has merely taken cognizance of the existence of an act or declaration,
without exercising a judicious deliberation or rendering a decision on the matter. It does not imply agreement or
approval. The power to disbar belongs to the Court alone.
VI - Good Faith
Respondent's argument that he was of the 'firm factual and legal conviction when he declared before the Hong
Kong authorities that he was a bachelor since his first marriage is void and does not need judicial declaration of
nullity cannot exonerate him. In Terre v. Terre,20 the same defense was raised by respondent lawyer whose
disbarment was also sought. We held:Ï‚Î·Î±Ã±rÎ¿blÎµÅ¡ Î½Î¹râ€ Ï…Î±l lÎ±Ï‰ lÎ¹brÎ±rÃ¿
x x x Respondent Jordan Terre, being a lawyer, knew or should have known that such an argument ran
counter to the prevailing case law of this Court which holds that for purposes of determining whether a
person is legally free to contract a second marriage, a judicial declaration that the first marriage was null
and void ab initio is essential. Even if we were to assume, arguendo merely, that Jordan Terre held that
mistaken belief in good faith, the same result will follow. For if we are to hold Jordan Terre to his own
argument, his first marriage to complainant Dorothy Terre must be deemed valid, with the result that his second
marriage must be regarded as bigamous and criminal in character.
Before we write finis to this case, we find it necessary to stress certain points in view of respondent's additional
reason why he should be exonerated - that he loves all his children and has always provided for them. He may
have indeed provided well for his children. But this accomplishment is not sufficient to show his moral fitness
to continue being a member of the noble profession of law. It has always been the duties of parents - e.g., to
support, educate and instruct their children according to right precepts and good example; and to give them
love, companionship and understanding, as well as moral and spiritual guidance.21 But what respondent forgot
is that he has also duties to his wife. As a husband, he is obliged to live with her; observe mutual love,
respect and fidelity; and render help and support.22 And most important of all, he is obliged to remain
faithful to her until death.
The undeniable truth is that respondent married Lisa while his marriage with Elizabeth Hermosisima was still
subsisting. Such act constitutes grossly immoral conduct, a ground for disbarment under Section 27, Rule 138
of the Revised Rules of Court. Obviously, he 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. In Cordova v. Cordova,23 we held that 'The moral delinquency that affects the fitness of a member of
the bar to continue as such includes conduct that outrages the generally accepted moral standards of the
community, conduct for instance, which makes a mockery of the inviolable social institution of marriage.
27
We also reiterate our ruling that respondent's conduct speaks of a clear case of betrayal of trust and abuse of
confidence, thus:Ï‚Î·Î±Ã±rÎ¿blÎµÅ¡ Î½Î¹râ€ Ï…Î±l lÎ±Ï‰ lÎ¹brÎ±rÃ¿
x x x. It was respondent's closeness to the complainant's family as well as the latter's complete trust in him that
made possible his intimate relationship with Lisa. When his concern was supposed to be complainant's legal
affairs only, he sneaked at the latter's back and courted his daughter. Like the proverbial thief in the night, he
attacked when nobody was looking. Moreover, he availed of complainant's resources by securing a plane ticket
from complainant's office in order to marry the latter's daughter in Hong Kong. He did this without
complainant's knowledge. Afterwards, he even had the temerity to assure complainant that 'everything is legal.
Clearly, respondent had crossed he limits of propriety and decency.
Indeed, we are not prepared to exonerate respondent or reduce the penalty we imposed on him as it will
denigrate the standard of the law profession.
WHEREFORE, respondent's Motion to Vacate our Decision dated September 15, 2004 is hereby DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C.J., Puno, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio,

Austria-Martinez, Corona, Carpio-Morales, Callejo, Sr., Azcuna, Tinga, Chico-Nazario, and
Garcia, JJ., concur.
A.C. No. 2505 February 21, 1992
EVANGELINE LEDA, complainant,

vs.
ATTY. TREBONIAN TABANG, respondent.
PER CURIAM:
Complainant, Evangeline Leda, squarely puts in issue respondent Atty. Trebonian Tabang's good moral
character, in two Complaints she had filed against him, one docketed as Bar Matter No. 78 instituted on 6
January 1982, and the present Administrative Case No. 2505, which is a Petition for Disbarment, filed on 14
February 1983.
It appears that on 3 October 1976, Respondent and Complainant contracted marriage at Tigbauan, Iloilo. The
marriage, solemnized by Judge Jose T. Tavarro of Tigbauan, was performed under Article 76 of the Civil
Code1 as one of exceptional character (Annex "A", Petition).
The parties agreed to keep the fact of marriage a secret until after Respondent had finished his law studies
(began in l977), and had taken the Bar examinations (in 1981), allegedly to ensure a stable future for
them. Complainant admits, though, that they had not lived together as husband and wife (Letter-Complaint, 6
January 1982).
28
Respondent finished his law studies in 1981 and thereafter applied to take the Bar. In his application, he
declared that he was "single." He then passed the examinations but Complainant blocked him from taking his
Oath by instituting Bar Matter No. 78, claiming that Respondent had acted fraudulently in filling out his
application and, thus, was unworthy to take the lawyer's Oath for lack of good moral character. Complainant
also alleged that after Respondent's law studies, he became aloof and "abandoned" her (Petition, par. 5).
The Court deferred Respondent's Oath-taking and required him to answer the Complaint.
Respondent filed his "Explanation," dated 26 May 1982 which was received on 7 June 1982. Said
"Explanation" carries Complainant's conformity (Records, p. 6). Therein, he admitted that he was "legally
married" to Complainant on 3 October 1976 but that the marriage "was not as yet made and declared public" so
that he could proceed with his law studies and until after he could take the Bar examinations "in order to keep
stable our future." He also admitted having indicated that he was "single" in his application to take the Bar "for
reason that to my honest belief, I have still to declare my status as single since my marriage with the
complainant was not as yet made and declared public." He further averred that he and Complainant had
reconciled as shown by her conformity to the "Explanation," for which reason he prayed that the Complaint be
dismissed.
Respondent also filed a Motion to Dismiss, dated 2 June 1982. Attached to it was Complainant's Affidavit of
Desistance, which stated that Bar Matter No. 78 arose out of a misunderstanding and communication gap and
that she was refraining from pursuing her Complaint against Respondent.
Acting on the aforesaid Motion and Comment, the Court dismissed Bar Matter No. 78 and allowed Respondent
to take his Oath in a Resolution dated 20 August 1982.
On 14 February 1983, however, Complainant filed this Administrative Case, this time praying for Respondent's
disbarment based on the following grounds:
a. For having made use of his legal knowledge to contract an invalid marriage with me assuming
that our marriage is not valid, and making a mockery of our marriage institution.
b. For having misrepresented himself as single when in truth he is already married in his
application to take the bar exam.
c. For being not of good moral character contrary to the certification he submitted to the
Supreme Court;
d. For (sic) guilty of deception for the reason that he deceived me into signing of the affidavit
of desistance and the conformity to his explanation and later on the comment to his motion to
dismiss, when in truth and in fact he is not sincere, for he only befriended me to resume our
marriage and introduced me to his family, friends and relatives as his wife, for a bad motive that
is he wanted me to withdraw my complaint against him with the Supreme Court.
Attached to Complainant's Petition for Disbarment, as Annex "F," is an undated and unsigned letter addressed
to Complainant, allegedly written by Respondent after he had already taken his Oath stating, among others, that
while he was grateful for Complainant's help, he "could not force myself to be yours," did not love her anymore
and considered her only a friend. Their marriage contract was actually void for failure to comply with the
requisites of Article 76 of the Civil Code, among them the minimum cohabitation for five (5) years before the
celebration of the marriage, an affidavit to that effect by the solemnizing officer, and that the parties must be at
29
least twenty-one (21) years of age, which they were not as they were both only twenty years old at the time. He
advised Complainant not to do anything more so as not to put her family name "in shame." As for him, he had
"attain(ed) my goal as a full-pledge (sic) professional and there is nothing you can do for it to take away from
me even (sic) you go to any court." According to Complainant, although the letter was unsigned, Respondent's
initials appear on the upper left-hand corner of the airmail envelope (Exh. "8-A-1").
Respondent denied emphatically that he had sent such a letter contending that it is Complainant who has been
indulging in fantasy and fabrications.
In his Comment in the present case, Respondent avers that he and Complainant had covenanted not to disclose
the marriage not because he wanted to finish his studies and take the Bar first but for the reason that said
marriage was void from the beginning in the absence of the requisites of Article 76 of the Civil Code that the
contracting parties shall have lived together as husband and wife for at least five (5) years before the date of the
marriage and that said parties shall state the same in an affidavit before any person authorized by law to
administer oaths. He could not have abandoned Complainant because they had never lived together as husband
and wife. When he applied for the 1981 Bar examinations, he honestly believed that in the eyes of the law, he
was single.
On 7 May 1984, the Court referred the Complaint to the Solicitor General for investigation, report and
recommendation. On 5 March 1990, the Solicitor General submitted his Report, with the recommendation that
Respondent be exonerated from the charges against him since Complainant failed to attend the hearings and to
substantiate her charges but that he be reprimanded for making inconsistent and conflicting statements in the
various pleadings he had filed before this Court.
On 26 March 1990, the Court referred the Solicitor General's Report to the Bar Confidant for evaluation, report
and recommendation. In an undated Report, the latter recommended the indefinite suspension of Respondent
until the status of his marriage is settled.
Upon the facts on Record even without testimonial evidence from Complainant, we find Respondent's lack of
good moral character sufficiently established.
Firstly, his declaration in his application for Admission to the 1981 Bar Examinations that he was "single"
was a gross misrepresentation of a material fact made in utter bad faith, for which he should be made
answerable. Rule 7.01, Canon 7, Chapter II of the Code of Professional Responsibility explicitly provides: "A
lawyer shall be answerable for knowingly making a false statement or suppression of a material fact in
connection with his application for admission to the bar." That false statement, if it had been known, would
have disqualified him outright from taking the Bar Examinations as it indubitably exhibits lack of good moral
character.
Respondent's protestations that he had acted in good faith in declaring his status as "single" not only because of
his pact with Complainant to keep the marriage under wraps but also because that marriage to the Complainant
was void from the beginning, are mere afterthoughts absolutely wanting of merit. Respondent can not assume
that his marriage to Complainant is void. The presumption is that all the requisites and conditions of a marriage
of an exceptional character under Article 76 of the Civil Code have been met and that the Judge's official duty
in connection therewith has been regularly performed.
Secondly, Respondent's conduct in adopting conflicting positions in the various pleadings submitted in Bar
Matter No. 78 and in the case at bar is duplicitous and deplorable.
30
The records show that in Bar Matter No. 78, Respondent had submitted an "Explanation," in paragraph 1, page
1 of which he admits having been "legally married" to Complainant. Yet, during the hearings before the
Solicitor General, he denied under oath that he had submitted any such pleading (t.s.n., p. 21) contending
instead that it is only the second page where his signature appears that he meant to admit and not the averments
on the first page which were merely of Complainant's own making (ibid., pp. 59-60). However, in his Comment
in this Administrative Case, he admits and makes reference to such "Explanation" (pars. 3[f]) and [g]; 4[b]).
Again, while in said "Explanation" he admitted having been "legally married" to Complainant (par. 1), in this
case, however, he denies the legality of the marriage and, instead, harps on its being void ab initio. He even
denies his signature in the marriage contract.
In Bar Matter No. 78, Respondent also averred that the fact of marriage was not to be made public so as to
allow him to finish his studies and take the Bar. In this case, however, he contends that the reason it was kept a
secret was because it was "not in order from the beginning."
Thirdly, Respondent denies that he had sent the unsigned letter (Annex "F," Petition) to Complainant. However,
its very tenor coincides with the reasons that he advances in his Comment why the marriage is void from the
beginning, that is, for failure to comply with the requisites of Article 76 of the Civil Code.
Fourthly, the factual scenario gathered from the records shows that Respondent had reconciled with
Complainant and admitted the marriage to put a quick finish to Bar Matter No. 78 to enable him to take the
lawyer's Oath, which otherwise he would have been unable to do. But after he had done so and had become a
"full-pledge (sic) lawyer," he again refused to honor his marriage to Complainant.
Respondent's lack of good moral character is only too evident. He has resorted to conflicting submissions before
this Court to suit himself. He has also engaged in devious tactics with Complainant in order to serve his
purpose. In so doing, he has violated Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which provides that
"a lawyer owes candor, fairness and good faith to the court" as well as Rule 1001 thereof which states that "a
lawyer should do no falsehood nor consent to the doing of any in Court; nor shall he mislead, or allow the court
to be misled by any artifice." Courts are entitled to expect only complete candor and honesty from the lawyers
appearing and pleading before them (Chavez v. Viola, Adm. Case No. 2152, 19 April 1991, 196 SCRA
10). Respondent, through his actuations, has been lacking in the candor required of him not only as a member of
the Bar but also as an officer of the Court.
It cannot be overemphasized that the requirement of good moral character is not only a condition precedent
to admission to the practice of law; its continued possession is also essential for remaining in the practice of
law (People v. Tuanda, Adm. Case No. 3360, 30 January 1990, 181 SCRA 692). As so aptly put by Mr.
Justice George A. Malcolm: "As good character is an essential qualification for admission of an attorney to
practice, when the attorney's character is bad in such respects as to show that he is unsafe and unfit to be
entrusted with the powers of an attorney, the courts retain the power to discipline him (Piatt v. Abordo, 58 Phil.
350 [1933]).
WHEREFORE, finding respondent Trebonian C. Tabang grossly unfit and unworthy to continue to be entrusted
with the duties and responsibilities belonging to the office of an attorney, he is hereby SUSPENDED from the
practice of law until further Orders, the suspension to take effect immediately.
Copies of this Decision shall be entered in his personal record as an attorney and served on the Integrated Bar of
the Philippines and the Court Administrator who shall circulate the same to all Courts in the country for their
information and guidance.
31
SO ORDERED.
Narvasa, C.J., Melencio-Herrera, Gutierrez, Jr., Cruz, Paras, Feliciano, Padilla, Bidin, Griño-Aquino,
Medialdea, Regalado, Davide, Jr., Romero and Nocon, JJ., concur.
Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
March 23, 1929
In re LUIS B. TAGORDA,
Duran & Lim for respondent.

Attorney-General Jaranilla and Provincial Fiscal Jose for the Government.
MALCOLM, J.:
The respondent, Luis B. Tagorda, a practising attorney and a member of the provincial board of Isabela, admits
that previous to the last general elections he made use of a card written in Spanish and Ilocano, which, in
translation, reads as follows:
LUIS B. TAGORDA
Attorney
Notary Public
CANDIDATE FOR THIRD MEMBER
Province of Isabela
(NOTE. — As notary public, he can execute for you a deed of sale for the purchase of land as
required by the cadastral office; can renew lost documents of your animals; can make your
application and final requisites for your homestead; and can execute any kind of affidavit. As a
lawyer, he can help you collect your loans although long overdue, as well as any complaint for or
against you. Come or write to him in his town, Echague, Isabela. He offers free consultation, and
is willing to help and serve the poor.)
The respondent further admits that he is the author of a letter addressed to a lieutenant of barrio in his home
municipality written in Ilocano, which letter, in translation, reads as follows:
ECHAGUE, ISABELA, September 18, 1928
MY DEAR LIEUTENANT: I would like to inform you of the approaching date for our induction
into office as member of the Provincial Board, that is on the 16th of next month. Before my
induction into office I should be very glad to hear your suggestions or recommendations for the
good of the province in general and for your barrio in particular. You can come to my house at
32
any time here in Echague, to submit to me any kind of suggestion or recommendation as you
may desire.
I also inform you that despite my membership in the Board I will have my residence here in
Echague. I will attend the session of the Board of Ilagan, but will come back home on the
following day here in Echague to live and serve with you as a lawyer and notary public. Despite
my election as member of the Provincial Board, I will exercise my legal profession as a lawyer
and notary public. In case you cannot see me at home on any week day, I assure you that you can
always find me there on every Sunday. I also inform you that I will receive any work regarding
preparations of documents of contract of sales and affidavits to be sworn to before me as notary
public even on Sundays.
I would like you all to be informed of this matter for the reason that some people are in the belief
that my residence as member of the Board will be in Ilagan and that I would then be disqualified
to exercise my profession as lawyer and as notary public. Such is not the case and I would make
it clear that I am free to exercise my profession as formerly and that I will have my residence
here in Echague.
I would request you kind favor to transmit this information to your barrio people in any of your
meetings or social gatherings so that they may be informed of my desire to live and to serve with
you in my capacity as lawyer and notary public. If the people in your locality have not as yet
contracted the services of other lawyers in connection with the registration of their land titles, I
would be willing to handle the work in court and would charge only three pesos for every
registration.
Yours respectfully,
(Sgd.) LUIS TAGORDA

Attorney
Notary Public.
The facts being conceded, it is next in order to write down the applicable legal provisions. Section 21 of the
Code of Civil Procedure as originally conceived related to disbarments of members of the bar. In 1919 at the
instigation of the Philippine Bar Association, said codal section was amended by Act No. 2828 by adding at the
end thereof the following: "The practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either personally or
through paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice."
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
33
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.
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. Statutes
intended to reach the same evil have been provided in a number of jurisdictions usually at the instance of the bar
itself, and have been upheld as constitutional. The reason behind statutes of this type is not difficult to discover.
The law is a profession and not a business. The lawyer may not seek or obtain employment by himself or
through others for to do so would be unprofessional. (State vs. Rossman [1909], 53 Wash., 1; 17 Ann. Cas.,
625; People vs. Mac Cabe [1893], 19 L. R. A., 231; 2 R. C. L., 1097.)
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.
Giving application of the law and the Canons of Ethics to the admitted facts, the respondent stands convicted of
having solicited cases in defiance of the law and those canons. Accordingly, the only remaining duty of the
court is to fix upon the action which should here be taken. The provincial fiscal of Isabela, with whom joined
the representative of the Attorney-General in the oral presentation of the case, suggests that the respondent be
only reprimanded. We think that our action should go further than this if only to reflect our attitude toward
cases of this character of which unfortunately the respondent's is only one. 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.
34
In view of all the circumstances of this case, the judgment of the court is that the respondent Luis B. Tagorda be
and is hereby suspended from the practice as an attorney-at-law for the period of one month from April 1, 1929,
Street, Johns, Romualdez, and Villa-Real, JJ., concur.

Johnson, J., reserves his vote.
Separate Opinions
OSTRAND, J., dissenting:
I dissent. Under the circumstances of the case a reprimand would have been sufficient punishment.
EN BANC
Bar Matter No. 553 June 17, 1993
MAURICIO C. ULEP, Petitioner, vs. THE LEGAL CLINIC, INC., Respondent.
R E SO L U T I O N
REGALADO, J.:
Petitioner prays this Court "to order the respondent to cease and desist from issuing advertisements similar to or
of the same tenor as that of annexes "A" and "B" (of said petition) and to perpetually prohibit persons or entities
from making advertisements pertaining to the exercise of the law profession other than those allowed by
law."chanrobles virtual law library
The advertisements complained of by herein petitioner are as follows:
Annex A
SECRET MARRIAGE?
P560.00 for a valid marriage.
Info on DIVORCE. ABSENCE.
ANNULMENT. VISA.chanrobles virtual law library
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 PARKINSONchanrobles virtual law library
35
an Attorney in Guam, is giving FREE BOOKS on Guam Divorce through The Legal Clinic beginning Monday
to Friday during office hours.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
Guam divorce. Annulment of Marriage. Immigration Problems, Visa Ext. Quota/Non-quota Res. & Special
Retiree's Visa. Declaration of Absence. Remarriage to Filipina Fiancees. Adoption. Investment in the Phil.
US/Foreign Visa for Filipina Spouse/Children. Call Marivic.chanrobles virtual law library
THE 7F Victoria Bldg. 429 UN Ave., LEGAL Ermita, Manila nr. US Embassy CLINIC, INC. 1 Tel. 521-7232;
521-7251; 522-2041; 521-0767
It is the submission of petitioner that the advertisements above reproduced are champterous, unethical,
demeaning of the law profession, and destructive of the confidence of the community in the integrity of the
members of the bar and that, as a member of the legal profession, he is ashamed and offended by the said
advertisements, hence the reliefs sought in his petition as hereinbefore
quoted.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
In its answer to the petition, respondent admits the fact of publication of said advertisement at its instance, but
claims that it is not engaged in the practice of law but in the rendering of "legal support services" through
paralegals with the use of modern computers and electronic machines. Respondent further argues that assuming
that the services advertised are legal services, the act of advertising these services should be allowed supposedly
in the light of the case of John R. Bates and Van O'Steen vs. State Bar of Arizona, 2reportedly decided by the
United States Supreme Court on June 7, 1977.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
Considering the critical implications on the legal profession of the issues raised herein, we required the (1)
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), (2) Philippine Bar Association (PBA), (3) Philippine Lawyers'
Association (PLA), (4) U.P. Womens Lawyers' Circle (WILOCI), (5) Women Lawyers Association of the
Philippines (WLAP), and (6) Federacion International de Abogadas (FIDA) to submit their respective position
papers on the controversy and, thereafter, their memoranda. 3The said bar associations readily responded and
extended their valuable services and cooperation of which this Court takes note with appreciation and
gratitude.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
The main issues posed for resolution before the Court are whether or not the services offered by respondent,
The Legal Clinic, Inc., as advertised by it constitutes practice of law and, in either case, whether the same can
properly be the subject of the advertisements herein complained of.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual
law library
Before proceeding with an in-depth analysis of the merits of this case, we deem it proper and enlightening to
present hereunder excerpts from the respective position papers adopted by the aforementioned bar associations
and the memoranda submitted by them on the issues involved in this bar matter.
1. Integrated Bar of the Philippines:
xxx xxx xxxchanrobles virtual law library
Notwithstanding the subtle manner by which respondent endeavored to distinguish the two terms, i.e., "legal
support services" vis-a-vis "legal services", common sense would readily dictate that the same are essentially
without substantial distinction. For who could deny that document search, evidence gathering, assistance to
layman in need of basic institutional services from government or non-government agencies like birth,
36
marriage, property, or business registration, obtaining documents like clearance, passports, local or foreign
visas, constitutes practice of law?
The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) does not wish to make issue with respondent's foreign citations.
Suffice it to state that the IBP has made its position manifest, to wit, that it strongly opposes the view espoused
by respondent (to the effect that today it is alright to advertise one's legal
services).chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
The IBP accordingly declares in no uncertain terms its opposition to respondent's act of establishing a "legal
clinic" and of concomitantly advertising the same through newspaper
publications.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
The IBP would therefore invoke the administrative supervision of this Honorable Court to perpetually restrain
respondent from undertaking highly unethical activities in the field of law practice as aforedescribed. 4
A. The use of the name "The Legal Clinic, Inc." gives the impression that respondent corporation is being
operated by lawyers and that it renders legal services.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
While the respondent repeatedly denies that it offers legal services to the public, the advertisements in question
give the impression that respondent is offering legal services. The Petition in fact simply assumes this to be so,
as earlier mentioned, apparently because this (is) the effect that the advertisements have on the reading
public.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
The impression created by the advertisements in question can be traced, first of all, to the very name being used
by respondent - "The Legal Clinic, Inc." Such a name, it is respectfully submitted connotes the rendering of
legal services for legal problems, just like a medical clinic connotes medical services for medical problems.
More importantly, the term "Legal Clinic" connotes lawyers, as the term medical clinic connotes
doctors.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
Furthermore, the respondent's name, as published in the advertisements subject of the present case, appears with
(the) scale(s) of justice, which all the more reinforces the impression that it is being operated by members of the
bar and that it offers legal services. In addition, the advertisements in question appear with a picture and name
of a person being represented as a lawyer from Guam, and this practically removes whatever doubt may still
remain as to the nature of the service or services being offered.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law
library
It thus becomes irrelevant whether respondent is merely offering "legal support services" as claimed by it, or
whether it offers legal services as any lawyer actively engaged in law practice does. And it becomes
unnecessary to make a distinction between "legal services" and "legal support services," as the respondent
would have it. The advertisements in question leave no room for doubt in the minds of the reading public that
legal services are being offered by lawyers, whether true or not.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual
law library
B. The advertisements in question are meant to induce the performance of acts contrary to law, morals, public
order and public policy.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
37
It may be conceded that, as the respondent claims, the advertisements in question are only meant to inform the
general public of the services being offered by it. Said advertisements, however, emphasize to Guam divorce,
and any law student ought to know that under the Family Code, there is only one instance when a foreign
divorce is recognized, and that is:
Article 26. . . .chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
Where a marriage between a Filipino citizen and a foreigner is validly celebrated and a divorce is thereafter
validly obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him or her to remarry, the Filipino spouse shall have
capacity to remarry under Philippine Law.
It must not be forgotten, too, that the Family Code (defines) a marriage as follows:
Article 1. Marriage is special contract of permanent union between a man and woman entered into accordance
with law for the establishment of conjugal and family life. It is the foundation of the family and an inviolable
social institution whose nature, consequences, and incidents are governed by law and not subject to stipulation,
except that marriage settlements may fix the property relation during the marriage within the limits provided by
this Code.
By simply reading the questioned advertisements, it is obvious that the message being conveyed is that Filipinos
can avoid the legal consequences of a marriage celebrated in accordance with our law, by simply going to
Guam for a divorce. This is not only misleading, but encourages, or serves to induce, violation of Philippine
law. At the very least, this can be considered "the dark side" of legal practice, where certain defects in
Philippine laws are exploited for the sake of profit. At worst, this is outright malpractice.
Rule 1.02. - A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening confidence
in the legal system.
In addition, it may also be relevant to point out that advertisements such as that shown in Annex "A" of the
Petition, which contains a cartoon of a motor vehicle with the words "Just Married" on its bumper and seems to
address those planning a "secret marriage," if not suggesting a "secret marriage," makes light of the "special
contract of permanent union," the inviolable social institution," which is how the Family Code describes
marriage, obviously to emphasize its sanctity and inviolability. Worse, this particular advertisement appears to
encourage marriages celebrated in secrecy, which is suggestive of immoral publication of applications for a
marriage license.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
If the article "Rx for Legal Problems" is to be reviewed, it can readily be concluded that the above impressions
one may gather from the advertisements in question are accurate. The Sharon Cuneta-Gabby Concepcion
example alone confirms what the advertisements suggest. Here it can be seen that criminal acts are being
encouraged or committed
(a bigamous marriage in Hong Kong or Las Vegas) with impunity simply because the jurisdiction of Philippine
courts does not extend to the place where the crime is committed.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual
law library
Even if it be assumed, arguendo, (that) the "legal support services" respondent offers do not constitute legal
services as commonly understood, the advertisements in question give the impression that respondent
corporation is being operated by lawyers and that it offers legal services, as earlier discussed. Thus, the only
logical consequence is that, in the eyes of an ordinary newspaper reader, members of the bar themselves are
38
encouraging or inducing the performance of acts which are contrary to law, morals, good customs and the
public good, thereby destroying and demeaning the integrity of the Bar.
It is respectfully submitted that respondent should be enjoined from causing the publication of the
advertisements in question, or any other advertisements similar thereto. It is also submitted that respondent
should be prohibited from further performing or offering some of the services it presently offers, or, at the very
least, from offering such services to the public in general.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law
library
The IBP is aware of the fact that providing computerized legal research, electronic data gathering, storage and
retrieval, standardized legal forms, investigators for gathering of evidence, and like services will greatly benefit
the legal profession and should not be stifled but instead encouraged. However, when the conduct of such
business by non-members of the Bar encroaches upon the practice of law, there can be no choice but to prohibit
such business.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
Admittedly, many of the services involved in the case at bar can be better performed by specialists in other
fields, such as computer experts, who by reason of their having devoted time and effort exclusively to such field
cannot fulfill the exacting requirements for admission to the Bar. To prohibit them from "encroaching" upon the
legal profession will deny the profession of the great benefits and advantages of modern technology. Indeed, a
lawyer using a computer will be doing better than a lawyer using a typewriter, even if both are (equal) in
skill.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
Both the Bench and the Bar, however, should be careful not to allow or tolerate the illegal practice of law in any
form, not only for the protection of members of the Bar but also, and more importantly, for the protection of the
public. Technological development in the profession may be encouraged without tolerating, but instead
ensuring prevention of illegal practice.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
There might be nothing objectionable if respondent is allowed to perform all of its services, but only if such
services are made available exclusively to members of the Bench and Bar. Respondent would then be offering
technical assistance, not legal services. Alternatively, the more difficult task of carefully distinguishing between
which service may be offered to the public in general and which should be made available exclusively to
members of the Bar may be undertaken. This, however, may require further proceedings because of the factual
considerations involved.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
It must be emphasized, however, that some of respondent's services ought to be prohibited outright, such as acts
which tend to suggest or induce celebration abroad of marriages which are bigamous or otherwise illegal and
void under Philippine law. While respondent may not be prohibited from simply disseminating information
regarding such matters, it must be required to include, in the information given, a disclaimer that it is not
authorized to practice law, that certain course of action may be illegal under Philippine law, that it is not
authorized or capable of rendering a legal opinion, that a lawyer should be consulted before deciding on which
course of action to take, and that it cannot recommend any particular lawyer without subjecting itself to possible
sanctions for illegal practice of law.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
If respondent is allowed to advertise, advertising should be directed exclusively at members of the Bar, with a
clear and unmistakable disclaimer that it is not authorized to practice law or perform legal
services.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
39
The benefits of being assisted by paralegals cannot be ignored. But nobody should be allowed to represent
himself as a "paralegal" for profit, without such term being clearly defined by rule or regulation, and without
any adequate and effective means of regulating his activities. Also, law practice in a corporate form may prove
to be advantageous to the legal profession, but before allowance of such practice may be considered, the
corporation's Article of Incorporation and By-laws must conform to each and every provision of the Code of
Professional Responsibility and the Rules of Court. 5
2. Philippine Bar Association:
xxx xxx xxx.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
Respondent asserts that it "is not engaged in the practice of law but engaged in giving legal support services to
lawyers and laymen, through experienced paralegals, with the use of modern computers and electronic
machines" (pars. 2 and 3, Comment). This is absurd. Unquestionably, respondent's acts of holding out itself to
the public under the trade name "The Legal Clinic, Inc.," and soliciting employment for its enumerated services
fall within the realm of a practice which thus yields itself to the regulatory powers of the Supreme Court. For
respondent to say that it is merely engaged in paralegal work is to stretch credulity. Respondent's own
commercial advertisement which announces a certain Atty. Don Parkinson to be handling the fields of law
belies its pretense. From all indications, respondent "The Legal Clinic, Inc." is offering and rendering legal
services through its reserve of lawyers. It has been held that the practice of law is not limited to the conduct of
cases in court, but includes drawing of deeds, incorporation, rendering opinions, and advising clients as to their
legal right and then take them to an attorney and ask the latter to look after their case in court See Martin,
Legal and Judicial Ethics, 1984 ed., p. 39).chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
It is apt to recall that only natural persons can engage in the practice of law, and such limitation cannot be
evaded by a corporation employing competent lawyers to practice for it. Obviously, this is the scheme or device
by which respondent "The Legal Clinic, Inc." holds out itself to the public and solicits employment of its legal
services. It is an odious vehicle for deception, especially so when the public cannot ventilate any grievance
for malpractice against the business conduit. Precisely, the limitation of practice of law to persons who have
been duly admitted as members of the Bar (Sec. 1, Rule 138, Revised Rules of Court) is to subject the members
to the discipline of the Supreme Court. Although respondent uses its business name, the persons and the lawyers
who act for it are subject to court discipline. The practice of law is not a profession open to all who wish to
engage in it nor can it be assigned to another (See 5 Am. Jur. 270). It is a personal right limited to persons who
have qualified themselves under the law. It follows that not only respondent but also all the persons who are
acting for respondent are the persons engaged in unethical law practice. 6
3. Philippine Lawyers' Association:chanrobles virtual law library
The Philippine Lawyers' Association's position, in answer to the issues stated herein, are wit:
1. The Legal Clinic is engaged in the practice of law;
2. Such practice is unauthorized;
3. The advertisements complained of are not only unethical, but also misleading and patently immoral; and
4. The Honorable Supreme Court has the power to supress and punish the Legal Clinic and its corporate officers
for its unauthorized practice of law and for its unethical, misleading and immoral advertising.
40
Respondent posits that is it not engaged in the practice of law. It claims that it merely renders "legal support
services" to answers, litigants and the general public as enunciated in the Primary Purpose Clause of its
Article(s) of Incorporation. (See pages 2 to 5 of Respondent's Comment). But its advertised services, as
enumerated above, clearly and convincingly show that it is indeed engaged in law practice, albeit outside of
court.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
As advertised, it offers the general public its advisory services on Persons and Family Relations Law,
particularly regarding foreign divorces, annulment of marriages, secret marriages, absence and adoption;
Immigration Laws, particularly on visa related problems, immigration problems; the Investments Law of the
Philippines and such other related laws.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
Its advertised services unmistakably require the application of the aforesaid law, the legal principles and
procedures related thereto, the legal advices based thereon and which activities call for legal training,
knowledge and experience.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
Applying the test laid down by the Court in the aforecited Agrava Case, the activities of respondent fall
squarely and are embraced in what lawyers and laymen equally term as "the practice of law." 7
4. U.P. Women Lawyers' Circle:chanrobles virtual law library
In resolving, the issues before this Honorable Court, paramount consideration should be given to the protection
of the general public from the danger of being exploited by unqualified persons or entities who may be engaged
in the practice of law.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
At present, becoming a lawyer requires one to take a rigorous four-year course of study on top of a four-year
bachelor of arts or sciences course and then to take and pass the bar examinations. Only then, is a lawyer
qualified to practice law.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
While the use of a paralegal is sanctioned in many jurisdiction as an aid to the administration of justice, there
are in those jurisdictions, courses of study and/or standards which would qualify these paralegals to deal with
the general public as such. While it may now be the opportune time to establish these courses of study and/or
standards, the fact remains that at present, these do not exist in the Philippines. In the meantime, this Honorable
Court may decide to make measures to protect the general public from being exploited by those who may be
dealing with the general public in the guise of being "paralegals" without being qualified to do
so.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
In the same manner, the general public should also be protected from the dangers which may be brought about
by advertising of legal services. While it appears that lawyers are prohibited under the present Code of
Professional Responsibility from advertising, it appears in the instant case that legal services are being
advertised not by lawyers but by an entity staffed by "paralegals." Clearly, measures should be taken to protect
the general public from falling prey to those who advertise legal services without being qualified to offer such
services. 8
A perusal of the questioned advertisements of Respondent, however, seems to give the impression that
information regarding validity of marriages, divorce, annulment of marriage, immigration, visa extensions,
declaration of absence, adoption and foreign investment, which are in essence, legal matters , will be given to
them if they avail of its services. The Respondent's name - The Legal Clinic, Inc. - does not help matters. It
41
gives the impression again that Respondent will or can cure the legal problems brought to them. Assuming that
Respondent is, as claimed, staffed purely by paralegals, it also gives the misleading impression that there are
lawyers involved in The Legal Clinic, Inc., as there are doctors in any medical clinic, when only "paralegals"
are involved in The Legal Clinic, Inc.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
Respondent's allegations are further belied by the very admissions of its President and majority stockholder,
Atty. Nogales, who gave an insight on the structure and main purpose of Respondent corporation in the
aforementioned "Starweek" article." 9
5. Women Lawyer's Association of the Philippines:chanrobles virtual law library
Annexes "A" and "B" of the petition are clearly advertisements to solicit cases for the purpose of gain which, as
provided for under the above cited law, (are) illegal and against the Code of Professional Responsibility of
lawyers in this country.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
Annex "A" of the petition is not only illegal in that it is an advertisement to solicit cases, but it is illegal in that
in bold letters it announces that the Legal Clinic, Inc., could work out/cause the celebration of a secret marriage
which is not only illegal but immoral in this country. While it is advertised that one has to go to said agency and
pay P560 for a valid marriage it is certainly fooling the public for valid marriages in the Philippines are
solemnized only by officers authorized to do so under the law. And to employ an agency for said purpose of
contracting marriage is not necessary.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
No amount of reasoning that in the USA, Canada and other countries the trend is towards allowing lawyers to
advertise their special skills to enable people to obtain from qualified practitioners legal services for their
particular needs can justify the use of advertisements such as are the subject matter of the petition, for one
(cannot) justify an illegal act even by whatever merit the illegal act may serve. The law has yet to be amended
so that such act could become justifiable.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
We submit further that these advertisements that seem to project that secret marriages and divorce are possible
in this country for a fee, when in fact it is not so, are highly reprehensible.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles
virtual law library
It would encourage people to consult this clinic about how they could go about having a secret marriage here,
when it cannot nor should ever be attempted, and seek advice on divorce, where in this country there is none,
except under the Code of Muslim Personal Laws in the Philippines. It is also against good morals and is
deceitful because it falsely represents to the public to be able to do that which by our laws cannot be done (and)
by our Code of Morals should not be done.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
In the case (of) In re Taguda, 53 Phil. 37, the Supreme Court held that solicitation for clients by an attorney by
circulars of advertisements, is unprofessional, and offenses of this character justify permanent elimination from
the Bar. 10
6. Federacion Internacional de Abogados:
1.7 That entities admittedly not engaged in the practice of law, such as management consultancy firms or travel
agencies, whether run by lawyers or not, perform the services rendered by Respondent does not necessarily lead
to the conclusion that Respondent is not unlawfully practicing law. In the same vein, however, the fact that the
42
business of respondent (assuming it can be engaged in independently of the practice of law) involves knowledge
of the law does not necessarily make respondent guilty of unlawful practice of law.
. . . . Of necessity, no one . . . . acting as a consultant can render effective service unless he is familiar with such
statutes and regulations. He must be careful not to suggest a course of conduct which the law forbids. It seems .
. . .clear that (the consultant's) knowledge of the law, and his use of that knowledge as a factor in determining
what measures he shall recommend, do not constitute the practice of law . . . . It is not only presumed that all
men know the law, but it is a fact that most men have considerable acquaintance with broad features of the law .
. . . Our knowledge of the law - accurate or inaccurate - moulds our conduct not only when we are acting for
ourselves, but when we are serving others. Bankers, liquor dealers and laymen generally possess rather precise
knowledge of the laws touching their particular business or profession. A good example is the architect, who
must be familiar with zoning, building and fire prevention codes, factory and tenement house statutes, and who
draws plans and specification in harmony with the law. This is not practicing
law.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
But suppose the architect, asked by his client to omit a fire tower, replies that it is required by the statute. Or the
industrial relations expert cites, in support of some measure that he recommends, a decision of the National
Labor Relations Board. Are they practicing law? In my opinion, they are not, provided no separate fee is
charged for the legal advice or information, and the legal question is subordinate and incidental to a major non-
legal problem.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
It is largely a matter of degree and of custom.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
If it were usual for one intending to erect a building on his land to engage a lawyer to advise him and the
architect in respect to the building code and the like, then an architect who performed this function would
probably be considered to be trespassing on territory reserved for licensed attorneys. Likewise, if the industrial
relations field had been pre-empted by lawyers, or custom placed a lawyer always at the elbow of the lay
personnel man. But this is not the case. The most important body of the industrial relations experts are the
officers and business agents of the labor unions and few of them are lawyers. Among the larger corporate
employers, it has been the practice for some years to delegate special responsibility in employee matters to a
management group chosen for their practical knowledge and skill in such matter, and without regard to legal
thinking or lack of it. More recently, consultants like the defendants have the same service that the larger
employers get from their own specialized staff.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
The handling of industrial relations is growing into a recognized profession for which appropriate courses are
offered by our leading universities. The court should be very cautious about declaring [that] a widespread, well-
established method of conducting business is unlawful, or that the considerable class of men who customarily
perform a certain function have no right to do so, or that the technical education given by our schools cannot be
used by the graduates in their business.
In determining whether a man is practicing law, we should consider his work for any particular client or
customer, as a whole. I can imagine defendant being engaged primarily to advise as to the law defining his
client's obligations to his employees, to guide his client's obligations to his employees, to guide his client along
the path charted by law. This, of course, would be the practice of the law. But such is not the fact in the case
before me. Defendant's primarily efforts are along economic and psychological lines. The law only provides the
frame within which he must work, just as the zoning code limits the kind of building the limits the kind of
building the architect may plan. The incidental legal advice or information defendant may give, does not
transform his activities into the practice of law. Let me add that if, even as a minor feature of his work, he
performed services which are customarily reserved to members of the bar, he would be practicing law. For
43
instance, if as part of a welfare program, he drew employees' wills.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual
law library
Another branch of defendant's work is the representations of the employer in the adjustment of grievances and
in collective bargaining, with or without a mediator. This is not per se the practice of law. Anyone may use an
agent for negotiations and may select an agent particularly skilled in the subject under discussion, and the
person appointed is free to accept the employment whether or not he is a member of the bar. Here, however,
there may be an exception where the business turns on a question of law. Most real estate sales are negotiated
by brokers who are not lawyers. But if the value of the land depends on a disputed right-of-way and the
principal role of the negotiator is to assess the probable outcome of the dispute and persuade the opposite party
to the same opinion, then it may be that only a lawyer can accept the assignment. Or if a controversy between
an employer and his men grows from differing interpretations of a contract, or of a statute, it is quite likely that
defendant should not handle it. But I need not reach a definite conclusion here, since the situation is not
presented by the proofs.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
Defendant also appears to represent the employer before administrative agencies of the federal government,
especially before trial examiners of the National Labor Relations Board. An agency of the federal government,
acting by virtue of an authority granted by the Congress, may regulate the representation of parties before such
agency. The State of New Jersey is without power to interfere with such determination or to forbid
representation before the agency by one whom the agency admits. The rules of the National Labor Relations
Board give to a party the right to appear in person, or by counsel, or by other representative. Rules and
Regulations, September 11th, 1946, S. 203.31. 'Counsel' here means a licensed attorney, and ther representative'
one not a lawyer. In this phase of his work, defendant may lawfully do whatever the Labor Board allows, even
arguing questions purely legal. (Auerbacher v. Wood, 53 A. 2d 800, cited in Statsky, Introduction to
Paralegalism [1974], at pp. 154-156.).
1.8 From the foregoing, it can be said that a person engaged in a lawful calling (which may involve knowledge
of the law) is not engaged in the practice of law provided that:chanrobles virtual law library
(a) The legal question is subordinate and incidental to a major non-legal

problem;.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
(b) The services performed are not customarily reserved to members of the bar;
.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
(c) No separate fee is charged for the legal advice or information.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual
law library
All these must be considered in relation to the work for any particular client as a
whole.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
1.9. If the person involved is both lawyer and non-lawyer, the Code of Professional Responsibility succintly
states the rule of conduct:chanrobles virtual law library
Rule 15.08 - A lawyer who is engaged in another profession or occupation concurrently with the practice of law
shall make clear to his client whether he is acting as a lawyer or in another
capacity.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
44
1.10. In the present case. the Legal Clinic appears to render wedding services (See Annex "A" Petition).
Services on routine, straightforward marriages, like securing a marriage license, and making arrangements with
a priest or a judge, may not constitute practice of law. However, if the problem is as complicated as that
described in "Rx for Legal Problems" on the Sharon Cuneta-Gabby Concepcion-Richard Gomez case, then what
may be involved is actually the practice of law. If a non-lawyer, such as the Legal Clinic, renders such services
then it is engaged in the unauthorized practice of law.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
1.11. The Legal Clinic also appears to give information on divorce, absence, annulment of marriage and visas
(See Annexes "A" and "B" Petition). Purely giving informational materials may not constitute of law. The
business is similar to that of a bookstore where the customer buys materials on the subject and determines on
the subject and determines by himself what courses of action to take.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles
virtual law library
It is not entirely improbable, however, that aside from purely giving information, the Legal Clinic's paralegals
may apply the law to the particular problem of the client, and give legal advice. Such would constitute
unauthorized practice of law.
It cannot be claimed that the publication of a legal text which publication of a legal text which purports to say
what the law is amount to legal practice. And the mere fact that the principles or rules stated in the text may be
accepted by a particular reader as a solution to his problem does not affect this. . . . . Apparently it is urged that
the conjoining of these two, that is, the text and the forms, with advice as to how the forms should be filled out,
constitutes the unlawful practice of law. But that is the situation with many approved and accepted texts.
Dacey's book is sold to the public at large. There is no personal contact or relationship with a particular
individual. Nor does there exist that relation of confidence and trust so necessary to the status of attorney and
client. THIS IS THE ESSENTIAL OF LEGAL PRACTICE - THE REPRESENTATION AND ADVISING OF A
PARTICULAR PERSON IN A PARTICULAR SITUATION. At most the book assumes to offer general advice on
common problems, and does not purport to give personal advice on a specific problem peculiar to a designated
or readily identified person. Similarly the defendant's publication does not purport to give personal advice on a
specific problem peculiar to a designated or readily identified person in a particular situation - in their
publication and sale of the kits, such publication and sale did not constitutes the unlawful practice of law . . . .
There being no legal impediment under the statute to the sale of the kit, there was no proper basis for the
injunction against defendant maintaining an office for the purpose of selling to persons seeking a divorce,
separation, annulment or separation agreement any printed material or writings relating to matrimonial law or
the prohibition in the memorandum of modification of the judgment against defendant having an interest in any
publishing house publishing his manuscript on divorce and against his having any personal contact with any
prospective purchaser. The record does fully support, however, the finding that for the change of $75 or $100
for the kit, the defendant gave legal advice in the course of personal contacts concerning particular problems
which might arise in the preparation and presentation of the purchaser's asserted matrimonial cause of action or
pursuit of other legal remedies and assistance in the preparation of necessary documents (The injunction
therefore sought to) enjoin conduct constituting the practice of law, particularly with reference to the giving of
advice and counsel by the defendant relating to specific problems of particular individuals in connection with a
divorce, separation, annulment of separation agreement sought and should be affirmed. (State v. Winder, 348,
NYS 2D 270 [1973], cited in Statsky, supra at p. 101.).
1.12. Respondent, of course, states that its services are "strictly non-diagnostic, non-advisory. "It is not
controverted, however, that if the services "involve giving legal advice or counselling," such would constitute
practice of law (Comment, par. 6.2). It is in this light that FIDA submits that a factual inquiry may be necessary
for the judicious disposition of this case.
45
2.10. Annex "A" may be ethically objectionable in that it can give the impression (or perpetuate the wrong
notion) that there is a secret marriage. With all the solemnities, formalities and other requisites of marriages
(See Articles 2, et seq., Family Code), no Philippine marriage can be
secret.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
2.11. Annex "B" may likewise be ethically objectionable. The second paragraph thereof (which is not
necessarily related to the first paragraph) fails to state the limitation that only "paralegal services?" or "legal
support services", and not legal services, are available." 11chanrobles virtual law library
A prefatory discussion on the meaning of the phrase "practice of law" becomes exigent for the proper
determination of the issues raised by the petition at bar. On this score, we note that the clause "practice of law"
has long been the subject of judicial construction and interpretation. The courts have laid down general
principles and doctrines explaining the meaning and scope of the term, some of which we now take into
account.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
Practice of law means any activity, in or out of court, which requires the application of law, legal procedures,
knowledge, training and experience. To engage in the practice of law is to perform those acts which are
characteristic of the profession. Generally, to practice law is to give advice or render any kind of service that
involves legal knowledge or skill. 12chanrobles virtual law library
The practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases in court. It includes legal advice and counsel, and the
preparation of legal instruments and contract by which legal rights are secured, although such matter may or
may not be pending in a court. 13chanrobles virtual law library
In the practice of his profession, a licensed attorney at law generally engages in three principal types of
professional activity: legal advice and instructions to clients to inform them of their rights and obligations,
preparation for clients of documents requiring knowledge of legal principles not possessed by ordinary layman,
and appearance for clients before public tribunals which possess power and authority to determine rights of life,
liberty, and property according to law, in order to assist in proper interpretation and enforcement of
law. 14chanrobles virtual law library
When a person participates in the a trial and advertises himself as a lawyer, he is in the practice of law. 15One
who confers with clients, advises them as to their legal rights and then takes the business to an attorney and asks
the latter to look after the case in court, is also practicing law. 16Giving advice for compensation regarding the
legal status and rights of another and the conduct with respect thereto constitutes a practice of law. 17One who
renders an opinion as to the proper interpretation of a statute, and receives pay for it, is, to that extent, practicing
law. 18chanrobles virtual law library
In the recent case of Cayetano vs. Monsod, 19after citing the doctrines in several cases, we laid down the test to
determine whether certain acts constitute "practice of law," thus:
Black defines "practice of law" as:chanrobles virtual law library
The rendition of services requiring the knowledge and the application of legal principles and technique to serve
the interest of another with his consent. It is not limited to appearing in court, or advising and assisting in the
conduct of litigation, but embraces the preparation of pleadings, and other papers incident to actions and special
46
proceedings, conveyancing, the preparation of legal instruments of all kinds, and the giving of all legal advice to
clients. It embraces all advice to clients and all actions taken for them in matters connected with the law.
The practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases on court.(Land Title Abstract and Trust Co. v.
Dworken , 129 Ohio St. 23, 193N. E. 650). A person is also considered to be in the practice of law when he:
. . . . for valuable consideration engages in the business of advising person, firms, associations or corporations
as to their right under the law, or appears in a representative capacity as an advocate in proceedings, pending or
prospective, before any court, commissioner, referee, board, body, committee, or commission constituted by
law or authorized to settle controversies and there, in such representative capacity, performs any act or acts for
the purpose of obtaining or defending the rights of their clients under the law. Otherwise stated, one who, in a
representative capacity, engages in the business of advising clients as to their rights under the law, or while so
engaged performs any act or acts either in court or outside of court for that purpose, is engaged in the practice of
law. (State ex. rel. Mckittrick v. C.S. Dudley and Co., 102 S. W. 2d 895, 340 Mo. 852).
This Court, in the case of Philippines Lawyers Association v. Agrava (105 Phil. 173, 176-177),stated:
The practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases or litigation in court; it embraces the preparation of
pleadings and other papers incident to actions and special proceedings, the management of such actions and
proceedings on behalf of clients before judges and courts, and in addition, conveying. In general, all advice to
clients, and all action taken for them in matters connected with the law incorporation services, assessment and
condemnation services contemplating an appearance before a judicial body, the foreclosure of a mortgage,
enforcement of a creditor's claim in bankruptcy and insolvency proceedings, and conducting proceedings in
attachment, and in matters or estate and guardianship have been held to constitute law practice, as do the
preparation and drafting of legal instruments, where the work done involves the determination by the trained
legal mind of the legal effect of facts and conditions. (5 Am. Jr. p. 262,
263).chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
Practice of law under modern conditions consists in no small part of work performed outside of any court and
having no immediate relation to proceedings in court. It embraces conveyancing, the giving of legal advice on a
large variety of subjects and the preparation and execution of legal instruments covering an extensive field of
business and trust relations and other affairs. Although these transactions may have no direct connection with
court proceedings, they are always subject to become involved in litigation. They require in many aspects a high
degree of legal skill, a wide experience with men and affairs, and great capacity for adaptation to difficult and
complex situations. These customary functions of an attorney or counselor at law bear an intimate relation to the
administration of justice by the courts. No valid distinction, so far as concerns the question set forth in the order,
can be drawn between that part of the work of the lawyer which involves appearance in court and that part
which involves advice and drafting of instruments in his office. It is of importance to the welfare of the public
that these manifold customary functions be performed by persons possessed of adequate learning and skill, of
sound moral character, and acting at all times under the heavy trust obligations to clients which rests upon all
attorneys. (Moran, Comments on the Rules o Court, Vol. 3 [1973 ed.], pp. 665-666, citing In Re Opinion of the
Justices [Mass], 194 N. E. 313, quoted in Rhode Is. Bar Assoc. v. Automobile Service Assoc. [R.I.] 197 A. 139,
144).
The practice of law, therefore, covers a wide range of activities in and out of court. Applying the
aforementioned criteria to the case at bar, we agree with the perceptive findings and observations of the
aforestated bar associations that the activities of respondent, as advertised, constitute "practice of
law."chanrobles virtual law library
47
The contention of respondent that it merely offers legal support services can neither be seriously considered nor
sustained. Said proposition is belied by respondent's own description of the services it has been offering, to wit:
Legal support services basically consists of giving ready information by trained paralegals to laymen and
lawyers, which are strictly non-diagnostic, non-advisory, through the extensive use of computers and modern
information technology in the gathering, processing, storage, transmission and reproduction of information and
communication, such as computerized legal research; encoding and reproduction of documents and pleadings
prepared by laymen or lawyers; document search; evidence gathering; locating parties or witnesses to a case;
fact finding investigations; and assistance to laymen in need of basic institutional services from government or
non-government agencies, like birth, marriage, property, or business registrations; educational or employment
records or certifications, obtaining documentation like clearances, passports, local or foreign visas; giving
information about laws of other countries that they may find useful, like foreign divorce, marriage or adoption
laws that they can avail of preparatory to emigration to the foreign country, and other matters that do not
involve representation of clients in court; designing and installing computer systems, programs, or software for
the efficient management of law offices, corporate legal departments, courts and other entities engaged in
dispensing or administering legal services. 20chanrobles virtual law library
While some of the services being offered by respondent corporation merely involve mechanical and technical
knowhow, such as the installation of computer systems and programs for the efficient management of law
offices, or the computerization of research aids and materials, these will not suffice to justify an exception to the
general rule.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
What is palpably clear is that respondent corporation gives out legal information to laymen and lawyers. Its
contention that such function is non-advisory and non-diagnostic is more apparent than real. In providing
information, for example, about foreign laws on marriage, divorce and adoption, it strains the credulity of this
Court that all the respondent corporation will simply do is look for the law, furnish a copy thereof to the client,
and stop there as if it were merely a bookstore. With its attorneys and so called paralegals, it will necessarily
have to explain to the client the intricacies of the law and advise him or her on the proper course of action to be
taken as may be provided for by said law. That is what its advertisements represent and for the which services it
will consequently charge and be paid. That activity falls squarely within the jurisprudential definition of
"practice of law." Such a conclusion will not be altered by the fact that respondent corporation does not
represent clients in court since law practice, as the weight of authority holds, is not limited merely giving legal
advice, contract drafting and so forth.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
The aforesaid conclusion is further strengthened by an article published in the January 13, 1991 issue of the
Starweek/The Sunday Magazine of the Philippines Star, entitled "Rx for Legal Problems," where an insight into
the structure, main purpose and operations of respondent corporation was given by its own "proprietor," Atty.
Rogelio P. Nogales:
This is the kind of business that is transacted everyday at The Legal Clinic, with offices on the seventh floor of
the Victoria Building along U. N. Avenue in Manila. No matter what the client's problem, and even if it is as
complicated as the Cuneta-Concepcion domestic situation, Atty. Nogales and his staff of lawyers, who, like
doctors are "specialists" in various fields can take care of it. The Legal Clinic, Inc. has specialists in taxation
and criminal law, medico-legal problems, labor, litigation, and family law. These specialist are backed up by a
battery of paralegals, counsellors and attorneys.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
Atty. Nogales set up The Legal Clinic in 1984. Inspired by the trend in the medical field toward specialization,
it caters to clients who cannot afford the services of the big law firms.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles
virtual law library
48
The Legal Clinic has regular and walk-in clients. "when they come, we start by analyzing the problem. That's
what doctors do also. They ask you how you contracted what's bothering you, they take your temperature, they
observe you for the symptoms and so on. That's how we operate, too. And once the problem has been
categorized, then it's referred to one of our specialists.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library
There are cases which do not, in medical terms, require surgery or follow-up treatment. These The Legal Clinic
disposes of in a matter of minutes. "Things like preparing a simple deed of sale or an affidavit of loss can be
taken care of by our staff or, if this were a hospital the residents or the interns. We can take care of these matters
on a while you wait basis. Again, kung baga sa hospital, out-patient, hindi kailangang ma-confine. It's just like a
common cold or diarrhea," explains Atty. Nogales.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
Those cases which requires more extensive "treatment" are dealt with accordingly. "If you had a rich relative
who died and named you her sole heir, and you stand to inherit millions of pesos of property, we would refer
you to a specialist in taxation. There would be real estate taxes and arrears which would need to be put in order,
and your relative is even taxed by the state for the right to transfer her property, and only a specialist in taxation
would be properly trained to deal with the problem. Now, if there were other heirs contesting your rich relatives
will, then you would need a litigator, who knows how to arrange the problem for presentation in court, and
gather evidence to support the case. 21chanrobles virtual law library
That fact that the corporation employs paralegals to carry out its services is not controlling. What is important is
that it is engaged in the practice of law by virtue of the nature of the services it renders which thereby brings it
within the ambit of the statutory prohibitions against the advertisements which it has caused to be published and
are now assailed in this proceeding.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
Further, as correctly and appropriately pointed out by the U.P. WILOCI, said reported facts sufficiently
establish that the main purpose of respondent is to serve as a one-stop-shop of sorts for various legal problems
wherein a client may avail of legal services from simple documentation to complex litigation and corporate
undertakings. Most of these services are undoubtedly beyond the domain of paralegals, but rather, are exclusive
functions of lawyers engaged in the practice of law. 22chanrobles virtual law library
It should be noted that in our jurisdiction the services being offered by private respondent which constitute
practice of law cannot be performed by paralegals. Only a person duly admitted as a member of the bar, or
hereafter admitted as such in accordance with the provisions of the Rules of Court, and who is in good and
regular standing, is entitled to practice law. 23chanrobles virtual law library
Public policy requires that the practice of law be limited to those individuals found duly qualified in education
and character. The permissive right conferred on the lawyers is an individual and limited privilege subject to
withdrawal if he fails to maintain proper standards of moral and professional conduct. The purpose is to protect
the public, the court, the client and the bar from the incompetence or dishonesty of those unlicensed to practice
law and not subject to the disciplinary control of the court. 24chanrobles virtual law library
The same rule is observed in the american jurisdiction wherefrom respondent would wish to draw support for
his thesis. The doctrines there also stress that the practice of law is limited to those who meet the requirements
for, and have been admitted to, the bar, and various statutes or rules specifically so provide. 25The practice of
law is not a lawful business except for members of the bar who have complied with all the conditions required
by statute and the rules of court. Only those persons are allowed to practice law who, by reason of attainments
previously acquired through education and study, have been recognized by the courts as possessing profound
knowledge of legal science entitling them to advise, counsel with, protect, or defend the rights claims, or
liabilities of their clients, with respect to the construction, interpretation, operation and effect of law. 26The
49
justification for excluding from the practice of law those not admitted to the bar is found, not in the protection
of the bar from competition, but in the protection of the public from being advised and represented in legal
matters by incompetent and unreliable persons over whom the judicial department can exercise little
control. 27chanrobles virtual law library
We have to necessarily and definitely reject respondent's position that the concept in the United States of
paralegals as an occupation separate from the law profession be adopted in this jurisdiction. Whatever may be
its merits, respondent cannot but be aware that this should first be a matter for judicial rules or legislative
action, and not of unilateral adoption as it has done.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
Paralegals in the United States are trained professionals. As admitted by respondent, there are schools and
universities there which offer studies and degrees in paralegal education, while there are none in the
Philippines. 28As the concept of the "paralegals" or "legal assistant" evolved in the United States, standards and
guidelines also evolved to protect the general public. One of the major standards or guidelines was developed
by the American Bar Association which set up Guidelines for the Approval of Legal Assistant Education
Programs (1973). Legislation has even been proposed to certify legal assistants. There are also associations of
paralegals in the United States with their own code of professional ethics, such as the National Association of
Legal Assistants, Inc. and the American Paralegal Association. 29chanrobles virtual law library
In the Philippines, we still have a restricted concept and limited acceptance of what may be considered as
paralegal service. As pointed out by FIDA, some persons not duly licensed to practice law are or have been
allowed 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 therefor. 30chanrobles virtual
law library
Accordingly, we have adopted the American judicial policy that, in the absence of constitutional or statutory
authority, a person who has not been admitted as an attorney cannot practice law for the proper administration
of justice cannot be hindered by the unwarranted intrusion of an unauthorized and unskilled person into the
practice of law. 31That policy should continue to be one of encouraging persons who are unsure of their legal
rights and remedies to seek legal assistance only from persons licensed to practice law in the state. 32chanrobles
virtual law library
Anent the issue on the validity of the questioned advertisements, 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. 33He 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. 34Nor 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. 35Prior to the adoption of the code of
Professional Responsibility, the Canons of Professional Ethics 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 has been or is engaged
or 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. 36chanrobles virtual law library
The standards of the legal profession condemn the lawyer's advertisement of his talents. A lawyer cannot,
without violating the ethics of his profession. advertise his talents or skill as in a manner similar to a merchant
advertising his goods. 37The prescription against advertising of legal services or solicitation of legal business
rests on the fundamental postulate that the that the practice of law is a profession. Thus, in the case of
The Director of Religious Affairs. vs. Estanislao R. Bayot 38 an advertisement, similar to those of respondent
50
which are involved in the present proceeding, 39was held to constitute improper advertising or
solicitation.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
The pertinent part of the decision therein reads:
It is undeniable that the advertisement in question was a flagrant violation by the respondent of the ethics of his
profession, it being a brazen solicitation of business from the public. Section 25 of Rule 127 expressly provides
among other things that "the practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either personally or thru
paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice." It is highly unethical for an attorney to advertise his talents or
skill as a merchant advertises his wares. Law is a profession and not a trade. The lawyer degrades himself and
his profession who stoops to and adopts the practices of mercantilism by advertising his services or offering
them to the public. As a member of the bar, he defiles the temple of justice with mercenary activities as the
money-changers of old defiled the temple of Jehovah. "The most worthy and effective advertisement possible,
even for a young lawyer, . . . . 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." (Canon 27, Code of
Ethics.).
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. Good and efficient service to a client as well as to the community has a way of publicizing itself and
catching public attention. That publicity is a normal by-product of effective service which is right and proper. A
good and reputable lawyer needs no artificial stimulus to generate it and to magnify his success. He easily sees
the difference between a normal by-product of able service and the unwholesome result of
propaganda. 40chanrobles virtual law library
Of course, not all types of advertising or solicitation are prohibited. The canons of the profession enumerate
exceptions to the rule against advertising or solicitation and define the extent to which they may be undertaken.
The exceptions are of two broad categories, namely, those which are expressly allowed and those which are
necessarily implied from the restrictions. 41chanrobles virtual law library
The first of such exceptions is the publication in reputable law lists, in a manner consistent with the standards of
conduct imposed by the canons, of brief biographical and informative data. "Such data must not be misleading
and may include only a statement of the lawyer's 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 distinction; public or quasi-public
offices; posts of honor; legal authorships; legal teaching positions; membership and offices in bar associations
and committees thereof, in legal and scientific societies and legal fraternities; the fact of listings in other
reputable law lists; the names and addresses of references; and, with their written consent, the names of clients
regularly represented." 42chanrobles virtual law library
The law list must be a reputable law list published primarily for that purpose; it cannot be a mere supplemental
feature of a paper, magazine, trade journal or periodical which is published principally for other purposes. For
that reason, a lawyer may not properly publish his brief biographical and informative data in a daily paper,
magazine, trade journal or society program. Nor may a lawyer permit his name to be published in a law list the
conduct, management or contents of which are calculated or likely to deceive or injure the public or the bar, or
to lower the dignity or standing of the profession. 43chanrobles virtual law library
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
51
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. 44chanrobles virtual law library
Verily, taking into consideration the nature and contents of the advertisements for which respondent is being
taken to task, which even includes a quotation of the fees charged by said respondent corporation for services
rendered, we find and so hold that the same definitely do not and conclusively cannot fall under any of the
above-mentioned exceptions.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
The ruling in the case of Bates, et al. vs. State Bar of Arizona, 45 which is repeatedly invoked and constitutes the
justification relied upon by respondent, is obviously not applicable to the case at bar. Foremost is the fact that
the disciplinary rule involved in said case explicitly allows a lawyer, as an exception to the prohibition against
advertisements by lawyers, to publish a statement of legal fees for an initial consultation or the availability upon
request of a written schedule of fees or an estimate of the fee to be charged for the specific services. No such
exception is provided for, expressly or impliedly, whether in our former Canons of Professional Ethics or the
present Code of Professional Responsibility. Besides, even the disciplinary rule in the Bates case contains a
proviso that the exceptions stated therein are "not applicable in any state unless and until it is implemented by
such authority in that state." 46This goes to show that an exception to the general rule, such as that being
invoked by herein respondent, can be made only if and when the canons expressly provide for such an
exception. Otherwise, the prohibition stands, as in the case at bar.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual
law library
It bears mention that in a survey conducted by the American Bar Association after the decision in Bates, on the
attitude of the public about lawyers after viewing television commercials, it was found that public opinion
dropped significantly 47 with respect to these characteristics of lawyers:
Trustworthy from 71% to 14%

Professional from 71% to 14%
Honest from 65% to 14%
Dignified from 45% to 14%
Secondly, it is our firm belief that with the present situation of our legal and judicial systems, to allow the
publication of advertisements of the kind used by respondent would only serve to aggravate what is already a
deteriorating public opinion of the legal profession whose integrity has consistently been under attack lately by
media and the community in general. At this point in time, it is of utmost importance in the face of such
negative, even if unfair, criticisms at times, to adopt and maintain that level of professional conduct which is
beyond reproach, and to exert all efforts to regain the high esteem formerly accorded to the legal
profession.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
In sum, it is undoubtedly a misbehavior on the part of the lawyer, subject to disciplinary action, to advertise his
services except in allowable instances 48or to aid a layman in the unauthorized practice of law. 49Considering
that Atty. Rogelio P. Nogales, who is the prime incorporator, major stockholder and proprietor of The Legal
Clinic, Inc. is a member of the Philippine Bar, he is hereby reprimanded, with a warning that a repetition of the
same or similar acts which are involved in this proceeding will be dealt with more
severely.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
While we deem it necessary that the question as to the legality or illegality of the purpose/s for which the Legal
Clinic, Inc. was created should be passed upon and determined, we are constrained to refrain from lapsing into
52
an obiter on that aspect since it is clearly not within the adjudicative parameters of the present proceeding which
is merely administrative in nature. It is, of course, imperative that this matter be promptly determined, albeit in a
different proceeding and forum, since, under the present state of our law and jurisprudence, a corporation
cannot be organized for or engage in the practice of law in this country. This interdiction, just like the rule
against unethical advertising, cannot be subverted by employing some so-called paralegals supposedly
rendering the alleged support services.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
The remedy for the apparent breach of this prohibition by respondent is the concern and province of the
Solicitor General who can institute the corresponding quo warranto action, 50 after due ascertainment of the
factual background and basis for the grant of respondent's corporate charter, in light of the putative misuse
thereof. That spin-off from the instant bar matter is referred to the Solicitor General for such action as may be
necessary under the circumstances.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
ACCORDINGLY, the Court Resolved to RESTRAIN and ENJOIN herein respondent, The Legal Clinic, Inc.,
from issuing or causing the publication or dissemination of any advertisement in any form which is of the same
or similar tenor and purpose as Annexes "A" and "B" of this petition, and from conducting, directly or
indirectly, any activity, operation or transaction proscribed by law or the Code of Professional Ethics as
indicated herein. Let copies of this resolution be furnished the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, the Office of
the Bar Confidant and the Office of the Solicitor General for appropriate action in accordance herewith.
Narvasa, C.J., Cruz, Feliciano, Padilla, Bidin, Griño-Aquino, Davide, Jr., Romero, Nocon, Bellosillo, Melo and
Quiason, JJ., concur
A.C. No. 5299 August 19, 2003
ATTY. ISMAEL G. KHAN, JR., Assistant Court Administrator and Chief, Public Information
Office, Complainant,
vs.
ATTY. RIZALINO T. SIMBILLO, Respondent.
x-----------------------x
G.R. No. 157053 August 19, 2003
ATTY. RIZALINO T. SIMBILLO, Petitioner,

vs.
IBP COMMISSION ON BAR DISCIPLINE and ATTY. ISMAEL G. KHAN, JR., in his capacity as
Assistant Court Administrator and Chief, Public Information Office, Respondents.
RESOLUTION
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
This administrative complaint arose from a paid advertisement that appeared in the July 5, 2000 issue of the
newspaper, Philippine Daily Inquirer, which reads: "ANNULMENT OF MARRIAGE Specialist 532-4333/521-
2667."1
53
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, 20029
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 Court’s 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 IBP’s Resolutions Nos. XV-2002-306 and XV-2002-606.
Rules 2.03 and 3.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility read:
54
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 Court’s 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 Court’s authority.
What adds to the gravity of respondent’s 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
55
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 lawyer’s 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.
Vitug, (Acting Chairman),Carpio, and Azcuna, JJ., concur.

Davide, Jr., C.J., (Chairman ), abroad, on official business.
EN BANC
A.C. No. 4984. April 1, 2003
56
ATTY. JULITO D. VITRIOLO, PRECILLANA J. HONORICA, ARLEEN J. RAMOS, DR. ROGER PEREZ,
DR. IMELDA DARAUG, DR. REMIGIA NATHANIELZ, CELEDONIA CORONACION, and JOSE
RABALO, complainants, v. ATTY. FELINA DASIG, respondent.
RESOLUTION
PER CURIAM:
This is an administrative case for disbarment filed against Atty. Felina S. Dasig,1 an official of the Commission
on Higher Education (CHED). The charge involves gross misconduct of respondent in violation of the
Attorneys Oath for having used her public office to secure financial spoils to the detriment of the dignity and
reputation of the CHED.
Almost all complainants in the instant case are high-ranking officers of the CHED. In their sworn Complaint-
Affidavit filed with this Court on December 4, 1998, complainants allege that respondent, while she was OIC of
Legal Affairs Service, CHED, committed acts that are grounds for disbarment under Section 27,2 Rule 138 of
the Rules of Court, to wit:
a) Sometime in August 1998 and during the effectivity of Respondents designation as Officer-in-Charge of
Legal Affairs Service, CHED, she demanded from Betty C. Mangohon, a teacher of Our Lady of Mariazel
Educational Center in Novaliches, Quezon City, the amount of P20,000.00 and later reduced to P5,000.00 for
the facilitation of her application for correction of name then pending before the Legal Affairs Service, CHED...
b) Likewise, sometime in July to August 1998 and during the effectivity of Respondents designation as Officer-
in-Charge of Legal Affairs Service, CHED, she demanded from Rosalie B. Dela Torre, a student, the amount of
P18,000.00 to P20,000.00 for facilitation of her application for correction of name then pending before the
Legal Affairs Service, CHED
c) Likewise, sometime in September 1998 and during the effectivity of Respondents designation as Officer-in-
Charge of Legal Affairs Service, CHED, she demanded from Rocella G. Eje, a student, the amount of P5,000.00
for facilitation of her application for correction of name then pending before the Legal Affairs Service, CHED. .
. In addition, Respondent even suggested to Ms. Eje to register her birth anew with full knowledge of the
existence of a prior registration
d) Likewise, sometime in August to September 1998 and during the effectivity of Respondents designation as
Officer-in-Charge of Legal Affairs Service, CHED, she demanded from Jacqueline N. Ng, a student, a
considerable amount which was subsequently confirmed to be P15,000.00 and initial fee of P5,000.00 more or
less for facilitation of her application for correction of name then pending before the Legal Affairs Service,
CHED... In addition, the Respondent even suggested to Ms. Ng to hire a lawyer who shall be chosen by
Respondent Dasig to facilitate the application for correction of name.3cräläwvirtualibräry
Complainants likewise aver that respondent violated her oath as attorney-at-law by filing eleven (11) baseless,
groundless, and unfounded suits before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City, which were
subsequently dismissed.4cräläwvirtualibräry
Further, complainants charge respondent of transgressing subparagraph b (22), Section 365 of Presidential
Decree No. 807, for her willful failure to pay just debts owing to Borela Tire Supply and Novas Lining Brake &
Clutch as evidenced by the dishonored checks she issued,6 the complaint sheet, and the subpoena issued to
respondent.7cräläwvirtualibräry
57
Complainants also allege that respondent instigated the commission of a crime against complainant Celedonia
R. Coronacion and Rodrigo Coronacion, Jr., when she encouraged and ordered her son, Jonathan Dasig, a guard
of the Bureau of Jail Management and Penology, to draw his gun and shoot the Coronacions on the evening of
May 14, 1997. As a result of this incident, a complaint for grave threats against the respondent and her son,
docketed as Criminal Case No. 86052, was lodged with the Metropolitan Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch
36.8cräläwvirtualibräry
Finally, complainants allege that respondent authored and sent to then President Joseph Estrada a libelous and
unfair report, which maligned the good names and reputation of no less than eleven (11) CHED Directors
calculated to justify her ill motive of preventing their re-appointment and with the end view of securing an
appointment for herself.9cräläwvirtualibräry
In our resolution of February 3, 1999, we required respondent to file a Comment on the charges.10 A copy of
said resolution was sent to the respondent at her address at Blk. 4, Lot 12, Hobart II Subdivision, Novaliches,
Quezon City, only to be returned to this Court with the notation Unclaimed.11cräläwvirtualibräry
On July 5, 1999, we directed that a copy of the resolution of February 3, 1999, be served by registered mail to
respondent at her office address in CHED.
In a letter dated August 28, 2000, the Postmaster of the Ortigas Center Post Office informed the Court that the
said mail matter had been delivered to, received by, and signed for by one Antonio Molon, an authorized agent
of respondent on August 27, 1999.12cräläwvirtualibräry
On November 22, 2000, we granted complainants motion to refer the complaint to the Commission on Bar
Discipline, Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report, and recommendation.
In its order dated February 6, 2001, the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline directed respondent to submit her
Answer to the Complaint, failing which she would be considered in default and the case heard ex
parte. Respondent failed to heed said order and on January 8, 2002, the Commission directed her anew to file
her Answer, but again she failed to comply with the directive. As a result, the Commission ruled that she had
waived her right to file her Comment or Answer to the Complaint and the case was mainly resolved on the basis
of the documents submitted and on record.
In its report and recommendation, dated April 5, 2002, the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline stated as follows:
From the foregoing evidence on record, it can be concluded that respondent in violation of her oath as a
government official and as a member of the Bar, indeed made unlawful demands or attempted to extort money
from certain people who had pending applications/requests before her office in exchange for her promise to act
favorably on said applications/requests. Clearly, respondent unlawfully used her public office in order to secure
financial spoils to the detriment of the dignity and reputation of the Commission on Higher Education.
For the foregoing reasons, it is recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for the
maximum period allowable of three (3) years with a further warning that similar action in the future will be a
ground for disbarment of respondent.
On August 3, 2002, the IBP Board of Governors passed Resolution No. XV-2002-393, the full text of which
reads as follows:
58
RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby ADOPTED and APPROVED, the Report and
Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner of the above-entitled case, herein made part of this
Resolution/Decision as Annex A:; and, finding the recommendation fully supported by the evidence on record
and the applicable laws and rules; and considering that respondent unlawfully used her public office in order to
secure financial spoils to the detriment of the dignity and reputation of the Commission on Higher Education,
Respondent is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for three (3) years.13cräläwvirtualibräry
At the threshold is the query of whether respondent attorney-at-law, as Officer-in-Charge (OIC) of Legal
Services, CHED, may be disciplined by this Court for her malfeasance, considering that her position, at the time
of filing of the complaint, was Chief Education Program Specialist, Standards Development Division, Office of
Programs and Standards, CHED.
Generally speaking, a lawyer who holds a government office may not be disciplined as a member of the Bar for
misconduct in the discharge of his duties as a government official.14 However, if said misconduct as a
government official also constitutes a violation of his oath as a lawyer, then he may be disciplined by this Court
as a member of the Bar.15cräläwvirtualibräry
In this case, the record shows that the respondent, on various occasions, during her tenure as OIC, Legal
Services, CHED, attempted to extort from Betty C. Mangohon, Rosalie B. Dela Torre, Rocella G. Eje, and
Jacqueline N. Ng sums of money as consideration for her favorable action on their pending applications or
requests before her office. The evidence remains unrefuted, given the respondents failure, despite the
opportunities afforded her by this Court and the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline to comment on the charges.
We find that respondents misconduct as a lawyer of the CHED is of such a character as to affect her
qualification as a member of the Bar, for as a lawyer, she ought to have known that it was patently unethical and
illegal for her to demand sums of money as consideration for the approval of applications and requests awaiting
action by her office.
The Attorneys Oath is the source of the obligations and duties of every lawyer and any violation thereof is a
ground for disbarment, suspension, or other disciplinary action. The Attorneys Oath imposes upon every
member of the bar the duty to delay no man for money or malice. Said duty is further stressed in Rule 1.03 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility.16 Respondents demands for sums of money to facilitate the processing
of pending applications or requests before her office violates such duty, and runs afoul of the oath she took
when admitted to the Bar. Such actions likewise run contrary to Rule 1.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
A member of the Bar who assumes public office does not shed his professional obligations. Hence, the Code of
Professional Responsibility, promulgated on June 21, 1988, was not meant to govern the conduct of private
practitioners alone, but of all lawyers including those in government service. This is clear from Canon 617 of
said Code. Lawyers in government are public servants who owe the utmost fidelity to the public service. Thus,
they should be more sensitive in the performance of their professional obligations, as their conduct is subject to
the ever-constant scrutiny of the public.
Respondents attempts to extort money from persons with applications or requests pending before her office are
violative of Rule 1.0118 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which prohibits members of the Bar from
engaging or participating in any unlawful, dishonest, or deceitful acts. Moreover, said acts constitute a breach of
Rule 6.0219 of the Code which bars lawyers in government service from promoting their private interests.
Promotion of private interests includes soliciting gifts or anything of monetary value in any transaction
requiring the approval of his office or which may be affected by the functions of his office. Respondents
conduct in office falls short of the integrity and good moral character required from all lawyers, specially from
59
one occupying a high public office. For a lawyer in public office is expected not only to refrain from any act or
omission which might tend to lessen the trust and confidence of the citizenry in government, she must also
uphold the dignity of the legal profession at all times and observe a high standard of honesty and fair dealing.
Otherwise said, a lawyer in government service is a keeper of the public faith and is burdened with high degree
of social responsibility, perhaps higher than her brethren in private practice.
For her violation of the Attorneys Oath as well as of Rule 1.01 and Rule 1.03 of Canon 120 and Rule 6.02 of
Canon 6 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, particularly for acts of dishonesty as well as gross
misconduct as OIC, Legal Services, CHED, we find that respondent deserves not just the penalty of three years
suspension from membership in the Bar as well as the practice of law, as recommended by the IBP Board of
Governors, but outright disbarment. Her name shall be stricken off the list of attorneys upon finality of this
decision.
WHEREFORE, respondent Arty. Felina S. Dasig is found liable for gross misconduct and dishonesty in
violation of the Attorneys Oath as well as the Code of Professional Responsibility, and is hereby ordered
DISBARRED.
Let copies of this Resolution be furnished to the Bar Confidant to be spread on the records of the respondent, as
well as to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for distribution to all its chapters, and the Office of the Court
Administrator for dissemination to all courts throughout the country.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo, Puno, Vitug, Mendoza, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, Sandoval-
Gutierrez, Carpio, Austria-Martinez, Corona, Carpio-Morales, Callejo, Sr., and Azcuna, JJ., concur.
60

Legal Ethics - Assignment #3

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Legal Ethics - Assignment #3

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Legal Ethics Assignment #3

CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY

CHAPTER I. THE LAWYER AND SOCIETY

CANON 4 - A LAWYER SHALL PARTICIPATE IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE LEGAL SYSTEM BY

CANON 5 - A LAWYER SHALL KEEP ABREAST OF LEGAL DEVELOPMENTS, PARTICIPATE IN

CANON 6 - THESE CANONS SHALL APPLY TO LAWYERS IN GOVERNMENT SERVICES IN THE

B.M. No. 850 August 22, 2000

MANDATORY CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION (MCLE)

Section 1. Purpose of the MCLE

Section 1. Constitution of the MCLE Committee

Section 2. Requirements of completion of MCLE

(a) At least six (6) hours shall be devoted to legal ethics.

Section 1. Initial compliance period

Section 2. Compliance Group 1.

Section 3. Compliance Group 2.

Members in Luzon outside NCR shall be permanently assigned to Compliance Group 2.

Section 4. Compliance Group 3.

Members in Visayas and Mindanao shall be permanently assigned to Compliance Group 3.

PROGRAMS CREDIT UNITS SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS

1. SEMINARS, CONVENTIONS, CONFERENCES, SYMPOSIA, IN-HOUSE EDUCATION

1.1 PARTICIPANT 1 CU PER HOUR CERTIFICATE OF ATTENDANCE WITH NUMBER

1.2 LECTURER 5 CU PER HOUR PHOTOCOPY OF PLAQUE OR SPONSOR'S

1.3 RESOURCE 3 CU PER HOUR PHOTOCOPY OF PLAQUE OR SPONSOR'S SPEAKER

1.4 ASSIGNED 2 CU PER HOUR CERTIFICATION FROM SPONSORING PENALIST/

1.5 MODERATOR/ 2 CU PER HOUR CERTIFICATION FROM SPONSORING

2. AUTHORSHIP, EDITING AND REVIEW

2.1 RESEARCH/ 5-10 CREDIT UNITS DULY CERTIFIED/PUBLISHED INNOVATIVE

2.5 LEGAL 3-6 CU PER ISSUE PUBLISHED NEWSLETTER/JOURNAL

3. PROFESSIONAL 6 CU PER CHAIR CERTIFICATION OF LAW DEAN CHAIR/BAR 1 CU PER

Section 2. Limitation on certain credit units

Section 1. Classes of credits

The credits are either participatory or non-participatory.

Section 2. Claim for participatory credit

Participatory credit may be claimed for:

(c) Teaching in a law school or lecturing in a bar review class.

Section 3. Claim for non-participatory credit

Non-participatory credit may be claimed per compliance period for:

(b) Editing a law book, law journal or legal newsletter.

Section 1. Parties exempted from the MCLE

(b) Senators and Members of the House of Representatives;

(e) The Solicitor General and the Assistant Solicitor General;

(g) The Chairmen and Members of the Constitutional Commissions;

(i) Heads of government agencies exercising quasi-judicial functions;

(l) Governors and Mayors.

Section 2. Other parties exempted from the MCLE

The following Members of the Bar are likewise exempt:

(a) Those who are not in law practice, private or public.

Section 3. Good cause for exemption from or modification of requirement

Section 4. Change of status

Section 5. Proof of exemption

Section 1. Approval of MCLE program

Section 2. Standards for all education activities

Section 1. Approval of providers

Approval of providers shall be done by the MCLE Committee.

Section 2. Requirements for approval of providers

(a) Be submitted on a form provided by the IBP;

(b) Contain all information requested on the form;

(c) Be accompanied by the approval fee;

Section 3. Requirements of all providers

All approved providers shall agree to the following:

(b) The provider shall certify that:

Section 4. Renewal of provider approval

Section 5. Revocation of provider approval