Fariola, Lea Gabrielle M.

M-7 Assignment – January 23, 2020

Case Briefs:
1. Dizon vs Atty. Cabucana
AC 10185; March 12, 2014
2. Atty. Khan v. Atty. Simbillo
A.C. No. 5299; August 19, 2003

3. Linsangan v. Atty. Tolentino

A.C. No. 6672; September 4, 2009

4. Magno v. Velasco-Jacoba
A.C. No. 6296; November 22, 2005

5. Santiago v. Atty. Rafanan

A.C. No. 6252; October 5, 2004

Synthesis
1. Dizon vs Atty. Cabucana
AC 10185; March 12, 2014

Facts:
Complainant, Licerio Dizon, in a Civil Case filed in the Municipal Trial Court (MTC),
alleged that he is one of the supposedly buyers of the parcel of land of Callangan. A compromise
agreement was then executed by the parties before Atty. Cabucana.

At the hearing, the signatories testified that they signed the instrument in the court room of
MTCC but not in the presence of Atty Cabucana as Notary Public; hence, there was delay in the
decision of the case which caused damage and injury to the complainant. They also alleged that
the respondent violated the Notarial Law by notarizing in the absence of most of the signatories
and uttered grave threats against him after the hearing of the said case.

Petitioner prayed for the disbarment of the respondent for falsification of public document.

In the latter’s answer, he averred that the complaint was intended to harass him for he was
the private prosecutor on a criminal case against the petitioner.

Issue:
Whether or not Atty. Cabucana violated a rule in the Code of Professional Responsibility
(CPR) through his conduct

Held:
As a notary public, Atty. Cabucana should not notarize a document unless the person who
signs it is the same person executing it and personally appearing before him to attest to the
truthfulness of its contents. Through this, he will be able to verify the genuineness of the signature
of the acknowledging party and to make sure that the document is the parties’ free voluntary acts
and deeds.

The court found Atty. Cabucana guilty of violating Rule 1.01 Canon 1 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility that states that “A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest,
immoral or deceitful conduct” and suspends him from the practice of law for three months, and
prohibits him from being commissioned as a notary public for two years with stern warning that a
repetition of the same or similar offense shall be dealt with more severely.
2. Atty. Khan v. Atty. Simbillo
A.C. No. 5299; August 19, 2003

Facts:
There was a paid advertisement published in the Philippine Daily Inquirer which stated,
“Annulment of Marriage Specialist [contact number]”. A staff of the Supreme Court called up the
number and the wife of Atty. Simbillo, herein respondent was the one who answered stating that
her husband 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 and custody of
children.

Upon research, it appears that the same advertisement was published in Manila Bulletin
and Philippine Star. An administrative complaint was filed which was referred to the IBP for
investigation and recommendation. The IBP resolved to suspend Atty. Simbillo for one year.
Although the name of Atty. Simbillo did not appear in the advertisement, he admitted the acts
imputed against him but argued that he should not be charged. He said that it was time to lift the
absolute prohibition against advertisement because the interest of the public isn’t served in any
way by the prohibition.

Issue:
Whether or not Atty. Simbillo has violated Canon 2 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility by publishing his specialization in a paid advertisement

Held:
Yes, Atty. Simbillo violated Rule 2.03, Canon 2 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
which states that a lawyer shall not do or permit to be done any act designed primarily to solicit
legal business.

The court held that the practice of law is not a business; rather, a profession in which the
primary duty is public service and money. Gaining livelihood is a secondary consideration while
duty to public service and administration of justice should be primary. Lawyers should subordinate
their primary interest.

Worse, advertising himself as an “annulment of marriage specialist” he erodes and

undermines the sanctity of an institution still considered as sacrosanct --- he in fact encourages
people otherwise disinclined to dissolve their marriage bond.

Solicitation of business is not altogether proscribed but for it to be proper it must be

compatible with the dignity of the legal profession.
3. Linsangan v. Atty. Tolentino
A.C. No. 6672; September 4, 2009

Facts:
A complaint for disbarment was filed by Pedro Linsangan of the Linsangan Linsangan &
Linsangan Law Office against Atty. Nicomedes Tolentino for solicitation of clients and
encroachment of professional services.

Complainant alleged that respondent, with the help of paralegal Fe Marie Labiano,
convinced his clients to transfer legal representation. Respondent promised them financial
assistance and expeditious collection on their claims. To induce them to hire his services, he
persistently called them and sent them text messages.

To support his allegations, complainant presented the sworn affidavit of James Gregorio
attesting that Labiano tried to prevail upon him to sever his lawyer-client relations with
complainant and utilize respondent's services instead, in exchange for a loan of P50,000.

Respondent, in his defense, denied knowing Labiano and authorizing the printing and
circulation of the said calling card. The complaint was referred to the Commission on Bar
Discipline (CBD) of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and
recommendation.

Complainant presented substantial evidence to prove that respondent indeed solicited legal
business as well as profited from referrals' suits. Although respondent initially denied knowing
Labiano in his answer, he later admitted it during the mandatory hearing.

Through Labiano's actions, respondent's law practice was benefited. Hapless seamen were
enticed to transfer representation on the strength of Labiano's word that respondent could produce
a more favorable result.

Labiano's calling card contained the phrase "with financial assistance."

Issue:
Whether or not Atty. Tolentino violated the Code of Professional Responsibility

Held:
Yes, Atty. Tolentino violated Rules 1.03, 2.03 and Canon 3 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.

According to the court, lawyers are reminded that the practice of law is a profession and
not a business; lawyers should not advertise their talents as merchants advertise their wares. To
allow a lawyer to advertise his talent or skill is to commercialize the practice of law, degrade the
profession in the public’s estimation and impair its ability to efficiently render that high character
of service to which every member of the bar is called.
 The phrase “with financial assistance”, which was placed in the calling card, was clearly
used to entice clients - who already had representation - to change counsels with a promise of loans
to finance their legal actions. Money was dangled to lure clients away from their original lawyers,
thereby taking advantage of their financial distress and emotional vulnerability.
4. Magno v. Velasco-Jacoba
A.C. No. 6296; November 22, 2005

Facts:
Atty. Evelyn J. Magno charged Atty. Olivia Velasco-Jacoba, a member of the same IBP
provincial chapter, with willful violation of (a) Section 415 of the Local Government Code (LGC)
of 1991 and (b) Canon 4 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

This disciplinary case arose out of a disagreement that complainant had with her uncle,
Lorenzo Inos, over a landscaping contract they had entered into. In a bid to have the stand-off
between them settled, complainant addressed a letter, styled "Sumbong", to Bonifacio Alcantara,
barangay captain of Brgy. San Pascual, Talavera, Nueva Ecija. At the barangay
conciliation/confrontation proceedings conducted on January 5, 2003, respondent, on the strength
of a Special Power of Attorney signed by Lorenzo Inos, appeared for the latter, accompanied by
his son, Lorenzito.

Complainant’s objection to respondent’s appearance elicited the response that Lorenzo

Inos is entitled to be represented by a lawyer in as much as complainant is herself a lawyer. And
as to complainant’s retort that her being a lawyer is merely coincidental, respondent countered that
she is appearing as an attorney-in-fact, not as counsel, of Lorenzo Inos.

Complainant enumerated specific instances, with supporting documentation, tending to

prove that respondent had, in the course of the conciliation proceedings before the Punong
Barangay, acted as Inos Lorenzo’s counsel instead of as his attorney-in-fact.

According to the Local Government Code, Section 415: Appearance of Parties in Person.
- In all katarungang pambarangay proceedings, the parties must appear in person without the
assistance of the counsel or representative, except for minors and incompetents who may be
assisted by their next of kin who are not lawyers.

Issue:
Whether or not Atty. Velasco-Jacoba violated Section 415 of the Local Government Code
and Canon 4 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Ruling:
Yes, the respondent is in violation of the Local Government Code (LGC) and the Code of
Professional Responsibility (CPR).

Canon 4 of the CPR states that 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.

The Local Government Code specifically states that parties shall appear without the
assistance of counsel. Knowing this, Atty. Velasco-Jacoba still appeared with Lorenzo Inos before
the Barangay Captain, she violated not just the LGC but also Canon 4 of the CPR by not
supporting administration of justice and the legal system.
5. Santiago v. Atty. Rafanan
A.C. No. 6252; October 5, 2004

Facts:
This is a disbarment case filed by BJMP employee Jonar Santiago against Atty. Edison
Rafanan. Santiago, in his complaint, alleged Rafanan, in notarizing several documents on different
dates failed and/or refused to: (1) make the proper notation regarding the cedula or community tax
certificate of the affiants; (2) enter the details of the notarized documents in the notarial register;
and (3) make and execute the certification and enter his PTR and IBP numbers in the documents
he notarized.

Santiago also alleged that Rafanan executed an Affidavit in favor of his client and offered
it as evidence and Rafanan, as alleged by Santiago, waited for him together with his “men” and
disarmed Santiago and uttered insulting words at him.

Atty. Rafanan admitted having administered the oath to the affiants whose Affidavits were
attached to the Complaint of Santiago but he believed that the non-notation of their Residence
Certificates in the Affidavits and Counter-Affidavits were allowed because notation of residence
certificates applied only to documents acknowledged by a notary public, and it was not mandatory
for affidavits related to cases pending before courts and other government offices.

He also pointed out that older practitioners in Nueva Ecija also do what he did – they do
not indicate affiants’ residence certificates on documents they notarized or have entries in the
notarial register for these documents.

Santiago charged Rafanan’s clients with attempted murder. Rafanan said that since his
clients were in his house during the alleged crime, that’s why he said his testimony is very
essential. He also contends that the case filed by Santiago was only to harass Rafanan since he is
the counsel of the parties who filed cases against him before the ombudsman.

Issue:
Whether or not Atty. Rafanan is guilty of deceit, malpractice or other gross misconduct in
office under Section 27 of Rule 1382 of the Rules of Court and in violation of Canons 1.01, 1.02
and 1.033, Canon 54, and Canons 12.075 and 12.08 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Held:
Yes, Atty. Rafanan is guilty of violating the Notarial Law and Canon 5 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, “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.”

It must be emphasized that the primary duty of lawyers is to obey the laws of the land and
promote respect for the law and legal processes. They are expected to be in the forefront in the
observance and maintenance of the rule of law. This duty carries with it the obligation to be well-
informed of the existing laws and to keep abreast with legal developments, recent enactments and
jurisprudence. It is imperative that they be conversant with basic legal principles. Unless they
faithfully comply with such duty, they may not be able to discharge competently and diligently
their obligations as members of the bar. Worse, they may become susceptible to committing
mistakes.

Where notaries public are lawyers, a graver responsibility is placed upon them by reason
of their solemn oath to obey the laws. No custom or age-old practice provides excuse or
justification for their failure to adhere to the provisions of the law. In this case, the excuse given
by respondent exhibited his clear ignorance of the Notarial Law, the Rules of Criminal Procedure,
and the importance of his office as a notary public.

However, the court does not agree that respondent be disbarred. Disbarment will be
imposed as a penalty only in a clear case of misconduct that seriously affects the standing and the
character of the lawyer as an officer of the court and a member of the bar. Where any lesser penalty
can accomplish the end desired, disbarment should not be decreed.

The respondent is fine PhP 3,000 with a stern warning that similar infractions in the future
will be dealt with more severely.
Synthesis:

Canons 1 to 5 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) are under the Chapter one
of the code which is about the Lawyer and the Society.

Canon 1 is in conformity of the Lawyer’s oath that the lawyer must uphold the Constitution,
obey the laws and promote respect for law and the legal process. In the case of Dizon v. Atty.
Cabucana, the latter violated Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the CPR since he has engaged in unlawful,
dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. In the case of Linsangan v. Atty. Tolentino the latter
violated Rule 1.03 of Canon 1 of the CPR which states that a lawyer shall not, for any corrupt
motive or interest, encourage any suit or proceeding or delay any man's cause.

Rule 2.03 of Canon 2 of the CPR are violated in the cases of Atty. Khan v. Atty. Simbillo
and Lisangan v. Atty. Tolentino. This rule states that, “A lawyer shall not do or permit to be done
any act designed primarily to solicit legal business”. Canon 2 emphasizes that solicitation is proper
if it is compatible with the dignity of the legal profession. What Atty. Simbillo did where he
advertised annulment and Atty. Tolentino’s “with financial assistance” scheme are both considered
to be incompatible with the dignity of the legal profession.

Linsangan v. Atty. Tolentino also iterated Canon 3 of the CPR that a lawyer, in making
known his legal services, shall use only true, honest, fair, dignified and objective information or
statement of facts.

Canon 4 of the CPR was alleged to have been violated in Magno v. Atty. Velasco-Jacoba.
This Canon states that 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. The
latter’s violation of the Local Government Code is also considered to be a violated of the said
Canon.

Lastly, in the case of Santiago v. Rafanan, Canon 5 of the CPR provides that 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. Atty. Rafanan followed practices of the old
lawyers without regard as to whether they are in accordance with the current laws. It is his
responsibility, as a lawyer to be updated with the notable changes of the law and be able to
implement them.

The above-mentioned cases where Canons 1 to 5 of the Code of Professional Responsibility

are incorporated, clearly portrayed the duties of a lawyer towards the society and that
noncompliance therewith are to be sanctioned or reprimanded by the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines, as governed by the Supreme Court.