CASE DIGESTS IN PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS BY: CLOIE ANNE C.

SULLA

Catu vs. Atty. Rellosa

Petitioner initiated a complaint against Elizabeth Catu and Antonio Pastor who were occupying one of
the units in a building in Malate which was owned by the former. The said complaint was filed in the
Lupong Tagapamayapa of Barangay 723, Zone 79 of the 5th District of Manila where Respondent was
the punong barangay. The parties, having been summoned for conciliation proceedings and failing to
arrive at an amicable settlement, were issued by the respondent a certification for the filing of the
appropriate action in court.

Petitioner, thus, filed a complaint for ejectment against Elizabeth and Pastor in the Metropolitan Trial
Court of Manila where respondent entered his appearance as counsel for the defendants. Because of
this, petitioner filed the instant administrative complaint against the respondent on the ground that he
committed an act of impropriety as a lawyer and as a public officer when he stood as counsel for the
defendants despite the fact that he presided over the conciliation proceedings between the litigants as
punong barangay.

In his defense, respondent claimed that as punong barangay, he performed his task without bias and
that he acceded to Elizabeth’s request to handle the case for free as she was financially distressed.

The complaint was then referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) where after evaluation,
they found sufficient ground to discipline respondent. According to them, respondent violated Rule 6.03
of the Code of Professional Responsibility and, as an elective official, the prohibition under Section 7(b)
(2) of RA6713. Consequently, for the violation of the latter prohibition, respondent committed a breach
of Canon 1. Respondent was then recommended for suspension from the practice of law.

Issue: WON Atty. Rellosa violated the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Ruling. Yes. A civil service officer or employee whose responsibilities do not require his time to be fully
at the disposal of the government can engage in the private practice of law only with the written
permission of the head of the department concerned in accordance with Section 12, Rule XVIII of the
Revised Civil Service Rules.

Notwithstanding all of these, respondent still should have procured a prior permission or authorization
from the head of his Department, as required by civil service regulations. For this failure, responded
violated his oath as a lawyer, that is, to obey the laws, Rule 1.01, CPR and, for not complying with the
ethical standards of the legal profession, Canon 7, CPR.

Respondent was found GUILTY of professional misconduct, SUSPENDED from the practice of law and
was strongly advised to look up and take to heart the meaning of the word delicadeza.

Brennisen vs. Atty. Contawi . Contawi

1
Complainant is the registered owner of a parcel of land. Being a resident of the United States of America
he entrusted the administration of the subject property to respondent together with the corresponding
owners duplicate title.

Unknown to complainant however respondent through a spurious Special 'power of Attorney

mortgaged and subsequently sold the subject property to one Roberto. The complainant filed the
instant administrative complaint against respondent for having violated his oath as a lawyer causing him
damage and prejudice.

The respondent on the other hand averred that it was his former once assistant a certain

Boy Roque and one Danilo who ordered the subject property to as collateral for a loan. Nevertheless
respondent admitted to having confirmed the spurious SPA in his favor upon the prodding of Roque and
DIAZ and because he was also in need of money at that time. Hence he signed the real estate mortgage
and received his proportionate share of the loan.

Issue: WON respondent should be disbarred.

Ruling: Yes, respondent disposed of complainant’s property without his &knowledge or consent and
partook of the proceeds of the sale for his own benefit. His contention that he merely accommodated
the request of his then financially incapacitated once assistants to confirm the spurious SPA is flimsy and
implausible as he was fully aware that complainant’s signature rejected thereon was forged. As aptly
opined by Commissioner De Mesa the fraudulent transactions involving the subject property were
effected using the owners duplicate title which was in respondents safekeeping and custody during
complainants absence.

Commissioner De Mesa and the IBP Board of Governors correctly recommended his disbarment for
violations of the pertinent provisions of the Canons of ‘professional responsibility" to wit:

Canon 1 A lawyer shall uphold the Constitution and obey the laws of the land and promote respect for
law and legal processes.

Canon 1.31 A lawyer shall not engage in #unlawful, dishonest and immoral or deceitful conduct.

Canon 1; A lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys and properties of his client which may come into his
possession.

Canon 1;.31 A lawyer shall account for all money or property collected or received for or from client.

Canon 1;.32 A lawyer shall deliver the funds and property of his client when due or upon demand.

Canon 1 A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he shall be mindful of the trust and
confidence reposed in him.

Respondents established acts exhibited his witness and plain inability to discharge the bonded duties of
a member of the legal profession. He failed to prove himself worthy of the privilege to practice law and
to live #p to the exacting standards demanded of the members of the bar. 8t bears to stress that [t]he
practice of law is a privilege given to lawyers who meet the high standards of legal proficiency and
morality. Any violation of these standards exposes the lawyer to administrative liability. With the
foregoing dispositions the Court thus finds the penalty of disbarment proper in this case.

2
 SPOUSES OLBES v. ATTY. VICTOR V. DECIEMBRE

Complainant renewed loan application through respondent, and as security for the loan, she delivered
to the latter five (5) PNB blank checks as collateral for said loan and future loans. She also paid to
respondent corresponding amount for the loan, surcharges, penalties and interests for which
respondent issued receipt. The loan was fully paid, however, respondent filled up the entrusted checks
amounts not agreed upon, deposited the same and were dishonored. He then filed criminal case against
the spouses for estafa, thus the spouses filed verified petition for disbarment of respondent lawyer
charging deliberate acts of dishonesty, falsification and conduct unbecoming a member of the Bar.

Issue: WON Atty. Deciembre should be disbarred.

Ruling: No, he was suspended only. Atty. Deciembre committed abominable dishonesty by abusing the
confidence reposed in him by petitioners. It was their high regard for him as a member of the bar that
made them trust him with their blank checks. His act of filling up the blank checks by indicating amounts
that had not been agreed upon at all and despite respondent's full knowledge that the loan supposed to
be secured by the checks had already been paid was a brazen act of falsification of a commercial
document, resorted to for his material gain. Moreover, he is guilty of serious dishonesty and
professional misconduct for he had the temerity to initiate unfounded criminal suits against petitioners,
thereby exhibiting his vile intent to have them punished and deprived of liberty for frustrating the
criminal duplicity he had wanted to foist on them. Deception and other fraudulent acts are not merely
unacceptable practices that are disgraceful and dishonorable; they reveal a basic moral flaw. The
standards of the legal profession are not satisfied by conduct that merely enables one to escape the
penalties of criminal laws.

Cobb-Perez vs. Latin

The petitioner Damaso P. Perez owed to respondent Ricardo P. Hermoso for the latter’s failure to pay his
purchases of leather materials used in his shoe manufacturing business. As a result, Ricardo commenced
a civil case against the petitioner Damaso. The petitioners resorted to a series of actions and petitions, at
some stages alternatingly, abetted by their counsel, for the sole purpose of thwarting the execution of a
simple money judgment by repeatedly invoking Article 160 of the New Civil Code. Some of the actions
were filed, only to be abandoned or withdrawn. The petitioners and their counsel, far from viewing
courts as sanctuaries for those who seek justice, have tried to use them to subvert the very ends of
justice.

The movants, Attys. Crispin D. Baizas and A. N. Bolinas, counsels for the petitioners, while submitting to
the judgment on the merits, seek reconsideration of the decision in so far as it reflects adversely upon
their professional conduct and condemns them to pay the treble costs adjudged against their clients.

Issue: WON the motion for reconsideration by the movants Attys. Crispin D. Baizas and A. N. Bolinas be
granted.

Held: No. The exposition of the circumstances relative to the protracted litigation clearly negates the
avowal of the movants that in none of the various incidents in the case at bar has any particular counsel

3
of petitioners acted with deliberate aforethought to delay the enforcement of the judgment. From the
chronology of antecedent events, the fact becomes inescapable that the Perez spouses, coached by
their counsels, had sallied forth on a stratagem of remedies projected to foil the lawful execution of a
simple money judgment. It is equally obvious that they foreshadowed their own reversals in the
remedies they ventured to adopt, such that even before, one remedy had been exhausted, they
interposed another until the case reached this Court for the second time. Meanwhile, justice was
delayed, and more than one member of this Court are persuaded that justice was practically waylaid. A
counsel's assertiveness in espousing with candour and honesty his client's cause must be encouraged
and is to be commended; what the Court do not and cannot countenance is a lawyer's insistence despite
the patent futility of his client's position, as in the case at bar.

It is the duty of a counsel to advise his client, ordinarily a layman to the intricacies and vagaries of the
law, on the merit or lack of merit of his case. If he finds that his client's cause is defenseless, then it is his
bounden duty to advise the latter to acquiesce and submit, rather than traverse the incontrovertible. A
lawyer must resist the whims and caprices of his client, and temper his client's propensity to litigate. A
lawyer's oath to uphold the cause of justice is superior to his duty to his client; its primacy is
indisputable.

Therefore, the motion for reconsideration is denied and Attys. Crispin D. Baizas and A.N. Bolinao, Jr.
shall pay jointly and severally the treble costs assessed against the petitioners.

Donton vs Atty. Tansingco

Peter Donton filed a complaint against Atty. Emmanuel Tansingco, as the notary public who notarized
the Occupancy Agreement, and against others (Duane Stier, and Emelyn Manggay) for estafa thru
falsification of public document. A disbarment complaint filed by petitioner on May 20, 2003 against
respondent Atty. Emmanual O. Tansingco for serious misconduct and deliberate violation of Canon 1,
Rule 1.01 and 1.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility arose when respondent Atty. Tansingco
filed a counter-charge of perjury against Donton. Atty. Tansingco in his complaint stated that he
prepared and notarized the Occupancy Agreement at the request of Mr. Stier, an owner and long-time
resident of a real property located at Cubao, Quezon City. Since Mr. Stier is a U.S. Citizen and thereby
disqualified to own real property in his name, he agreed that the property be transferred in the name of
Mr. Donton, a Filipino.

Donton averred that Atty. Tansingco’s act of preparing the Occupancy Agreement, despite knowledge
that Stier is a foreign national, constitutes serious misconduct and is a deliberate violation of the Code.
Donton prayed that Atty. Tansingco be disbarred. Atty. Tansingco claimed that complainant Donton filed
disbarment case against him upon the instigation of complainant’s counsel, Atty. Bonifacio A. Aletajan,
because he refused to act witness in the criminal case against Stier and Manggay. In Resolution dated
October 1, 2003, the court referred the matter to the IBP for investigation, report and recommendation
and for which the latter, through Commissioner Milagros San Juan of the IBP Commission of Discipline
recommended suspension from the practice of law for two years and cancellation of his commission as
Notary Public. The IBP Board of Governors adopted, with modification, the Report and recommended
respondent ’s suspension from the practice of law for six months. The report was then forwarded to SC
as mandated under Section 12(b), Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court.

4
Issue : WON Atty. Tansingco is guilty of serious misconduct?

Ruling : Yes. Atty. Tansingco is liable for violation of Canon 1 and Rule 1.02 of the Code. The Court ruled
that a lawyer should not render any service or give advice to any client which will involve defiance of the
laws which he is bound to uphold and obey. A lawyer who assists a client in a dishonest scheme or who
connives in violating law commits an act which justifies

disciplinary action against the lawyer. Atty. Tansingco had sworn to uphold the Constitution. Thus, he
violated his oath and the Code when he prepared and notarized the Occupancy Agreement to evade the
law against foreign ownership of lands. Atty. Tansingco used his knowledge of the law to achieve an
unlawful end. Such an act amounts to malpractice in his office, for which he may be suspended. As such,
respondent is being suspended for six (6) months.

Malcampo – Sin Vs. Sin

Florence and Philip wed in 1987 after a 2-year courtship. In 1994, Florence filed for a declaration of
nullity due to psychological incapacity. However, RTC dismissed it due to insufficiency of evidence.

In the RTC, Fiscal Jose Danilo C. Jabson (4th Asst. Provincial Prosecutor) filed a manifestation stating that
he found no collusion between the parties, but didn’t actively participate therein. He didn’t do anything
aside from appear in certain hearings. Moreover, the judge didn’t encourage Fiscal Jabson to contribute
more to the proceedings.

Issue: WON the prosecuting attorney took steps to prevent collusion between the parties

Held: No, case remanded back to RTC. The Court invoked FC 48 and the State’s ultimate duty of
protecting the marriage as an inviolable social institution. This duty requires vigilant and zealous
participation and not mere pro-forma compliance. The Court cited the lack of evidence of State
participation not just at the RTC level but also on appeal with the CA. Other than the manifestation, the
State didn’t file any pleading, motion or position paper.

In RP vs. Dagdag, the Court characterized the decision of the RTC as prematurely rendered since the
investigating prosecutor was not given an opportunity to present controverting evidence before the
judgment was rendered. This stresses the importance of the participation of the State.

Figueroa vs Barranco

In 1971, Patricia Figueroa petitioned that Simeon Barranco, Jr. be denied admission to the legal
profession. Barranco passed the 1970 bar exams on the fourth attempt. Figueroa avers that she and
Barranco had been sweethearts, that a child was born to them out of wedlock and that respondent
did not fulfill his repeated promises to marry her.

Figueroa and Barranco were townmates in Janiuay, Iloilo and were steadies since 1953. Figueroa first
acceded to sexual congress in 1960. A son, Rafael Barranco, was born on Dec 11, 1964. Barranco
promised to marry Figueroa after he passes the bar exams. Their relationship continued, with more
than 20 or 30 promises of marriage. Barranco gave only P10 for the child on Rafael‘s birthdays. In
1971, Figueroa learned Barranco married another woman. From 1972 to 1988, several motions to
dismiss and comments were filed. On Sept 29, 1988, the Court resolved to dismiss the complaint

5
for failure of complainant to prosecute the case for an unreasonable period of time and to allow Simeon
Barranco, Jr. to take the lawyer‘s oath. Nov 17, 1988, the Court, in response to Figueroa‘s
opposition, resolved to cancel Barranco‘s scheduled oath taking.

June 1, 1993, the Court referred the case to the IBP. On May 17, 1997, IBP recommended the dismissal
of the case and that respondent be allowed to take the lawyer‘s oath

Issue: WON the facts constitute gross immorality warranting the permanent exclusion of Barranco from
the legal profession

Held: No. To justify suspension or disbarment, the act complained of must not only be immoral, but
grossly immoral. A grossly immoral act is one that is so corrupt and false as to constitute a criminal act
or so unprincipled or disgraceful as to be reprehensible to a high degree. It is a willful, flagrant,
or shameless acts which shows a moral indifference to the opinion of respectable members of the
community. Barranco‘s engaging in premarital sexual relations with Figueroa and promises to marry
suggest a doubtful moral character on his part but it does not constitute grossly immoral conduct.
Barranco and Figueroa were sweethearts whose sexual relations were evidently consensual.

Obusan vs Obusan

Respondent Generoso B. Obusan, Jr. was working in the Peoples Homesite and Housing Corporation,
and became acquainted with Natividad Estabillo presented to be a widow, in which they had a child
named John. Later, it was known Natividad’s marriage was still subsisting. Four days after the birth of
John, Generoso married Preciosa (petitioner) and lived for more than a year. Respondent took a
vacation in Camarines Norte but he has never returned. Preciosa looked for him and discovered that he
was living and cohabiting with Natividad in Quezon City.

The housemaid, neighbors and several other persons known to Natividad and Obusan testified and
confirmed their relationship. He answered that his relationship with Natividad was terminated when he
married Preciosa and he only goes to Quezon City to provide financial support to Jun-Jun. He also denied
the testimonies of the maid, the plumber and several other persons and contended that he does not live
together with Natividad.

He also contended that he only left the conjugal home for he cannot contain the nagging of his wife and
her interference with his professional obligations.

Issue: WON Atty. Obusan should be disbarred.

Ruling: Yes. He failed to maintain the highest degree of morality expected and required of a member of
the bar. Respondent was not able to overcome the evidence of his wife that he was guilty of grossly
immoral conduct. Abandoning one's wife and resuming carnal relations with a former paramour, a
married woman, fails within "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"

Thus, lawyer shall be disbarred when he abandoned his lawful wife and cohabited with another woman
who had borne him a child.

6
 IN RE: DISBARMENT OF ARMANDO PUNO

Flora Quingwa filed disbarment against Atty. Puno for gross immorality and misconduct. She alleged that
he took her to a hotel and she indulged with sexual intercourse with him because he promised her of
marriage. Flora gave birth to a baby boy supported by a certified true copy of a birth certificate and to
show how intimate the relationship between the respondent and the complainant was, the latter
testified that she gave money to the respondent whenever he asked from her. As a special defense,
Atty. Puno averred that the allegations therein do not constitute grounds for disbarment or suspension
under Section 25, Rule 127 of the former Rules of Court.

Issue: WON Atty. Puno should be disbarred.

Ruling: Yes. It is essential during the continuance of the practice and the exercise of the privilege to
maintain good moral character. When his integrity is challenged by evidence, it is not enough that he
denies the charges against him; he must meet the issue and overcome the evidence and show proof that
he still maintains the highest degree of morality and integrity, which at all times is expected of him. With
respect to the special defense raised by the respondent in his answer to the charges of the complainant
that the allegations in the complaint do not fall under any of the grounds for disbarment or suspension
of a member of the Bar as enumerated in section 25 of Rule 127 of the (old) Rules of Court, it is already
a settled rule that the statutory enumeration of the grounds for disbarment or suspension is not to be
taken as a limitation on the general power of courts to suspend or disbar a lawyer. The inherent powers
of the court over its officers cannot be restricted.

Royong vs Oblena

The complainant, Josefina Royong filed a complaint charging the respondent Atty. Ariston Oblena, with
rape allegedly committed on her person in the manner described. She testified that after lunch, Cecilia
Angeles, her foster mother, left her alone in their house and went down to the pig stay to feed the pigs.
While Josefina Royong was ironing clothes on the second floor of the house, the respondent, Ariston
Oblena entered. Suddenly he covered her mouth with one hand and with the other hand dragged her to
one of the bedrooms of the house and forced her to lie down on the floor. She did not shout for help
because he threatened her and her family with death. He next undressed her as she lay on the floor,
then had sexual intercourse with her after he removed her panties and gave her hard blows on the thigh
with his fist to subdue her resistance. After the sexual intercourse, her warned her not to report him to
her foster parents, otherwise, he would kill her and all the members of her family.

The respondent denied the charge against him however, admitted that he had illicit relations with
Royong and that they had sexual intercourse for about fifty times. His own evidence shows that he has
been living adulterously with Briccia Angeles and at the same time maintaining illicit relations with the
complainant Josefina Royong, niece of Briccia. Briccia Angeles, however is still married to a certain
Arines Angeles who is from Camarines Sur and this fact was only made known to Oblena when they
were already cohabitating as husband and wife.

Issue: WON the respondent is guilty of misconduct

7
Held: Yes. The Supreme Court already held that enumeration for grounds of disbarment is not exclusive
and that the power of the courts to exclude unfit and unworthy members of the profession is inherent.
It is a necessary incident to the proper administration of justice and it may be exercised without any
special statutory authority. In all proper cases unless positively prohibited by statute; and the power
may be exercised in any manner that will give the party to be disbarred a fair trial and a fair opportunity
to be heard.

The moral turpitude for which an attorney may be disbarred may consist of misconduct in either his
professional or non-professional activities. The blunt admission of his illicit relations with the
complainant reveals the respondent to be a person who would suffer no moral compunction for his acts
if the same could be done without fear of criminal liability. He has, by these acts, proven himself to be
devoid of the moral integrity expected of a member of the bar. An immoral act cannot justify another
immoral act. The noblest means he could have employed was to have married the complainant as he
was then free to do so. But to continue maintaining adulterous relations with a married woman and
simultaneously maintaining promiscuous relations with the latter's niece is moral perversion that cannot
be condoned. Respondent's conduct therefore renders him unfit and unworthy for the privileges of the
legal profession.

Therefore, Atty. Ariston Oblena is guilty of misconduct and is disbarred.

Mortel vs Aspiras

On March 17, 1953, Josefina Mortel complained before this Court against Attorney Anacleto F. Aspiras,
alleging substantially that sometime in August, 1952, the respondent, representing as single, courted
her and eventually won her affection. On December 22, 1952, following his instructions, she came to
Manila so they could get married, and she stayed with her sister at No. 10 Espiritu, Pasay City. On and
after December 31, 1952 upon being assured of marriage she allowed him to live with her as her
husband. On January 3, 1953, a marriage license was applied for, with the son of the respondent, Cesar
Aspiras, as one of the applicants. Upon suggestion of respondent, she was married to said Cesar Aspiras,
although she was not in love with the latter. After the marriage, she and respondent continued
cohabiting together, the ceremony being a mere formality performed at the indication of respondent,
who was a married man and who used his knowledge and education to abuse and destroy her.

Issue: WON Atty Anacleto Aspiras be disbarred on his actions?

Held: Yes, the court ruled that it becomes the duty of this Court to strike, as it does hereby strike his
name from the Roll of Attorneys.

Perhaps mere moral transgression not amounting to crime will not disbar, as some cases hold 6 and on
this we do not decide. But respondent's moral delinquency having been aggravated by a mockery of the
inviolable social institution of marriage, and by corrupting of his minor son or destruction of the latter's
honor, the undersigned all agree he is unfit to continue exercising the privileges and responsibilities of
members of the bar.

As stated by Mr. Justice Owen of the Wisconsin Supreme Court, one of the requisite qualifications for
one who holds the office of an attorney at law is that he or she shall be good moral character, in so far

8
as it relates to the discharge of the duties and responsibilities of an attorney at law. This is a continuing
qualification necessary to entitle one to admission to the bar, and the loss of such qualification requires
his suspension. The respondent is a member of the bar of this court. The charges preferred against him
challenge his moral integrity. Just as it was the duty of this court to refuse him admission in the first
instance upon a showing that he lacked the necessary qualification, so is its duty now to remove him
upon like proof.

Terre vs Terre

On December 24, 1981, complainant Dorothy B. Terre charged respondent Jordan Terre, a member of
the Philippine Bar with “grossly immoral conduct,” consisting of contracting a second marriage and living
with another woman other than complainant, while his prior marriage with complainant remained
subsisting No judicial action having been initiated or any judicial declaration obtained as to the nullity of
such prior marriage of respondent with complainant.

Respondent was charged with abandonment of minor and bigamy by complainant. Dorothy Terre was
then married to a certain Merlito Bercenillo her first cousin, with this fact, Atty. Jordan Terre succesfully
convinced complainant that her marriage was void ab initio and they are free to contract marriage. In
their marriage license, despite her objection, he wrote “single” as her status. After getting the
complainant pregnant, Atty. Terre abandoned them and subsequently contracted another marriage to
Helina Malicdem believing again that her previous marriage was also void ab initio.

Issue: WON a judicial declaration of nullity is needed to enter into a subsequent marriage

Held: Yes. The Court considers this claim on the part of respondent Jordan Terre as a spurious defense.
In the first place, respondent has not rebutted complainant’s evidence as to the basic fact which
underscores that bad faith of respondent Terre. In the second place, the pretended defense is the same
argument by which he inveigled complainant into believing that her prior marriage or Merlito A.
Bercenilla being incestuous and void ab initio (Dorothy and Merlito being allegedly first cousins to each
other), she was free to contract a second marriage with the respondent. Respondent Jordan Terre, being
a lawyer, knew or should have known that such an argument ran counter to the prevailing case law of
the supreme 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.

De Los Reyez vs Asnar

Complainant is a second year medical student of the Southwestern University in which respondent Atty.
Aznar is the then Chairman of the College of Medicine. Complainant was compelled to go to Manila with
respondent for three days where he repeatedly had carnal knowledge of her upon the threat of
respondent that if she would not give in to his lustful desires, she would flunk in all her subjects and she
would never become a medical intern. After due investigation, the Solicitor General found the
respondent guilty of gross immoral conduct and recommends that since the complainant is partly to
blame for having gone with respondent to Manila knowing fully well that respondent is a married

9
man ,with children, a rich man and is not practicing his profession before the court, he should merely be
suspended from the practice of law for not less than three (3) years.

Issue: Whether or not Aznar is guilty of gross misconduct

Held: NO. The fact that he is a rich man and does not practice his profession as a lawyer, does not render
respondent a person of good moral character. Evidence of good moral character precedes admission to
bar (Sec.2, Rule 138, Rules of Court) and such requirement is not dispensed with upon admission
thereto. Good moral character is a continuing qualification necessary to entitle one to continue in the
practice of law.

Under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court enumerates the grounds for disbarment or suspension
from his office as attorney, among others, by grossly immoral conduct. Immoral conduct has been
defined as that which is willful, flagrant, or shameless, and which shows a moral indifference to the
opinion of the good and respectable members of the community.

In the present case, it was highly immoral of respondent to have taken advantage of his position in
asking complainant to go with him under the threat that she would flunk in all her subjects in case she
refused. Respondent Jose B. Aznar is DISBARRED.

Cordova vs Cordova

In 1985, Atty. Laurence Cordova, while being married to Salvacion Delizo and with two children, left his
wife and children to cohabit with another married woman. In 1986, Salvacion and Cordova had a
reconciliation where Cordova promised to leave his mistress. But apparently, Cordova still continued to
cheat on her wife as apparently, Cordova again lived with another woman and worse, he took one of his
children with him and hid the child away from Salvacion.In 1988, Salvacion filed a letter-complaint for
disbarment against Cordova. Eventually, multiple hearing dates were sent but no hearing took place
because neither party appeared. In 1989, Salvacion sent telegraphic message to the Commission on Bar
Discipline intimating that she and her husband has reconciled. The Commission, since Salvacion
failed to submit her evidence ex parte, merely recommended the reprimand and admonishment
of Cordova.

Issue: WON Cordova should be merely reprimanded.

HELD: No. He should be suspended indefinitely until he presents evidence that he has been morally
reformed and that there was true reconciliation between him and his wife. Before a person can be
admitted to the bar, one requirement is that he possesses good moral character. That requirement is
not exhausted and dispensed with upon admission to membership of the bar. On the contrary, that
requirement persists as a continuing condition for membership in the Bar in good standing. 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 or marriage” such was the case in the case at bar.

Radjae vs Alovera

10
Atty. Alovera, former RTC Judge, faces disbarment for having penned a Decision long after his retirement
from the Judiciary, which ultimately divested complainant of her property. The gist of the anomalies
committed by the respondent judge are: (1) The case was not tried. What transpired was a mock or
simulated trial inside his chambers where only the lawyer of the plaintiffs and a court stenographer from
another court were present. No Judge or court personnel were present as there was actual Court
session in open court going on at that time; (2) The records of the case were with Judge Alovera and
remained with him even after hisretirement. He did not return the record to the Court Clerk in Charge of
Civil Cases; (3) The record of the case turned up on the table of the Court Clerk together with the “Offer
of Exhibits” of the lawyer of the plaintiffs and the “Order”, after the retirement of Judge Alovera. Both
the Offer and the Order admitting the exhibits were not properly filed and do not bear markings of
having been received by the court; (4) The “decision” of Judge Alovera was filed with the court by Judge
Alovera himself and because he was no longer a judge his submission was refused.

Issue: WON he respondent should be disbarred.

Held: Yes. Respondent has thus sufficiently demonstrated that he is morally and legally unfit to remain
in the exclusive and honorable fraternity of the legal profession. The evidence against respondent were
all quite telling on how the latter acted in a grossly reprehensible manner in having the questioned
decision come to fore, leading ultimately to its execution divesting the complainant of her property.
Respondent gravely abused his relationship with his former staff, pompously flaunting his erstwhile
standing as a judge. He disregarded his primary duty as an officer of the court, who is sworn to assist the
courts and not to impede or pervert the administration of justice to all and sundry. In so doing, he made
a mockery of the judiciary and eroded public confidence in courts and lawyers.

Rural Bank of Silay Inc. vs Pilla

The respondent, Atty. Ernesto H. Pilla, executed a REM in favor of the complainant, Rural Bank of Silay,
Inc. over a parcel of land, as an attorney in fact of the registered owners, Pedro Torres and Oscar
Granada together with an SPA which was purportedly authorized by the owners to mortgage the land in
favor of the complainant. The complainant released a loan in favor of the respondent.

Later, the complainant found out that the respondent was not authorized by Oscar Granada to
mortgage the land when he was joined as defendant for removal of cloud on title with preliminary
injunction and damages. Granada specifically denied having executed an SPA to respondent to support
the said loan.

The trial court decided against the respondent, and held that the SPA was forged and falsified because
the spouses Granada have not signed the same.

The respondent was charged of deceit and gross misconduct.

Issue: WON the respondent is guilty of deceit and gross misconduct

Held: Yes. The respondent, Atty. Ernesto H. Pilla actually benefited from the falsified document and is
presumed to have a hand in the falsification of the same. He miserably failed to rebut this presumption
with his barefaced denial that he had no knowledge of the forgery.

11
As a lawyer, the respondent knows or ought to know that parties to a public document must personally
appear before the notary public to attest that the same is their own free act and deed. Indeed, the
settled rule is that in the absence of satisfactory explanation, one found in possession of and who used a
forged document is the forger and therefore guilty of falsification.

The respondent’s acts clearly fall short of the standards set by the Code of Professional Responsibility,
particularly Rule 1.01 thereof, which provides that a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest,
immoral or deceitful conduct. The fact that the conduct pertained to respondent’s private dealings with
complainant rural bank is of no moment. Possession of good moral character is not only a good
condition precedent to the practice of law, but a continuing qualification for all members of the bar.
Therefore, the respondent Atty. Ernesto H. Pilla is guilty of deceit and misconduct.

Piatt vs. Abordo

The respondent, Perfecto Abordo, a member of the Philippine Bar, accepted the offer of two individuals
to sell him a quantity of opium, a prohibited drug, and agreed to pay for the opium. A can was disclosed
to Abordo as containing opium, and believing that it was opium, he delivered to one Cabrales. The can
was loaded in the automobile which brought the respondent to the scene of the delivery, but in
returning to Manila another automobile overtook them and the parties riding therein, pretending to be
constabulary soldiers, told the respondent to stop.

Instead, the respondent drew his revolver and commanding the driver of the car was able to evade his
pursuers and to arrive safely at his home. Once in his home Abordo examined the contents of the can
and found it to contain fake opium and sand. He reported to the Police Station that he had been robbed.
Two individuals were later arrested, charged with the crime of estafa, and convicted.

The respondent admitted that he entered into the transaction and he is sincerely sorry for it and vows
not to repeat. He also averred that the acts he committed could not affect his status as attorney-at-law
and could not, therefore, constitute a ground for disciplinary action.

Issue: WON the respondent is guilty of misconduct

Held: Yes. As a general rule, a court will not assume jurisdiction to discipline one of its officers for
misconduct alleged to be committed in his private capacity. The exception to the rule is that an attorney
will be removed not only for malpractice and dishonesty in his profession, but also for gross misconduct
not connected with his professional duties, which shows him to be unfit for the office and unworthy of
the privileges which his license and the law confer upon him. The respondent as a member of the
Philippine Bar, attempted to engage in an opium deal in direct contravention of the criminal law of the
Philippine Islands.

All that kept the nefarious plan from succeeding was the treacherous conduct of his co-conspirators. The
intention to flaunt the law was present even if consummation of the overt act was not accomplished. In
the eyes of the canons of professional ethics which govern the conduct of attorneys, the act was as
reprehensible as if it had been brought to a successful culmination. Of all classes and professions, the
lawyer is most sacredly bound to uphold the laws. Therefore, the respondent Perfecto Abordo is guilty
of misconduct.

12
 Sebastian vs Calis

Sometime in November 1992, one Marilou Sebastian, herein complainant, was referred to Atty.
Dorotheo Calis, herein respondent, for the latter to process all the documents needed for the former to
travel to the United States of America with the consideration of P150,000.00. With the respondent’s
promise to return the complainant’s money if there would be trouble with the documents for her travel.
In 4 separate payments, complainant paid the entire consideration receiving, however, only 3 receipts
for the payments. Respondent, Calis, provided the complainant with spurious documents which resulted
for complainant to be detained in Changi Prisons upon arrival in Singapore and thereafter, the
complainant was deported back to the Philippines.

Upon arrival in the Philippines, the respondent promised to secure new travel documents for the
complainant. However, the complainant opted to demand for the return of her money. Calis made
partial payments of 15,000, 6000, and 5000 to the complainant but was unreachable when the
complainant demanded for the rest of the payment. Calis also failed to attend the hearings with the
Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) despite being issued
summons and being required to answer or comment on the complaint. Therewith, the IBP
recommended the disbarment of herein respondent.

Issue: WON Atty. Dorotheo Calis is guilty of violation of Canon 1, Rule 101 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.

Held: Yes, Atty. Calis is guilty of violation of Canon 1, Rule 101 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
The practice of law is not a right but a privilege carrying with it the condition of continuous good moral
character. The gross misconduct of a lawyer subjects him unfit to practice law..Canon 1, Rule 101 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility states that A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest,
immoral or deceitful conduct.

In the case at bar, Calis guaranteed to secure all the necessary documents for Sebastian’s travel to the
United States with the promise to return the money if anything goes wrong with her travel. Calis’s acts
of giving the complainant spurious documents constitutes deception and unlawful conduct on his part.
Adding to it is respondent’s refusal to honor the summons of the IBP which reflects his unprofessional
conduct. The court views Calis’s conduct and continuance in service as a threat to the administration of
justice. Therefore, Calis is deemed disbarred and is ordered to immediately return the rest of the
complainant’s money.

Ui vs Atty. Bonifacio

Leslie Ui filed an administrative case for disbarment against Atty. Iris Bonifacio on grounds of immoral
conduct. Atty. Bonifacio allegedly is having an illicit relationship with Carlos Ui, husband of Leslie Ui,
whom they begot two children. According to petitioner, Carlos Ui admitted to him about the
relationship between them and Atty. Bonifacio. This led Leslie Ui to confront said respondent to stop
their illicit affair but of to no avail. According however to respondent, she is a victim in the situation.
When respondent met Carlos Ui, she had known him to be a bachelor but with children to an estranged
Chinese woman who is already in Amoy, China. Moreover, the two got married in Hawaii, USA therefore
legalizing their relationship. When respondent knew of the real status of Carlos Ui, she stopped their

13
relationship. Respondent further claims that she and Carlos Ui never lived together as the latter lived
with his children to allow them to gradually accept the situation. Respondent however presented a
misrepresented copy of her marriage contract.

Issue: WON the respondent conduct herself in an immoral manner for which she deserves to be barred
from the practice of law.

Held: No. 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. If
good moral character is a sine qua non for admission to the bar, then the continued possession of good
moral character is also requisite for retaining membership in the legal profession.

Membership in the bar may be terminated when a lawyer ceases to have good moral character. 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.

Advincula vs Macabata

The case is a disbarment case against respondent on the ground of gross immorality. It was alleged that
sometime in December 2004, complainant seek for legal advice from peitioner regarding her collectibles
from a travel company. Respondent sent Demand Letter and sometime in February 2005, they met at
Zensho Restaurant to discuss the possibility of filing complaint against the travel company because the
latter failed to settle the accounts. That after that said meeting, the respondent "held her arm and
kissed her on the cheek while embracing her very tightly. The two met again to finalize the draft for the
complaint and while on their way home after the said meeting, the respondent suddenly stopped the
car and things went out of hand. Thus, she decided to refer the case to another lawyer.

ISSUE: WON the respondent committed acts are grossly immoral which would warrant the disbarment
or suspension from the practice of law.

HELD: The Code of Professional Responsibility provides:

CANON I – x x x

Rule 1.01-- A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.

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
shall he, whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal
profession.

The SC held that lawyers are expected to abide the tenets of morality, not only upon admission to the
Bar but all throughout their legal career as lawyers belong to an exclusive and honored fraternity.
Lawyers are called upon to safeguard the integrity of the legal profession and should adhere to the
unwaveringly to the highest standard of morality. The respondent admitted to the act of kissing the

14
complainant on the lips as evidenced as well of his asking for apology from complainant in his text
message. Regardless of the fact that the respondent admitted that he kissed the complainant but the
Court held that this was not accompanied by malice because the respondent immediately asked for
forgiveness after sensing the annoyance of the respondent after texting him. Thus the Court held that
this is not grossly immoral nor highly reprehensible which will warrant disbarment or suspension. But
the Court reprimanded respondent to be more prudent and cautious.

Toledo vs Abalos

This is a case of a lawyer who borrowed money without paying it back. Atty. Erlinda Abalos obtained a
loan of P20,000.00 from Priscila Toledo, payable within six months from date, plus interest of 5% per
month. Respondent executed a Promissory Note to guarantee the payment of said obligation.
Respondent failed to pay her obligation despite repeated demands of the complainant.

Ms.Toledo sought the help of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), which referred the matter to
the Commission on Bar Discipline. Although, the respondent received an order from the Commission,
she did not do anything about it. The Commission passed a resolution recommending the suspension
from the practice of law of respondent for a period of six months “for her flouting resistance to lawful
orders of the Court and illustrating her discrepancy of her oath of office as a lawyer.”

Issue: WON IBP has jurisdiction to suspend Atty. Abalos.

Held: YES. The general rule is that a lawyer may not be suspended or disbarred, and the court may not
ordinarily assume jurisdiction to discipline him, for misconduct in his non-professional or private
capacity. The recommendation to suspend respondent from the practice of law for six months to be
grossly disproportionate to the act complained of her failure to appear before the Commission on Bar
Discipline of the IBP. IBP does not ignore the fact that by virtue of one’s membership in the IBP, a lawyer
thus submits himself to the disciplinary authority of the organization. It was, however, still necessary for
respondent to acknowledge the orders of the Commission in deference to its authority over her as a
member of the IBP. Her wanton disregard of its lawful orders subjects her to disciplinary sanction.
Respondent Atty. Erlinda Abalos is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of ONE
MONTH from the date of the finality of this Resolution.

Lao vs Medel

Selwyn Lao lent money to Atty. Medel which he paid using bad checks. Medel persistently refused to
make good on the four (4) checks that he issued and kept on delaying its payment. Needless to say, the
intention of this present complaint proves that contrary to Medel’s written promises, he never made
good on his dishonored checks. Neither has he paid his indebtedness. In Medel’s Answer, the Complaint
did not constitute a valid ground for disciplinary action because: (a) it does not constitute malpractice
only a violation of BP 22; (b) violation of BP 22 is not one of the grounds for disciplinary action; and (c) it
does not constitute dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. The IBP recommended suspending
respondent from practice of law for 2 years.

Issue: WON Atty. Abalos should be suspended or disbarred.

Ruling: Yes. Suspension only. The defense proffered by respondent is untenable. It is evident from the
records that he made several promises to pay his debt promptly. However, he reneged on his obligation

15
despite sufficient time afforded to him. Worse, he refused to recognize any wrongdoing and transferred
the blame to complainant, on the contorted reasoning that the latter had refused to accept the formers
plan of payment. It must be pointed out that complainant had no obligation to accept it, considering
respondents previous failure to comply with earlier payment plans for the same debt. Verily, lawyers
must at all times faithfully perform their duties to society, to the bar, to the courts and to their clients.
As part of those duties, they must promptly pay their financial obligations. Their conduct must always
reflect the values and norms of the legal profession as embodied in the Code of Professional
Responsibility.

On these considerations, the Court may disbar or suspend lawyers for any professional or private
misconduct showing them to be wanting in moral character, honesty, probity and good demeanor -- or
to be unworthy to continue as officers of the Court.

Cham vs Paita-Moya

The complainant, Wilson Cham filed a disbarment complaint against the respondent, Atty. Eva Paita-
Moya. The complainant alleged that the respondent committed deceit in occupying a leased apartment
unit and, thereafter, vacating the same without paying the rentals due. The respondent stayed at the
leased premises up without paying her rentals and also failed to settle her electric bills.

Later, a report reached the complainant's office that the respondent had secretly vacated the apartment
unit, bringing along with her the door keys. The respondent did not heed complainant’s repeated
written demands for payment of her obligations despite due receipt of the same, hence compelled file
the complaint.

Issue: WON the respondent is guilty of misconduct

Held: Yes. The respondent’s abandonment of the leased premises to avoid her obligations for the rent
and electricity bills constitutes deceitful conduct violative of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Lawyers are instruments for the administration of justice. As vanguards of our legal system, they are
expected to maintain not only legal proficiency but also a high standard of morality, honesty, integrity
and fair dealing. In so doing, the people’s faith and confidence in the judicial and legal system is
ensured.

Vitug vs Rongcal

The administrative complaint for disbarment filed by Catherine Joie P. Vitug (complainant) against Atty.
Diosdado M. Rongcal (respondent) was brought to the Supreme Court upon dissatisfaction with the
recommendation of IBP Investigating Commissioner of six (6) month suspension from the practice of
law.

Complainant and respondent first met when the former was looking for a lawyer to assist her in suing
Arnulfo Aquino, the biological father of her minor daughter, for support. After several meetings,
complainant and respondent had started sexual relationship. Complainant claimed that she was
deceived by the respondent on promise of support and on the signing of Affidavit of Disclaimer.
Respondent denied luring her with sweet words and empty promises, as he later ended his relationship
with complainant, and strongly refuted her allegation that she did not know what the said Affidavit is all
about. Complainant further charged respondent of misappropriating part of the money obtained from

16
Aquino as it was intended for her daughter. Respondent admitted that there was actually a difference in
amount but somewhat lesser than that alleged by the complainant, but his presumption was that he can
keep the same as part of attorney’s fees.

Issue: WON Atty. Rongcal’s immorality will warrant suspension or disbarment from practice of law.

Held: No. Respondent was only imposed fine of P15,000. The Supreme Court heeded the stern
injunction on decreeing disbarment where any lesser penalty, such as temporary suspension, would
accomplish the end desired. [F]rom the very beginning of this case, respondent had expressed remorse
over his indiscretion and had in fact ended the brief illicit relationship years ago. These were signs that
his was not a character of such severe depravity and thus should be taken as mitigating circumstances in
his favor. Considering further that this was his first offense, a fine of P15,000.00 would suffice, without
prejudice to the outcome of the aspect of this case involving the alleged misappropriation of funds of
the client.

De Yassi vs. NLRC

Jon De Ysasi and Jon De Ysasi III are father and sons respectively. The elder Ysasi owns a hacienda in
Negros Occidental. De Ysasi III is employed in the hacienda as the farm administrator. In November
1982, De Ysasi III underwent surgery and so he missed work. He was confined and while he’s nursing
from his infections he was terminated, without due process, by his father. De Ysasi III filed against his
father for illegal dismissal before the National Labor Relations Commission. His father invoked that his
son actually abandoned his work.

Issue: WON De Ysasi III abandoned his work.

Held: No. His absence from work does not constitute abandonment. To constitute abandonment, there
must be a.) failure to report for work or absence without valid or justifiable reason, and b.) a clear
intention to sever the employer-employee relationship, with the second element as the more
determinative factor and being manifested by some overt acts. No such intent was proven in this case.
Rule 1.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility explicitly provides that “(a) lawyer shall encourage
his client to avoid, end or settle the controversy if it will admit of a fair settlement.” Both counsel fell
short of what was expected of them, despite their avowed duties as officers of the court. In the same
manner, the labor arbiter who handled this regrettable case has been less than faithful to the letter and
spirit of the Labor Code mandating that a labor arbiter “shall exert all efforts towards the amicable
settlement of a labor dispute within his jurisdiction.” If he ever did so, or at least entertained the
thought, the copious records of the proceedings in this controversy are barren of any reflection of the
same.

Tan Tek Beng vs. David

This case was instituted by Tan Tek Beng against David for allegedly not living up to their agreement that
lawyer David will give one-half of his professional fees to an intermediary or commission agent but he
also bound himself not to deal directly with the clients.

The business relation between David and Tan Tek Beng did not last. David clarified that the partnership
was composed of himself as manager, Tan Tek Beng as assistant manager and lawyer Pedro Jacinto as

17
president and financier. When Jacinto became ill and the cost of office maintenance mounted, David
suggested that Tan Tek Beng should also invest some money or shoulder a part of the business expenses
but Tan Tek Beng refused.

Issue: WON the agreement was valid?

Held: The SC hold that the said agreement is void because it was tantamount to malpractice which is
"the practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either personally or through paid agents
or brokers" Sec. 27, Rule 138, Rules of Court. Malpractice ordinarily refers to any, malfeasance or
dereliction of duty committed by a lawyer. Section 27 gives a special and technical meaning to the term
"malpractice". That meaning is in consonance with the elementary notion that the practice of law is a
profession, not a business.

Ulep vs. Legal Clinic INC

Petitioner Mauricio Ulep prays for the Court to order the respondent Legal Clinic Inc., to cease and
desist from issuing advertisements similar to or of the same tenor as that of annex A and B of the
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. Ulep avers that the said advertisements
are champertous, unethical, demeaning of the law profession and destructive of the confidence of the
community in the integrity of the members of the bar. The respondent, thru its answer, admits the fact
of publication of said advertisement but claims that the company is not engaged in the practice of law
but rather in rendering legal support services through paralegals.

Issue: WON the services offered by Legal Clinic Inc as advertised by it constitutes practice of law

Held: The use of the name “Legal Clinic” gives the impression that Respondent Corporation is being
operated by lawyers and that it renders legal services. The term connotes lawyers just as the term
“medical clinic” connotes doctors. The Petition in fact simply assumes it to be so apparently because this
is the effect that the advertisement have on the reading public. The Legal Clinic is engaged in the
practice of law and but such practice is not allowed considering that they are mainly composed of
paralegals. What the corporation offers are various legal problems wherein a client may avail of legal
services – from simple documentation to complex litigation and corporate undertakings. Such services
are beyond the domain of paralegals and are exclusive functions of lawyers engaged in the practice of
law. Under the Philippine Jurisdiction, these services cannot be performed by paralegals. Only a person
admitted as a member of the bar and who is in good and regular standing is entitled to practice law.
Note that Rule 2.03 states that “A lawyer shall not do or permit to be done any act designed primarily to
solicit legal business” The advertisement in question was a flagrant violation by the respondent of the
ethics of the profession. 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. It is highly unethical for an attorney to advertise his talents or skills. Law is a profession and not a
trade. The Supreme Court noted which forms of advertisement are allowed. The canon of the profession
tells us that the best advertisement possible for a lawyer is a well merited reputation for a professional
capacity and fidelity to trust, which must be earned as the outcome of character and conduct.

Atty. Khan vs. Atty. Simbilio

18
A paid advertisement in the Philippine Daily Inquirer was published which reads: “Annulment of
Marriage Specialist [contact number]”. Espeleta, a staff of the Supreme Court, called up the number but
it was Mrs. Simbillo who answered. She claims that her husband, Atty. Simbillo was an expert in handling
annulment cases and can guarantee a court decree within 4-6mos provided the case will not involve
separation of property and custody of children. It appears that similar advertisements were also
published. An administrative complaint was filed which was referred to the IBP for investigation and
recommendation. The IBP resolved to suspend Atty. Simbillo for 1year. Note that 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: WON Simbillo violated Rule2.03 & Rule3.01.

Held: Yes. The practice of law is not a business --- it is 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. Note that the law list where the lawyer’s
name appears must be a reputable law list only for that purpose --- a lawyer may not properly publish in
a daily paper, magazine…etc., nor may a lawyer permit his name to be published the contents of which
are likely to deceive or injure the public or the bar.

19