Ulep v.

Legal Clinic Bar Matter 553

LABELS: LEGAL ETHICS; ADVERTISEMENT LEGAL ETHICS; CANON 2

FACTS:

This is a petition praying for an order to the respondent to cease and desist from issuing certain advertisements
pertaining to the exercise of the law profession other than those allowed by law.
The said advertisement of the Legal Clinic invites potential clients to inquire about secret marriage and divorce
in Guam and annulment, and the like. It also says that they are giving free books on Guam Divorce.
Ulep claims that such advertisements are unethical and destructive of the confidence of the community in the
integrity of lawyers. He, being a member of the bar, is ashamed and offended by the said advertisements. On the
other hand, the respondent, while admitting of the fact of the publication of the advertisements, claims that it is
not engaged in the practice of law but is merely rendering legal support services through paralegals. It also
contends that such advertisements should be allowed based on certain US cases decided.

ISSUE:

W/N the Legal Clinic Inc is engaged in the practice of law.

W/N the same can properly be the subject of the advertisements complained of.

HELD:

Yes, it constitutes practice of law. No, the ads should be enjoined.

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.
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. When a person participates in a trial and advertises himself as a lawyer, he is in
the practice of law. One 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. Giving advice
for compensation regarding the legal status and rights of another and the conduct with respect thereto
constitutes a practice of law. The practice of law, therefore, covers a wide range of activities in and out of court.
And applying the criteria, respondent Legal Clinic Inc. is, as advertised, engaged in the “practice of law”.
What is palpably clear is that respondent corporation gives out legal information to laymen and lawyers. 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."
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. The only exceptions are when he appears in a reputable law list and use of an ordinary,
simple professional card.
The advertisements do not fall under these exceptions. 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. Hence, it should be enjoined.

Rivera v. Angeles A.C. 2519 339 SCRA 149

FACTS:

The complainants Rivera, with Aquinos, filed a complaint for disbarment against Atty. Angeles on the grounds
of deceit and malpractice.
Atty. Angeles were the counsel of the complainants, in a civil case, wherein they received a favorable decision
from the CFI of Quezon City. One of the defendants in the civil case were Mr. Rodolfo Silva, wherein he said
that he has already given a partial settlement of judgement amounting to 42, 990, as evidence by xerox copy,
without the knowledge of the Aquinos. The complainants further contends that Atty. Angeles never informed
them of such payment, nor remitted to them even a part of that amount.
As a response, the atty respondent denied the accusations, and stated that he has the right to retain the amount of
42, 990 and to apply the same to professional fees due him under their previous agreement of 20% of 206,000
The complainants then denied the assignment of the said right to the respondent.
The case was referred to the Solicitor General for investigation, report, and recommendation year 1983. The
SolGen declared through its filed resolution on 1985 that such right is considered waived since he failed to
appear on the scheduled hearings.
Year 1998, the IBP required the parties to Manifest if they are still interested in prosecuting the case, where the
complainants received the copies thereof by their counsel while the copy for the respondent were returned and
unclaimed.
The Investigating commissioner Elamparo submitted his report finding Atty. Angeles guilty of violating the
code of professional responsibility specifically rule 1.01, canon 16 and rule 16.01 and recommends indefinite
suspension of the respondent from the practice of law.
The Board of governors of the IBP adopted and approved the recommendation of the investigating
commissioner, with amendment that the respondent shall be suspended from practice of law for 1 year for
having been found guilty of practicing deceit in dealing with his client.

ISSUE:

WON the respondent Atty. Angeles guilty of deceit and malpractice

HELD:

YES, Atty. Angeles is found guilty of practicing deceit and malpractice in dealing with his client, wherein he
was suspended from the practice of law for one year.
The Court finds merit in the recommendation of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. Respondent's act of deceit
and malpractice indubitably demonstrated his failure to live up to his sworn duties as a lawyer. The Supreme
Court repeatedly stressed the importance of integrity and good moral character as part of a lawyer's equipment
in the practice of his profession.4 For it cannot be denied that the respect of litigants for the profession is
inexorably diminished whenever a member of the Bar betrays their trust and confidence.
The Court is not oblivious of the right of a lawyer to be paid for the legal services he has extended to his client
but such right should not be exercised whimsically by appropriating to himself the money intended for his
clients. There should never be an instance where the victor in litigation loses everything he won to the fees of
his own lawyer.

Ducat v. Villalon
FACTS:

A disbarment case was filed and respondent Villalon for deceit and gross misconduct in violation of the
lawyer’s oath The complainant alleged that on October 29, 1991, the respondent, as counsel for the
family of the complainant, spoke to the father of the complainant and asked that he be given the title over
a property owned by complainant located in Pinugay, Antipolo, Rizal to verify the proper measurements
of the subject property.
Sometime in November 1991, the complainant and his family were surprised when several people
entered the subject property and when confronted by the companions of the complainant, the latter were told
that they were workers of Canaries and were there to construct a The complainant complained to the barangay
but was ignored while the construction continued, the same was raised to the respondent but nothing was
done complainant then filed to eject the Canaries but claimed the property was already sold by the complainant
to him for P450,000.00 as evidenced by the Deed of Absolute Sale of Real Property dated December 5, 1991,
and notarized by respondent Atty. Crispulo Ducusin. Complainant, denied selling the property, signing a
documentary, or receiving any money as well as appearing before the notary public of Atty. Ducusin. He later
discovered that respondent Villalon claimed that the complainant’s father allegedly gave the subject
property to him as evidenced by a document of sale purportedly signed by the complainant.
Villalon alleged that the property was given voluntarily by Jose Ducat, Sr. to him out of close intimacy and for
past legal services rendered. In which he allowed the subject property to be used by Andres Canares to
start a piggery business without any monetary consideration evidenced by a Deed of Sale of Parcel of Land
signed by Jose Ducat, Sr. Complainant prays that Respondent Villalon is imprisoned for forging his signature
and selling the subject property without his consent. Villalon denied the allegations of the complainant and
reiterated that the subject property was orally given to him by Jose Ducat, Sr. and it was only in October 1991
that the conveyance was reduced in writing furthermore stating that the complainant knew of this fact.
This Court referred the case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for investigation, report, and
recommendation. Upon presenting the title covering the subject property, it was discovered that the property
was registered in the name of Jose Ducat, Jr. and not Jose Ducat, Sr. IBP Investigating Commissioner Victor C.
Fernandez found that Complainant and his witness, Jose Ducat, Sr., testified truthfully and that
respondent failed to impute any ill-motive on the part of the complainant and his witness which can impel them
to institute the instant complaint and testify falsely against him. In addition respondent’s evidence is left
wanting as it was discovered that the property in question belongs to Ducat Jr., not Ducat Sr. Being a
lawyer, the respondent also knew or ought to know that conveyance of real property, whether gratuitously or
for a consideration, must be in writing.
The ethics of the legal profession rightly enjoin lawyers to act with the highest standards of
truthfulness, fair play, and nobility in the course of their practice of law which warrants discipline or
suspension for any misconduct, whether in his professional or private capacity, which shows him to be
wanting in moral character, in honesty, in probity and good demeanor, thus rendering unworthy to continue
as an officer of the court.
Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility mandates that a lawyer shall at all times uphold the
integrity and dignity of the legal profession. The trust and confidence necessarily reposed by clients require in
the lawyer a high standard and appreciation of his duty to them. IBP recommends that s 2 years suspension is
imposed upon respondent Atty. Villalon

ISSUE:

Whether the respondent is guilty of grave abuse of discretion.

HELD:

It has been established that the subject parcel of land is owned by and registered in the name of the complainant,
Jose Ducat Jr., yet the Respondent insists that the property was orally given to him by the complainant’s father,
Jose Ducat Sr., allegedly with the complete knowledge of the fact that the subject property belonged to
his son, Jose Ducat, Jr. It is basic law, however, that conveyance or transfer of any titled real property must be
in writing, signed by the registered owner or at least by his attorney-in-fact by a proper Special Power of
Attorney and duly notarized.
Villalon, as a lawyer, is presumed to know, or ought to know, this process. Worse, when the transfer was first
reduced in writing in October 1991 perceived Sale of Parcel of Land, purportedly in favor of Atty.
Arsenio C. Villalon and/or Andres Canares, Jr., Respondent Villalon knew that it was Jose Ducat, Sr. who
signed the said document of sale without any Special Power of Attorney from the registered owner, Jose Ducat,
Jr.; and that Jose Ducat, Sr. also signed it for his wife, Maria Cabrido, under the word Conforme.
The subsequent Deed of Absolute Sale of Real Property dated December 5, 1991, covering the same
property, this time purportedly in favor of Andres Canares, Jr. only, Villalon admitted that there was no
payment of P450,000.00 and that the said amount was placed in that document only to make it appear
that the conveyance was for consideration.
All these taken together, coupled with complainant Jose Ducat, Jr.’s stronger. credible denial that he allegedly
sold the subject property to respondent Villalon and/or Andres Canares, Jr. and that he allegedly appeared
before respondent notary public Ducusin, convince us that Villalon’s acts herein complained of which constitute
gross misconduct were duly proven. Members of the Bar are expected to always live up to the standards
of the legal profession as embodied in the Code of Professional Responsibility since the relationship
between an attorney and his client is highly fiduciary and demands utmost fidelity and good faith. However, the
IBP’s recommended penalty of 2 years suspension to be imposed upon respondent Atty. Villalon is severe in
this e light of the facts obtained in the case at the bar. Records do not show that Villalon had any direct
participation in the notarization by Atty. Crispulo Ducusin of the Deed of Absolute Sale of Real Property.
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. ARSENIO C. VILLALON, JR. is hereby found guilty of gross misconduct,
and he is SUSPENDED from the practice of law f of 1 YEAR with a warning that a repetition of the same or
similar act will be dealt with more severely. Respondent Villalon is further directed to deliver to the
registered owner, complainant Jose Ducat Jr., the latter TCT No. M-3023 covering the subject property within
60 days from receipt of this Decision, at his sole expense; and that failure on his part to do so will result in his
disbarment
In Re: Salazar
FACTS:

Two separate petitions were filed before this Court 1) by the surviving partners of Atty. Alexander Sycip, who
died on May 5, 1975, and 2) by the surviving partners of Atty. Herminio Ozaeta, who died on
February 14, 1976, prayed that they are allowed to continue using, in the names of their firms, the names
of partners who had passed away.
Petitioners base their petitions on the following arguments:
1) It does not prohibit a partnership from continuing its business under a firm name which includes the name of
a deceased partner as under Art. 1840 of the Civil Code;
2) In regulating other professions, such as accountancy and engineering, the legislature has allowed the
adoption of firm names with no restriction as to the use, in such a firm name, of the name of a deceased partner;
3) The Canons of Professional Ethics transgressed by the continued use of the name of a deceased partner in
the firm name of a law partnership. Canon 33: The continued use of the name of a deceased or former
partner when permissible by local custom, is not unethical but care should be taken that they practice no
imposition or deception through this use;
4) No possibility of imposition or deception because the deaths of their respective deceased partners were well-
publicized in all newspapers of general circulation for several days;
5) No local custom prohibits the continued use of a deceased partner’s name in a professional firm name;
6) Continued use of a deceased partner’s name in the firm name of law partnerships has been
consistently allowed by US Courts.

ISSUE:

Whether law firms may continue using the name or include the name of their deceased partner

HELD:
NO. The public relations value of the use of an old firm name can create undue advantages and disadvantages
in the profession's practice. An able lawyer without connections will have to make a name for himself starting
from scratch. Another able lawyer, who can join an old firm, can initially ride on that old firm’s reputation
established by deceased partners. Art. 1840 of the Civil Code treats more of a commercial partnership with
goodwill to protect rather than a professional partnership. In the Philippines, no local custom permits or
allows the continued use of a deceased former partner’s name in the firm names of law partnerships. Firm
names, under our customs, identify the more creative and/or more senior partners or members of the law
firm.
Tan V. Sabandal
Unauthorized Practice of Law- GUILTY; barred from taking OATH; Respondent Sabandal passed the 1978
Bar Examinations but was denied to take his oath in view of the finding of the Court that he was guilty of
unauthorized practice of law.
Calling himself ATTORNEY. The practice of law is not a matter of right. No moral qualification for bar
membership is more important than truthfulness or candor

FACTS:

Respondent Nicolas El. Sabandal passed the 1978 Bar Examinations but because of pending administrative
complaints filed against him regarding instances when he called himself “attorney” knowing full well that he
was not yet admitted to the Bar, he was not allowed to take the lawyer’s oath. Oppositor’s evidence sufficiently
show that respondent had held himself out as an attorney in the agrarian, civil and criminal cases and he was
paid for his “legal services”
He then filed a petition to be admitted to the Philippine Bar and to be allowed to sign the Roll of Attorneys. In
a resolution promulgated on November 29, 1983 respondent petition was denied. Respondent asks for
forgiveness, understanding and benevolence and promises that, if given a chance to be a member of the Phil.
Bar, he would always be faithful to the lawyer’s oath and conduct himself in an upright manner.

ISSUE:

Whether or not respondent shall be admitted to the Philippine Bar

HELD:

Whether or not respondent shall be admitted to the Philippine Bar rests to a great extent in the sound discretion
of the Court. An applicant must satisfy the Court that he is a person of good moral character, fit and proper to
practice law. Sabandal hereby allowed to take the lawyer’s oath.
Laput v. Remotigue
FACTS:

Atty. Casiano U. Laput was the former counsel of one Nieves vda. De Barrera, the administrator of the estate of
Macario Barrera, regarding the testate of the latter. He charged respondents Atty. Remotigue and Atty.
Patalinghug with unprofessional and unethical conduct in soliciting cases and intriguing against another lawyer.
Complainant alleges that weeks after his client refused to countersign several pleadings that he prepared, he
found out that respondent Atty. Patalinghug was the new counsel of Mrs. Barrera so he voluntarily asked the
court to be relieved as counsel for Mrs. Barrera. After that, the other respondent Atty. Remotigue entered his
appearance. Complainant says that the respondents nursed the desire of his former client to replace him and
also made Mrs. Barrera sign documents sent to corporations which have stocks owned by Macario Barrera
revoking his power of attorney. He further alleges that the motive of the respondents was to embarrass him to
the officials, lawyers and employees of those companies picturing him as a dishonest lawyer and no longer
trusted by his client

ISSUE:

WON respondents were guilty of unethical and unprofessional conduct

HELD:

No, the solicitor-general found that before respondents filed their appearance, Mrs. Barrera had already filed
with the court, a pleading discharging the complainant. The fact that complainant was not able to get a copy
was not the fault of the respondents. Also, it was found that Mrs. Barrera dismissed Atty. Laput because she no
longer trusted him after finding out that some checks were sent to the complainant instead of her and that
several withdrawals were made by complainant in her account without her permission. There is no irregularity
in the appearance of respondents as counsel. The revocation ofpower of attorney prepared by respondent was
done without malice and was made only to safeguard his client. Charges DISMISSED
 lOMoARcPSD|16991313

5. Pangan vs Ramos, A.M. No. 1053 August 31, 1981

Juris Doctor (New Era University)

StuDocu is not sponsored or endorsed by any college or university

Downloaded by Jane Perez (jcperez@greenzoneph.com)
 lOMoARcPSD|16991313

LAWYERS DUTIES TO LEGAL PROFESSION

SANTA PANGAN
vs.
ATTY. DIONISIO RAMOS
A.M. No. 1053 August 31, 1981

Attorneys; Dismissal of the bigamy charge will not necessarily result in the dismissal of
the immorality charge against a lawyer.-
Respondent, however, submits that having been acquitted by the Court of First Instance
of Manila, Branch XXI, of the charge of bigamy, the immorality charges filed against him
in this disbarment case should be dismissed. The acquittal of respondent Ramos upon
the criminal charge is not a bar to these proceedings. The standards of the legal
profession are not satisfied by conduct that merely enables one to escape the penalties
of the criminal law. Moreover, this Court in disbarment proceedings is acting in an entirely
different capacity from that which courts assume in trying criminal cases.

Attorneys; Persistent use of an additional initial not appearing in the Roll of Attorneys
despite a warning by the Court to refrain from such use suggests a lack of candor and
respect for the Court.-
This Court has already severely reprimanded the respondent from using a name other
than the authorized name in the “Roll of Attorneys” and was warned that a repetition of
the same overt act may warrant his suspension or disbarment from office in the future.
Notwithstanding such reprimand and warning, however, the respondent repeated the
same overt act of using the unauthorized name in two pleadings filed before the Court of
First Instance of Manila. His explanation that he had done so inadvertently because of
poor eyesight appears unsatisfactory. He should have employed more caution and
prudence in filing pleadings before courts because he had already been warned and
reprimanded by this Court. Respondent’s conduct, thus, suggests a lack of candor and
respect in his dealing with this Court. He has violated his oath of office of assuming the
duty of good faith and honorable dealings with the court, of being respectful to it, and of
being obedient to its rules and lawful orders.

FACTS:

Ramos, the respondent, was admitted to the Philippine Bar in 1964. He was legally
married to and living with Editha Encarnado. Both complainant Pangan and Ramos were
officemates in the Office of Councilor Lito Puyat, City Hall, Manila since 1967. With the
convenience thus offered, the respondent, representing himself to be "single," had a
relationship with the complainant, when the latter informed Ramos of her pregnancy, they
both agreed to a quick marriage. Before the celebration of their church wedding, Pangan
became suspicious of Ramos because the latter wasn’t able to bring his parents with him
to ask for her hand. When the complainant found out that the respondent was already
married, she filed a criminal action against him and a disbarment case.

Downloaded by Jane Perez (jcperez@greenzoneph.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|16991313

LAWYERS DUTIES TO LEGAL PROFESSION

Ramos was reprimanded for using “Pedro Dionisio Ramos” in connection with his criminal
case, the court opined that the respondent lack candor in dealing with courts. The criminal
case was dismissed for lack of sufficient evidence.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the act of Ramos using a different name in the criminal case against him
shows a lack of candor and respect in dealing with the court;
2. Whether the case against Ramos be dismissed for his acquittal in the criminal
proceedings;
3. Whether or not Ramos is guilty of having committed grossly immoral conduct.

RULING:

1. YES.

The Court held that the respondent’s conduct suggests a lack of candor and
respect in his dealing with the court. The court has already held that the name that
should be used are only those authorized names in the “Roll of Attorneys”. In the
case at bar, the respondent used a different name other than those authorized.
Further, notwithstanding the reprimand and warning of the court, the respondent
repeated the same overt act of using an unauthorized name in two pleadings filed
before the Court of First Instance of Manila. Hence, he has violated his oath of
office of assuming the duty of good faith and honorable dealings with the court, of
being respectful to it, and of being obedient to its rules and lawful orders.

2. NO.

The Court held that his acquittal of the charge of bigamy by the Court of First
Instance of Manila is not a bar to his disbarment proceedings. The standards of
the legal profession are not satisfied by conduct that merely enables one to escape
the penalties of the criminal law. Moreover, the Court in disbarment proceedings
is acting in an entirely different capacity from that which courts assume in trying
criminal cases.

3. YES.

The Court held that Ramos committed a grossly immoral act. As stated in
paragraph 29 of the Canons of Judicial Ethics: "The lawyer should aid in guarding
the Bar against the admission to the profession of candidates unfit or unqualified
because deficient in either moral character or education. He should strive at all
times to uphold the honor and to maintain the dignity of the profession and to
improve not only the law but also the administration of justice." In the case at bar,

Downloaded by Jane Perez (jcperez@greenzoneph.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|16991313

LAWYERS DUTIES TO LEGAL PROFESSION

the respondent’s declaration in his affidavit of his carnal relationship with the
complainant having been already married corroborate the imputation of immorality.

Respondent is hereby suspended from the practice of law for three (3) years, for
gross immorality, and an additional one (1) year for his willful disregard of a lawful
order against his using an unauthorized name, in serious disrespect of this Court.

Downloaded by Jane Perez (jcperez@greenzoneph.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|16991313

2. IN RE- Gutierrez, A.M. No. L-363 July 31, 1962

Juris Doctor (New Era University)

StuDocu is not sponsored or endorsed by any college or university

Downloaded by Jane Perez (jcperez@greenzoneph.com)
 lOMoARcPSD|16991313

LAWYER’S DUTIES TO THE SOCIETY

IN RE: DISBARMENT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST ATTY. DIOSDADO Q. GUTIERREZ,

A.M. No. L-363 July 31, 1962

Attorneys-at-law; Disbarment; Conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude.-

Under Section 5, Rule 127 of the Rules of Court, a member of the bar may be removed
or suspended from his office as an attorney because of his conviction of a crime involving
moral turpitude. Murder is such a crime.

Attorneys-at-law; Disbarment; "Moral turpitude" construed.-

The term "moral turpitude" includes everything which is done contrary to justice, honesty,
modesty, or good morals. (In re Base, 41 Phil. 275). As used in disbarment statutes, it
means an act of baseness, vileness, or depravity in the private and social duties that a
man owes to his fellowmen or society in general, contrary to the accepted rule of right
and duty between man and man. (State ex rel. Conklin vS.Buckingham, 34 P. 2nd 49; 5
Am. Jur. Sec. 279, pp. 428-429.)

Attorneys-at-law; Disbarment; Effect of Pardon.-

The rule that pardon operates to wipe out the conviction and is a bar to any proceeding
for the disbarment of the attorney after the pardon has been granted applies only where
the pardon is absolute, but not when, as in this case the pardon granted is conditional
and merely remitted the unexecuted portion of the penalty. In such a case, the attorney
must be judged upon the fact of his conviction for the crime he has committed.

Attorneys-at-law; Requisite for the Practice of Law.-

The practice of law is a privilege accorded only to those who measure up to certain rigid
standards of mental and moral fitness. For the admission of a candidate to the bar, the
Rules of Court not only prescribe a test of academic preparation but require satisfactory
testimonials of good moral character. These standards are neither dispensed with nor
lowered after admission; the lawyer must continue to adhere to them or else incur the risk
of suspension or removal.

FACTS:

Guiterrez a member of the Philippine Bar, was convicted of the murder of former municipal
mayor of Calapan. He was initially sentenced to death, but the penalty was changed to
reclusion perpetual. After serving a portion of the sentence, he was granted a conditional
pardon by the President.

The widow of the deceased, petitioner, filed a verified complaint praying that the
respondent is removed from the roll of lawyers.

ISSUE:

Downloaded by Jane Perez (jcperez@greenzoneph.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|16991313

LAWYER’S DUTIES TO THE SOCIETY

Whether Guiterrez, for having been previously convicted of a crime involving moral
turpitude, is disbarred and removed from the roll of lawyers.

RULING:

YES.

The Court ordered his disbarment and his name stricken from the roll of attorneys. Under
Rule 127, Section 5 of the Rules of Court, a member of the bar may be removed and
suspended from his office as an attorney by the Supreme Court because of his conviction
of a crime involving moral turpitude. In the case at the bar, the respondent was convicted
of a crime involving moral turpitude and his pardon is not absolute but conditional. The
practice of law is a privilege accorded only to those who measure up to certain rigid
standards of mental and moral fitness. For the admission of a candidate to the bar, the
Rules of Court not only prescribe a test of academic preparation but require satisfactory
testimonials of good moral character. These standards are neither dispensed with nor
lowered after admission: the lawyer must continue to adhere to them or else incur the risk
of suspension or removal.

WHEREFORE, under Rule 127, Section 5, and considering the nature of the crime for
which respondent Diosdado Q. Gutierrez has been convicted, he is ordered disbarred
and his name stricken from the roll of lawyers.

Downloaded by Jane Perez (jcperez@greenzoneph.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|16991313

7. Narido vs. Linsangan, Adm. Case No. 944, July 25, 1974

Juris Doctor (New Era University)

StuDocu is not sponsored or endorsed by any college or university

Downloaded by Jane Perez (jcperez@greenzoneph.com)
 lOMoARcPSD|16991313

LAWYER’S DUTIES TO THE LEGAL PROFESSION

FLORA NARIDO
vs.
ATTORNEY JAIME S. LINSANGAN
Adm. Case No. 944, July 25, 1974

FACTS:

Atty. Jaime S. Linsangan and Atty. Rufino B. Risma represented adverse parties in a
workmen’s compensation case.

Allegedly, Atty. Risma instructed his client, Flora Narido, to file an administrative case
against Atty. Linsangan— where there is a violation of his attorney’s oath for submitting
a perjured affidavit.

On the other hand, a charge was made against Atty. Risma— that due to his financial
interest in the said case and to accomplish a shortcut in winning it— he resorted to
intimidation or unfounded threats, by depriving a party of due process and at the
expense, embarrassment, humiliation, and defamation of Atty. Linsangan.

This administrative case was referred by the Supreme Court to the Solicitor General for
a recommendation and was respectively resolved.

ISSUE:

Whether unjustified cases against co-lawyers based on bickering can prosper.

RULING:

NO.

Mutual bickering and unjustifiable recriminations, between brother attorneys, detract

from the dignity of the legal profession and will not receive any sympathy from this
court.

It seems unkind to allude evil motive to the attorney. It is perhaps more apt to state that
his missionary zeal to fight for the rights of his clients triggered him into filing the
administrative case. He should be admired for his dedication to championing the cause
of the poor. His client is a destitute woman. She needed every centavo of the award. To
her, any delay in the payment thereof meant grave injustice; it meant deprivation and
starvation. Faced with the dilemma of his client, the attorney had to rise to the
challenge. Given this, it is more in keeping with Christian precept to say that it must
have been the plight of his client—rather than his alleged financial interest—that
compelled him to advise his client to file the case against the other attorney.

Downloaded by Jane Perez (jcperez@greenzoneph.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|16991313

8. Digest Tan Tec Beng v. David

bs economics (Ateneo de Manila University)

StuDocu is not sponsored or endorsed by any college or university

Downloaded by Jane Perez (jcperez@greenzoneph.com)
 lOMoARcPSD|16991313

TAN TEK BENG VS. TIMOTEO A. DAVID

A.C. NO. 1261. December 29, 1983

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 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 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.

Downloaded by Jane Perez (jcperez@greenzoneph.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|16991313

8. Camacho vs Panglayan, A.C. No. 4807, March 22, 2000

Juris Doctor (New Era University)

StuDocu is not sponsored or endorsed by any college or university

Downloaded by Jane Perez (jcperez@greenzoneph.com)
 lOMoARcPSD|16991313

LAWYER’S DUTIES TO THE LEGAL PROFESSION

MANUEL N. CAMACHO
vs.
ATTYS. LUIS MEINRADO C. PANGULAYAN, REGINA D. BALMORES, CATHERINE
V. LAUREL and HUBERT JOAQUIN P. BUSTOS of PANGULAYAN AND
ASSOCIATES LAW OFFICES
A.C. No. 4807, March 22, 2000

FACTS:
Atty. Manuel N. Camacho filed a complaint against the lawyers comprising the
Pangulayan and Associates Law Offices, the hired counsel of some expelled students
from the AMA Computer College ("AMACC"), in an action for the Issuance of a Writ of
Preliminary Mandatory Injunction and Damages, charged that respondents for
compromising agreements, in effect, required them to waive all kinds of claims they might
have had against AMACC, the principal defendant, and to terminate all civil, criminal and
administrative proceedings filed against it. Complainant averred that such an act of
respondents was unbecoming of any member of the legal profession warranting either
disbarment or suspension from the practice of law.
Respondent’s comment, he acknowledge that not one of his co-respondents had taken
part in the negotiation, discussion, formulation, or execution of the various Re-Admission
Agreements complained of and were, in fact, no longer connected at the time with the
Pangulayan and Associates Law Offices and it has nothing to do with the dismissal of a
civil case involving the 9 students of AMACC who was expelled therefrom upon the
recommendation of the Student Disciplinary Tribunal. It was found that the students are
guilty of the use of indecent language and unauthorized use of the student publication
funds. The white le civil case was pending, a letter of apology and re-admission
agreements were executed on behalf of the student, Following the execution of the letters
of apology and Re-Admission Agreements, a Manifestation was filed with the trial court
where the civil case was pending by Attorney Regina D. Balmores of the Pangulayan and
Associates Law Offices for defendant AMACC.
On 19 June 1999, the IBP passed a resolution suspending Atty. LUIS MEINRADO C.
PANGULAYAN from the practice of law.

ISSUE:
Whether Atty. LUIS MEINRADO C. PANGULAYAN be suspended from the practice of
law

Downloaded by Jane Perez (jcperez@greenzoneph.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|16991313

LAWYER’S DUTIES TO THE LEGAL PROFESSION

RULING:
YES
The court ruled under canon 9the of the code of professional ethics “A lawyer should not
in any way communicate upon the subject of controversy with a party represented by
counsel, much less should he undertake to negotiate or compromise the matter with him,
but should only deal with his counsel. It is incumbent upon the lawyer most particularly to
avoid everything that may tend to mislead a party not represented by counsel and he
should not undertake to advise him as to the law.”
It would appear that when the individual letters of apology and Re-Admission Agreements
formalize the ed, the complainant was by then already the retained counsel for plaintiff
students in the civil case. Respondent Pangulayan had full knowledge of this fact.
Although aware that the students were represented by counsel, the respondent-attorney
proceeded, nonetheless, to negotiate with them and their parents without at the very least
communicating the matter to their lawyer, herein complainant, who was counsel of record
in Civil Case No. Q-97-30549. This failure of the respondent, whether by design or
because of oversight, is an inexcusable violation of the canons of professional ethics and
in utter disregard of a duty owing to a colleague. Respondent fell short of the demands
required of him as a lawyer and as a member of the Bar.
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Luis Meinrado C. Pangulayan is ordered SUSPENDED
from the period of THREE (3) MONTHS

Downloaded by Jane Perez (jcperez@greenzoneph.com)