Noel Adrian G.

Mataranas 10/27/2022
JD – 1 LEGAL ETHICS

CASE DIGESTS

Olbes vs. Deciembre

April 27, 2005
FACTS:
Spouses Olbes allege that they were government employees working at the Central
Post Office, Manila; and that Franklin was a letter carrier receiving a monthly salary of
P6,700, and Lourdes, a mail sorter, P6,000. Through respondent, Lourdes renewed on
July 1, 1999 her application for a loan from Rodela Loans, Inc., in the amount of
P10,000. As security for the loan, she issued and delivered to respondent five
Philippine National Bank (PNB) blank checks (Nos. 0046241-45), which served as
collateral for the approved loan as well as any other loans that might be obtained in the
future.
Several months after, or on January 20, 2000, respondent filed against petitioners
another Affidavit-Complaint for estafa and violation of BP 22. He stated, among others,
that on the same day, July 15, 1999, around two o'clock in the afternoon at Quezon
City, they again approached him and requested that he exchange with cash PNB Check
Nos. 0046243 and 0046244 totaling P100,000
respondent denied petitioners' claims, which he called baseless and devoid of any truth
and merit. Allegedly, petitioners were the ones who had deceived him by not honoring
their commitment regarding their July 15, 1999 transactions. Those transactions,
totaling P200,000, had allegedly been covered by their four PNB checks that were,
however, subsequently dishonored due to "ACCOUNT CLOSED." Thus, he filed
criminal cases against them. He claimed that the checks had already been fully filled up
when petitioners signed them in his presence. He further claimed that he had given
them the amounts of money indicated in the checks, because his previous satisfactory
transactions with them convinced him that they had the capacity to pay.
ISSUE/S:
Whether or not Atty Diciembre violated The Code of Professional Responsibility.
RULING:
Yes, Canon 1 states that a lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the
land and promote respect for law and legal processes. Canon 7 also states that a
lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession and
support the activities of the Integrated Bar. Lastly, Rule 7.03. states that a lawyer shall
not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor should
he, whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of
the legal profession. Respondent was clearly not being truthful in his narration of the
transaction with the complainants. As between his version as to when the four checks
were given, we find the story of complainant[s] more credible. Respondent has blatantly
distorted the truth, insofar as the place where the transaction involving the four checks
took place. Such distortion on a very material fact would seriously cast doubt on his
version of the transaction with complainants.
Furthermore, respondent's statements as to the time when the transactions took place
are also obviously and glaringly inconsistent and contradicts the written statements
made before the public prosecutors. Thus, further adding to the lack of credibility of
respondent's version of the transaction.
Wherefore, Atty. Victor V. Deciembre is found guilty of gross misconduct and violation of
Rules 1.01 and 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He is hereby
indefinitely SUSPENDED from the practice of law effective immediately. Let copies of
this Decision be furnished all courts as well as the Office of the Bar Confidant, which is
directed to append a copy to respondent's personal record. Let another copy be
furnished the National Office of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.

Tan Tek Beng vs. David

December 29, 1983
FACTS:
In December 3, 1970, Atty. David wrote Tan Tek Beng a letter stating that he is now
putting into writing their agreement which must be followed in connection with the
accounts that Tan Tek Beng will entrust to Atty. David for collection. Their terms and
conditions shall be as follows:
- On all commission or attorney’s fees that they shall receive from their clients by
virtue of the collection that they shall be able to effect on their client’s accounts,
they shall divide fifty-fifty. Likewise, Tan Tek Beng is entitled to commission,
50/50 from domestic, inheritance and commercial from their said clients or in any
criminal cases where their clients are involved.
- Atty. David shall not deal directly with their clients without Tan Tek Beng’s
consent.
- Tan Tek Beng shall take care of collecting their fees as well as advances for
expenses for the cases referred to them by their clients and careful in
safeguarding their interest.
- It is understood that legal expenses that they shall recover from the debtors shall
be turned over to their clients. Other clients who directly or indirectly have been
approached or related (sic) to Tan Tek Beng as a result of his labor are his
clients.
The business relationship between David and Tan Tek Beng did not last. There were
mutual accusations of doublecross. For allegedly not living up to the agreement, Tan
Tek Beng in 1973 denounced David to Presidential Assistant Ronaldo B. Zamora, to the
Office of Civil Relations at Camp Crame and to this Court. He did not file any civil action
to enforce the agreement. In his 1974 comment, 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 costs 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. This case was referred to the Solicitor
General for investigation, report and recommendation. Hearings were scheduled from
1974 to 1981. It was proposed that respondent should submit a stipulation of facts but
that did not materialize because the scheduled hearings were not held due to the
nonavailability of Tan Tek Beng and his counsel.
ISSUE/S:
Whether or not Atty. David is guilty for malpractice.
RULING:
We 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" (Act No.
2828, amending sec. 21 of Act No. 190).
That meaning is in consonance with the elementary notion that the practice of law is a
profession, not a business. "The lawyer may not seek or obtain employment by himself
or through others for to do so would be unprofessional" (2 R.C.L. 1097 cited in In re
Tagorda, 53 Phil. 37, 42; Malcolm, J., Jayme v. Bualan, 58 Phil. 422; Arce v. Philippine
National Bank, 62 Phil. 569).
Wherefore, respondent is reprimanded for being guilty of malpractice. A copy of this
decision should be attached to his record in the Bar Confidant’s office.

Atty. Khan vs. Atty. Simbillo

August 9, 2003
FACTS:
Ms. Ma. Theresa B. Espeleta, a staff member of the Public Information Office of the
Supreme Court, called up the published telephone number and pretended to be an
interested party. She spoke to Mrs. Simbillo, who claimed that her husband, Atty.
Rizalino Simbillo, was an expert in handling annulment cases and can guarantee a
court decree within four to six months, provided the case will not involve separation of
property or custody of children. Mrs. Simbillo also said that her husband charges a fee
of P48,000.00, half of which is payable at the time of filing of the case and the other half
after a decision thereon has been rendered.
Further research by the Office of the Court Administrator and the Public Information
Office revealed that similar advertisements were published in the August 2 and 6, 2000
issues of the Manila Bulletin and August 5, 2000 issue of The Philippine Star. On
September 1, 2000, Atty. Ismael G. Khan, Jr., in his capacity as Assistant Court
Administrator and Chief of the Public Information Office, filed an administrative
complaint against Atty. Rizalino T. Simbillo for improper advertising and solicitation of
his legal services, in violation of Rule 2.03 and Rule 3.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility and Rule 138, Section 27 of the Rules of Court.
ISSUE/S:
Whether or not Atty. Rizalino T. Simbillo violated the Rule 2.03 and 3.01 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility and Rule 138, Section 27 of the Rules of Court.
RULING:
Yes, Rule 2.03 and 3.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states that a lawyer
shall not do or permit to be done any act designed primarily to solicit legal business and
A lawyer shall not use or permit the use of any false, fraudulent, misleading, deceptive,
undignified, self-laudatory or unfair statement or claim regarding his qualifications or
legal services.
Rule 138, Section 27 of the Rules of Court also states that a member of the bar may be
disbarred or suspended from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit,
malpractice or other gross misconduct in such office, grossly immoral conduct or by
reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, or for any violation of the
oath which he is required to take before the admission to practice, or for a willful
disobedience appearing as attorney for a party without authority to do so.
There is no question that respondent committed the acts complained of. He himself
admits that he caused the publication of the advertisements. While he professes
repentance and begs for the Court’s indulgence, his contrition rings hollow considering
the fact that he advertised his legal services again after he pleaded for compassion and
after claiming that he had no intention to violate the rules. Eight months after filing his
answer, he again advertised his legal services in the August 14, 2001 issue of the Buy
& Sell Free Ads Newspaper. Ten months later, he caused the same advertisement to be
published in the October 5, 2001 issue of Buy & Sell. Such acts of respondent are a
deliberate and contemptuous affront on the Court’s authority.

What adds to the gravity of respondent’s acts is that in advertising himself as a self-
styled "Annulment of Marriage Specialist," he wittingly or unwittingly erodes and
undermines not only the stability but also the sanctity of an institution still considered
sacrosanct despite the contemporary climate of permissiveness in our society. Indeed,
in assuring prospective clients that an annulment may be obtained in four to six months
from the time of the filing of the case, he in fact encourages people, who might have
otherwise been disinclined and would have refrained from dissolving their marriage
bonds, to do so.
Wherefore, in view of the foregoing, respondent RIZALINO T. SIMBILLO is found
GUILTY of violation of Rules 2.03 and 3.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
and Rule 138, Section 27 of the Rules of Court. He is SUSPENDED from the practice of
law for ONE (1) YEAR effective upon receipt of this Resolution. He is likewise
STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar offense will be dealt with
more severely.

In Re: Tagorda
FACTS:
Luis B. Tagorda, a practising attorney and a member of the provincial board of Isabela,
admits that previous to the last general elections he made use of a card written in
Spanish and Ilocano, which, in translation, reads as follows “As notary public, he can
execute for you a deed of sale for the purchase of land as required by the cadastral
office; can renew lost documents of your animals; can make your application and final
requisites for your homestead; and can execute any kind of affidavit. As a lawyer, he
can help you collect your loans although long overdue, as well as any complaint for or
against you. Come or write to him in his town, Echague, Isabela. He offers free
consultation, and is willing to help and serve the poor.”
The respondent further admits that he is the author of a letter addressed to a lieutenant
of barrio in his home municipality written in Ilocano.
ISSUE/S:
Whether or not Luis B. Tagorda should be suspended for the violating Canons 27 and
28 of the Code of Ethics.
RULING:
Yes, Canon 27 of the Code of Ethics states that the most worthy and effective
advertisement possible, even for a young lawyer, and especially with his brother
lawyers, is the establishment of a well-merited reputation for professional capacity and
fidelity to trust. This cannot be forced, but must be the outcome of character and
conduct. The publication or circulation of ordinary simple business cards, being a matter
of personal taste or local custom, and sometimes of convenience, is not per se
improper. But solicitation of business by circulars or advertisements, or by personal
communications or interview not warranted by personal relations, is unprofessional. It is
equally unprofessional to procure business by indirection through touters of any kind,
whether allied real estate firms or trust companies advertising to secure the drawing of
deeds or wills or offering retainers in exchange for executorships or trusteeships to be
influenced by the lawyer. Indirect advertisement for business by furnishing or inspiring
newspaper comments concerning the manner of their conduct, the magnitude of the
interest involved, the importance of the lawyer's position, and all other like self-
laudation, defy the traditions and lower the tone of our high calling, and are intolerable.
Canon 28 of the Code of Ethics also states that it is unprofessional for a lawyer to
volunteer advice to bring a lawsuit, except in rare cases where ties of blood, relationship
or trust make it his duty to do so. Stirring up strife and litigation is not only
unprofessional, but it is indictable at common law. It is disreputable to hunt up defects in
titles or other causes of action and inform thereof in order to the employed to bring suit,
or to breed litigation by seeking out those with claims for personal injuries or those
having any other grounds of action in order to secure them as clients, or to employ
agents or runners for like purposes, or to pay or reward directly or indirectly, those who
bring or influence the bringing of such cases to his office, or to remunerate policemen,
court or prison officials, physicians, hospital attaches or others who may succeed, under
the guise of giving disinterested friendly advice, in influencing the criminal, the sick and
the injured, the ignorant or others, to seek his professional services. A duty to the public
and to the profession devolves upon every member of the bar having knowledge of
such practices upon the part of any practitioner immediately to inform thereof to the end
that the offender may be disbarred.
he respondent stands convicted of having solicited cases in defiance of the law and
those canons. Accordingly, the only remaining duty of the court is to fix upon the action
which should here be taken. The provincial fiscal of Isabela, with whom joined the
representative of the Attorney-General in the oral presentation of the case, suggests
that the respondent be only reprimanded. We think that our action should go further
than this if only to reflect our attitude toward cases of this character of which
unfortunately the respondent's is only one. The commission of offenses of this nature
would amply justify permanent elimination from the bar. But as mitigating,
circumstances working in favor of the respondent there are, first, his intimation that he
was unaware of the impropriety of his acts, second, his youth and inexperience at the
bar, and, third, his promise not to commit a similar mistake in the future. A modest
period of suspension would seem to fit the case of the erring attorney. But it should be
distinctly understood that this result is reached in view of the considerations which have
influenced the court to the relatively lenient in this particular instance and should,
therefore, not be taken as indicating that future convictions of practice of this kind will
not be dealt with by disbarment.
In view of all the circumstances of this case, the judgment of the court is that the
respondent Luis B. Tagorda be and is hereby suspended from the practice as an
attorney-at-law for the period of one month from April 1, 1929.
Samonte vs. Gatdula
FACTS:
The complaint filed by Julieta Borremeo Samonte charges Rolando R. Gatdula, RTC,
Branch 220, Quezon City with grave misconduct consisting in the alleged engaging in
the private practice of law which is in conflict with his official functions as Branch Clerk
of Court.
Complainant further alleges that when she went to Branch 220, RTC, Quezon City, to
inquire about the reason for the issuance of the temporary restraining order, respondent
Atty. Rolando Gatdula, blamed her lawyer for writing the wrong address in the complaint
for ejectment, and told her that if she wanted the execution to proceed, she should
change her lawyer and retain the law office of respondent, at the same time giving his
calling card with the name "Baligod, Gatdula, Tacardon, Dimailig and Celera" with office
at Rm. 220 Mariwasa Bldg., 717 Aurora Blvd., Cubao, Quezon City; otherwise she will
not be able to eject the defendant Dave Knope. Complainant told respondent that she
could not decide because she was only representing her sister. To her consternation,
the RTC Branch 220 issued an order granting the preliminary injunction as threatened
by the respondent despite the fact that the MTC, Brach 37 had issued an Order
directing the execution of the Decision in Civil Case No. 37-14552.
Respondent Gatdula claims that thereafter complainant returned to his office, and
informed him that she wanted to change counsel and that a friend of hers
recommended the Law Firm of "Baligod, Gatdula, Tacardon, Dimailig and Celera," at
the same time showing a calling card, and asking if he could handle her case.
Respondent refused as he was not connected with the law firm, although he was invited
to join but he choose to remain in the judiciary. Complainant returned to court a few
days later and told him that if he cannot convince the judge to recall the writ of
preliminary injunction, she will file an administrative case against respondent and the
judge. The threat was repeated but the respondent refused to be pressured. Meanwhile,
the Complainant's Motion to Dissolve the Writ of Preliminary Injunction was denied.
Respondent Gatdula claims that the complainant must have filed this administrative
charge because of her frustration in procuring the ejectment of the defendant lessee
from the premises. Respondent prays for the dismissal of the complainant against him.
ISSUE/S:
Whether or not Rolando R. Gatdula is engaging private practice while he’s still in his
official functions as Branch Clerk of Court.
RULING:
The above explanation tendered by the Respondent is an admission that it is his name
appears on the calling card, a permissible form of advertising or solicitation of legal
services. 1 Respondent does not claim that the calling card was printed without his
knowledge or consent, and the calling card 2 carries his name primarily and the name
"Baligod, Gatdula, Tacardon, Dimailig and Celera with address at 220 Mariwasa Bldg.,
717 Aurora Blvd., Cubao, Quezon City" in the left corner. The card clearly gives the
impression that he is connected with the said law firm. The inclusion/retention of his
name in the professional card constitutes an act of solicitation which violates Section 7
sub-par. (b)(2) of Republic Act No. 6713, otherwise known as "Code of Conduct and
Ethical Standards for the Public Officials and Employees" which declares it unlawful for
a public official or employee to, among others: Engage in the private practice of their
profession unless authorized by the Constitution or law, provided that such practice will
not conflict or tend to conflict with official functions.
Wherefore, respondent Rolando R. Gatdula. Branch Clerk of Court, RTC, Branch 220,
Quezon City is hereby reprimanded for engaging in the private practice of law with the
warning that a repetition of the same offense will be dealt with more severely. He is
further ordered to cause the exclusion of his name in the firm name of any office
engaged in the private practice of law.
Dulalia, Jr. vs. Cruz
FACTS:
The complaint dealt with mainly on the issue that respondent allegedly opposes the
application of his wife for a building permit for the construction of their commercial
building. One of the reasons stated by the complainant was that his wife was not in
favor of Imelda’s relationship with respondent who is a married man. And the other
reason is that respondent was not authorized to represent his neighbors in opposing the
construction of his building.
Complainant maintains that respondent violated Rule 1.01 when he contracted a
second marriage with Imelda Soriano on September 17, 1989 while his marriage with
Carolina Agaton, which was solemnized on December 17, 1967, is still subsisting.
Respondent married Imelda Soriano on September 17, 1989 at the Clark County,
Nevada, USA, when the Family Code of the Philippines had already taken effect. He
invokes good faith, however, he claiming to have had the impression that the applicable
provision at the time was Article 83 of the Civil Code. For while Article 256 of the Family
Code provides that the Code shall have retroactive application, there is a qualification
thereunder that it should not prejudice or impair vested or acquired rights in accordance
with the Civil Code or other laws.
Respondent’s misimpression that it was the Civil Code provisions which applied at the
time he contracted his second marriage and the seemingly unmindful attitude of his
residential community towards his second marriage notwithstanding, respondent may
not go scotfree. As early as 1957, this Court has frowned on the act of contracting a
second marriage while the first marriage was still in place as being contrary to honesty,
justice, decency and morality.
ISSUE/S:
Whether or not violated Rule 1.01 and Canon 5 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
RULING:
Yes, respondent violated Canon 5 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which
provides:
- A lawyer shall keep abreast of legal developments, participate in continuing legal
education programs, support efforts to achieve high standards in law schools as
well as in the practical training of law students and assist in disseminating
information regarding the law and jurisprudence.
Respondent’s claim that he was not aware that the Family Code already took effect on
August 3, 1988 as he was in the United States from 1986 and stayed there until he
came back to the Philippines together with his second wife on October 9, 1990 does not
lie, as "ignorance of the law excuses no one from compliance therewith."
Wherefore, respondent Atty. Pablo C. Cruz is guilty of violating Rule 1.01 and Canon 5
of the Code of Professional Responsibility and is SUSPENDED from the practice of law
for one year. He is WARNED that a similar infraction will be dealt with more severely.
Lahm vs. Mayor
FACTS:
On September 5, 2006 a certain David Edward Toze filed a complaint for illegal
dismissal before the Labor Arbitration Branch of the National Labor Relations
Commission against the members of the Board of Trustees of the International School,
Manila. The same was docketed as NLRC-NCR Case No. 00-07381-06 and raffled to
the sala of the respondent. Impleaded as among the party-respondents are the
complainants in the instant case.
On September 7, 2006, David Edward Toze filed a Verified Motion for the Issuance of a
Temporary Restraining Order and/or Preliminary Injunction Against the Respondents.
The said Motion was set for hearing on September 12, 2006 at 10:00 in the morning. A
day after, on September 8, 2006, the counsel for the complainants herein entered its
appearance and asked for additional time to oppose and make a comment to the
Verified Motion for the Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order and/or Preliminary
Injunction Against the Respondents of David Edward Toze.
The respondent maintains that in order to prevent irreparable damage on the person of
David Edward Toze, and on account of the urgency of [the] Verified Motion for the
Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order and/or Preliminary Injunction Against the
Respondents of David Edward Toze, and that the counsel for respondents in the illegal
dismissal case have asked for a relatively long period of fifteen days for a resetting, he
(respondent) found merit in issuing the Order dated September 14, 2006 that requires
the parties to maintain the status quo ante.
ISSUE/S:
Whether or not Atty. Mayor is guilty of gross ignorance of the law in violation of the
lawyer’s oath.
RULING:
At the time the respondent inhibited himself from resolving the illegal dismissal case
before him, there are barely four (4) months left with the Employment Contract between
David Edward Toze and International School Manila.
From the foregoing, there is an inordinate delay in the resolution of the reconsideration
of the Order dated September 14, 2006 that does not escape the attention of this
Commission. There appears an orchestrated effort to delay the resolution of the
reconsideration of the Order dated September 14, 2006 and keep status quo ante until
expiration of David Edward Toze’s Employment Contract with International School
Manila come August 2007, thereby rendering the illegal dismissal case moot and
academic.
Furthermore, the procrastination exhibited by the respondent in the resolution of [the]
assailed Order should not be countenanced, specially, under the circumstance that is
attendant with the term of the Employment Contract between David Edward Toze and
International School Manila. The respondent’s lackadaisical attitude in sitting over the
pending incident before him for more than five (5) months only to thereafter inhibit
himself therefrom, shows the respondent’s disregard to settled rules and
jurisprudence.1âwphi1 Failure to decide a case or resolve a motion within the
reglementary period constitutes gross inefficiency and warrants the imposition of
administrative sanction against the erring magistrate. The respondent, being a Labor
Arbiter, is akin to judges, and enjoined to decide a case with dispatch. Any delay, no
matter how short, in the disposition of cases undermine the people’s faith and
confidence in the judiciary.
Indubitably, the respondent failed to live up to his duties as a lawyer in consonance with
the strictures of the lawyer’s oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility, thereby
occasioning sanction from this Court.
Wherefore, finding respondent Atty. Jovencio Ll. Mayor, Jr. guilty of gross ignorance of
the law in violation of his lawyer’s oath and of the Code of Professional Responsibility,
the Court resolved to SUSPEND respondent from the practice of law for a period of six
(6) months, with a WARNING that commission of the same or similar offense in the
future will result in the imposition of a more severe penalty.