A.C. No.

5299               August 19, 2003

ATTY. ISMAEL G. KHAN, JR., Assistant Court Administrator and Chief, Public Information
Office, Complainant,
vs.
ATTY. RIZALINO T. SIMBILLO, Respondent.

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:

FACTS:
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
wayby the prohibition.

ISSUE:
Whether or not 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.

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.