I. Short Title: Khan vs.

Simbillo
II. Full Title: Atty Ismael Khan, Jr., Assistant Court Administrator and
Chief, Public Information Office, Complainant,
vs.
Atty Rizalino T. Simbillo, Respondent.
III. Topic: Code of Professional Responsibility

IV. Statement of Facts:

A paid advertisement in the Philippine Daily Inquirer was published
which reads:“Annulment of Marriage Specialist. A staff of the Supreme
Court, called up the published telephone 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.
V. Statement of the Case:
Complainants 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.

VI: Issue
Whether or not Simbillo violated Rule2.03 & Rule3.01.

VII: Ruling
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.
Rules 2.03 and 3.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility read:
Rule 2.03 - A lawyer shall not do or permit to be done any
act designed primarily to solicit legal business.
Rule 3.01- 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 states:

SEC. 27. Disbarment and suspension of attorneys by Supreme Court,
grounds therefor. 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.
What adds to the gravity of his conduct is that in 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
and magazine, 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.
VIII: Dispositive Portion:
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.
SO ORDERED.