Ducat vs Villalon and ducusin Villalon is the family lawyer of ducats.

the original title of ducat sr was handed to villalon. The handing over has two contradictory versions of reason, first because it is given as part of process to convey the land because of the good services of villalon as villalon claimed, on the other hand, allegedly because the latter reasoned that he shall check the measurements of the land subject of title as alleged by ducat jr. Ducat sr allegedly because of his want to give the land to villalon executed a deed of sale of the land in favor of villalon. But because it was discovered that the land is registered in the name of ducat jr,a deed of sale was forged to make it appear that there was one, ducusin was the notary public there uling! villalon is guilty of gross misconduct for being involved in fraudulent notari"ation and forgery of signature

A.M. No. 44 November 29, 1983 EUFROSINA YAP TAN, complainant, vs. NICOLAS EL. SABAN AL, respondent. B!r M!""er No. #9 November 29, 1983 BEN$AMIN CABI%ON, complainant, vs. NICOLAS EL. SABAN AL, respondent. SBC No. &24 November 29, 1983 CORNELIO A%NIS !'( IOME ES . A%NIS, complainants, vs. NICOLAS EL. SABAN AL, respondent. FACTS: At issue in the above-entitled consolidated cases is the petition of respondent Nicolas El. Sabandal, a successful Bar e aminee in !"#$, to be admitted to the %hilippine Bar and to be allo&ed to si'n the (oll of Attorne)s. Complainants have char'ed respondent &ith: ille'al practice of la& for acceptin' clients and for his appearances as a la&)er even if he has not )et been admitted to the Bar* dishonest), for fillin' up dail) tune records as an +nvesti'ator of the Bureau of ,ands durin' those da)s that he appeared as counsel* falsification of public documents* 'ross dishonest) in public service* and violations of the Anti--raft and Corrupt %ractices Act.Sabandal &aived his ri'ht to attend the investi'ations for reasons of financial constraints and his belief that the evidence he had alread) submitted to'ether &ith his pleadin's are sufficient to prove his case. +n support of her char'e of deception b) appearin' as counsel and acceptin' clients, Eufrosina .ap Tan, in Bar /atter No. 00, testified on and submitted the follo&in' documentar) evidence: 1!2 photostatic copies of transcripts of steno'raphic notes of 1a2 the hearin' in CA( Case No. 30# entitled Eufrosina .. Tan vs. Spouses 4aniel +man and (osa Carreon, et als., before the Court of A'rarian (elations&herein respondent manifested 5Att). Nicolas Sabandal, appearin' for the defendants, .our 6onor5 !'( !))e*e( "+!" A"",. Se'e' A'*e)e-, .o/'-e) o0 re.or(, 1!- -2.34 1b2 the hearin's in Civil Case No. "$ entitled Ben7amin Cabi'on, et al. vs. FlorentinaBuntoran, et al., for Forcible Enter and 4ama'es, before the /unicipal Court of (o as, 8amboan'a del Norte, on September 93, !"$:, &herein one of the appearances recorded &as that of 5Att). Nicolas Sabandal: For the !

defendants5, and &here respondent manifested 5Yo/r 5o'or 6)e!-e, !66e!r2'* 0or "+e (e0e'(!'"- 2' .o))!bor!"2o' 12"+ A"",., A'*e)e- 7, and on 4ecember !;, !"$: &hen respondent made a manifestation for the defendants * 192 ero cop) of a letter dated <une 9!, !"$! &ritten b) respondent to the Station Commander of (i=al, 8amboan'a del Norte, >bdulio ?illanueva, &hich respondent &rote in part: 51e !re 2'0orme( "+!" o/r o002.e 2- be2'* /-e( b, Mr-. T!' "o +!r!-- o/r .)2e'"- .: and 132 cop) of the >rder of <ud'e Nicanor /. +licito, <r., in CA( Case No. 39;, entitled Sps. 4aniel and (os@+man vs. Eufrosina .ap Tan, statin' in part that 56)!2'"200-, "+ro/*+ A"",. N2.o)!- S!b!'(!), 2'0orme( "+e Co/r" "+!" 6)!2'"2008- .o/'-e) o' re.or(, A"",. C,r2) R/29, 2- 2' be( !'( .o/)( 'o" .ome 2' "o(!,8- +e!r2'*5 >n the same issue, in Bar /atter No. A", complainant Ben7amin Cabi'on testified on and presented the follo&in' e hibits: 1!2 the appearance of respondent in Forcible Entr) case entitled. Cabi'on vs. Bonturan before the /unicipal Court of (o as alread) mentioned b) Eufrosina Tan in Bar /atter No. 00* 192 a Certification b) the Court Cler@, +nterpreter !, of the /unicipal Court of (o as, 8amboan'a del Norte, that respondent had appeared before said Court on >ctober !, !"$! in Criminal Cases Nos. ;:;, ;:#, and ;99* on >ctober !;, !"$! and Au'ust !9, !"$! in Criminal Case No. ;99* and on <ul) 9", !"$! in Criminal Case No. ;;# 132 the preliminar) investi'ation in Criminal Case No. ;;# 1%eople vs. FlorentinaBonturan, et als.2 for Bualified Theft of Forest %roducts &herein Felipe +n''o testified that respondent &as the la&)er of the Bonturans, &hile accused Bernardo -atina declared that respondent &as his la&)erso also &ith the accused, Antonio -anuran, &ho 'ave the same declaration and added that he used to pa) respondent and Att). An'eles for handlin' his cases +n his defense, respondent maintained that the char'es a'ainst him &ere 5baseless and mere products of oppositorCsbedevilled mind, for the truth bein' that petitionerCs admission to the %hilippine Bar is a sharp thorn in the throat of oppositorEufrosina Tan, &ho had been &a'in' a campai'n of e7ectment a'ainst her tenant-farmers some of &hom are relatives and friends of petitioners5* and a scheme b) Cabi'on 5to stifle an)bod) &ho e tends assistance to his opponents and to press the Subano settlers of -usa, (o as, 8amboan'a del Norte, to 'ive up their ancestral lands to Cabi'on. 6E,4: The evidence supports the char'e of unauthori=ed practice of la&. Dhile respondentCs infraction ma) be miti'ated in that he appeared for his in-la&s in CA( Cases &here the) &ere parties, it is clear from the proceedin's in CA( Case No. 30# that he clarified his position onl) after the opposin' counsel had ob7ected to his appearance. Besides, he specificall) manifested 5Att). Nicolas Sabandal, appearin' for the defendants, .our 6onor5. 5e .!))e( +2m-e)0 7A""or'e,7 3'o12'* 0/)) 1e)) "+!" +e 1!- 'o" ,e" !(m2""e( "o "+e b!r. O66o-2"or-8 ev2(e'.e -/002.2e'"), -+o1- "+!" re-6o'(e'" +!( +e)( +2m-e)0 o/" !- !' !""or'e,7 2' "+e !*r!r2!', .2v2) !'( .r2m2'!) .!-e- me'"2o'e( b, -!2( o66o-2"or-. (espondent cannot shift the blame on the steno'rapher, for he could have easil) as@ed for rectification. Even if respondent appeared merel) in collaboration &ith Att). Senen An'eles in the several cases, that collaboration could onl) have been ostensibl) as a la&)er. >ppositors had also presented evidence of proceedin's &herein &itnesses testified as to respondentCs bein' their la&)er and their compensatin' him for his services. +t ma) be that in the Court of a municipalit), even non-la&)ers ma) appear 1Sec. 30, (ule !3$, (ules of Court2. +f respondent had so manifested, no one could have challen'ed him. Dhat he did, ho&ever, &as to hold himself out as a la&)er, and even to &rite the Station Commander of (o as, complainin' of harassment to 5our clients5, &hen he could not but have @no&n that he could not )et en'a'e in the practice of la&. 6is 9

ar'ument that the term 5client5 is a 5dependent or person under the protection of another and not a person &ho en'a'es in the profession5 is puerile. (espondentCs additional defense that the code of professional ethics does not appl) to him as he is not )et a member of the Bar proves him unfit to be admitted to the profession that e acts the hi'hest ethical conduct of all its members, and 'ood moral character even for applicants for admission to the Bar. 6e could at least have sho&n his fitness for admission b) sho&in' adherence to and observance of the standards of conduct reBuired b) all &ho aspire to profess the la&. ACC>(4+N-,., the petition of Nicolas El. Sabandal to be allo&ed to ta@e the oath as member of the %hilippine Bar and to si'n the (oll of Attorne)s in accordance &ith (ule !3$ of the (ules of Court is hereb) denied. I' RE PARA:O FACTS; The present case had its ori'in in a stor) or ne&s item prepared and &ritten b) the defendant, An'el <. %ara=o, a dul) accredited reporter of the Star Reporter, a local dail) of 'eneral circulation, that appeared on the front pa'e of the issue of September !0, !"0$. The stor) &as preceded b) the headline in lar'e letters E 5C,A+/ C,EAFC +N ,AST BA( TESTS,5 follo&ed b) another in sli'htl) smaller letters E 5Applicants +n Gproar, Dant Anomal) %robed* >ne School Favored,5 under the name E 5B) An'el <. %ara=o of the Star Reporter Staff.5 6e stated in said report that students of a private universit) in Sampaloc had been seen &ith copies of the mimeo'raphed Buestions one &ee@ prior to the e ams. This came to the attention of the Supreme Court and an investi'ation &as conducted. 6o&ever, %ara=o consistentl) refused to reveal his source of information. The basis of his claim is Section !, (A A3 &hich provides that: SECT+>N !. The publisher, editor or dul) accredited reporter of an) ne&spaper, ma'a=ine or periodical of 'eneral circulation cannot be compelled to reveal the source of an) ne&s-report or information appearin' in said publication &hich &as related in confidence to such publisher, editor or reporter, unless the court or a 6ouse or committee of Con'ress finds that such revelation is demanded b) the 2'"ere-" o0 "+e -"!"e. %ara=o contends that Hinterest of the stateI as an e emption, pertains the Hsecurit) of the stateI J onl) &hen Hnational securit)I or public safet) is involved. ISSUE; Dhether or not %ara=o ma) be compelled b) the court to reveal his source &ithin the purvie& of the e emption Hinterest of the state.I 5EL ; .es, he can be compelled to do so. The phrase 5interest of the state5 can not be confined and limited to the 5securit) of the state5 or to "public safety" alone. The phrase 5interest of the state5 is Buite broad and e tensive. +t is of course more 'eneral and broader than 5securit) of the state.5 Althou'h not as broad and comprehensive as 5public interest5 &hich ma) include most an)thin' thou'h of minor importance, but affectin' the public. The present case to fall and be included &ithin the meanin' of the phrase 5interest of the state,5 involvin' as it does, not onl) the interests of students and 'raduates of the la& schools and colle'es, and of the entire le'al profession of this countr) as &ell as the 'ood name and reputation of the members of the Committee of Bar E aminers, includin' the emplo)ees of the Supreme Court havin' char'e of and connections &ith said e aminations, but also the hi'hest Tribunal of the land itself &hich represents one of the three coordinate and independent branches or departments of the %hilippine -overnment. P!'*!' v. R!mo- <1981= A./. No. !:A3 Au'ust 3!, !"$! NOTE: This particular case made a reference to the previous Pangan v. Ramos case !"#!$% &herein 'tty. Ramos used a different name in a different case. The !"#" case is the ( th case under Title ))% )ntroduction to *egal Ethics% in our syllabus. 'pparently% this !"(! case &as the case that &as delayed because of 'tty. Ramos+ act of appearing in another court and using a different name. 3

FACTS: (espondent 4ionisio (amos &as admitted to the %hilippine Bar in !";0. 6e &as le'all) married to and livin' &ith Editha Encarnado the marria'e &ith her havin' been celebrated on September 0, !";3. Both complainant and respondent &ere officemates in the >ffice of Councilor ,ito %u)at, Cit) 6all, /anila since !";#. Dith the convenience thus offered, respondent, representin' himself to be 5sin'le,5 be'an courtin' complainant, proposed civil marria'e to her to be later follo&ed &ith a church celebration after &hich the) &ill live to'ether as husband and &ife. From <anuar) !";$ to Februar) !"#!, the) had carnal @no&led'e of each other in various hotels in /anila. Sometime in <une !"#:, complainant informed respondent that she &as pre'nant. Dhereupon, both a'reed to 'et a Buic@ marria'e. After the marria'e, complainant and respondent a'reed to have a church marria'e before the) live to'ether as husband and &ife, althou'h the) continued to have se ual tr)sts. (espondent &as invited b) complainant to meet the latterCs mother to &hom respondent e pressed his desire to marr) complainant, to &hich proposal complainantCs mother a'reed, provided respondent brin' his parents &ith him to as@ for complainantCs hand. Several &ee@s had passed and respondent failed to brin' his parents to complainantCs home. Complainant and her mother became suspicious. The) made inBuiries about the personal status of respondent and the) ultimatel) discovered that respondent &as alread) married to one Editha Encarnado. As such, Santa %an'an filed a verified complaint char'in' respondent Att). 4ionisio (amos &ith 'ross immoralit), the latter havin' misrepresented himself as still 5sin'le5 &hen he started courtin' complainant, proposed marria'e to her and finall) succeeded in marr)in' her even &ith full consciousness that his first marria'e to his first &ife &as still valid and subsistin'. +SSGE: Dhether or not Att). 4ionisio (amos is 'uilt) of 'rossl) immoral conduct K committed a 'rossl) immoral act. 6E,4: .ES. 6is o&n declarations in his affidavit corroborate this imputation of immoralit). Thus, in his affidavit subscribed before Asst. Fiscal %rimitive %eLaranda of /anila on Feb. 99, !";#, respondent fran@l) admitted havin' carnal relations &ith complainant for several times. Dhat is more, respondent claimed that he &as threatened and forced b) complainantCs brothers to celebrate the marria'e dated <une !$, !"$:, but in the same breath, he admitted havin' carnal affairs &ith complainant after the celebration of the marria'e. Dorse still, respondent misrepresented his civil status as 5sin'le5, courted complainant, proposed marria'e to her E @no&in' his le'al impediments to marr) complainant, respondentCs motives &ere clearl) and 'rossl) immoral E &on her confidence and married her &hile his first marria'e to his present &ife still validl) subsists. +t is of importance that members of the ancient and learned profession of la& must conform &ith the hi'hest standards of moralit). As stated in para'raph 9" of the Canons of <udicial Ethics: 5The la&)er should aid in 'uardin' the Bar a'ainst the admission to the profession of candidates unfit or unBualified because deficient in either moral character or education. 6e should strive at all times to uphold the honor and to maintain the di'nit) of the profession and to improve not onl) the la& but also the administration of 7ustice.5 (espondent, ho&ever, submits that havin' been acBuitted b) the Court of First +nstance of /anila, Branch MM+, of the char'e of bi'am), the immoralit) char'es filed a'ainst him in this disbarment case should be dismissed. The acBuittal of respondent (amos upon the criminal char'e is not a bar to these proceedin's. The standards of le'al profession are not satisfied b) conduct &hich merel) enables one to escape the penalties of the criminal la&.
A.M. No. 944 July 25, 1974 FLORA NAR DO, co!"lainant, vs.A##ORN$% JA M$ &. L N&AN'AN, ()s"ond)nt. F$RNANDO, J. #acts! $aime %. &insangan and ufino B. isma, who represented adverse parties in a workmen's compensation case, did mutually hurl accusation at each other. The charge against respondent &insangan filed by a certain #lora (arido is that he violated the attorney's oath by submitting a perjured statement. )hen re*uired to answer, not only did he deny the complaint but he would also hold respondent isma accountable for having instigated his client, the complainant, #lora (arido, to file a false and malicious complaint resulting in what respondent &insangan called +embarrassment, humiliation and defamation+ of a brother in a profession. ,n %eptember -, .-/., this 0ourt referred the above administrative cases to the %olicitor 1eneral for investigation, report and recommendation. 2nsofar as the first case against respondent $aime %. &insangan is concerned, 2t was found as a fact that there was nothing improper in presenting such affidavit, its alleged falsity not being proven. 3ven if it were otherwise, still there was no showing of respondent having violated his attorney's oath for submitting a perjured affidavit. 2t was the recommendation that on such charges, both respondents should be exculpated..

2ssue! )hether or not the two administrative complaints have merit4 5eld! (,, the complaint in 6dministrative 0ase (o. -77 against respondent $aime %. &insangan is dismissed for lack of merit. espondent ufino B. isma in 6dministrative 0ase (o. .89: is exculpated from the charge of having instigated the filing of an unfounded suit. 5e is, however, admonished to exercise greater care in ascertaining how much under our law he could recover by way of attorney's fees. The contract entered into between him and his client as to his being entitled to fifteen per cent of the award granted her in a workmen's compensation suit is declared to be of no force and effect, the penalty imposed being that of admonition merely only because he had made no effort to collect on the same and had even advanced expenses for a poor client.

8. L!6/" v-. Remo"2*/e <19&2= FACTS; ,aput used to be the counsel for Nieves Barrera until the latter dischar'ed her because she lost trust and confidence in him due to dubious transactions that ,aput handled &hile representin' her in a testate proceedin'. >ne of the la&)ers retained b) Barrera to replace ,aput &as (emoti'ue. +n September !"A#, (emoti'ue, &ithout notice to ,aput, as@ed the court to direct ,aput to turn over certain documents and titles to Barrera so that the latter ma) properl) disposed some estate properties. The court 'ranted the same. But ,aput stubbornl) @ept the said documents as he claimed that said estate properties are sub7ect to his lien and that he needs to be paid first. ISSUE; Dhether or not ,aput has the ri'ht to @eep said documents. 5EL ; No. +t turns out that ,aputNs attorne)Ns fees &ere alread) si'nificantl) paid &hile he &as still the counsel for Barrera 1as bac@ed b) evidence presented b) (emoti'ue2 hence he no lon'er has a lien to the properties of the estate. Therefore, he cannot retain the certificates of title in Buestion. >n another note, he cannot no& char'e (emoti'ue &ith malice and bad faith &hen the latter filed &ithout notice of ,aput motions to direct ,aput to surrender said certificates because as records proved, even thou'h no notice &as sent to him, he had re'ularl) chec@ed on the record of this case hence he &ould have come across the same.
MAN*$L N. +AMA+,O, co!"lainant, vs. A##%&. L* & M$ NRADO +. -AN'*LA%AN, R$' NA D. .ALMOR$&, +A#,$R N$ V. LA*R$L and ,*.$R# JOA/* N -. .*&#O& o0 -AN'*LA%AN AND A&&O+ A#$& LA1 OFF +$&, ()s"ond)nts. #acts! 6tty. ;anuel (. 0amacho filed a complaint against the lawyers comprising the <angulayan and 6ssociates &aw ,ffices, namely, 6ttorneys &uis ;einrado 0. <angulayan, egina D. Balmores, 0atherine V. &aurel, and 5erbert $oa*uin <. Bustos. 0omplainant, the hired counsel of some expelled students from the 6;6 0omputer 0ollege =+6;600+>, in an action for the 2ssuance of a )rit of <reliminary ;andatory 2njunction and for Damages, docketed 0ivil 0ase (o. ?@-/@A8:7- of the egional Trial 0ourt, Branch /B, of ?ue"on 0ity, charged that respondents, then counsel for the defendants, procured and effected on separate occasions, without his knowledge, compromise agreements =+ e@6dmission 6greements+> with four of his clients in the aforementioned civil case which, in effect, re*uired them to waive all kinds of claims they might have had against 6;600, the principal defendant, and to terminate all civil, criminal and administrative proceedings filed against it. 0omplainant 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.2n his comment, 6ttorney <angulayan acknowledged that not one of his co@respondents had taken part in the negotiation, discussion, formulation, or execution of the various e@6dmission 6greements complained of and were, in fact, no longer connected at the time with the <angulayan and 6ssociates &aw ,ffices. 2ssue!whether or not the respondent is guilty of violation under the canon-

5eld! espondent <angulayan had full knowledge of this fact. 6lthough aware that the students were represented by counsel, 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 0ivil 0ase (o. ?@-/@ A8:7-. This failure of 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. espondent fell short of the demands re*uired of him as a lawyer and as a member of the Bar. espondent lawyers stand indicted for a violation of the 0ode of <rofessional 3thics, specifically 0anon - thereof, vi"! +6 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. 2t 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 law.+ RO. N&ON v. V LLAF*$R#$ #acts! The suit filed by the plaintiff, ). ). obinson, is for the collection of various sums owed by the defendant, ;arcelino Villafuerte, the payment of which is secured by a mortgage on the real properties set out in the two notarial documents evidencing the debt inscribed in the property registry of the <rovince of Tayabas. (otwithstanding the demands made upon Villafuerte, he did not comply with his obligations. 2n his answer, the defendant debtor denied the existence of the obligations contained in the said instruments and asserted that the powers of attorney executed in favor of Vicente ;arcelo 0oncepcion were false. $ose ;oreno &acalle, law clerk and employee of the plaintiff's attorneys in this suit, was permitted to address *uestions to some of the witnesses during the hearing of the case, notwithstanding the presence of 6ttorney 6gustin 6lvare". 2ssue! )hether or not the intervention of &acalle was proper. 5eld! The 0ourt ruled that it is un*uestionable that the intervention of the said law clerk and employee of plaintiff's attorneys in this suit, was improperly admittedC it was not authori"ed by law, for the reason that the said &acalle did not have the capacity and *ualifications of a lawyer admitted under oath to practice his profession before the courts of these 2slands, even if 6ttorney 6gustin 6lvares, plaintiff's representative, was present. 6 lawyer may not delegate to any layman any work which involves a study of the law or its application, such as the examination of witnesses or the presentation of evidence. (otwithstanding this, the acts performed in the course of some of the proceedings under the direction of $ose ;oreno &acalle are not subject to annulment, as no positive detriment was caused to the defendant, although such intervention is in no manner permitted by the law of procedure.

T!' Te3 Be'* v- A"",. T2mo"eo !v2( !,- S.R' /(" 0 *egal Ethics 0 1alpractice 0 Solicitation of .ases +n !"#:, Att). 4avid and Tan Te@ Ben', a non-la&)er, entered into an a'reement &hereb) Tan Te@ Ben' &ill suppl) clients to Att). 4avid and in e chan'e thereof, Att). 4avid shall 'ive Tan Te@ Ben' A:O of the attorne)Ns fees collected as the latterNs commission. Att). 4avid also a'reed not to deal &ith clients supplied b) Tan Te@ Ben' directl) &ithout the latterNs consent. The a'reement &ent sour due to alle'ations of double-cross from both sides. Tan Te@ Ben' denounced Att). 4avid before the Supreme Court but did not see@ the enforcement of their a'reement. ISSUE; Dhether or not Att). 4avid is 'uilt) of /alpractice. 5EL ; .es. The a'reement bet&een Att). 4avid and Tan Te@ Ben' is void because it &as tantamount to malpractice &hich is Hthe practice of solicitin' cases at la& for the purpose of 'ain, either personall) or throu'h paid a'ents or bro@ersI Sec. 9#, (ule !3$, (ules of Court2. /alpractice ordinaril) refers to an) malfeasance or dereliction of dut) committed b) a la&)er. Section 9# 'ives a special and technical meanin' to the term HmalpracticeI. That meanin' is in consonance &ith the elementar) notion that the practice of la& is a profession, not a business. HThe la&)er ma) not see@ or obtain emplo)ment b) himself or throu'h others for to do so &ould be unprofessionalI. >n the a'reement to divide the attorne)Ns fees, the Supreme Court noted: No division of fees for le'al services is proper, e cept &ith another la&)er, based upon a division of service or responsibilit). >n the a'reement that Att). 4avid shall not deal &ith clients supplied b) Ben' directl): The professional services of a la&)er should not be controlled or e ploited b) an) la& a'enc), personal or ;

corporate, &hich intervenes bet&een client and la&)er. A la&)erNs responsibilities and Bualifications are individual. 6e should avoid all relations &hich direct the performance of his duties b) or in the interest of such intermediar). A la&)erNs relation to his client should be personal, and the responsibilit) should be direct to the client. . . .I

2re."or o0 Re)2*2o/- A00!2r- v- E-"!'2-)!o B!,o" 74 Phil 579 Legal Ethics Malpractice F!."-; +n <une !"03, Ba)ot advertised in a ne&spaper that he helps people in securin' marria'e licenses* that he does so avoidin' dela)s and publicit)* that he also ma@es marria'e arran'ements* that le'al consultations are free for the poor* and that ever)thin' is confidential. The 4irector of (eli'ious Affairs too@ notice of the ad and so he sued Ba)ot for /alpractice. Ba)ot initiall) denied havin' published the advertisement. But later, he admitted the same and as@ed for the courtNs merc) as he promised to never repeat the act a'ain. ISSUE; Dhether or not Ba)ot is 'uilt) of /alpractice. 5EL ; .es. Section 9A of (ule !9# e pressl) provides amon' other thin's that Hthe practice of solicitin' cases at la& for the purpose of 'ain, either personall) or thru paid a'ents or bro@ers, constitutes malpractice.I The advertisement he caused to be published is a bra=en solicitation of business from the public. .I +t is hi'hl) unethical for an attorne) to advertise his talents or s@ill as a merchant advertises his &ares. The Supreme Court a'ain emphasi=ed that best advertisement for a la&)er is the establishment of a &ell-merited reputation for professional capacit) and fidelit) to trust. But because of Ba)otNs plea for lenienc) and his promise and the fact that he did not earn an) case b) reason of the ad, the Supreme Court merel) reprimanded him. M!/r2.2o C. U)e6 v-. T+e Le*!) C)2'2., I'.. B.M. No. ##3. $/'e 1>, 1993 Facts: /auricio C. Glep, petitioner, pra)s this Court 5to order the respondent, The ,e'al Clinic, +nc., to cease and desist from issuin' advertisements similar to or of the same tenor as that of Anne es PAC and PBC 1of said petition2 and to perpetuall) prohibit persons or entities from ma@in' advertisements pertainin' to the e ercise of the la& profession other than those allo&ed b) la&.I The advertisements complained of b) herein petitioner are as follo&s: Anne A SEC(ET /A((+A-EQ %A;:.:: for a valid marria'e. +nfo on 4+?>(CE. ABSENCE. ANNG,/ENT. ?+SA. T6E%lease call: A9!-:#;#, ,E-A,A9!#939, A999:0! C,+N+C, +NC.$:3: am-;::: pm #-Flr. ?ictoria Bld'. GN Ave., /la. Anne B -GA/ 4+?>(CE 4>N %A(F+NS>N an Attorne) in -uam, is 'ivin' F(EE B>>FS on -uam 4ivorce throu'h The ,e'al Clinic be'innin' /onda) to Frida) durin' office hours. -uam divorce. Annulment of /arria'e. +mmi'ration %roblems, ?isa E t. RuotaKNon-Buota (es. S Special (etireeCs ?isa. 4eclaration of Absence. (emarria'e to Filipina Fiancees. Adoption. +nvestment in the %hil. GSKForei'n ?isa for Filipina SpouseKChildren. Call /arivic. T6E # F ?ictoria Bld'. 09" GN Ave. #

,E-A,Ermita, /anila nr. GS Embass) C,+N+C, +NC. Tel. A9!-#939A9!-#9A! A99-9:0!* A9!-:#;# +t is the submission of petitioner that the advertisements above reproduced are champertous, unethical, demeanin' of the la& profession, and destructive of the confidence of the communit) in the inte'rit) of the members of the bar and that, as a member of the le'al profession, he is ashamed and offended b) the said advertisements, hence the reliefs sou'ht in his petition as herein before Buoted. +n its ans&er to the petition, respondent admits the fact of publication of said advertisements at its instance, but claims that it is not en'a'ed in the practice of la& but in the renderin' of 5le'al support services5 throu'h parale'als &ith the use of modern computers and electronic machines. (espondent further ar'ues that assumin' that the services advertised are le'al services, the act of advertisin' these services should be allo&ed supposedl) in the li'ht of the case of <ohn (. Bates and ?an >CSteen vs. State Bar of Ari=ona, reportedl) decided b) the Gnited States Supreme Court on <une #, !"##. +ssue: Dhether or not the services offered b) respondent, The ,e'al Clinic, +nc., as advertised b) it constitutes practice of la& and, in either case, &hether the same can properl) be the sub7ect of the advertisements herein complained of. 6eld: .es. The Supreme Court held that the services offered b) the respondent constitute practice of la&. The definition of Hpractice of la&I is laid do&n in the case of Ca)etano vs. /onsod, as defined: Blac@ defines 5practice of la&5 as: 5The rendition of services reBuirin' the @no&led'e and the application of le'al principles and techniBue to serve the interest of another &ith his consent. +t is not limited to appearin' in court, or advisin' and assistin' in the conduct of liti'ation, but embraces the preparation of pleadin's, and other papers incident to actions and special proceedin's, conve)ancin', the preparation of le'al instruments of all @inds, and the 'ivin' of all le'al advice to clients. +t embraces all advice to clients and all actions ta@en for them in matters connected &ith the la&.5 The contention of respondent that it merel) offers le'al support services can neither be seriousl) considered nor sustained. Said proposition is belied b) respondentCs o&n description of the services it has been offerin'. Dhile some of the services bein' offered b) respondent corporation merel) involve mechanical and technical @no&-ho&, such as the installation of computer s)stems and pro'rams for the efficient mana'ement of la& offices, or the computeri=ation of research aids and materials, these &ill not suffice to 7ustif) an e ception to the 'eneral rule. Dhat is palpabl) clear is that respondent corporation 'ives out le'al information to la)men and la&)ers. +ts contention that such function is non-advisor) and non-dia'nostic is more apparent than real. +n providin' information, for e ample, about forei'n la&s on marria'e, divorce and adoption, it strains the credulit) of this Court that all that respondent corporation &ill simpl) do is loo@ for the la&, furnish a cop) thereof to the client, and stop there as if it &ere merel) a boo@store. Dith its attorne)s and so called parale'als, it &ill necessaril) have to e plain to the client the intricacies of the la& and advise him or her on the proper course of action to be ta@en as ma) be provided for b) said la&. That is &hat its advertisements represent and for &hich services it &ill conseBuentl) char'e and be paid. That activit) falls sBuarel) &ithin the 7urisprudential definition of 5practice of la&.5 Such a conclusion &ill not be altered b) the fact that respondent corporation does not represent clients in court since la& practice, as the &ei'ht of authorit) holds, is not limited merel) to court appearances but e tends to le'al research, 'ivin' le'al advice, contract draftin', and so forth. That fact that the corporation emplo)s parale'als to carr) out its services is not controllin'. Dhat is important is that it is en'a'ed in the practice of la& b) virtue of the nature of the services it renders &hich thereb) brin's it &ithin the ambit of the statutor) prohibitions a'ainst the advertisements &hich it has caused to be published and are no& assailed in this proceedin'. The standards of the le'al profession condemn the la&)erCs advertisement of his talents. A la&)er cannot, &ithout violatin' the ethics of his profession, advertise his talents or s@ills as in a manner similar to a merchant advertisin' his 'oods. The proscription a'ainst advertisin' of le'al services or solicitation of le'al business rests on the fundamental postulate that the practice of la& is a profession. The canons of the profession tell us that the best advertisin' possible for a la&)er is a &ell-merited reputation for professional capacit) and fidelit) to trust, $

&hich must be earned as the outcome of character and conduct. -ood and efficient service to a client as &ell as to the communit) has a &a) of publici=in' itself and catchin' public attention. That publicit) is a normal b)-product of effective service &hich is ri'ht and proper. A 'ood and reputable la&)er needs no artificial stimulus to 'enerate it and to ma'nif) his success. 6e easil) sees the difference bet&een a normal b)-product of able service and the un&holesome result of propa'anda.

A./. No. ,-3;3 <ul) 3!, !";9 +N (E: 4+SBA(/ENT %(>CEE4+N-S A-A+NST ATT.. 4+>S4A4> R. -GT+E((E8 /AFA,+NTA,, <. FACTS (espondent 4iosdado R. -utierre= is a member of the %hilippine Bar, admitted to it on >ctober A, !"0A. 6e &as convicted of the murder of FilemonSamaco, former municipal ma)or of Calapan, and to'ether &ith his co-conspirators &as sentenced to the penalt) ofdeath. Gpon revie& b) this Court the 7ud'ment of conviction &as affirmed on <une 3:, !"A;, butthe penalt) &as chan'ed to reclusion perpetua. After servin' a portion of the sentence respondent &as 'ranted aconditional pardon b) the %resident on Au'ust !", !"A$. >n >ctober ", !"A$ the &ido& of the deceased Filemon Samaco, victim in the murder case, filed a verified complaint before this Court pra)in' that respondent be removed from the roll of la&)ers pursuant to (ule !9#,section A. (espondent presented his ans&er in due time, admittin' the facts alle'ed b) complainant re'ardin'pardon in defense. Gnder section A of (ule !9#, a member of the bar ma) be removed suspended from his office as attorne) b) theSupreme Court b) reason of his conviction of a crime insolvin' moral turpitude. /urder is, &ithout doubt, such acrime. The term 5moral turpitude5 includes ever)thin' &hich is done contrar) to 7ustice, honest), modest) or 'oodmorals. +SSGE: Dhether or not the conditional pardon e tended to respondent places himbe)ond the scope of the rule on disbarment. 6E,4: (espondent -utierre= must be 7ud'edupon the fact of his conviction for murder &ithout re'ard to the pardon he invo@es in defense. The crime &asBualified b) treacher) and a''ravated b) its havin' been committed in hand, b) ta@in' advanta'e of his officialposition 1respondent bein' municipal ma)or at the time2 and &ith the use of motor vehicle. %eople vs. 4iosdadoposition 1respondent bein' municipal ma)or at the time2 and &ith the use of motor vehicle. The de'ree of moral turpitude involved is such as to 7ustif) his bein' pur'ed from the profession. The practice of la& is a privile'e accorded onl) to those &ho measure up to certain ri'id standards of mental andmoral fitness. For the admission of a candidate to the bar the (ules of Court not onl) prescribe a test of academicpreparation but reBuire satisfactor) testimonials of 'ood moral character. These standards are neither dispensed&ith nor lo&ered after admission: the la&)er must continue to adhere to them or else incur the ris@ of suspension orremoval. D6E(EF>(E, 4iosdado R. -utierre= is ordered disbarred and his name stric@en from the roll of la&)ers.

"