LEGAL PROFESSION 1
USC Law 410
KHAN VS SIMBILLO
Nick: Advertising
Facts: Res. Atty. Simbillo publicized his legal services in 3
major newpapers, the PDI, MB, and the PhilStar, which read
"Annulment of Marriage Specialist," and claimed as an expert
in handling annulment cases, and that he can guarantee
court’s decree within 4 to 6 months time and that the fee was
Php 48,000. Then petitioner Khan filed administrative charges
in IBP against the respondent for improper advertising and
soliciting legal business, in which the IBP found the
respondent guilty.
Issue: WON the respondent is guilty of violating Rule 2.03 and
3.01 of CPR.
Held: Yes. The practice of law is not a business. It is a
profession in which duty to public service, not money, is the
primary consideration. Respondent was suspended from the
practice of law for 1 year and was sternly warned that a
repetition of the same or similar offense will be dealt more
severely.
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 x x x self-laudatory or
unfair statement or claim regarding his qualifications or legal services.
CANOY VS ORTIZ
Nick: Illegally dismissed
Facts: Res. Atty. Ortiz appeared as counsel for petitioner
Canoy for illegal dismissal case against the latter’s former
employer. In 1998, the labor arbiter hearing the complaint
ordered the parties to submit their respective position paper.
Canoy submitted all the necessary documents and records to
respondent Atty. Ortiz for the preparation of such position
paper. Thereafter, he made several visit to the office of Atty.
Ortiz to follow up the progress of the case until 2000, but his
visits was unfruitful. Canoy decided to follow up the case
himself, and was shocked to learn that the same was actually
dismissed way back in 1998 for failure to prosecute. The
respondent claimed that "he was frankly preoccupied with
both his functions as a local government official and as a
practicing lawyer. x x x he withdrew from his cases and his
free legal services." Hence, this petition.
Issue: WON there is a grave misconduct and malpractice on
part of the respondent.
Held: Yes. The relationship of lawyer-client being one of
confidence, there is ever present the need for the client to be
adequately and fully informed of the developments of the
case and should not be left in the dark as to the mode and
manner in which his/her interests are being defended. x x x it
was his duty as lawyer to inform his clients of the status of
cases entrusted to him. Respondent was suspended from the
practice of law for 1 month and was sternly warned that a
repetition of the same or similar offense will be dealt more
severely.
Rule 18.04 – A lawyer shall keep the client informed of the status of his case
and shall respond within a reasonable period of time to the client’s request
for information.
BORJA VS SULYAP
Nick: Private practice
Facts: Petitioner Borja, as lessor, and respondent Sulyap, Inc.,
as lessee, entered into a contract of lease involving a one-
storey office building owned by Borja located at New Manila,
Quezon City. Respondent paid advance rentals, association
dues and deposits pursuant to lease. Upon the expiration of
the contract of lease, respondent demanded for the return of
the same, but Borja refused to do so. Thus, Sulyap filed with
the RTC of QC a complaint for sum of money against Borja.
Subsequently, both parties entered into and submitted to the
trial court a “Compromise agreements” stating that Borja is
bound to return the advances and deposit and in case any
amount due not paid within the period stated shall earn
interest until fully paid plus the attorney’s fee. However,
Borja failed to the amounts stated. He then contended that
there was fraud in the execution of the compromise
agreement when he was assisted by Atty. Cruz, who was then
an employee of Quezon City government, and that the
agreement is void.
Issue: WON the petitioner is bound by the penalty clause in
the compromise agreement.
Held: Yes. x x x we find no merit in petitioner’s contention
that the compromise agreement should be annulled because
Atty. Leonardo Cruz, who assisted him in entering into such
agreement, was then an employee of the Quezon City
government, and is thus prohibited from engaging in the
private practice of his profession. Suffice it to state that the
isolated assistance provided by Atty. Cruz to the petitioner in
entering into a compromise agreement does not constitute a
prohibited “private practice” of law by a public official.
“Private practice” of a profession, specifically the law
profession does not pertain to an isolated court appearance;
rather, it contemplates a succession of acts of the same
nature habitually or customarily holding one’s self to the
public as a lawyer. Such was never established in the instant
case x x x. Wherefore, instant petition is denied.
SCHULZ VS FLORES
Nick: Negligence and incompetence
Facts: Schulz filed a verified complaint for disbarment against
Atty. Flores. Sometime in 1992, complainant Schulz engaged
the services of the respondent for the purpose of filing a
complaint against Wilson Ong for revocation and damages for
the latter’s failure to deliver the jeep which he sold to Schulz.
Complainant argued that the respondent's delay in acting
upon his case resulted in his being a defendant rather than a
complainant. He also charged the respondent for collective
excessive and unreasonable fees. In support of his charges
against the respondent, he pointed out that he was a
Municipal Judge of Negros Oriental who was dismissed from
service after the Marcos Regime.
Issue: WON Atty. Flores is guilty of negligence and
incompetence.
Held: The Supreme Court ruled that respondent Atty.
Marcelo Flores is found guilty of negligence and

incompetence, and is suspended from the practice of law for
a period of six months effective immediately. He is ordered to
return to Schulz the amount of 12,000.00 plus legal interest,
and he is ordered to return the papers of complainant which
had been under his custody as a result of his counselling for
the complainant.
LEDESMA VS CLIMACO
Nick: Counsel de oficio vs Election registrar job
Facts: Prior to his appointment as election registrar for Cadiz,
Negros Occ. on Oct 30, 1964, petitioner was counsel de parte
as an accused in a pending case in the sala of the respondent.
Citing the demands of his appointive post and the conflict
that may arise between the discharge of his duties as election
registrar and officer of the court, petitioner moved to
withdraw as counsel. Respondent not only denied the
motion, but appointed petitioner as counsel de oficio for the
two other accused. Petitioner now comes before the SC to
have the order of the respondent judge reversed on
certiorari.
Issue: WON respondent judge acted with grave abuse of
discretion.
Held: NO. The principal reason behind respondent’s denial of
the motion to withdraw of petitioner is because of its effect
to delay the case further. The criminal proceeding had
already been postponed several times, and to grant the
petitioner’s motion would have been tantamount to a denial
of the accused’s rights. The fact that the respondent already
appointed the petitioner as counsel de oficio other than the
de parte, renders the latter’s excuse of the demand of his job
as registrar inutile. There is no reason for him to compromise
the accused; defense for want of time with the demands on
the time of counsel de oficio is less than that of de parte. It is
thus, clear that petitioner is merely reluctant to represent the
accused, membership in the Bar requires the responsibility to
live up to its exacting standard, which includes assisting the
state when called upon to administer justice, the law is not a
trade or a craft, but a profession. As such, the facts that
petitioner will not be compensated for his trouble should not
hinder him from defending the accused to the best of his
ability. The right of the accused to counsel is a
constitutionally protected right, such that any frustration
thereof by petitioner amounts to a serious affront to the
profession.
Petition is dismissed. Petitioner is admonished.
REYES VS VITAN
Nick: Dawlimps!
Facts: Complainant hired the service of the respondent Atty.
For the purpose of filing the appropriate complaint or charge
against the complainant’s sister-in-law and its niece. The
respondent after receiving the amount of P.17, 000 did not
take any action on the complainant’s case.
Issue: WON respondent violated Cannon 18 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility
LEGAL PROFESSION 2
USC Law 410
Held: Yes. Respondent violated Rule 18.03 and 18.04 of
Cannon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility for
having neglected a legal matter entrusted to him and did not
inform complainant the status of his case but also
disregarded the orders of the Commission without reasons
which amounted to utter disrespect of authority and
unethical conduct in the practice of his profession, thus,
should be sanctioned. Respondent be suspended from the
practice of law for a period of six (6) months effective upon
notice of this Decision. He is ordered to return to complainant
within five (5) days from notice the sum of P17, 000.00 with
interest of 12% per annum from the date of the promulgation
of this Decision until the full amount shall have been
returned.
Rule 18.03 – A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and
his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.
Rule 18.04 – A lawyer shall keep the client informed of the status of his case
and shall respond within a reasonable period of time to the client’s request
for information.
OLBES VS DECIEMBRE
Nick: Four 50k checks 1.01
Facts: Atty. Victor V. Deciembre was given five blank checks
by Spouses Olbes for security of a loan. After the loan was
paid and a receipt issued, Atty. Deciembre filled up four of
the five checks for P50, 000 with different maturity date. All
checks were dishonored. Thus, Atty. Deciembre fled a case
for estafa against the spouses Olbes. This prompted the
spouses Olbes to file a disbarment case against Atty.
Deciembre with the Office of the Bar Confidant of this Court.
In the report, Commissioner Dulay recommended that
respondent be suspended from the practice of law for two
years for violating Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
Issue: WON the suspension of Atty. Deciembre was in accord
with his fault.
Held: Yes. Membership in the legal profession is a special
privilege burdened with conditions. It is bestowed upon
individuals who are not only learned in the law, but also
known to possess good moral character. A lawyer is an oath-
bound servant of society whose conduct is clearly
circumscribed by inflexible norms of law and ethics, and
whose primary duty is the advancement of the quest for truth
and justice, for which he has sworn to be a fearless crusader.
“By taking the lawyer’s oath, an attorney becomes a guardian
of truth and the rule of law, and an indispensable instrument
in the fair and impartial administration of justice. Lawyers
should act and comport themselves with honesty and
integrity in a manner beyond reproach, in order to promote
the public’s faith in the legal profession. It is also glaringly
clear that the Code of Professional Responsibility was
seriously transgressed by his malevolent act of filling up the
blank checks by indicating amounts that had not been agreed
upon at all and despite respondent’s full knowledge that the
loan supposed to be secured by the checks had already been
paid. His was a brazen act of falsification of a commercial
document, resorted to for his material gain. Deception and
other fraudulent acts are not merely unacceptable practices

that are disgraceful and dishonorable; they reveal a basic
moral flaw. The standards of the legal profession are not
satisfied by conduct that merely enables one to escape the
penalties of criminal laws. Considering the depravity of the
offense committed by respondent, we find the penalty
recommended by the IBP of suspension for two years from
the practice of law to be too mild. His propensity for
employing deceit and misrepresentation is reprehensible. His
misuse of the filled-up checks that led to the detention of one
petitioner is loathsome. Thus, he is sentenced suspended
indefinitely from the practice of law effective immediately.
Rule 1.01 – A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
deceitful conduct.
UI VS BONIFACIO
Nick: Immorality
Facts: An administrative complaint for disbarment was filed
against Atty. Iris Bonifacio for allegedly carrying on an
immoral relationship with Carlos L. Ui, husband of
complainant, Leslie Ui.
Issue: WON she has conducted herself in an immoral manner
for which she deserves to be barred from the practice of law.
Held: The respondent was imprudent in managing her
personal affairs. For instance, respondent admitted that she
knew that Carlos Ui had children with a woman from Amoy,
China, yet it appeared that she never exerted the slightest
effort to find out if Carlos Ui and this woman were indeed
unmarried. Also, despite their marriage in 1987, Carlos Ui
never lived with respondent and their first child, a
circumstance that is simply incomprehensible considering
respondent’s allegation that Carlos Ui was very open in
courting her.
However, the fact remains that her relationship with Carlos
Ui, clothed as it was with what respondent believed was a
valid marriage, cannot be considered immoral. For immorality
connotes conduct that shows indifference to the moral norms
of society and the opinion of good and respectable members
of community. Moreover, for such conduct to warrant
disciplinary action, the same must be “grossly immoral,: that
is, it must be so corrupt and false as to constitute a criminal
act or so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high
degree. Respondent’s act of immediately distancing herself
from Carlos Ui upon discovering his true civil status belies just
that alleged moral indifference and proves that she had no
intention of flaunting the law and the high moral standard of
the legal profession Wherefore, complaint for disbarment
against the respondent, for alleged immorality is DENIED.
NARIDO VS LINSANGAN
Nick: Championing the cause of the poor
Facts: Two administrative cases wherein respondents Jaime
S. Linsangan and Rufino B. Risma who represented adverse
parties in a workmen’s compensation case, did mutually hurl
accusation at each other. The charge against respondent
Linsangan filed by a certain Flora Narido is that he violated
the attorney’s oath by submitting a perjured statement.
LEGAL PROFESSION 3
USC Law 410
When required to answer, not only did he deny the complaint
but he would also hold respondent Risma accountable for
having instigating his client, the complainant, Flora Narido, to
file a false and malicious complaint resulting in what
respondent Linsangan called “embarrassment, humiliation
and defamation” of a brother in a profession.
Issue: WON Complaint for instigating the client to file an
administrative case against another attorney will have merit
Held: 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
in 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. In view of
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.
LAPUT VS REMOTIQUE
Nick: Employment
Held: It is, however, the right of a lawyer, without fear or
favor, to give proper advice to those seeking relief against
unfaithful or neglectful counsel. He may properly accept
employment to handle a matter which has been previously
handled by another lawyer, provided that the other lawyer
has been given notice by the client that his services have
been terminate.
Rule 1.01 – A lawyer shall not, directly or indirectly, encroach upon the
professional employment of another lawyer; however, it is the right of the
lawyer, without fear or favor, to give proper advice and assistance to those
seeking relief against unfaithful or neglectful counsel. A lawyer should not
steal the other lawyer’s client nor induce the latter to retain him by a
promise of better service, good result or reduced fees for his services.
Neither should he disparage another, make comparisons or publicize his
talent as a means to feather his law practice.
BLANZA VS ARCANGEL
Nick: Volunteer / Photostat
Facts: Complainants Olegaria Blanza and Maria Pasion ask
this Court to take disciplinary action against respondent Atty.
Agustin Arcangel, who volunteered to be their counsel to file
pension claims, for professional non-feasance for (1) his
failure to attend to complainants' pension claims for six
years; (2) his failure to immediately return the documents
despite repeated demands upon him, and (3) his failure to
return to complainant Pasion, allegedly, all of her documents.
Respondent contended that the complainants failed to co-
operate and pay for photostat services, and explained that
there were no agreement for his compensation as their
counsel.
Issue: WON respondent can be held liable.
Held: No. x x x complainants themselves are partly to blame
for the delay in filing their respective claims for their failure
 LEGAL PROFESSION 4
USC Law 410

to cooperate and pay for the photostat services. But while we should characterize a lawyer's efforts as when he is defending
are constrained to dismiss the charges against respondent for the rights of property. As it is, there is even the fear that a
being legally insufficient, yet we cannot but counsel against lawyer works harder when he appears for men of substance.
his actuations as a member of the bar. A lawyer has a more To show how unfounded is such a suspicion, he must exert
dynamic and positive role in the community than merely his utmost, whoever be his client. At any rate, with
complying with the minimal technicalities of the statute. As a complainant having been satisfied with the explanation of
man of law, he is necessarily a leader of the community, respondent, he could not be justly charged of being recreant
looked up to as a model citizen. His conduct must, perforce, to his trust for personal gain. The dismissal of this case is
be par excellence, especially so when, as in this case, he therefore warranted. Petition is dismissed.
volunteers his professional services. Respondent here has not
lived up to that ideal standard. It was unnecessary to have
complainants wait, and hope, for six long years on their
pension claims. Upon their refusal to co-operate, respondent
should have forthwith terminated their professional
relationship instead of keeping them hanging indefinitely. x x T H E L AW Y ER ’ S O A TH
x let this be a reminder to Atty. Arcangel of what the high
standards of his chosen profession require of him. “I do solemnly swear that
Accordingly, the case against respondent is dismissed. So
I will maintain allegiance to the Republic of the
ordered.
Philippines;
I will support its Constitution and obey the laws as
OPERAL VS ABARIA well as the legal orders of the duly constituted
Nick: Whoever be your client authorities therein;
Facts: This administrative proceeding was started by Pedro
Oparel, Sr., who identified himself as a pauper in his I will do no falsehood, nor consent to do doing of
complaint filed with this Court on August 27, 1970 against any court;
respondent Dominador Abaria, a member of the Philippine I will not wittingly or willingly promote or sue any
Bar. The charge was that respondent, whose services were
groundless, false or unlawful suit, or give aid nor
retained to assist complainant recover damages from his
employer for injuries suffered, acted dishonestly. Apparently, consent to the same;
a settlement was reached, complainant having been made to I will delay no man for money or malice, and I will
sign a receipt in the sum of P500.00 for his claim, out of conduct myself as a lawyer according to the best of
which was deducted P55.00 as attorney's fees, when the
my knowledge and discretion, with all good fidelity
truth, according to the complaint, was that respondent did
receive the much larger amount of P5,000.00. He accounted as well to the court as to my clients; and
for the alleged sum of P5,000.00 by stating that P3,500 was I impose upon myself these voluntary obligations
spent by the employer for plaintiff's operation and medical without any mental reservation or purpose of
bills, another P1,000.00 given to complainant's family during
his confinement in the hospital, and then the P500.00 evasion. So help me God.”
received in cash by way of additional settlement. He prayed
that the complaint be dismissed. However, when
investigated, Operal admitted that the administrative charge
arose out of a misunderstanding between him and
respondent.
Issue: WON the respondent can be held liable.
Held: No. While it would appear that under the
circumstances no case lies against respondent Dominador
Abaria, it is not amiss to impress on members of the Bar that
the utmost care be taken to minimize occasions for any
misunderstanding between them and their clients. The
relationship being one of confidence, there is ever present
the need for the latter being adequately and fully informed of
the mode and manner in which their interest is defended.
They should not be left in the dark. They are entitled to the
fullest disclosure of why certain steps are taken and why
certain matters are either included or excluded from the
documents they are made to sign. It is only thus that their
faith in counsel may remain unimpaired. x x x the same zeal