Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 6



It becomes our duty to condemn in no uncertain terms the ugly practice of solicitation of cases by
lawyers. It is destructive of the honor of a great profession. It lowers the standards of that profession.
It works against the confidence of the community in the integrity of the members of the bar. It results
in needless litigation and in incenting to strife otherwise peacefully inclined citizens.

The solicitation of employment by an attorney is a ground for disbarment or suspension. That should
be distinctly understood.

MARCH 23, 1929



Atty. Tagorda is a practicing lawyer, a notary public, and a provincial board member of Isabela.

He admitted during his bid for candidacy, he made use of a card where the following was stated in
Spanish and Ilocano:


As a notary public, he can execute for you a deed of sale as required by the
cadastral office; can renew lost document of animals, and can execute any kind of affidavit.

Come or write to him in his town of Isabela. Offers free consultations and is willing
to help and serve the poor.

In one correspondence, he stated that even if elected as board member, he will serve the public still as a
lawyer and notary public. These acts were prohibited for board members.


WoN Atty. Tagorda violated the canons of professional ethics.


YES. Direct or indirect ads are not allowed for lawyers. The practice of law is a profession and not a
business. However, the Court did not disbar him. Certain mitigating circumstances were taken into
consideration, such as his youth and inexperience, and a promise never to commit the acts again.


We hold that Baker & McKenzie, being an alien law firm, cannot practice law in the Philippines (Sec.
1, Rule 138, Rules of Court). As admitted by the respondents in their memorandum, Baker &
McKenzie is a professional partnership organized in 1949 in Chicago, Illinois with members and
associates in 30 cities around the world. Respondents, aside from being members of the Philippine
bar, practising under the firm name of Guerrero & Torres, are members or associates of Baker &

As pointed out by the Solicitor General, respondents' use of the firm name Baker & McKenzie
constitutes a representation that being associated with the firm they could "render legal services of
the highest quality to multinational business enterprises and others engaged in foreign trade and
investment" (p. 3, respondents' memo). This is unethical because Baker & McKenzie is not
authorized to practise law here. (See Ruben E. Agpalo, Legal Ethics, 1983 Ed., p. 115.)

A.C. NO. 2131 – MAY 10, 1985



Complainant filed charges against Atty. Collas and a number of others seeking to enjoin them from
practicing under the name of Baker & Mackenzie as a law firm.

Complainant alleged that during the course of back-and-forth correspondence between him and lawyers
of the Baker Mackenzie firm, they were writing using the letterhead of such law firm name.

It was later established that Baker Mackenzie was actually an alien law firm, and the lawyers were only
using the name because it carried prestige.


WoN respondents’ use of the alien firm name may be allowed.


NO. The Court stressed that an alien law firm cannot practice in the country. While respondents are
members of the professional partnership Baker Mackenzie, they are not authorized to use the name in
the country. It creates the idea that they could render legal services of highest quality, but at under
violation of the aforecited rule.

Time and again We emphasize that the judge is the visible representation of law and justice from whom the
people draw their will and awareness to obey the law. For the judge to return that regard, the latter must be
the first to abide by the law and weave an example for the others to follow. The judge should be studiously
careful to avoid even the slightest infraction of the law.

A.M. NO. RTJ-91-766 – APRIL 7, 1993



Complainant charged respondent judge with gross incompetence, gross ignorance of the law, and gross
Judge issued cancellation of titles upon ex-parte motion of the adverse party. This was in gross violation
of the right to due process of herein complainant.

Complainants thereafter filed for a TRO with the CA to undo such cancellation by the judge and for the
latter to inhibit from further proceeding with anything related to the case.

Respondent judge did not heed the order of the CA and instead ordered partition of the disputed


WoN respondent judge is guilty of the charges.

YES. The Court stressed that when a rule is so basic and elementary so as to not know it or pretend not
to know it is gross ignorance of the law. Further, the deliberate disobedience of the judge to the lawful
orders of the CA constituted gross misconduct.


A case of suspension or disbarment may proceed regardless of interest or lack of

interest of the complainant. What matters is whether, on the basis of the facts borne
out by the record, the charge of deceit and grossly immoral conduct has been duly
proven. This rule is premised on the nature of disciplinary proceedings. A proceeding
for suspension or disbarment is not in any sense a civil action where the complainant
is a plaintiff and the respondent lawyer is a defendant. Disciplinary proceedings
involve no private interest and afford no redress for private grievance. They are
undertaken and prosecuted solely for the public welfare. They are undertaken for
the purpose of preserving courts of justice from the official ministration of persons
unfit to practice in them. The attorney is called to answer to the court for his conduct
as an officer of the court. The complainant or the person who called the attention of
the court to the attorneys alleged misconduct is in no sense a party, and has
generally no interest in the outcome except as all good citizens may have in the
proper administrative of justice. [

A.C. NO. 4018 – MARCH 8, 2005



Complainant filed for the disbarment of respondent for his alleged grave misconduct while holding the
position of Register of Deeds in Marawi.

It was alleged that respondent indiscriminately issued a land title in favor of his relatives, to the
prejudice of herein complainant.
Investigation was launched by the IBP but despite several notices, respondent did not heed.


WoN respondent may be disbarred for grave misconduct.

RULING. YES. While the infractions were committed as a public officer, he may still be disciplined by the
Court for the same misconduct as a lawyer.


the prosecuting officer "is the representative not of an ordinary party to a controversy, but of a
sovereignty whose obligation to govern impartially is as compelling as its obligation to govern at all;
and whose interest, therefore, in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that justice
shall be done. As such, he is in a peculiar and very definite sense the servant of the law, the two fold
aim of which is that guilt shall not escape or innocence suffer. He may prosecute with earnestness
and vigor — indeed, he should do so. But, while he may strike hard blows, he is not at liberty to
strike foul ones. It is as much his duty to refrain from improper methods calculated to produce a
wrongful conviction as it is to use every legitimate means to bring about a just one,"

G.R. NO. 46371 – FEBRUARY 7, 1940


A certain Lt. Orais of the Philippine Constabulary filed a complaint against Suarez and one Ruedas for the
crime of Sedition.

Petitioner Suarez, thru Fiscal Palacio, charged Orais and a certain Jimenez (justice of peace) of the crime
of Arbitrary Detention to counter.

Fiscal Palacio withdrew from investigating the case. Other provincial fiscals also withdrew from
investigating the charge.

A certain private prosecutor Reyes objected the dismissal of said charges.

Herein respondent Judge Platon was appointed to preside over the unsubstantiated case, but dismissed
it for the same reason

Complainant now seeks a mandamus to compel the judge to hear the case.


WoN the mandamus will lie.


NO. It was held that those who opted to dismiss the charges should rather be commended. The task of a
prosecutor is not to prosecute per se, but to see that justice is done.

We hold that this advice given by respondent Mendoza on the procedure to

liquidate GENBANK is not the mattercontemplated by Rule 6.03 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility. ABA Formal Opinion No. 342 is clear as
daylight in stressing that the drafting, enforcing or interpreting government
or agency procedures, regulations or laws, or briefing abstract principles of law
are acts which do not fall within the scope of the term matter and cannot
the intervention cannot be insubstantial and insignificant. Originally, Canon 36 provided that
a former government lawyer should not, after his retirement, accept employment in connection
with any matter which he has investigated or passed upon while in such office or employ. As
aforediscussed, the broad sweep of the phrase which he has investigated or passed upon
resulted in unjust disqualification of former government lawyersG.R. NOS. 151809-12 – APRIL 12,



Allied Bank went into financial difficulty, causing them to incur daily over-drawings on their account with
Bangko Sentral.

Later, it was found that Allied Bank had approved various loans to certain high-ranking officers and
shareholders; that these loans were doubtful and the others were outright uncollectible.

Allied Bank was later declared as insolvent and was bought by the Lucio Tan group.

After the installation of Pres. Aquino’s revolutionary government in 1986, she established PCGG to
recover the Marcos’ ill-gotten wealth. The latter agency soon filed a case with the Sandiganbayan for the
reconveyance and damages against the Lucio Tan group for allegedly taking undue advantage of their
close relations with Marcos.

Complainant filed a motion to disqualify private respondent Estelito Mendoza to act as counsel for Lucio
Tan. PCGG alleged that Mendoza had acted as Solicitor General for the republic and counsel for Bangko

It was further alleged that Mendoza was involved in the liquidation of Allied Bank. Complainants posit
that this is in violation of Rule 6.03 of the CPR, providing that former government lawyers are prohibited
from accepting employment in connection with matters they previously intervened in while in
government service.


WoN Mendoza should be disqualified as counsel for Lucio Tan

NO. The Court held that there is no conflict of interests in the case at bar. The Court explained that,
apparently, the act of drafting and interpreting government procedures and regulations do not count as