37 - Atty Khan v Atty. Simbillo - Samonte v Gatdula

CASE DIGEST – BASIC LEGAL ETHICS 29 - Atty. Khan v Atty. Simbillo Atty. Ismael G. Khan, Assistant Court Administrator and Chief of public Information Office, filed and administrative complaint against Atty. Rizalino Simbillo for improper advertising and solicitation of his legal services. The respondent has issued a paid advertisement in the Philippine Daily Inquirer promoting annulment of marriages with a corresponding contact number. Ms. Ma. Theresa, a staff member of the Public Information Office of the Supreme Court called the published telephone number and pretended to be an interested party. Mrs. Simbillo answered and confirmed that her husband is an expert in handling said cases. The Public Information Office has also learned that an identical advertisement was also published in different newspapers on the succeeding months. Atty. Simbillo confirmed the actions alleged to him however contended that the act of lawyer advertising and of solicitation is not against the law. The acts committed were violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility, Rules 2.03 and 3.01, and Rules 138, Sec. 27 of the Rules of Court. Respondent not only rendered and solicited his legal services in an improper manner, but also evaded in the sanctity of marriage which is valued by Philippine law. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines suspended Atty. Simbillo from practice of law for one (1) year with a warning that if identical acts were repeated would result to severe punishment wherein the Court also affirmed.

30 – In Re: Tagorda Luis B. Tagorda is a practising attorney and a member of the provincial board of Isabela, advertised his position as an attorney for purposes of personal gain and addressed a letter directly to a lieutenant of barrio to whom he voluntary offers his services. His actions for the purpose of creating suits and stirring up litigations imply barratry and malpractice of the legal profession. However, respondent was unaware that the acts committed were improper, and he, as a practising attorney and youth, is also inexperience at the bar. He also promised not to repeat the mistake in the future. In view of these considerations, instead of subjecting the respondent for disbarment, Luis B. Tagorda is suspended in the practice of law for one month.

31 – Dacanay v Baker and Mackenzie Atty. Adriano Dacanay filed a complaint to prevent Juan G. Collas, Jr. and nine other lawyers form practising law under the name of Baker and Mackenzie, a law firm organized in Illinois. Atty. Dacanay received a letter from Vicente A. Torres using the letterhead of Baker and Mackenzie, asking Rosie Clurman for the release of 87 shares of Cathay Products International, Inc. to client named Gabriel. He denied any liability of Clurman to Gabriel and asked to be informed whether the latter was from Baker and Mackenzie. The Court held that using the firm name of Baker and Mackenzie is unethical, because the firm is a professional partnership in Chicago Illinois and is not allowed to practise law in the Philippines, thus respondents associated with the firm are enjoined from practising law.

32 – Samonte v Gatdula A complaint was filed against Atty. Rolando Gatdula by Julieta Borromeo Samonte for grave misconduct wherein respondent was engaged in the private practice of law which is in conflict with his duties as a Branch Clerk of Court. Samonte was an authorized representative of her sister, Flor Borromeo in an ejectment case filed in the Metropolitan Trial Court of Quezon city. Complainant received a temporary restraining order, because she put the wrong address of the defendant involved in the ejectment case, therefore preventing the execution of the decision of the Metropolitan trial Court. She then inquired the issuance of the temporary restraining order to Atty. Gatdula. Complainant said that Atty. Gatdula had blamed her lawyer for writing the wrong address of the ejectment case and in order for the case to proceed, the respondent offered her a calling card with his name entailing certain law office was written. The respondent denied the allegations against him and claiming that it was the complainant who asked him to be her counsel instead and the calling card was shown by her. In the scheduled hearings, complainant failed to comply while respondent, in the last time the hearing was set, appeared in his own behalf to support his claims. Despite the complainant’s failure to present in court, the respondent was indeed found to be included in the BALIGOD, GATDULA, TACARDON, DIMAILIG & CELERA LAW OFFICES which corroborated that Atty. Gatdula is engaged in private practice of law. Moreover, the respondent merely denied that he was part of the law firm and does not claim that it was printed without his knowledge nor his consent thus, making him guilty of infraction. The court held respondent to be reprimanded with a warning of repetition of this act would constitute to severe offenses.