Pedro Linsangan v. Atty. Nicomedes Tolentino Rule 2.03 should be read in connection with Rule 1.

03 of
AC No. 6672 the CPR which provides:
FACTS: RULE 1.03.A LAWYER SHALL NOT, FOR ANY CORRUPT
This is a complaint for disbarment filed by Pedro Linsangan MOTIVE OR INTEREST, ENCOURAGE ANY SUIT OR
of the Linsangan Linsangan & Linsangan Law Office against PROCEEDING OR DELAY ANY MAN'S CAUSE.
Atty. Nicomedes Tolentino for solicitation of clients and This rule proscribes "ambulance chasing" (the solicitation
encroachment of professional services. of almost any kind of legal business by an attorney,
Complainant alleged that respondent, with the help of personally or through an agent in order to gain
paralegal Fe Marie Labiano, convinced his clients to employment) as a measure to protect the community from
transfer legal representation. Respondent promised them barratry and champerty.
financial assistance and expeditious collection on their
claims. To induce them to hire his services, he persistently Although respondent initially denied knowing Labiano in
called them and sent them text messages. his answer, he later admitted it during the mandatory
To support his allegations, complainant presented the hearing. Through Labiano's actions, respondent's law
sworn affidavit of James Gregorio attesting that Labiano practice was benefited. Hapless seamen were enticed to
tried to prevail upon him to sever his lawyer-client transfer representation on the strength of Labiano's word
relations with complainant and utilize respondent's that respondent could produce a more favorable result.
services instead, in exchange for a loan of P50,000.
Professional calling cards may only contain the following
The calling card attached of respondent also provides for details:
the words “with FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE.” (a) lawyer's name;
(b) name of the law firm with which he is
Respondent, in his defense, denied knowing Labiano and connected;
authorizing the printing and circulation of the said calling (c) address;
card. (d) telephone number and
(e) special branch of law practiced
Based on testimonial and documentary evidence, the CBD,
in its report and recommendation, found that respondent This crass commercialism degraded the integrity of the bar
had encroached on the professional practice of and deserved no place in the legal profession. However, in
complainant, violating Rule 8.02 and other canons of the the absence of substantial evidence to prove his
Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR). Moreover, he culpability, the Court is not prepared to rule that
contravened the rule against soliciting cases for gain, respondent was personally and directly responsible for the
personally or through paid agents or brokers as stated in printing and distribution of Labiano's calling cards.
Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court. Hence, the CBD
recommended that respondent be reprimanded with a Atty. Tolentino is ordered suspended for 1 year.
stern warning that any repetition would merit a heavier
penalty. Atty. Julito Vitriolo v. Atty. Felina Dasig
AC. No. 4984
ISSUE: WON the acts of Atty. Tolentino constitute a FACTS:
violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility Complainants filed a disbarment case against Atty. Felina
S. Dasig for gross misconduct in violation of the Attorney's
HELD: Oath. They claimed, among others, that during her term as
YES, Canons of the CPR are rules of conduct all lawyers Officer-In-Charge of the Legal Affairs Services of the
must adhere to, including the manner by which a lawyer's Commission on Higher Education (CHED), Atty. Dasig made
services are to be made known. Thus, Canon 3 of the CPR unlawful demands or attempted to extort money from
provides: certain individuals who had pending applications/requests
CANON 3 — A LAWYER IN MAKING KNOWN HIS LEGAL before her office in exchange for her promise to act
SERVICES SHALL USE ONLY TRUE, HONEST, FAIR, DIGNIFIED favorably on said requests/applications. Despite due
AND OBJECTIVE INFORMATION OR STATEMENT OF FACTS. notice, Atty. Dasig failed to file her comment or answer.
Accordingly, the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline
Time and time again, lawyers are reminded that the recommended that she be suspended from the practice of
practice of law is a profession and not a business; lawyers law for a period of three years.
should not advertise their talents as merchants advertise
their wares. To allow a lawyer to advertise his talent or In this case, the record shows that the respondent, on
skill is to commercialize the practice of law, degrade the various occasions, during her tenure as OIC, Legal Services,
profession in the public's estimation and impair its ability CHED, attempted to extort from Betty C. Mangohon,
to efficiently render that high character of service to which Rosalie B. Dela Torre, Rocella G. Eje, and Jacqueline N. Ng
every member of the bar is called. sums of money as consideration for her favorable action
on their pending applications or requests before her office.
Rule 2.03 of the CPR provides:
RULE 2.03.A LAWYER SHALL NOT DO OR PERMIT TO BE ISSUE:
DONE ANY ACT DESIGNED PRIMARILY TO SOLICIT LEGAL WON a lawyer, as officer-in-charge of legal services of
BUSINESS. HDacIT CHED, may be disciplined by the Court (YES)
Hence, lawyers are prohibited from soliciting cases for the WON the respondent violated the Code of Professional
purpose of gain, either personally or through paid agents Responsibility (YES)
or brokers. Such actuation constitutes malpractice, a
ground for disbarment. HELD:
Generally speaking, a lawyer who holds a government Following his marriage on June 6, 1982, petitioner moved
office may not be disciplined as a member of the Bar for to Bacolod City with his wife and commuted to work daily.
misconduct in the discharge of his duties as a government He suffered various ailments and was hospitalized on two
official. However, if said misconduct as a government separate occasions in June and August, 1982. In
official also constitutes a violation of his oath as a lawyer, November, 1982, he underwent fistulectomy, or the
then he may be disciplined by this Court as a member of surgical removal of the fistula, a deep sinuous ulcer.
the Bar. During his recuperation which lasted over four months, he
was under the care of Dr. Patricio Tan. In June, 1983, he
The Attorney's Oath is the source of the obligations and was confined for acute gastroenteritis and, thereafter, for
duties of every lawyer and any violation thereof is a infectious hepatitis from December, 1983 to January,
ground for disbarment, suspension, or other disciplinary 1984.
action. The Attorney's Oath imposes upon every member
of the bar the duty to delay no man for money or malice. During the entire periods of petitioner's illnesses, private
Said duty is further stressed in Rule 1.03 of the Code of respondent took care of his medical expenses and
Professional Responsibility. Respondent's demands for petitioner continued to receive compensation. However,
sums of money to facilitate the processing of pending in April, 1984, without due notice, private respondent
applications or requests before her office violates such ceased to pay the latter's salary. Petitioner made oral and
duty, and runs afoul of the oath she took when admitted written demands for an explanation for the sudden
to the Bar. Such actions likewise run contrary to Rule 1.03 withholding of his salary from Atty. Apolonio Sumbingco,
of the Code of Professional Responsibility. private respondent's auditor and legal adviser, as well as
for the remittance of his salary. Both demands, however,
The Court ruled that respondent's attempts to extort were not acted upon.
money from persons with applications or requests pending
before her office were violative of Rule 1.01 of the Code of Petitioner then filed an action with the National Labor
Professional Responsibility which prohibits members of Relations Commission against private respondent for
the Bar from engaging or participating in any unlawful, illegal dismissal.
dishonest, or deceitful acts. Moreover, said acts
constituted a breach of Rule 6.02 of the Code which bars NLRC dismissed the complaint holding that petitioner
lawyers in government service from promoting their abandoned his work and that the termination was for a
private interests. Promotion of private interests includes valid cause, but ordering respondent to pay petitioner the
soliciting gifts or anything of monetary value in any amount of 5,000 as penalty for his failure to serve notice
transaction requiring the approval of his office or which of said termination.
may be affected by the functions of his office.
Respondent's conduct in office fell short of the integrity ISSUE:
and good moral character required from all lawyers, WON there is abandonment (NO)
specially from one occupying a high public office. Thus, WON the petitioner was illegally dismissed (YES)
respondent Atty. Felina S. Dasig was found liable for gross
misconduct and dishonesty in violation of the Attorney's HELD:
Oath as well as the Code of Professional Responsibility and There is no abandonment because the requisites of the
was ordered disbarred. same did not concur which is the act of abandoning and
the intent of not coming back. There is illegal dismissal
For her violation of the Attorney's Oath as well as of Rule because the petitioner’s confinement cannot be
1.01 and Rule 1.03 of Canon 1 and Rule 6.02 of Canon 6 of considered as abandonment and no notice of his dismissal
the Code of Professional Responsibility, particularly for was made as prescribed by the Labor Code.
acts of dishonesty as well as gross misconduct as OIC,
Legal Services, CHED, we find that respondent deserves In the present case, we find that both petitioner and
not just the penalty of three years' suspension from private respondent can equally be faulted for fanning the
membership in the Bar as well as the practice of law, as flames which gave rise to and ultimately aggravated this
recommended by the IBP Board of Governors, but outright controversy, instead of sincerely negotiating a peaceful
disbarment. Her name shall be stricken off the list of settlement of their disparate claims. The records reveal
attorneys upon finality of this decision. how their actuations seethed with mutual antagonism and
the undeniable enmity between them negates the
Jon De Ysasi III v. NLRC likelihood that either of them acted in good faith. It is
GR. No. 104599 apparent that each one has a cause for damages against
FACTS: the other. For this reason, we hold that no moral or
The records of this case reveal that petitioner was exemplary damages can rightfully be awarded to
employed by his father, herein private respondent, as farm petitioner.
administrator of Hacienda Manucao in Hinigaran, Negros
Occidental sometime in April, 1980. Prior thereto, he was The conduct of the respective counsel of the parties, as
successively employed as sales manager of Triumph revealed by the records, sorely disappoints the Court and
International (Phil.), Inc. and later as operations manager invites reproof. Both counsel may well be reminded that
of Top Form Manufacturing (Phil.), Inc. His employment as their ethical duty as lawyers to represent their clients with
farm administrator was on a fixed salary, with other zeal goes beyond merely presenting their clients'
allowances covering housing, food, light, power, respective causes in court. It is just as much their
telephone, gasoline, medical and dental expenses. responsibility, if not more importantly, to exert all
reasonable efforts to smooth over legal conflicts,
preferably out of court and especially in consideration of
the direct and immediate consanguineous ties between some of whom were older practitioners — indicate the
their clients. Once again, we reiterate that the useful affiants' residence certificates on the documents they
function of a lawyer is not only to conduct litigation but to notarized, or have entries in their notarial register for
avoid it whenever possible by advising settlement or these documents.
withholding suit. He is often called upon less for dramatic
forensic exploits than for wise counsel in every phase of ISSUE:
life. He should be a mediator for concord and a conciliator WON Atty. Rafanan violated the Notarial Law (YES)
for compromise, rather than a virtuoso of technicality in WON Atty. Rafanan can be a witness to his client (YES)
the conduct of litigation.

Rule 1.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility HELD:

explicitly provides that "(a) lawyer shall encourage his We cannot give credence to, much less honor, his claim.
client to avoid, end or settle the controversy if it will admit His belief that the requirements do not apply to affidavits
of a fair settlement." On this point, we find that both is patently irrelevant. No law dispenses with these
counsels herein fell short of what was expected of them, formalities. Au contraire, the Notarial Law makes no
despite their avowed duties as officers of the court. The qualification or exception. It is appalling and inexcusable
records do not show that they took pains to initiate steps that he did away with the basics of notarial procedure
geared toward effecting a rapprochement between their allegedly because others were doing so. Being swayed by
clients. On the contrary, their acerbic and protracted the bad example of others is not an acceptable
exchanges could not but have exacerbated the situation justification for breaking the law.
even as they may have found favor in the equally hostile
eyes of their respective clients. cdphil It must be emphasized that the primary duty of lawyers is
In the same manner, we find that the labor arbiter who to obey the laws of the land and promote respect for the
handled this regrettable case has been less than faithful to law and legal processes. They are expected to be in the
the letter and spirit of the Labor Code mandating that a forefront in the observance and maintenance of the rule
labor arbiter "shall exert all efforts towards the amicable of law. This duty carries with it the obligation to be well-
settlement of a labor dispute within his jurisdiction." If he informed of the existing laws and to keep abreast with
ever did so, or at least entertained the thought, the legal developments, recent enactments and jurisprudence.
copious records of the proceedings in this controversy are It is imperative that they be conversant with basic legal
barren of any reflection of the same. principles. Unless they faithfully comply with such duty,
they may not be able to discharge competently and
diligently their obligations as members of the bar. Worse,
Santiago v. Atty. Edison Rafanan they may become susceptible to committing mistakes.
AC. No. 6252 Where notaries public are lawyers, a graver responsibility
FACTS: is placed upon them by reason of their solemn oath to
Before us is a verified Complaint filed by Jonar Santiago, an obey the laws. No custom or age-old practice provides
employee of the Bureau of Jail Management and Penology sufficient excuse or justification for their failure to adhere
(BJMP), for the disbarment of Atty. Edison V. Rafanan. to the provisions of the law. In this case, the excuse given
by respondent exhibited his clear ignorance of the Notarial
In his Letter-Complaint, Complainant alleged, among Law, the Rules of Criminal Procedure, and the importance
others, that Respondent in notarizing several documents of his office as a notary public.
on different dates failed and/or refused to: a) make the
proper notation regarding the cedula or community tax Nonetheless, we do not agree with complainant's plea to
certificate of the affiants; b) enter the details of the disbar respondent from the practice of law. The power to
notarized documents in the notarial register; and c) make disbar must be exercised with great caution.
and execute the certification and enter his PTR and IBP
numbers in the documents he had notarized, all in Parenthetically, under the law, a lawyer is not disqualified
violation of the notarial provisions of the Revised from being a witness, except only in certain cases
Administrative Code. IaHSCc pertaining to privileged communication arising from an
"Complainant likewise alleged that Respondent executed attorney-client relationship.
an Affidavit in favor of his client and offered the same as The reason behind such rule is the difficulty posed upon
evidence in the case wherein he was actively representing lawyers by the task of dissociating their relation to their
his client. Finally, Complainant alleges that on a certain clients as witnesses from that as advocates. Witnesses are
date, Respondent accompanied by several persons waited expected to tell the facts as they recall them. In
for Complainant after the hearing and after confronting contradistinction, advocates are partisans — those who
the latter disarmed him of his sidearm and thereafter actively plead and defend the cause of others. It is difficult
uttered insulting words and veiled threats. to distinguish the fairness and impartiality of a
disinterested witness from the zeal of an advocate.
He opined that the notation of residence certificates
applied only to documents acknowledged by a notary Notwithstanding this guideline and the existence of the
public and was not mandatory for affidavits related to Affidavit executed by Atty. Rafanan in favor of his clients,
cases pending before courts and other government offices. we cannot hastily make him administratively liable for the
He pointed out that in the latter, the affidavits, which following reasons:
were sworn to before government prosecutors, did not First, we consider it the duty of a lawyer to assert every
have to indicate the residence certificates of the affiants. remedy and defense that is authorized by law for the
Neither did other notaries public in Nueva Ecija — benefit of the client, especially in a criminal action in which
the latter's life and liberty are at stake. It is the
fundamental right of the accused to be afforded full
opportunity to rebut the charges against them. They are
entitled to suggest all those reasonable doubts that may
arise from the evidence as to their guilt; and to ensure that
if they are convicted, such conviction is according to law.
Having undertaken the defense of the accused,
respondent, as defense counsel, was thus expected to
spare no effort to save his clients from a wrong conviction.
He had the duty to present — by all fair and honorable
means — every defense and mitigating circumstance that
the law permitted, to the end that his clients would not be
deprived of life, liberty or property, except by due process
of law.
The Affidavit executed by Atty. Rafanan was clearly
necessary for the defense of his clients, since it pointed
out the fact that on the alleged date and time of the
incident, his clients were at his residence and could not
have possibly committed the crime charged against them.
Notably, in his Affidavit, complainant does not dispute the
statements of respondent or suggest the falsity of its
contents.
Second, paragraph (b) of Rule 12.08 contemplates a
situation in which lawyers give their testimonies during the
trial. In this instance, the Affidavit was submitted during
the preliminary investigation which, as such, was merely
inquisitorial. Not being a trial of the case on the merits, a
preliminary investigation has the oft-repeated purposes of
securing innocent persons against hasty, malicious and
oppressive prosecutions; protecting them from open and
public accusations of crime and from the trouble as well as
expense and anxiety of a public trial; and protecting the
State from useless and expensive prosecutions.
The investigation is advisedly called preliminary, as it is yet
to be followed by the trial proper. aDATHC
Nonetheless, we deem it important to stress and remind
respondent to refrain from accepting employment in any
matter in which he knows or has reason to believe that he
may be an essential witness for the prospective client.
Furthermore, in future cases in which his testimony may
become essential to serve the "ends of justice," the canons
of the profession require him to withdraw from the active
prosecution of these cases.

Atty. Edison V. Rafanan is found guilty of violating the

Notarial Law and Canon 5 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility and is hereby FINED P3,000 with a warning
that similar infractions in the future will be dealt with
more severely.