IN RE: TAGORDA MAR 23, 1929

In 1928, Luis Tagorda was a provincial board member of Isabela. Before his election, he
campaigned that he is a lawyer and a notary public; that as a notary public he can do
notarial acts such as execution of deeds of sale, etc.; that as a lawyer, he can help clients
collect debts; that he offers free consultation; that he is willing to serve the poor.
When he won, he wrote a letter to the barrio lieutenant of Echague, Isable advising the
latter that even though he was elected as a provincial board member, he can still practice
law; that he wants the lieutenant to tell the same to his people; that he is willing to receive
works regarding preparations of sales contracts and affidavits etc.; that he is willing to
receive land registration cases for a charge of three pesos.
ISSUE: Whether or not Tagorda is guilty of malpractice.
HELD: Yes. Tagorda admitted doing the foregoing acts. The practice of soliciting cases at
law for the purpose of gain, either personally or through paid agents or brokers, constitutes
malpractice.
The most worthy and effective advertisement possible, even for a young lawyer, and
especially with his brother lawyers, is the establishment of a well- merited reputation for
professional capacity and fidelity to trust. This cannot be forced, but must be the outcome of
character and conduct. Solicitation of business by circulars or advertisements, or by
personal communications or interviews not warranted by personal relations, is
unprofessional. It is equally unprofessional to procure business by indirection through
touters of any kind, whether allied real estate firms or trust companies advertising to secure
the drawing of deeds or wills or offering retainers in exchange for executorships or
trusteeships to be influenced by the lawyer. Indirect advertisement for business by
furnishing or inspiring newspaper comments concerning the manner of their conduct, the
magnitude of the interests involved, the importance of the lawyers position, and all other
like self-laudation, defy the traditions and lower the tone of our high calling, and are
intolerable.
It is unprofessional for a lawyer to volunteer advice to bring a lawsuit, except in rare cases
where ties of blood, relationship or trust make it his duty to do so.
Tagordas liability is however mitigated by the fact that he is a young inexperienced lawyer
and that he was unaware of the impropriety of his acts. So instead of being disbarred, he
was suspended from the practice of law for a month.
Adelino H. Ledesma v. Hon. Rafael C. Climaco
G.R. No. L- 23815 (June 28, 1974)

Legal Ethics : Definition

Facts:

Petitioner Ledesma was assigned as counsel de parte for an accused in a case pending in the
sala of the respondent judge. On October 13, 1964, Ledesma was appointed Election
Registrar for the Municipality of Cadiz, Negros Occidental. He commenced discharging his
duties, and filed a motion to withdraw from his position as counsel de parte. The respondent
Judge denied him and also appointed him as counsel de oficio for the two defendants. On
November 6, Ledesma filed a motion to be allowed to withdraw as counsel de oficio, because
the Comelec requires full time service which could prevent him from handling adequately
the defense. Judge denied the motion. So Ledesma instituted this certiorari proceeding.

Issue: Whether or not the order of the respondent judged in denying the motion of the
petitioner is a grave abuse of discretion?

Holding:

No, Ledesma's withdrawal would be an act showing his lack of fidelity to the duty rqeuired
of the legal profession. He ought to have known that membership in the bar is burdened
with conditions. The legal profession is dedicated to the ideal of service, and is not a mere
trade. A lawyer may be required to act as counsel de oficio to aid in the performance of the
administration of justice. The fact that such services are rendered without pay should not
diminish the lawyer's zeal.

Ratio:

The only attorneys who cannot practice law by reason of their office are Judges, or other
officials or employees of the superior courts or the office of the solicitor General (Section
32 Rule 127 of the Rules of Court [Section 35 of Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of
Court]. The lawyer involved not being among them, remained as counsel of record since he
did not file a motion to withdraw as defendant-appellants counsel after his appointment as
Register of Deeds. Nor was substitution of attorney asked either by him or by the new
counsel for the defendant-appellant (People vs. Williams CA G.R. Nos. 00375-76,
February 28, 1963)
To avoid any frustration thereof, especially in the case of an indigent defendant, a
lawyer may be required to act as counsel de officio (People v. Daban) Moreover, The right of
an accused in a criminal case to be represented by counsel is a constitutional right of the
highest importance, and there can be no fair hearing with due process of law unless he is
fully informed of his rights in this regard and given opportunity to enjoy them (People vs.
Holgado, L-2809, March 22, 1950)
 The trial court in a criminal case has authority to provide the accused with a
counsel de officio for such action as it may deem fit to safeguard the rights of the
accused (Provincial Fiscal of Rizal vs. Judge Muoz Palma, L-15325, August 31,
1930
TAN TEK BENG vs DAVID 126 SCRA 389

In 1970, Atty. David and Tan TekBeng, a non-lawyer, entered into an agreement whereby
Tan TekBeng will supply clients to Atty. David and in exchange thereof, Atty. David shall
give Tan TekBeng 50% of the attorneys fees collected as the latters commission. Atty.
David also agreed not to deal with clients supplied by Tan TekBeng directly without the
latters consent. The agreement went sour due to allegations of double-cross from both
sides. Tan TekBeng denounced Atty. David before the Supreme Court but did not seek the
enforcement of their agreement.
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. David is guilty of Malpractice.
HELD: Yes. The agreement between Atty. David and Tan TekBeng is void because it was
tantamount to malpractice which is the practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of
gain, either personally or through paid agents or brokers Sec. 27, Rule 138, Rules of
Court). Malpractice ordinarily refers to any malfeasance or dereliction of duty committed by
a lawyer. Section 27 gives a special and technical meaning to the term malpractice.
That meaning is in consonance with the elementary notion that the practice of law is a
profession, not a business. The lawyer may not seek or obtain employment by himself or
through others for to do so would be unprofessional.
On the agreement to divide the attorneys fees, the Supreme Court noted: No division of
fees for legal services is proper, except with another lawyer, based upon a division of
service or responsibility.
On the agreement that Atty. David shall not deal with clients supplied by Beng directly: The
professional services of a lawyer should not be controlled or exploited by any law agency,
personal or corporate, which intervenes between client and lawyer. A lawyers
responsibilities and qualifications are individual. He should avoid all relations which direct
the performance of his duties by or in the interest of such intermediary. A lawyers relation
to his client should be personal, and the responsibility should be direct to the client. . . .
 Mauricio Ulep vs The Legal Clinic

In 1984, The Legal Clinic was formed by Atty. Rogelio Nogales. Its aim, according to
Nogales was to move toward specialization and to cater to clients who cannot afford the
services of big law firms. Now, Atty. Mauricio Ulep filed a complaint against The Legal Clinic
because of the latters advertisements which contain the following:
SECRET MARRIAGE?
P560.00 for a valid marriage.
Info on DIVORCE. ABSENCE. ANNULMENT. VISA.
THE LEGAL CLINIC, INC.
Please call: 521-0767; 521-7232; 522-2041
8:30am 6:00pm
7th Flr. Victoria Bldg., UN Ave., Manila
GUAM DIVORCE
DON PARKINSON
An attorney in Guam is giving FREE BOOKS on Guam Divorce through The Legal
Clinic beginning Monday to Friday during office hours.
Guam divorce. Annulment of Marriage. Immigration Problems, Visa Ext. Quota/Non-
quota Res. & Special Retirees Visa. Declaration of Absence. Remarriage to Filipina
Fiancees. Adoption. Investment in the Phil. US/Foreign Visa for Filipina
Spouse/Children.
Call Marivic.
THE LEGAL CLINIC, INC.
7th Flr. Victoria Bldg., UN Ave., Manila nr. US Embassy
Tel. 521-7232, 521-7251, 522-2041, 521-0767
It is also alleged that The Legal Clinic published an article entitled Rx for Legal Problems
in Star Week of Philippine Star wherein Nogales stated that they The Legal Clinic is
composed of specialists that can take care of a clients problem no matter how complicated
it is even if it is as complicated as the Sharon Cuneta-Gabby Concepcion situation. He said
that he and his staff of lawyers, who, like doctors, are specialists in various fields, can take
care of it. The Legal Clinic, Inc. has specialists in taxation and criminal law, medico-legal
problems, labor, litigation and family law. These specialists are backed up by a battery of
paralegals, counselors and attorneys.
As for its advertisement, Nogales said it should be allowed in view of the jurisprudence in
the US which now allows it (John Bates vs The State Bar of Arizona). And that besides, the
 advertisement is merely making known to the public the services that The Legal Clinic
offers.
ISSUE: Whether or not The Legal Clinic is engaged in the practice of law; whether such is
allowed; whether or not its advertisement may be allowed.
HELD: Yes, The Legal Clinic is engaged in the practice of law however, such practice is not
allowed. The Legal Clinic is composed mainly of paralegals. The services it offered include
various legal problems wherein a client may avail of legal services from simple
documentation to complex litigation and corporate undertakings. Most of these services are
undoubtedly beyond the domain of paralegals, but rather, are exclusive functions of lawyers
engaged in the practice of law. Under Philippine jurisdiction however, the services being
offered by Legal Clinic which constitute practice of law cannot be performed by paralegals.
Only a person duly admitted as a member of the bar and who is in good and regular
standing, is entitled to practice law.
Anent the issue on the validity of the questioned advertisements, the Code of Professional
Responsibility provides that a lawyer in making known his legal services shall use only true,
honest, fair, dignified and objective information or statement of facts. The standards of the
legal profession condemn the lawyers advertisement of his talents. A lawyer cannot,
without violating the ethics of his profession, advertise his talents or skills as in a manner
similar to a merchant advertising his goods. Further, the advertisements of Legal Clinic
seem to promote divorce, secret marriage, bigamous marriage, and other circumventions of
law which their experts can facilitate. Such is highly reprehensible.
The Supreme Court also noted which forms of advertisement are allowed. The best
advertising possible for a lawyer is a well-merited reputation for professional capacity and
fidelity to trust, which must be earned as the outcome of character and conduct. Good and
efficient service to a client as well as to the community has a way of publicizing itself and
catching public attention. That publicity is a normal by-product of effective service which is
right and proper. A good and reputable lawyer needs no artificial stimulus to generate it and
to magnify his success. He easily sees the difference between a normal by-product of able
service and the unwholesome result of propaganda. The Supreme Court also enumerated
the following as allowed forms of advertisement:

1. Advertisement in a reputable law list

2. Use of ordinary simple professional card
3. Listing in a phone directory but without designation as to his specialization