PALE Casereport

8/10/2019 PALE Casereport

1/5

[A.C. No. 5299. August 19, 2003]

ATTY. ISMAEL G. KHAN, JR., Assst!"t Cou#t A$%"st#!to# !"$ C&'(,)u*+ I"(o#%!to" -((',complainant, vs.ATTY. RIALIN- T.SIM/ILL-, respondent.

[G.R. No. 15053. August 19, 2003]

ATTY. RIALIN- T. SIM/ILL-,petitioner, vs. I/) C-MMISSI-N -N/AR ISCI)LINE !"$ ATTY. ISMAEL G. KHAN, JR., " &s!!t !s Assst!"t Cou#t A$%"st#!to# !"$ C&'(, )u*+I"(o#%!to" -((',respondents.

R E S - L 4 T I - N

YNARESSANTIAG-, J.6

This administrative complaint arose from a paid advertisement thatappeared in the July 5, 2000 issue of the newspaper, Philippine Daily

Inquirer, which reads: !""#$%&"T '( %!))I!*& +pecialist 52-./52-21134 6

%s3 %a3 Theresa 73 &speleta, a staff mem8er of the Pu8lic Information'ffice of the +upreme 9ourt, called up the pu8lished telephone num8er andpretended to 8e an interested party3 +he spoe to %rs3 +im8illo, who claimedthat her hus8and, !tty3 )i;alino +im8illo, was an e,000300, half of which

is paya8le at the time of filin= of the case and the other half after a decisionthereon has 8een rendered3

(urther research 8y the 'ffice of the 9ourt !dministrator and the Pu8licInformation 'ffice revealed that similar advertisements were pu8lished in the

!u=ust 2 and 1, 2000 issues of the %anila 7ulletin and !u=ust 5, 2000 issueof The Philippine +tar326
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/aug2003/ac_5299.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/aug2003/ac_5299.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/aug2003/ac_5299.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/aug2003/ac_5299.htm#_ftn1


2/5


3/5

records thereof36)espondent, on the other hand, filed a +upplemental%emorandum on June 20, 2003

He a=ree with the I7PGs )esolutions "os3 BC-2002-01 and BC-2002-1013

)ules 230 and 30 of the 9ode of Professional )esponsi8ility read:

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 any false, fraudulent,

misleading, deceptive, undignified, self-laudatory or unfair statement or claim

regarding his qualifications or legal services.

)ule >, +ection 2 of the )ules of 9ourt states:

SEC. 27.Disbarment and suspension of attorneys by Supreme Court, groundstherefor. A member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended from his office as

attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice or other gross misconduct

in such office, grossly immoral conduct or by reason of his conviction of a crime

involving moral turpitude, or for any violation of the oath which he is required to take

before the admission to practice, or for a willful disobedience appearing as attorney

for a party without authority to do so.

It has 8een repeatedly stressed that the practice of law is not a 8usiness326It is a profession in which duty to pu8lic service, not money, is the primary

consideration3 $awyerin= is not primarily meant to 8e a money-main=venture, and law advocacy is not a capital that necessarily yields profits36The=ainin= of a livelihood should 8e a secondary consideration3 .6The duty topu8lic service and to the administration of ustice should 8e the primaryconsideration of lawyers, who must su8ordinate their personal interests orwhat they owe to themselves3 56The followin= elements distin=uish the le=alprofession from a 8usiness:

. A duty of public service, of which the emolument is a by-product, and

in which one may attain the highest eminence without making much

money!

". A relation as an #officer of the court$ to the administration of %ustice

involving thorough sincerity, integrity and reliability!

&. A relation to clients in the highest degree of fiduciary!
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/aug2003/ac_5299.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/aug2003/ac_5299.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/aug2003/ac_5299.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/aug2003/ac_5299.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/aug2003/ac_5299.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/aug2003/ac_5299.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/aug2003/ac_5299.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/aug2003/ac_5299.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/aug2003/ac_5299.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/aug2003/ac_5299.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/aug2003/ac_5299.htm#_ftn15


4/5

'. A relation to colleagues at the bar characteri(ed by candor, fairness, and

unwillingness to resort to current business methods of advertising and

encroachment on their practice, or dealing directly with their clients. )*+

There is no question that respondent committed the acts complained

of3 Fe himself admits that he caused the pu8lication of theadvertisements3 Hhile he professes repentance and 8e=s for the 9ourtGsindul=ence, his contrition rin=s hollow considerin= the fact that he advertisedhis le=al services a=ain after he pleaded for compassion and after claimin=that he had no intention to violate the rules3 &i=ht months after filin= hisanswer, he a=ain advertised his le=al services in the !u=ust ., 200 issue ofthe 7uy +ell (ree !ds "ewspaper36Ten months later, he caused the sameadvertisement to 8e pu8lished in the 'cto8er 5, 200 issue of 7uy +ell3>6+uch acts of respondent are a deli8erate and contemptuous affront on the9ourtGs authority3

Hhat adds to the =ravity of respondentGs acts is that in advertisin= himselfas a self-styled !nnulment of %arria=e +pecialist,4 he wittin=ly or unwittin=lyerodes and undermines not only the sta8ility 8ut also the sanctity of aninstitution still considered sacrosanct despite the contemporary climate ofpermissiveness in our society3 Indeed, in assurin= prospective clients that anannulment may 8e o8tained in four to si< months from the time of the filin= ofthe case,A6he in fact encoura=es people, who mi=ht have otherwise 8eendisinclined and would have refrained from dissolvin= their marria=e 8onds, todo so3

"onetheless, the solicitation of le=al 8usiness is not alto=etherproscri8ed3 Fowever, for solicitation to 8e proper, it must 8e compati8le withthe di=nity of the le=al profession3 If it is made in a modest and decorousmanner, it would 8rin= no inury to the lawyer and to the 8ar3 206Thus, the use ofsimple si=ns statin= the name or names of the lawyers, the office andresidence address and fields of practice, as well as advertisement in le=alperiodicals 8earin= the same 8rief data, are permissi8le3 &ven the use ofcallin= cards is now accepta8le326Pu8lication in reputa8le law lists, in amanner consistent with the standards of conduct imposed 8y the canon, of

8rief 8io=raphical and informative data is liewise allowa8le3 !s e


5/5

distinctions! public or quasi-public offices! posts of honor! legal authorships! legal

teaching positions! membership and offices in bar associations and committees

thereof, in legal and scientific societies and legal fraternities! the fact of listings in

other reputable law lists! the names and addresses of references! and, with their

written consent, the names of clients regularly represented.

he law list must be a reputable law list published primarily for that purpose! it

cannot be a mere supplemental feature of a paper, magazine, trade journal or

periodical which is published principally for other purposes. Forthat reason,a

lawyer may not properly publish his brief biographical and informative data in a

daily paper, magazine, trade journal or society program. Nor may a lawyer permit

his name to be published in a law list the conduct, management, or contents of which

are calculated or liely to decei!e or injure the public or the bar, or to lower dignity

or standing of the profession.

he use of an ordinary simple professional card is also permitted. he card maycontain only a statement of his name, the name of the law firm which he is connected

with, address, telephone number and special branch of law practiced. he publication

of a simple announcement of the opening of a law firm or of changes in the

partnership, associates, firm name or office address, being for the convenience of the

profession, is not ob%ectionable. e may likewise have his name listed in a telephone

directory but not under a designation of special branch of law./emphasis and italics

supplied0

7HERE8-RE, in view of the fore=oin=, respondent )IK!$I"' T3

+I%7I$$' is found *#I$TL of violation of )ules 230 and 30 of the 9ode ofProfessional )esponsi8ility and )ule >, +ection 2 of the )ules of9ourt3 Fe is +#+P&"D&D from the practice of law for '"& E L&!)effective upon receipt of this )esolution3 Fe is liewise +T&)"$L H!)"&Dthat a repetition of the same or similar offense will 8e dealt with more severely3

$et copies of this )esolution 8e entered in his record as attorney and 8efurnished the Inte=rated 7ar of the Philippines and all courts in the country fortheir information and =uidance3

PALE Casereport

Documents

Transcript of PALE Casereport