Ui vs.

Bonifacio

Adm. Case No. 3319, June 8, 2000

Facts:

Complainant Lesli Ui found out that her husband Carlos Ui was carrying out an illicit relationship
with respondent Atty. Iris Bonifacio with whom he begot two children. Hence, a complaint for
disbarment was filed by complainant against respondent before the Commission on Bar Discipline of
the Integrated Bar of the Philippines on the ground of immorality, more particularly, for carrying on
an illicit relationship with the complainant’s husband. It is respondent’s contention that her
relationship with Carlos Ui is not illicit because they were married abroad and that after June 1988,
when respondent discovered Carlos Ui’s true civil status, she cut off all her ties with him.
Respondent averred that Carlos Ui never lived with her.

Issue:

Whether or not she has conducted herself in an immoral manner for which she deserves to be barred
from the practice of law.

Held:

The complaint for disbarment against respondent Atty. Iris L. Bonifacio, for alleged immorality, was
dismissed.

All the facts taken together leads to the inescapable conclusion that respondent was imprudent in
managing her personal affairs. However, the fact remains that her relationship with Carlos Ui,
clothed as it was with what respondent believed was a valid marriage, cannot be considered immoral.
For immorality connotes conduct that shows indifference to the moral norms of society and the
opinion of good and respectable members of the community. Moreover, for such conduct to warrant
disciplinary action, the same must be “grossly immoral,” that is, it must be so corrupt and false as to
constitute a criminal act or so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high degree.
Linsangan vs. Tolentino

A.C. No. 6672, September 4, 2009

Conrona, J:

FACTS:

A complaint for disbarment was filed by Pedro Linsangan against Atty. Nicomedes Tolentino for
solicitation of

clients and encroachment of professional services. Complaint alleged that respondent, with the help of
paralegal Fe

Marie Labiano, convinced his clients to transfer legal representation. Respondent promised them
financial assistance

and expeditious collection on their claims. To induce them to hire his services, he persistently called
them and sent

them text messages. To support his allegations, complainant presented the sworn affidavit of James
Grogorio

attesting that Labiano tried to prevail upon him to sever his lawyer-client relations with complainant and
utilize

respondent’s services instead, in exchange for a loan of P50, 000.00. Complainant also attached
“respondent’s”

calling card. Respondent, in his defence, denied knowing Labiano and authorizing the printing and
circulation of the

said calling card.

ISSUE:

Whether the respondent encroached the professional practice of complainant.

HELD:

Yes. Rule 2.03 of the CPR provides that a lawyer shall not do or permit to be done any act designed
primarily to

solicit legal business. Hence, lawyers are prohibited from soliciting cases for the purpose of gain, either
personally

or through paid agents or brokers. Such actuation constitutes malpractice, a ground for disbarment.
Rule 2.03 should

be read in connection with Rule 1.03 of the CPR which provides that lawyer, shall not for any corrupt
motive or
interest, encourage any suit or proceeding or delay any man’s cause. This rule proscribes “ambulance
chasing” (the

solicitation of almost any kind of legal business by an attorney, personally or through an agent in order
to gain

employment) as a measure to protect the community from barratry and champerty. In the case at bar,
complainant

presented substantial evidence (consisting of the sworn statements of the very same persons coaxed by
Labiano and

referred to respondent’s office) to prove that respondent indeed solicited legal business as well as
profited from

referrals’ suits. Through Labiano’s actions, respondent’s law practice was benefited. Hapless seamen
were enticed to

transfer representation on the strength of Labiano’s word that respondent could produce a more
favourable result.

Based on the foregoing, respondent clearly solicited employment violating Rule 2.03, and Rule 1.03 and
Canon 3 of

the CPR and section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court. Any act of solicitations constitutes malpractice
which calls

for the exercise of the Court’s disciplinary powers. Violation of anti-solicitation statues warrants serious
sanctions

for initiating contact with a prospective client for the purpose of obtaining employment. Thus in this
jurisdiction, we

adhere to the rule to protect the public from the Machiavellian machinations of unscrupulous lawyers
and to uphold

the nobility of the legal profession.

40. MAURICIO ULEP v. THE LEGAL CLINIC A.C. NO. L-553 JUNE 17, 1993

FACTS:

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 latter’s advertisements
which contains 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 7 th 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 Retiree’s 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. 7 th 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 client’s 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.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION:

ACCORDINGLY, the Court Resolved to RESTRAIN and ENJOIN herein respondent, The Legal Clinic, Inc.,
from issuing or causing the publication or dissemination of any advertisement in any form which is of
the same or similar tenor and purpose as Annexes "A" and "B" of this petition, and from conducting,
directly or indirectly, any activity, operation or transaction proscribed by law or the Code of Professional
Ethics as indicated herein.

DOCTRINE:

A lawyer cannot, without violating the ethics of his profession. Advertise his talents or skill as in a
manner similar to a merchant advertising his goods. The prescription against advertising of legal services
or solicitation of legal business rests on the fundamental postulate that the practice of law is a
profession.

FACTS: 

On September 4, 1959, the Chief of Police of Alaminos, Laguna, charged Simplicio Villanueva with the
crime of Malicious Mischief, before the Justice of the Peace Court of said municipality. Said accused was
represented by counsel de oficio, but later on replaced by counsel de parte. The complainant in the
same case was represented by City AttorneyAriston Fule of San Pablo City, having entered his
appearance as private-prosecutor, after securing the permission of the Secretary of Justice. The
condition of his appearance as such, was that every time he would appear at the trial of the case, he
would be considered on official leave of absence, and that he would not receive any payment for his
services. The appearance of City Attorney Fule as private prosecutor was questioned by the counsel for
the accused.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the isolated appearance of Atty. Fule as private prosecutor constitutes practice of law.

RULING:

No. Assistant City Attorney Fule appeared in the Justice of the Peace Court as ah agent or friend of the
offended party. It does not appear that he was being paid for his services or that his appearance was in a
professional capacity. As Assistant City Attorney of Sail Pablo he had no control or intervention
whatsoever in the prosecution of crimes committed in the municipality of Alaminos, Laguna, because
the prosecution of criminal cases coming from Alaminos are handled by the Office of the Provincial Fiscal
and not by the City Attorney of San Pablo. As such, there could be no possible conflict in the duties of
Assistant City Attorney Fule us Assistant City Attorney of San Pablo and as private prosecutor in this
criminal case. Furthermore, the isolated appearance of City Attorney Fule did not constitute private
practice, within the meaning and contemplation of the Rules. Practice is more than an isolated
appearance, for it consists in frequent or customary action, a succession of acts of the same kind. In
other words, it is frequent habitual exercise. Practice of law to fall within the prohibition of statute has
been interpreted as customarily or habitually holding one's self out to the public, as a lawyer and
demanding payment for such services. Thus, the appearance as counsel on one occasion, is not
conclusive as determinative of engagement in the private practice of law. And, it has never been refuted
that City Attorney Fule had been given permission by his immediate supervisor, the Secretary of Justice,
to represent the complaint in the case at bar who is a relative. Decision affirmed.