Director of Religious Affairs v. Baluyot, 74 PHIL 579

Facts:The respondent (Estanislao Baluyot), is an attorney-at-law was complained by the Director of Religious Affairs alleging that the respondent is committed malpractice for having published an advertisement in the Sunday Tribune stating its services regarding Marriage Licenses. At first, respondent denied that he cause the publishing of the said advertisement but later on thru his attorney, he admitted having caused the publication and also prayed for the “indulgence and mercy” of the Court by promising that he will not repeat again such professional misconduct in the future to abide himself to the strict ethical rules of the law of profession.

Issue:W/N Baluyot committed a violation in the Ethics of his profession by publishing an advertisement for its services?

Ruling:It is undeniable that the advertisement in question was a flagrant violation by the respondent of the ethics of his profession, it being a brazen solicitation of business from the public. Section 25 of Rule 127 expressly provides among other things that "the practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either personally or thru paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice." It is highly unethical for an attorney to advertise his talents or skill as a merchant advertises his wares. Law is a profession and not a trade. The lawyer degrades himself and his profession who stoops to and adopts the practices of mercantilism by advertising his services or offering them to the public. As a member of the bar, he defiles the temple of justice with mercenary activities as the money-changers of old defiled the temple of Jehovah. "The most worth and effective advertisement possible, even for a young lawyer, . . . 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." (Canon 27, Code of Ethics.)

Linsangan v. Atty. Tolentino, supra

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 Gregorio 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 defense, denied knowing Labiano and authorizing the printing and circulation of the said calling card.

Issue:Whether or not Tolentino’s actions warrant disbarment.

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 favorable 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, the Court adheres to the rule to protect the public from the Machiavellian machinations of unscrupulous lawyers and to uphold the nobility of the legal profession.