OCA CIRCULAR NO. 103-2004, August 31, 2004

For the information and guidance of all concerned,
quoted hereunder is the Resolution of the First Division of this Court
dated August 19, 2003 in Administrative Case No. 5299 entitled “Atty.
Ismael G. Khan, Jr. vs. Atty. Rizalino T. Simbillo” and G.R. No. 157053
entitled “Atty. Rizalino T. Simbillo vs. IBP Commission on Bar
Discipline, et al.”, to wit:

Ms. Ma. Theresa B. Espeleta, a staff
member of the Public Information Office of the Supreme Court, called up
the published telephone number and pretended to be an interested party.
She spoke to Mrs. Simbillo, who claimed that her husband, Atty. Rizalino
Simbillo, was expert in handling annulment cases and can guarantee a
court decree within four to six months, provided the case will not
involve separation of property or custody of children. Mrs. Simbillo
also said that her husband charges a fee of P48,000.00 f half of which
is payable at the time of filing of the case and the other half after a
decision thereon has been rendered.

Further research by the Office of the Court
Administrator and the Public Information Office revealed that similar
advertisements were published in the August 2 and 6, 2000 issues of the
Manila Bulletin and August 5, 2000 issue of The Philippine Star.^[2]

On September 1, 2000 , Atty. Ismael G. Khan, Jr., in his capacity as Assistant Court Administrator and Chief of the Public

Information Office, filed an administrative
complaint against Arty. Rizalino T. Simbillo for improper advertising
and solicitation of his legal services, in violation of Rule 2.03 and
Rule 3.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Rule 138,
Section 27 of the Rules of Court.^[3]

In his answer, respondent admitted the acts imputed to him, but argued that advertising and solicitation per se are
not prohibited acts; that the time has come to change our views about
the prohibition on advertising and solicitation; that the interest of
the public is not served by the absolute prohibition on lawyer
advertising; that the Court can lift the ban on lawyer advertising; and
that the rationale behind the decades-old prohibition should be
abandoned. Thus, he prayed that he be exonerated from all the charges
against him and that the Court promulgate a ruling that advertisement of
legal services offered by a lawyer is not contrary to law, public
policy and public orders as long as it is dignified.^[4]

The case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for investigation, report and recommendation.^[5] On June 29, 2002 , the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline passed Resolution No. XV- 2002-306,^[6]
finding respondent guilty of violation of Rules 2.03 and 3.01 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility and Rule 138, Section 27 of the
Rules of Court, and suspended him from the practice of law for one (1)
year with the warning that a repetition of similar acts would be dealt
with more severely. The IBP Resolution was noted by this Court on
November 11, 2002.^[7]

In the meantime, respondent filed an Urgent Motion for Reconsideration,^[8] which was denied by the IBP in Resolution No. XV-2002-606 dated October 3 9, 2002^[9]

Hence, the instant petition for certiorari, which was docketed as G.R. No. 157053 entitled,
“Atty. Rizalino T. Simbillo, Petitioner versus IBP Commission on Bar
Discipline, Atty. Ismael G. Khan, Jr., Asst. Court Administrator and
Chief, Public Information Office, Respondents.” This petition was consolidated with A.C. No. 5299 per the Court’s Resolution dated March 4,2003 .

In a Resolution dated March 26, 2003, the parties
were required to manifest whether or not they were willing to submit the
case for resolution on the basis of the pleadings.^[10]
Complainant filed his Manifestation on April 25, 2003, stating that he
is not submitting any additional pleading or evidence and is submitting
the case for its early resolution on the basis of pleadings and records
thereof.^[11] Respondent, on the other hand, filed a Supplemental Memorandum on June 20, 2003.

We agree with the IBP’s Resolutions Nos. XV-2002-306 and XV-2002-606.

 

Rules 2.03 and 3.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility 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.

Rule 138. Section 27 of the Rules of Court states:

SEC. 27. Disbarment end suspension of attorneys by Supreme Court, grounds therefore. – 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 been repeatedly stressed that the practice of law is not a business.^[12]
It is a profession in which duty to public service, not money, is the
primary consideration. Lawyering is not primarily meant to be a
money-making venture, and law advocacy is not a capital that necessarily
yields profits.^[13] The gaining of a livelihood should be a secondary consideration.^[14]
The duty to public service and to the administration of justice should
be the primary consideration of lawyers, who must subordinate their
personal interests or what they owe to themselves.^[15] The following elements distinguish the legal profession from a business:

1. 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;

2. A relation as an “officer of the court” to the
   administration of justice involving thorough sincerity, integrity and
   reliability;

3. A relation to clients in the highest degree of fiduciary;
4. A relation to colleagues at the bar characterized by
   candor, fairness, and unwillingness to resort to current business
   methods of advertising and encroachment on their practice, or dealing
   directly with their clients.^[16]

There is no question that respondent
committed the acts complained of. He himself admits that he caused the
publication of the advertisements. While he professes repentance and
begs for the Court’s indulgence, his contrition rings hollow considering
the fact the he advertised his legal services again after he pleaded
for compassion and after claiming that he had no intention to violate
the rules. Eights months after filing his answer, he again advertised
his legal services in the August 14, 2001 issue of the Buy & Sell
Free Ads Newspaper.^[17] Ten months later, he caused the same advertisement to be published in the October 5, 2001 issue of Buy & Sell.^[18]Such acts of respondent are a deliberate and contemptuous affront on the Court’s authority.

What adds to the gravity of respondent’s acts is
that in advertising himself as a self-styled “Annulment of Marriage
Specialist/ 1 he wittingly or unwittingly erodes and undermines not only
the stability but also the sanctity of an institution still considered
sacrosanct despite the contemporary climate of permissiveness in our
society. Indeed, in assuring prospective clients that an annulment may
be obtained in four to six months from the time of the filing of the
case,^[19] he in fact
encourages people, who might have otherwise been disinclined and would
have refrained from dissolving their marriage bonds, to do so.

Nonetheless, the solicitation of legal business
is not altogether proscribed. However, for solicitation to be proper, it
must be compatible with the dignity of the legal profession. If it is
made in a modest and decorous manner, it would bring no injury to the
lawyer and to the bar.^[20]
Thus, the use of simple signs stating the name or names of the lawyers,
the office and residence address and fields of practice, as well as
advertisement in legal periodicals bearing the same brief data, are
permissible. Even the use of calling cars is now acceptable.^[21]
Publication in reputable law lists, in a manner consistent with the
standards of conduct imposed by the canon, of brief biographical and
informative data is likewise allowable. As explicitly stated in Ulep v.
Legal Clinic, Inc.:^[22]

 

Such data must not be misleading and
may include only a statement of the lawyer’s name and the names of his
professional associates; addresses, telephone numbers, cable addresses;
branches of law practiced; date and place of birth and admission to the
bar; schools attended with dates of graduation, degrees and other
educational 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.

The 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. For that reason, a lawyer may not property publish his brief biographical and informative data In a dally paper, magazine, trade journal or society program. Nor may a lawyer permit his name to be
published in a law list the conduct, management, contents of which are
calculated or likely to deceive or injure the public or the bar, or to
lower dignity or standing of the profession.

The use of an ordinary simple professional card
is also permitted. The card may contain 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. The 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 objectionable. He may likewise
have his name listed in a telephone directory but not under a designation of special branch of law. (emphasis and italics supplied)

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, respondent RIZALINO T. SMBILLO is found GUILTY of
violation of Rules 2.03 and 3.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility and Rule . 138, Section 27 of the Rules of Court. He is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for ONE (1) YEAR effective upon receipt of this Resolution. He is likewise STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar offense will be dealt with more severely.

Let copies of this Resolution be entered in his
record as attorney and be furnished the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines and all courts in the country for their information and
guidance.

SO ORDERED.”

Copy of the resolution was received by respondent on
August 27, 2003. The motion for reconsideration filed by respondent was
denied for lack of merit in the resolution dated November 12, 2003.

__31__ August 2004.