. March 23, 1929
IN RE LUIS B. TAGORDA
MALCOLM, J.:
of the provincial board of Isabela, admits that previous to the last
general elections he made use of a card written in Spanish and Ilocano,
which, in translation, reads as follows:
“LUIS B. TAGORDA
“Attorney
“Notary Public
“CANDIDATE FOR THIRD MEMBER
“Province of Isabela
” (Note.—As notary public, he can execute for you a
deed of sale for the purchase of land as required by the cadastral
office; can renew lost documents of your animals; can make your
application and final requisites for your homestead; and can execute
any kind of affidavit. As a lawyer, he can help you collect your loans
although long overdue, as well as any complaint for or against you.
Come or write to him in his town, Echague, Isabela. He offers free
consultation, and is willing to help and serve the poor.)”
The respondent further admits that he is the author of a letter
addressed to a lieutenant of barrio in his home municipality written in
Ilocano, which letter, in translation, reads as follows:
ECHAGUE, ISABELA, September 18, 1928
“MY
DEAR LIEUTENANT : I would like to inform you of the approaching date
for our induction into office as member of the Provincial Board, that
is on the 16th of next month. Before my induction into office I should
be very glad to hear your suggestions or recommendations for the good
of the province in general and for your barrio in particular. You can
come to my house at any time here in Echague, to submit to me any kind
of suggestion or recommendation as you may desire.“I also
inform you that despite my membership in the Board I will have my
residence here in Echague. I will attend the sessions of the Board in
Ilagan, but will come back home on the following day here in Echague to
live and serve with you as a lawyer and notary public. Despite my
election as member of the Provincial Board, I will exercise my legal
profession as a lawyer and notary public. In case you cannot see me at
home on any week day, I assure you that you can always find me there on
every Sunday. I also inform you that I will receive any work regarding
preparations of documents of contract of sales and affidavits to be
sworn to before me as notary public even on Sundays.“I would
like you all to be informed of this matter for the reason that some
people are in the belief that my residence as member of the Board will
be in Ilagan and that I would then be disqualified to exercise my
profession as lawyer and as notary public. Such is not the case and I
would make it clear that I am free to exercise my profession as
formerly and that I will have my residence here in Echague.“I
would request your kind favor to transmit this information to your
barrio people in any of your meetings or social gatherings so that they
may be informed of my desire to live and to serve with you in my
capacity as lawyer and notary public. If the people in your locality
have not as yet contracted the services of other lawyers in connection
with the registration of their land titles, I woul4 be willing to
handle the work in court and would charge only three pesos for every
registration.“Yours respectfully,
(Sgd.) “LUIS TAGORDA
“Attorney
“Notary Public”
The facts being conceded, it is next in order to write down the
applicable legal provisions. Section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure
as originally conceived related to disbarments of members of the bar.
In 1919 at the instigation of the Philippine Bar Association, said
codal section was amended by Act No. 2828 by adding at the end thereof
the following: “The practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose
of gain, either personally or through paid agents or brokers,
constitutes malpractice.”
The statute as amended conforms in principle to the Canons of
Professional Ethics adopted by the American Bar Association in 1908 and
by the Philippine Bar Association in 1917. Canons 27 and 28 of the Code
of Ethics provide:
“27. ADVERTISING, DIRECT OR INDIRECT.—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. The publication or circulation of ordinary simple business
cards, being a matter of personal taste or local custom, and sometimes
of convenience, is not per se improper. But 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 lawyer’s position, and all other like self-laudation, defy the
traditions and lower the tone of our high calling, and are intolerable.“28.
STIRRING UP LITIGATION, DIRECTLY OR THROUGH AGENTS.—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. Stirring up strife and litigation is not only
unprofessional, but it is indictable at common law. It is disreputable
to hunt up defects in titles or other causes of action and inform
thereof in order to be employed to bring suit, or to breed litigation
by seeking out those with claims for personal injuries or those having
any other grounds of action in order to secure them as clients, or to
employ agents or runners for like purposes, or to pay or reward
directly or indirectly, those who bring or influence the bringing of
such cases to his office, or to remunerate policemen, court or prison
officials, physicians, hospital attaches or others who may succeed,
under the guise of giving disinterested friendly advice, in influencing
the criminal, the sick and the injured, the ignorant or others, to seek
his professional services. A duty to the public and to the profession
devolves upon every member of the bar having knowledge of such
practices upon the part of any practitioner immediately to inform
thereof to the end that the offender may be disbarred.”
Common barratry consisting of frequently stirring up suits and
quarrels between individuals was a crime at the common law, and one of
the penalties for this offense when committed by an attorney was
disbarment. Statutes intended to reach the same evil have been provided
in a number of jurisdictions usually at the instance of the bar itself,
and have been upheld as constitutional. The reason behind statutes of
this type is not difficult to discover. The law is a profession and not
a business. The lawyer may not seek or obtain employment by himself or
through others for to do so would be unprofessional. (State vs. Rossman [1909], 53 Wash., 1; 17 Ann. Cas., 625; People vs. Mac Cabe [1893], 19 L. R. A., 231; 2 R. C. L., 1097.)
It becomes our duty to condemn in no uncertain terms the ugly
practice of solicitation of cases by lawyers. It is destructive of the
honor of a great profession. It lowers the standards of that
profession. It works against the confidence of the community in the
integrity of the members of the bar. It results in needless litigation
and in incenting to strife otherwise peacefully inclined citizens.
The solicitation of employment by an attorney is a ground for
disbarment or suspension. That should be distinctly understood.
“””Giving application of the law and the Canons of Ethics to the
admitted facts, the respondent stands convicted of having solicited
cases in defiance of the law and those canons. Accordingly, the only
remaining duty of the court is to fix upon the action which should here
be taken. The provincial fiscal of Isabela, with whom joined the
representative of the Attorney-General in the oral presentation of the
case, suggests that the respondent be only reprimanded. We think that
our action should go further than this if only to reflect our attitude
toward cases of this character of which unfortunately the respondent’s
is only one. The commission of offenses of this nature would amply
justify permanent elimination from the bar. But as mitigating
circumstances working in favor of the respondent there are,’first, his
intimation that he was unaware of the impropriety of his acts, (
second, his youth and inexperience at the bar, and, third, his promise
not to commit a similar mistake in the future. A modest period of
suspension would seem to fit the case of the erring attorney. But it
should be distinctly understood that this result is reached in view of
the considerations which have influenced the court to be relatively
lenient in this particular instance, and should, therefore, not be
taken as indicating that future convictions of practice of this kind
will not be dealt with by disbarment.
In view of all the circumstances of this case, the judgment of the
court is that the respondent Luis B. Tagorda be and is hereby suspended
from the practice as an attorney-at-law for the period of one month
from April 1, 1929.
Street, Johns, Romualdez, and Villa-Real, JJ., concur.
Johnson, J., reserves his vote.
DISSENTING
OSTRAND, J.:
I dissent. Under the circumstances of the case a reprimand would have been sufficient punishment.