You are on page 1of 7

LEGAL ETHICS

Director of Religious Affairs vs Estanislao


Bayot
4 Phil 579 Legal Ethics Malpractice
In June 1943, Bayot advertised in a newspaper that he
helps people in securing marriage licenses; that he
does so avoiding delays and publicity; that he also
makes marriage arrangements; that legal consultations
are free for the poor; and that everything is
confidential. The Director of Religious Affairs took
notice of the ad and so he sued Bayot for Malpractice.
Bayot
initially
denied
having
published
the
advertisement. But later, he admitted the same and
asked for the courts mercy as he promised to never
repeat the act again.
ISSUE: Whether or not Bayot is guilty of Malpractice.
HELD: Yes. 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. The advertisement he caused to be
published is a brazen solicitation of business from the
public. . It is highly unethical for an attorney to
advertise his talents or skill as a merchant advertises
his wares. The Supreme Court again emphasized that

Tarsh27

best advertisement for a lawyer is the establishment of


a well-merited reputation for professional capacity and
fidelity to trust. But because of Bayots plea for
leniency and his promise and the fact that he did not
earn any case by reason of the ad, the Supreme Court
merely reprimanded him.

In Re: Luis Tagorda


53 Phil 37 Legal Ethics Malpractice Solicitation of
Legal Business Advertisement in the Legal Profession
Stirring Up of Litigation
In 1928, Luis Tagorda was a provincial board member of
Isabela. Before his election, he campaigned that he is a
lawyer and a notary public; that as a notary public he
can do notarial acts such as execution of deeds of sale,
etc.; that as a lawyer, he can help clients collect debts;
that he offers free consultation; that he is willing to
serve the poor.
When he won, he wrote a letter to the barrio lieutenant
of Echague, Isable advising the latter that even though
he was elected as a provincial board member, he can
still practice law; that he wants the lieutenant to tell
the same to his people; that he is willing to receive
works regarding preparations of sales contracts and
1

LEGAL ETHICS

affidavits etc.; that he is willing to receive land


registration cases for a charge of three pesos.
ISSUE: Whether or not Tagorda is guilty of malpractice.
HELD: Yes. Tagorda admitted doing the foregoing acts.
The practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of
gain, either personally or through paid agents or
brokers, constitutes malpractice.
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. 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

Tarsh27

magnitude of the interests involved, the importance of


the lawyers position, and all other like self-laudation,
defy the traditions and lower the tone of our high
calling, and are intolerable.
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.
Tagordas liability is however mitigated by the fact that
he is a young inexperienced lawyer and that he was
unaware of the impropriety of his acts. So instead of
being disbarred, he was suspended from the practice of
law for a month.

People vs Mc Cable
[No. AO17033. Court of Appeals of California, First
Appellate District, Division Four. June 6, 1983.]
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CATHERINE
ANN McCABE, Defendant and Appellant.
(Opinion by The Court.)
COUNSEL

LEGAL ETHICS

Tarsh27

Carmen J. Newby for Defendant and Appellant.


George

Deukmejian,

Attorney

General,

Robert

Frank Luis, Brennan Pang, and Sarah Bush shared a


H.

Philibosian, Chief Assistant Attorney General, William D.


Stein, Assistant Attorney General, Eugene Kaster and
Laurence K. Sullivan, Deputy Attorneys General, for
Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
THE COURT.

house at 838 Rorke Way in Palo Alto. Luis and Pang sold
small amounts of cocaine to an undercover police
officer at the residence. The police obtained a search
warrant providing for the seizure of cocaine, marijuana,
and narcotics paraphernalia on the premises of 838
Rorke Way.
When the police arrived at the house to execute the
search warrant, the officer in charge demanded entry,
waited

20

to

25

seconds

and

entered. [144

Catherine McCabe was charged with possession of

Cal.App.3d 830] Appellant, who was not a resident at

cocaine for sale (Health & Saf. Code, 11351) based on

838 Rorke Way, was on the kitchen floor when the

cocaine the police found in her purse. Appellant

police entered. Bush was found hiding in the shower.

pleaded not guilty. After her motion to suppress

Pang was found in the living room. The police found

evidence was denied, she pleaded guilty to the lesser

appellant's purse on a table in the living room.

included offense of possession of cocaine. (Health &


Saf. Code, 11350.) The court placed her on probation

One of the police officers opened appellant's purse and

on the condition that she serve 12 days in the county

found her driver's license and bindles of cocaine. The

jail and that she pay a $1,000 fine. On appeal, the issue

police also found quantities of cocaine, marijuana, and

is whether the police lawfully seized the cocaine from

drug-related paraphernalia in the bedrooms of the

appellant's purse where they searched the purse under

residents.

the authority of a search warrant providing for the


search of a residence where appellant was visiting at
the time of the search.

[1a] Appellant contends that the search of her purse


was unlawful because the police may not rely on a
3

LEGAL ETHICS

Tarsh27

search warrant to search the personal effects of a

any personal property of a visitor which might serve as

visitor who happens to be present on the premises at

a plausible repository of the contraband which is the

the time of the execution of the search warrant.

object of the search where they have no knowledge of

Respondent

warrant

the fact that the item searched is the personal property

authorized the search of the purse because the police

of a visitor. (Id) If the police have actual knowledge that

may rely on a search warrant to search anywhere that

the

the contraband which is the object of the search

nonresident, however, they may not, as a general rule,

warrant might be concealed.

rely on the authority conferred by a search warrant to

contends

that

the

search

[2] During the execution of a search warrant for fixed


premises, the police may lawfully search the personal
effects of a resident of the premises subject to search
where the personal effects are plausible repositories of
contraband. (People v. Saam (1980) 106 Cal.App.3d
789, 794 [165 Cal.Rptr. 265]). [3] Today we hold that,
during the execution of a search warrant, the police
may, under specified conditions, lawfully search the
personal effects of nonresidents found on the premises
subject to search.

property

which

is

searched

belongs

to

conduct a warrantless search of the nonresident's


property, even though it is a plausible repository of
contraband. (Id; 2 LaFave, Search and Seizure (1978)
Search Warrants, 4.10(b), p. 154.). [6] When the
police know that the personal effects found on the
property belong to a nonresident, the police may rely
on the authority of the search warrant to conduct a
search of the personal effects of the nonresident only if
someone within the premises has had an opportunity to
conceal contraband within the personal effects of the
nonresident immediately prior to the execution of the

[4] The police may ordinarily assume that all personal

search

warrant.

(United

States

v.

Johnson [144

property which they find while executing a search

Cal.App.3d 831] (D.C. Cir. 1973) 475 F.2d 977, 979; 2

warrant is the property of a resident of the premises

LaFave, Search and Seizure, supra, at p. 157.)

subject to search. (State v. Nabarro (1974) 55 Haw. 583


[525 P.2d 573, 577]). [5] Thus, the police may search
4

LEGAL ETHICS

Tarsh27

[1b] In the present case, the police officers referred to

of the search warrant. (Cf. State v. Nabarro, supra, 525

no facts which would have led them to believe that the

P.2d at p. 577). In the absence of any facts to suggest

occupants had concealed contraband in the purse

that the police knew that appellant owned the purse,

immediately prior to entry. Thus, the search of the

the search of the purse did not exceed the permissible

purse was lawful only if the police had no knowledge

scope of the search warrant.

that the purse was the property of a nonresident.

The judgment is affirmed.

Given the circumstances leading up to the search of


the purse, the police knew of no facts which would
have put them on notice that the purse belonged to a
nonresident. The police officers were not told by
appellant that the purse belonged to her. Appellant did
not have possession of the purse at the time the police
entered the house, nor did she subsequently take

ULEP VS LEHGAL CLINIC INC


223 SCRA 378 42 SCAD 287 Legal Ethics
Advertisement in the Legal Profession Practice of Law

possession of the purse. (Cf. State v. Nabarro, supra,


525 P.2d at p. 577.) Moreover, the police were not
compelled to infer from the fact that Luis and Pang, two
males, were the suspects in the case that a purse,
typically

woman's

accessory,

was

beyond

the

permissible scope of the search warrant. The police


knew that three people shared the premises subject to
search: two men and a woman, Sarah Bush. The police
could

have

reasonably

assumed

that

the

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 latters advertisements which contain the
following:

purse

belonged to Bush, thereby bringing it within the scope

SECRET MARRIAGE?
5

LEGAL ETHICS

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
7th 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
Retirees 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.
7th Flr. Victoria Bldg., UN Ave., Manila nr. US Embassy
Tel. 521-7232, 521-7251, 522-2041, 521-0767

Tarsh27

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 clients problem no matter how complicated it
is even if it is as complicated as the Sharon CunetaGabby 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, medicolegal 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.
ISSUE: Whether or not The Legal Clinic is engaged in
the practice of law; whether such is allowed; whether
or not its advertisement may be allowed.
HELD: Yes, The Legal Clinic is engaged in the practice
of law however, such practice is not allowed. The Legal
Clinic is composed mainly of paralegals. The services it
6

LEGAL ETHICS

Tarsh27

offered include various legal problems wherein a client


may avail of legal services from simple documentation
to complex litigation and corporate undertakings. Most
of these services are undoubtedly beyond the domain
of paralegals, but rather, are exclusive functions of
lawyers engaged in the practice of law. Under
Philippine jurisdiction however, the services being
offered by Legal Clinic which constitute practice of law
cannot be performed by paralegals. Only a person duly
admitted as a member of the bar and who is in good
and regular standing, is entitled to practice law.
Anent the issue on the validity of the questioned
advertisements, the Code of ProfessionalResponsibility
provides that a lawyer in making known his legal
services shall use only true, honest, fair, dignified and
objective information or statement of facts. The
standards of the legal profession condemn the lawyers
advertisement of his talents. A lawyer cannot, without
violating the ethics of his profession, advertise his
talents or skills as in a manner similar to a merchant
advertising his goods. Further, the advertisements of
Legal Clinic seem to promote divorce, secret marriage,
bigamous marriage, and other circumventions of law
which their experts can facilitate. Such is highly
reprehensible.

The Supreme Court also noted which forms of


advertisement are allowed. The best advertising
possible for a lawyer is a well-merited reputation
for professional capacity and fidelity to trust, which
must be earned as the outcome of character and
conduct. Good and efficient service to a client as well
as to the community has a way of publicizing itself and
catching public attention. That publicity is a normal byproduct of effective service which is right and proper. A
good and reputable lawyer needs no artificial stimulus
to generate it and to magnify his success. He easily
sees the difference between a normal by-product of
able service and the unwholesome result of
propaganda. The Supreme Court also enumerated the
following as allowed forms of advertisement:
1.

Advertisement in a reputable law list

2.

Use of ordinary simple professional card

3.

Listing in a phone directory


designation as to his specialization

but

without

You might also like