The Director of Religious Affairs, complainant vs Atty. Estanislao R.

Bayot, respondent
74 Phil. 579 March 20, 1944
Ozaeta, J.:
FACTS:
In June 13 1943, respondent Atty. Estanislao R. Bayot advertised in the Sunday Tribune that
he helps people in securing marriage licenses; that he does so avoiding delays and publicity;
that he also makes marriage arrangements according to the wishes of the parties; that
legal consultations are free for the poor; and, that everything is confidential. The herein
complainant, The Director of Religious Affairs, took notice of the ad and so he sued Atty.
Bayot before the Court for Malpractice.
Bayot initially denied having published the advertisement. But later, he admitted the same
and asked for the court’s mercy as he promised to never repeat the act again.
ISSUE: Whether or not respondent Atty. 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 skills as a merchant advertises his wares. The Supreme Court again
emphasized that the best advertisement for a lawyer is the establishment of a well-merited
reputation for professional capacity and fidelity to trust. But because of the respondent’s
plea for leniency and his promise not to do the same again and the fact that he did not earn
any case by reason of the ad, the Supreme Court merely reprimanded him.