LESLIE UI, 

complainant,
vs.
ATTY. IRIS BONIFACIO, respondent
Q: An administrative complaint for disbarment was filed against Atty. Iris on the ground of
immorality, more particularly, for allegedly carrying an immoral relationship with Carlos Ui,
husband of complainant Leslie Ui.
In the defense of the respondent, Atty. Iris, she contended that her relationship with Carlos was
not illicit because they were married abroad. However, when she discovered Carlos’ true civil
status, she cut off all her ties with him.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondent has conducted herself in an immoral manner for which she
deserves to be barred from the practice of law

A: NO. Her relationship with Carlos, where Atty. Iris believed that they were validly married,
cannot be considered immoral. Immorality connotes conduct that shows indifference to the
moral norms of the community. Furthermore, for such conduct to warrant disciplinary action,
the same must be “grossly immoral”, that is it must be so corrupt and false as to constitute a
criminal act or so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high degree.
The Sc also added "a member of the Bar and officer of the court is not only required to refrain
from adulterous relationships . . . but must also so behave himself as to avoid scandalizing the
public by creating the belief that he is denying those moral standards." 29 Respondent's act of
immediately distancing herself from Carlos Ui upon discovering his true civil status belies just
that alleged moral indifference and proves that she had no intention of flaunting the law and
the high moral standard of the legal profession.
PATRICIA FIGUEROA, complainant,
vs.
SIMEON BARRANCO, JR., respondent.

Q: The complainant, Patricia and respondent Simeon were teen sweethearts. It was after their
child was born that Simeon first promised he would marry her after he passes the bar
examinations. Their relationship continued and Simeon allegedly made more than twenty or
thirty promises of marriage.
Her trust in him and their relationship ended, when she learned that respondent married
another woman.
Meanwhile,

Simeon successfully passed the bar examinations after four attempts. However, before he
could take his oath, complainant filed a petition to disqualify Simeon to take the Lawyer’s Oath
on the ground of gross immoral conduct averring that respondent and she had been
sweethearts, that a child out of wedlock was born to them and that respondent did not fulfill
his repeated promises to many her.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the act of Simeon in engaging in premarital relations with Patricia and making
promises to marry her constitute gross immoral conduct?
HELD:
A: NO, the SC ruled that the facts do not constitute gross immoral conduct warranting a
permanent exclusion of Simeon from the legal profession. His engaging in premarital sexual
relations with complainant and promises to marry suggests a doubtful moral character on his
part but the same does not constitute grossly immoral conduct.
The Court has held that to justify suspension or disbarment the act complained of must not
only be immoral, but grossly immoral. "A grossly immoral act is one that is so corrupt and false
as to constitute a criminal act or so unprincipled or disgraceful as to be reprehensible to a high
degree."6 It is a willful, flagrant, or shameless act which shows a moral indifference to the
opinion of respectable members of the community.7
Instances of Gross Immorality and the resulting consequences

SALVACION DELIZO CORDOVA, complainant,

vs.
ATTY. LAURENCE D. CORDOVA, respondent.

FACTS:
Salvacion Delizo and Laurence Cordova got married, and had 2 children out of the marriage.
However, respondent Cordova left his family, and his job as Clerk of Court of the RTC, and went
to live with Fely Holgado, who was also married and had left her family, living as husband in
wife in public.
respondent Cordova and his complainant wife had an apparent reconciliation. Respondent
promised that he would separate from Fely Holgado. Respondent would, however, frequently
come home from beerhouses or cabarets, drunk, and continued to neglect the support of his
legitimate family

Some time, In February 1987, complainant found that respondent Cordova was no longer living
with the complainant's children in their conjugal home; that respondent Cordova was living
with another mistress, one Luisita Magallanes.

Consequently, complainant Salvacion submitted her complaint against Atty. Laurence Cordova
for immorality and acts unbecoming a member of the bar.
In addition to that, the complainant informed the Commission that they had already reconciled.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Laurence Cordova was guilty for immorality and acts unbecoming a
member of the bar?

Held:

Yes. He was suspended indefinitely until he presents evidence that he has continued supporting
his family, and has given up immoral conduct.

The reconciliation between complainant and respondent, assuming the same to be real, does
not excuse and wipe away the misconduct and immoral behavior of the respondent carried out
in public, and necessarily adversely reflecting upon him as a member of the Bar and upon the
Philippine Bar itself. An applicant for admission to membership in the bar is required to show
that he is possessed of good moral character. That requirement is not exhausted and dispensed
with upon admission to membership of the bar.

As held in In Mortel v. Aspiras, "the continued possession ... of a good moral character is a
requisite condition for the rightful continuance in the practice of the law ... and its loss requires
suspension or disbarment, even though the statutes do not specify that as a ground for
disbarment. " Good moral character is not limited to the discharge of one’s duties as a laywer.
The moral delinquency that affects the fitness of a member of the bar to continue as such
includes conduct that outrages the generally accepted moral standards of the community,
conduct for instance, which makes "a mockery of the inviolable social institution or marriage."
Clearly, respondent flaunted his disregard of the fundamental institution of marriage and its
elementary obligations before his own daughter and the community at large.

PRESIDENT JOSEPH EJERCITO ESTRADA, petitioner,

vs.
THE HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN [SPECIAL DIVISION], HON. MINITA CHICO-NAZARIO, HON.
EDILBERTO SANDOVAL, HON. TERESITA LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, and THE PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, respondents
Q: Atty. Paguia asserts that the inhibition of the members of the SC from hearing the petition is
called for under the Code of Judicial Conduct prohibiting justices or judges from participating in
any partisan political activity. According to him, the justices violated the said rule by attending
the 'EDSA 2 Rally' and by authorizing the assumption of Vice- President Macapagal-Arroyo to
the Presidency. The subsequent decision of the Court in Estrada v. Arroyo (G.R. Nos. 146710-15,
March 2, 2001 and G.R. Nos. 146710-15, April 3, 2001) is a patent mockery of justice and due
process. He went on to state that the act of the public officer, if lawful, is the act of the public
office. But the act of the public officer, if unlawful, is not the act of the public office.
Consequently, the act of the justices, if lawful, is the act of the Supreme Court. But the act of
the justices, if unlawful, is not the act of the Supreme Court.
Further, he asserted that the decision in Estrada v. Arroyo being patently unlawful in view of
the Code of Judicial Conduct, is not the act of the SC but is merely the wrong of those individual
Justices who falsely spoke and acted in the name of the SC.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty Paguia is guilty for conduct unbecoming a lawyer and an officer of the
Court when he commented regarding the decision of the SC. Or Are Atty. Paguia’s comments
within the bounds of “fair and wellfounded criticisms” regarding decisions of the SC?
HELD:
A: NO. Criticism or comment made in good faith on the correctness or wrongness, soundness or
unsoundness, of a decision of the Court would be welcome for, if well-founded, and such
reaction can enlighten the court and contribute to the correction of an error if committed (In
re: Sotto, 82 Phil. 595).
Attorney Paguia has not limited his discussions to the merits of his client's case within the
judicial forum; indeed, he has repeated his assault on the Court in both broadcast and print
media.
The Supreme Court does not claim infallibility; it will not denounce criticism made by anyone
against the Court for, if well-founded, can truly have constructive effects in the task of the
Court, but it will not countenance any wrongdoing nor allow the erosion of our people’s faith in
the judicial system, let alone, by those who have been privileged by it to practice law in the
Philippines. Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility mandates that the lawyer
should observe and maintain the respect due to the courts and judicial officers and, indeed,
should insist on similar conduct by others. In liberally imputing sinister and devious motives and
questioning the impartiality, integrity, and authority of the members of the Court, Atty. Paguia
has only succeeded in seeking to impede, obstruct and pervert the dispensation of justice
(Estrada v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 159486-88, November 25, 2003).

ADELINO H. LEDESMA, petitioner,
vs.
HON. RAFAEL C. CLIMACO, Presiding Judge of the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental,
Branch I, Silay City, respondent

Petitioner was appointed as Election Registrar. Then and there, he commenced to discharge its
duties. As he was counsel de parte for one of the accused in a case pending in the sala of
respondent Judge, he filed a motion to withdraw as such. Not only did respondent Judge deny
such motion, but he also appointed him counsel de oficio for the two defendants.
Subsequently, petitioner filed an urgent motion to be allowed to withdraw as counsel de oficio,
premised on the policy of the Commission on Elections to require full time service as well as on
the volume or pressure of work of petitioner, which could prevent him from handling
adequately the defense. Respondent Judge denied said motion. The denial by the Judge of such
plea, notwithstanding the conformity of the defendants, was due to “its principal effect of
delaying the case."

ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondent Judge acted with grave abuse of discretion in denying the
petitioner's withdrawal as counsel
A. NO
No. The reluctance of Ledesma to comply with his responsibilities as counsel de oficio is not an
adequate ground for the motion of withdrawal. Membership in the bar is a privilege burdened
with a condition. Membership in the Bar carries with it a responsibility to live up to its exacting
standards. Law is a profession and not a trade or craft. Those enrolled in its ranks aid the courts
in the administration of justice. As such, an attorney may be called or appointed as counsel de
oficio to aid indigents for the realization of their constitutional right to counsel especially in
criminal cases like this where a person may be convicted not because of his or her guilt but
because he or she lacks competent legal representation.

Assuming Ledesma's good faith, his appointment as an election registrar cannot be availed of
now when granting his withdrawal will result to the delay in the administration of justice. It is to
be noted that the proceedings have been delayed at least eight times at the defense's instance,
resulting to undue inconvenience to the parties involved.

What is easily discernible in this case is the petitioner's reluctance to comply with the
responsibilities incumbent upon him as counsel de oficio. Petitioner is admonished for not
being mindful of his obligation where he is expected to exercise due diligence, not mere
perfunctory representation, to the case of his clients. He must be reminded that a member of
the bar is a vanguard in the bastion of justice and is therefore expected to have a bigger dose of
social conscience and a little less self-interest.
A: No. The reluctance of Ledesma to comply with his responsibilities as counsel de oficio is not
an adequate ground for the motion of withdrawal. Membership in the bar is a privilege
burdened with a condition. For some lawyers especially the neophytes in the profession being
appointed as a lawyer is an irksome chore. Law is a profession dedicated to the ideal of service
and not a mere trade. Thus is made manifest the indispensable role of a member of the Bar in
the defense of an accused. Such a consideration could have sufficed for Ledesma not being
allowed to withdraw as counsel de oficio. For he did betray by his moves his lack of enthusiasm
for the task entrusted to him, to put matters mildly. He did point though to his responsibility as
an election registrar. Assuming his good faith, no such excuse could be availed now. There is
not likely at present, and in the immediate future, an exorbitant demand on his time (Ledesma
v. Climaco, G.R. No. L-23815, June 28, 1974).
In re LUIS B. TAGORDA,

In re Luis B. TAGORDA
March 23, 1929

FACTS
In 1928, Luis Tagorda was a provincial board member of Isabela. He admits that during his
campaign, he made use of a card written in Spanish and Ilocano which, in translation means
that he is a lawyer and a notary public; and that as a notary public he can do notarial acts such
as execution of deeds of sale, can renew lost documents, and etc.; that as a lawyer, he can help
clients collect debts; that he offers free consultation; and that he is willing to 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 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
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. Section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as
amended by Act No. 2828 expressly provides that the practice of soliciting cases at law for the
purpose of gain, either personally, or through paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice.
This is in accord with the Canons of Professional Ethics adopted by the Philippine Bar
Association in 1917. Canon 27 of the said document provides that a well-merited reputation
serves as a lawyer”s most effective form of advertisement.

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 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.
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.
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.

Tagorda’s 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.

ATTY. ISMAEL G. KHAN, JR., Assistant Court Administrator and Chief, Public Information
Office, Complainant,
vs.
ATTY. RIZALINO T. SIMBILLO, Respondent.

Q: A paid advertisement appeared in the July 5, 2000 issue of Philippine Daily Inquirer, which
reads: "ANNULMENT' OF MARRIAGE Specialist 532-4333/521-2667."

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 an 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, half of which is payable at the time of
filing of the case and the other half after a decision thereon has been rendered.

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.
ISSUE:

Whether or not the appearance of such in a newspaper, amount to advertising and solicitation
of legal services prohibited by the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Rules of Court?
A: YES.

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 and suspension of attorneys by Supreme Court, grounds therefor. – 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

There is no question that respondent committed the acts complained of. He himself admits that
he caused the publication of the advertisements.

What adds to the gravity of respondent’s acts is that in advertising himself as a self-styled
"Annulment of Marriage Specialist," 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.

NOTE: The rule against solicitation applies to a lawyer who offers monetary reward to those
who can serve as witness/es in the case, which he is handling (CPR Annotated, PhilJA).
MAURICIO C. ULEP, petitioner,
vs.
THE LEGAL CLINIC, INC., respondent.

GR: Advertisement by lawyers is NOT allowed. The most worthy and effective advertisement
possible is the establishment of a well-merited reputation for professional capacity and fidelity
to trust.
XPNS
Advertisements or announcement in any Legal publication, including books, journals, and legal
magazines and in telephone directories (Ulep v. Legal Clinic, Inc., B.M. No. 553, June 17, 1993);
FACTS:
Ulep, a member of the bar, filed a petition against the Legal Clinic because its advertisements are
‘unethical, demeaning of the law profession, and destructive of the confidence of the
community in the integrity of the members of the bar’ and that as a member of the bar, he is
ashamed and offended by the said advertisements.
The advertisement of the Legal Clinic includes “secret marriage” and “divorce” among others.

In an article published in the Starweek (Philippine Star) entitled “Rx for Legal Problems,” Atty.
Rogelio Nogales, proprietor of The Legal Clinic, explained the main purpose, structure, and
operations of the said corporation.

In response, The Legal Clinic admits the fact of publication of the advertisement but claims that
it is not engaged in the practice of law but in the rendering of “legal support services” through
paralegals with the use of modern computers and electronic machines.

Position paper of IBP:

> The use of the name “The Legal Clinic Inc” gives the impression that it is being operated
by lawyers and that it renders legal services. There is no difference between “legal
support services” and “legal services.”
> The advertisements in questions are meant to induce the performance of acts contrary
to law, morals, public order and public policy. This is against Rule 1.02 which states that,
“a laywer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening
confidence in the legal system.”

ISSUE1:
Whether or not the services offered by The Legal Clinic constitutes practice of law -- YES

HELD/RATIO1:
Practice of law means any activity, in or out of court, which requires the application of law, legal
procedures, knowledge, training and experience. Generally, to practice law is to give advice or
render any kind of service that involves legal knowledge or skill.

In practice, a lawyer engages in three principal types of professional activity:

(1) legal advise and instructions to clients to inform them of their rights and obligations
(2) preparation for clients of documents requiring knowledge of legal principles not possessed
by ordinary layman
(3) appearance for clients before the public tribunals which possess power and authority to
determine rights of life, liberty, and property according to law, in order to assist in proper
interpretation and enforcement of law

Applying the criteria, the activities of The Legal Clinic constitute practice of law. With its
attorneys and so called paralegals, it will necessarily have to explain to the client the intricacies
of the law and advise him or her on the proper course of action to be taken as may be provided
for by said law. That is what its advertisement represents and for which services it will
consequently charge and be paid. That activity falls squarely within the definition of “practice of
law.”

ISSUE2:
Whether or not their services can properly be the subject of the advertisements -- NO

HELD/RATIO2:
the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that a lawyer in making known his legal
services shall use only true, honest, fair, dignified and objective information or
statement of facts. 33He is not supposed to 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. 34Nor shall he pay or give something
of value to representatives of the mass media in anticipation of, or in return for,
publicity to attract legal business. 35Prior to the adoption of the code of Professional
Responsibility, the Canons of Professional Ethics had also warned that lawyers should
not resort to indirect advertisements for professional employment, such as furnishing or
inspiring newspaper comments, or procuring his photograph to be published in
connection with causes in which the lawyer has been or is engaged or concerning the
manner of their conduct, the magnitude of the interest involved, the importance of the
lawyer's position, and all other like self-laudation.
The standard of legal profession condemn the lawyer’s advertisement of his talents. A lawyer
cannot, without violating the ethics of his profession, advertise his talents or skill as in a manner
similar to a merchant advertising his goods. The canon of the profession states that the best
advertising possible for a lawyer is a well-merited reputation for profession capacity and fidelity
to trust, which must be earned as the outcome of character and conduct. A good and reputable
lawyer needs no artificial stimulus to generate it and to magnify his success.
Of course, not all types of advertising or solicitation are prohibited. The canons of the
profession enumerate exceptions to the rule against advertising or solicitation and
define the extent to which they may be undertaken.

1. publication in reputable law lists, in a manner consistent with the standards of

conduct imposed by the canons, of brief biographical and informative data
2. The use of an ordinary simple professional card is also permitted

Verily, taking into consideration the nature and contents of the advertisements for
which respondent is being taken to task, which even includes a quotation of the fees
charged by said respondent corporation for services rendered, we find and so hold that
the same definitely do not and conclusively cannot fall under any of the above-
mentioned exceptions. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virt

DISPOSITIVE:
The Court resolved to RESTRAIN AND ENJOIN The Legal Clinic Inc from issuing or causing the
publication or dissemination of any advertisement in any form and from conducting, directly or
indirectly, any activity, operation, or transaction proscribed by law or the Code of Professional
Ethics.
Atty. Rogelio Nogales, as a member of the Philippine Bar, is reprimanded with a warning that a
repetition of the same or similar acts which are involved in this proceeding will be dealt with
more severely.

ADRIANO E. DACANAY, complainant
vs.
BAKER & MCKENZIE and JUAN G. COLLAS JR., LUIS MA. GUERRERO, VICENTE A. TORRES,
RAFAEL E. EVANGELISTA, JR., ROMEO L. SALONGA, JOSE R. SANDEJAS, LUCAS M. NUNAG, J.
CLARO TESORO, NATIVIDAD B. KWAN and JOSE A. CURAMMENG, JR., respondents.

Facts:
Lawyer Adriano E. Dacanay, admitted to the bar in 1954, in his 1980 verified complaint, sought
to enjoin Juan G. Collas, Jr. and nine other lawyers from practicing law under the name of Baker
& McKenzie, a law firm organized in Illinois.

respondent Vicente A. Torres, using the letterhead of Baker & McKenzie, which contains the
names of the ten lawyers, asked Rosie Clurman for the release of 87 shares of Cathay Products
International, Inc. to H.E. Gabriel, a client.

Attorney Dacanay, in his reply dated December 7, 1979, denied any liability of Clurman to
Gabriel. He requested that he be informed whether the lawyer of Gabriel is Baker & McKenzie
"and if not, what is your purpose in using the letterhead of another law office." Not having
received any reply, he filed the instant complaint.

Issue:

WON Baker & McKenzie, being an alien law firm, is allowed to practice law in the Philippines.

Ruling:

No. Baker & McKenzie, being an alien law firm, cannot practice law in the Philippines (Sec. 1,
Rule 138, Rules of Court). As admitted by the respondents in their memorandum, Baker &
McKenzie is a professional partnership organized in 1949 in Chicago, Illinois with members and
associates in 30 cities around the world. Respondents, aside from being members of the
Philippine bar, practising under the firm name of Guerrero & Torres, are members or associates
of Baker & Mckenzie.

respondents' use of the firm name Baker & McKenzie constitutes a representation that being
associated with the firm they could "render legal services of the highest quality to multinational
business enterprises and others engaged in foreign trade and investment" (p. 3, respondents'
memo). This is unethical because Baker & McKenzie is not authorized to practise law here.
Therefore, Baker & McKenzie, being an alien law firm, cannot practice law in the Philippines

JULIETA BORROMEO SAMONTE, complainant,

vs.
ATTY. ROLANDO R. GATDULA, Branch Clerk of Court, respondent.

Q: Samonte alleges that when she went to Branch 220, RTC QC to inquire about the reason for
the issuance of the TRO, Atty. Rolando Gatdula (Clerk of Court), blamed her lawyer for writing
the wrong address in the complaint for ejectment. He told her that if she wanted the execution
to proceed, she should change her lawyer and retain the law office of Atty. Gatdula, at the same
time giving his calling card with the name "Baligod, Gatdula, Tacardon, Dimailig and Celera"
with office at Rm. 220 Mariwasa Bldg., 717 Aurora Blvd., Cubao, Quezon City, otherwise she will
not be able to eject the defendant.
Samonte told Atty. Gatdula that she could not decide because she was only representing her
sister. Subsequently, the RTC Branch 220 issued an order granting the preliminary injunction as
threatened by Atty. Gatdula despite the fact that the MTC, Branch 37 had issued an Order
directing the execution of the Decision in a prior civil case.
Samonte filed an administrative case for misconduct.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Gatdula violated the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for the Public
Officials and Employees?
A: YES. The card clearly gives the impression that he is connected with the said law firm.

his name appearing on the calling card, is a permissible form of advertising or

solicitation of legal services. 1 Respondent does not claim that the calling card was
printed without his knowledge or consent. The card clearly gives the impression that he
is connected with the said law firm. The inclusion/retention of his name in the
professional card constitutes an act of solicitation which violates Section 7 sub-par. (b)
(2) of Republic Act No. 6713, otherwise known as "Code of Conduct and Ethical
Standards for the Public Officials and Employees" which declares it unlawful for a public
official or employee to, among others:

(2) Engage in the private practice of their

profession unless authorized by the Constitution or
law, provided that such practice will not conflict or
tend to conflict with official functions.

TIMOTEO V. CRUZ, petitioner,
vs.
FRANCISCO G. H. SALVA, respondent.

Q:
This is a petition for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction filed by Timoteo V.
Cruz against Francisco G. H. Salva, in his capacity as City Fiscal of Pasig City, to restrain him from
continuing with the preliminary investigation he was conducting in September, 1957 in
connection with the killing of Manuel Monroy which took place on June 15, 1953 in Pasig City.
Manuel Monroy was murdered and Oscar Castelo was the prime suspect. He was
convicted in the Court of First Instance in Pasig City. He appealed the sentence but was
convicted again by the same trial court. Castelo wrote to Salva to conduct reinvestigation on
the basis of the new confessions. The Philippine Constabulary furnished Salva with copies of the
new testimonies and affidavits. Ultimately, Salva organized a committee for reinvestigation and
subpoenaed Timoteo Cruz, who was implicated as the instigator for the new affidavits and
confessions.
Investigation was conducted not in respondent’s office but in the session hall of the
Municipal Court of Pasig City evidently, to accommodate the big crowd that wanted to witness
the proceeding including the members of the press.
in the course of the investigation, as shown by the transcript of the stenographic notes taken
during said investigation, on two occasions, the first, after Oscar Caymo had concluded his
testimony respondent Salva, addressing the newspapermen said, "Gentlemen of the press, if
you want to ask questions I am willing to let you do so and the question asked will be
reproduced as my own"; and the second, after Jose Maratella y de Guzman had finished
testifying and respondent Salva, addressing the newsmen, again said, "Gentlemen of the press
is free to ask questions as ours."
ISSUE:
Is the act of Fiscal Salva unethical?
A: YES.

Salva should have done investigation privately in his office and not publicly in the session hall of
Municipal Court of Pasay where microphones were installed and media people were present.

The duty of the fiscal is not only to prosecute and secure conviction of the guilty but also to
protect the innocent.

In this case, the Court were greatly disturbed and annoyed by such publicity and
sensationalism, all of which may properly be laid at the door of respondent Salva. In this, he
committed what was regard a grievous error and poor judgment for which we fail to find any
excuse or satisfactory explanation. His actuations in this regard went well beyond the bounds of
prudence, discretion and good taste. It is bad enough to have such undue publicity when a
criminal case is being investigated by the authorities, even when it being tried in court; but
when said publicity and sensationalism is allowed, even encouraged, when the case is on
appeal and is pending consideration by this Tribunal, the whole thing becomes inexcusable,
even abhorrent, and this Court, in the interest of justice, is constrained and called upon to put
an end to it and a deterrent against its repetition by meting an appropriate disciplinary
measure, even a penalty to the one liable.

Fiscal Salva should be publicly censured for the uncalled for and wide publicity and
sensationalism that he had given to and allowed in connection with his investigation, whatever
be his motive, which is considered and found to be contempt of court (Cruz v Salva, G.R. No. L-
12871, July 25, 1959).