Post

Rizalino Simbillo vs. Ismael G. Khan, Jr.

Posted
By Anonymous
6 min read
Rizalino Simbillo vs. Ismael G. Khan, Jr.

Case Title and Citation

Atty. Ismael G. Khan, Jr., Assistant Court Administrator and Chief, Public Information Office, complainant, vs. Atty. Rizalino T. Simbillo, respondent.
A.C. No. 5299, August 19, 2003
G.R. No. 157053, August 19, 2003
Supreme Court - First Division
Ponente: Justice Ynares-Santiago

Facts

  • A paid advertisement appeared in the July 5, 2000 issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer reading: “ANNULMENT OF MARRIAGE Specialist 532-4333/521-2667.”
  • Ma. Theresa B. Espeleta of the Supreme Court Public Information Office called the number and spoke with Mrs. Simbillo, who stated:
    1. Atty. Rizalino Simbillo was an expert in annulment cases and could “guarantee a court decree within four to six months” provided the case did not involve separation of property or custody;
    2. The fee was P48,000, half payable at filing and half after decision.
  • Similar advertisements were found in the August 2 and 6, 2000 issues of the Manila Bulletin and the August 5, 2000 issue of The Philippine Star.
  • On September 1, 2000, Atty. Ismael G. Khan, Jr. filed an administrative complaint against Atty. Simbillo for improper advertising and solicitation 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.
  • Respondent admitted publishing the advertisements but argued that lawyer advertising is not per se prohibited and urged a change in the prohibition so long as advertising is dignified.
  • The matter was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation.
  • On June 29, 2002, the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline issued Resolution No. XV-2002-306 finding respondent guilty of violating 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 year.
  • The IBP denied respondent’s motion for reconsideration in Resolution No. XV-2002-606 dated October 19, 2002. The IBP resolution was noted by the Supreme Court on November 11, 2002.
  • The petition for certiorari (G.R. No. 157053) was consolidated with A.C. No. 5299. The parties were asked to state if they would submit the case on the basis of pleadings; complainant submitted on the pleadings while respondent filed a supplemental memorandum.
  • After the initial advertisements and after filing his answer, respondent again advertised his legal services in the August 14, 2001 and October 5, 2001 issues of Buy & Sell.

Issues

  1. Did respondent commit acts 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 by publishing advertisements and soliciting clients?
  2. Is advertising of legal services per se permissible so long as it is dignified, as urged by respondent?
  3. Is suspension from the practice of law for one year an appropriate sanction for the misconduct?

Ruling

  1. Yes - Respondent committed the acts complained of and was found to have violated Rules 2.03 and 3.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Rule 138, Section 27 of the Rules of Court.
  2. No - Advertising and solicitation are not altogether proscribed, but the form and content must be compatible with the dignity of the legal profession; respondent’s advertisements were improper.
  3. Yes - The Court affirmed the sanction of suspension from the practice of law for one year and imposed a stern warning against repetition.

Reasoning / Ratio Decidendi

  • The Court emphasized that the practice of law is a profession, not a business, and that duty to public service, not profit, is the primary consideration. The livelihood derived from practice is secondary (citing Cantiller v. Potenciano; Canlas v. Court of Appeals; Agpalo; Burbe v. Magulta; In re Sycip).
  • Rules relied upon:
    1. Rule 2.03, Code of Professional Responsibility: prohibits acts designed primarily to solicit legal business.
    2. Rule 3.01, Code of Professional Responsibility: prohibits false, fraudulent, misleading, deceptive, undignified, self-laudatory or unfair statements regarding qualifications or services.
    3. Rule 138, Section 27, Rules of Court: authorizes disciplinary action, including suspension, for deceit, malpractice or gross misconduct.
  • The content of respondent’s advertisements and the representations made (guarantee of decree within four to six months; fixed substantial fee; solicitation via paid newspaper ads) were found to be misleading, undignified and designed primarily to solicit legal business, contrary to Rules 2.03 and 3.01.
  • Repetition of advertising after lodging of the complaint and after respondent’s assurances of contrition aggravated the offense and evidenced contempt for the Court’s authority.
  • The Court reiterated permissible, limited forms of lawyer publicity (simple signboards, brief listings in reputable law lists, professional cards with limited information) as described in Ulep v. Legal Clinic, Inc., and related authorities; publication in daily papers or non-reputable lists with promotional content is impermissible.
  • Given the admitted acts, repeated advertising, and the undermining effect of such practices on the dignity of the profession and on public confidence (particularly where guarantees of results are made), the IBP’s finding and sanction were affirmed.

Doctrine / Legal Principle

  • The practice of law is a public service, not a business; lawyers must subordinate personal profit to duty to the administration of justice.
  • Solicitation designed primarily to obtain legal business is prohibited (Rule 2.03, Code of Professional Responsibility).
  • Lawyers shall not make false, misleading, undignified, or self-laudatory statements about qualifications or services (Rule 3.01, Code of Professional Responsibility).
  • Advertising of legal services is conditionally permissible only if modest, decorous, not misleading, and compatible with the dignity of the profession; promotional guarantees of outcomes are impermissible.
  • Repeated or contemptuous violations warrant disciplinary sanction, including suspension under Rule 138, Section 27, Rules of Court.

Disposition

  • Respondent RIZALINO T. SIMBILLO is found GUILTY of violating 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 STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar offense will be dealt with more severely.
  • Copies of the Resolution are to be entered in respondent’s record as attorney and furnished to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and all courts in the country.

Concurring / Dissenting Opinions

  • Justices Vitug (Acting Chairman), Carpio, and Azcuna concur.
  • Chief Justice Davide, Jr. (Chairman) was abroad on official business.

Significance / Notes

  • Reaffirms the longstanding principle that law practice is a profession centered on public service rather than commercial promotion.
  • Confirms that paid newspaper advertisements promising guaranteed results and fixed outcomes (including specified timeframes) are improper and violative of professional responsibility rules.
  • Clarifies permissible forms of lawyer publicity: modest professional cards, simple office signs, and listings in reputable law lists subject to content limits set out in Ulep v. Legal Clinic, Inc.
  • Emphasizes that repeated or defiant advertising after notice or complaint aggravates liability and supports suspension.
  • Administrative and disciplinary bodies and courts are instructed to be informed of the decision by furnishing copies to the IBP and all courts.
Legal Ethics Judicial Ethics Disciplinary Cases
This post is licensed under CC BY 4.0 by the author.