Khan V Simbillo
Khan V Simbillo
Khan V Simbillo
5299 August 19, 2003 additional pleading or evidence and is submitting the case for its early
resolution on the basis of pleadings and records
thereof. 11 Respondent, on the other hand, filed a Supplemental
ATTY. ISMAEL G. KHAN, JR., Assistant Court Administrator and
Memorandum on June 20, 2003.
Chief, Public Information Office,Complainant,
vs.
ATTY. RIZALINO T. SIMBILLO, Respondent. We agree with the IBP’s Resolutions Nos. XV-2002-306 and XV-2002-
606.
x-----------------------x
Rules 2.03 and 3.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility read:
G.R. No. 157053 August 19, 2003
Rule 2.03. – A lawyer shall not do or permit to be done any act
designed primarily to solicit legal business.
ATTY. RIZALINO T. SIMBILLO, Petitioner,
vs.
IBP COMMISSION ON BAR DISCIPLINE and ATTY. ISMAEL G. Rule 3.01. – A lawyer shall not use or permit the use of any false,
KHAN, JR., in his capacity as Assistant Court Administrator and fraudulent, misleading, deceptive, undignified, self-laudatory or unfair
Chief, Public Information Office, Respondents. statement or claim regarding his qualifications or legal services.
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.: 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
This administrative complaint arose from a paid advertisement that
deceit, malpractice or other gross misconduct in such office, grossly
appeared in the July 5, 2000 issue of the newspaper, Philippine Daily
immoral conduct or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving
Inquirer, which reads: "ANNULMENT OF MARRIAGE Specialist 532-
moral turpitude, or for any violation of the oath which he is required to
4333/521-2667."1
take before the admission to practice, or for a willful disobedience
appearing as attorney for a party without authority to do so.
Ms. Ma. Theresa B. Espeleta, a staff member of the Public Information
Office of the Supreme Court, called up the published telephone
It has been repeatedly stressed that the practice of law is not a
number and pretended to be an interested party. She spoke to Mrs.
business.12 It is a profession in which duty to public service, not money,
Simbillo, who claimed that her husband, Atty. Rizalino Simbillo, was an
is the primary consideration. Lawyering is not primarily meant to be a
expert in handling annulment cases and can guarantee a court decree
money-making venture, and law advocacy is not a capital that
within four to six months, provided the case will not involve separation
necessarily yields profits.13 The gaining of a livelihood should be a
of property or custody of children. Mrs. Simbillo also said that her
secondary consideration.14 The duty to public service and to the
husband charges a fee of P48,000.00, half of which is payable at the
administration of justice should be the primary consideration of
time of filing of the case and the other half after a decision thereon has
lawyers, who must subordinate their personal interests or what they
been rendered.
owe to themselves.15 The following elements distinguish the legal
profession from a business:
Further research by the Office of the Court Administrator and the
Public Information Office revealed that similar advertisements were
1. A duty of public service, of which the emolument is a by-
published in the August 2 and 6, 2000 issues of the Manila Bulletin and
product, and in which one may attain the highest eminence
August 5, 2000 issue of The Philippine Star.2
without making much money;
Such data must not be misleading and may include only a statement of
the lawyer’s name and the names of his professional associates;
addresses, telephone numbers, cable addresses; branches of law
practiced; date and place of birth and admission to the bar; schools
attended with dates of graduation, degrees and other educational
distinctions; public or quasi-public offices; posts of honor; legal
authorships; legal teaching positions; membership and offices in bar
associations and committees thereof, in legal and scientific societies
and legal fraternities; the fact of listings in other reputable law lists; the
names and addresses of references; and, with their written consent,
the names of clients regularly represented.
The law list must be a reputable law list published primarily for that
purpose; it cannot be a mere supplemental feature of a paper,
magazine, trade journal or periodical which is published principally for
other purposes. For that reason, a lawyer may not properly publish his
brief biographical and informative data in a daily paper, magazine,
trade journal or society program. Nor may a lawyer permit his name to
be published in a law list the conduct, management, or contents of
which are calculated or likely to deceive or injure the public or the bar,
or to lower dignity or standing of the profession.
SO ORDERED.