Case Digest (G.R. No. 32329) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
In In re Luis B. Tagorda, decided on March 23, 1929, the respondent Luis B. Tagorda, a practicing attorney and member of the Provincial Board of Isabela, admitted distributing printed cards in Spanish and Ilocano describing his services as attorney, notary public, and candidate for a provincial office, and sending a detailed letter to a barrio lieutenant offering to perform legal and notarial work for fees and promising free consultations and below-market charges. Tagorda’s circulars and personal communications expressly solicited legal engagements, including deeds of sale, homestead applications, affidavits, and land registration, even on Sundays. With facts conceded, the Supreme Court considered whether these acts violated Section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as amended by Act No. 2828 in 1919, which declares the practice of soliciting cases for gain to be malpractice, and the Canons of Professional Ethics (Canons 27 and 28) adopted by the Philippine Bar Association. The Case Digest (G.R. No. 32329) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Background of Respondent
- Luis B. Tagorda was a practicing attorney and notary public, and member of the Provincial Board of Isabela.
- Prior to the general elections of 1928, he campaigned as “Candidate for Third Member, Province of Isabela.”
- Acts Constituting Alleged Solicitation
- Business Card
- Issued a printed card in Spanish and Ilocano reading (in translation):
- Promised: free consultation, execution of deeds of sale, renewal of lost documents, assistance in homestead applications, collection of overdue loans and representation in complaints.
- Letter to Barrio Lieutenant (Dated September 18, 1928)
- Invited suggestions for provincial and barrio welfare.
- Stated intention to maintain residence in Echague, practice law and notarial services despite board membership.
- Offered to handle land registration at 3 pesos per title, even on Sundays.
- Requested distribution of this information among barrio residents to solicit legal work.
Issues:
- Whether Tagorda’s distribution of a business card and his letter amounted to the prohibited solicitation of cases “for the purpose of gain,” in violation of Section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure as amended by Act No. 2828 and Canons 27 and 28 of the Philippine Code of Professional Ethics.
- If so, what disciplinary measure—reprimand, suspension, or disbarment—should be imposed for such malpractice.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)