Case Digest (G.R. No. L-32991) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
In Atty. Ismael G. Khan, Jr. vs. Atty. Rizalino T. Simbillo (G.R. No. 157053, July 11, 2005), the Supreme Court considered an administrative complaint filed on September 1, 2000 by Atty. Ismael G. Khan, Jr., Assistant Court Administrator and Chief of the Public Information Office, against Atty. Rizalino T. Simbillo. The complaint arose from paid newspaper advertisements that appeared in the July 5, 2000 issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer—and subsequently in the Manila Bulletin and The Philippine Star—under the heading “ANNULMENT OF MARRIAGE Specialist 532-4333/521-2667.” A staff member of the Supreme Court’s Public Information Office, posing as a client, learned from Mrs. Simbillo that her husband guaranteed an annulment decree in four to six months, charging a total fee of ₱48,000.00 payable half upon filing and half upon rendition of judgment. Respondent admitted publishing the ads but contended that lawyer advertising is not per se prohibited and urged the Court to lift t Case Digest (G.R. No. L-32991) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Publication of advertisements
- July 5, 2000 issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer contained a paid advertisement reading “ANNULMENT OF MARRIAGE Specialist 532-4333/521-2667.”
- Similar ads appeared on August 2 and 6, 2000 in the Manila Bulletin and August 5, 2000 in The Philippine Star.
- Inquiry by Public Information Office
- Ms. Ma. Theresa B. Espeleta, staff of the Supreme Court’s Public Information Office, telephoned the number in the ad posing as a client.
- Mrs. Simbillo (the lawyer’s wife) claimed Atty. Rizalino T. Simbillo could guarantee an annulment in four to six months (excluding property separation or child custody disputes) for a fee of ₱48,000 (half upon filing; half after decision).
- Administrative complaint and proceedings
- On September 1, 2000, Atty. Ismael G. Khan, Jr. filed an administrative complaint against Atty. Simbillo for improper advertising and solicitation, alleging violations of Rule 2.03 and Rule 3.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Rule 138, Section 27 of the Rules of Court.
- The case was referred to the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline, which on June 29, 2002 issued Resolution No. XV-2002-306 finding Simbillo guilty and suspending him for one year; his motion for reconsideration was denied in Resolution No. XV-2002-606.
- Atty. Simbillo filed a petition for certiorari (G.R. No. 157053), consolidated with A.C. No. 5299; both parties submitted pleadings and memoranda but no additional evidence.
Issues:
- Whether respondent’s paid advertisements constitute solicitation in violation of Rule 2.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
- Whether the content of the advertisements is false, misleading or undignified under Rule 3.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
- Whether the absolute prohibition on lawyer advertising should yield to more liberal standards of public information.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)