Title
IN RE: Tagorda
Case
G.R. No. 32329
Decision Date
Mar 23, 1929
Attorney Luis B. Tagorda suspended for one month for soliciting legal business via business cards and letters, violating professional ethics and civil procedure laws.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 32329)

Petitioner

The People of the Philippine Islands, represented by the Provincial Fiscal of Isabela and the Attorney-General’s representative.

Respondent

Luis B. Tagorda, Esq., provincial board member and notary public, charged with unprofessional solicitation of legal business.

Key Dates

• September 18, 1928 – Date of the Ilocano letter to a barrio lieutenant.
• March 23, 1929 – Date of the Supreme Court decision.
• April 1, 1929 – Effective start of suspension period.

Applicable Law

• Section 21, Code of Civil Procedure, as amended by Act No. 2828 (1919): prescribing malpractice for soliciting cases to gain clients.
• Canons 27–28, Philippine Bar Association Code of Professional Ethics (1917):
– Canon 27 prohibits direct or indirect advertising beyond simple business cards;
– Canon 28 forbids stirring up litigation or using agents to procure clients.

Facts

  1. Tagorda authored and distributed a bilingual card announcing his candidacy for the Provincial Board and advertising his services as attorney and notary public.
  2. He wrote a letter to a barrio lieutenant inviting referrals and promising legal and notarial services, including on Sundays and at fixed rates.
  3. Tagorda conceded authorship and distribution of both the card and the letter.

Issue

Whether Tagorda’s use of printed campaign cards and letters to solicit legal and notarial business constituted malpractice under Section 21, Code of Civil Procedure (as amended), and violations of the Canons of Professional Ethics.

Ruling

The Supreme Court found that Tagorda had violated the statutory prohibition against soliciting cases and breached Canons 27 and 28.

Reasoning

• Solicitation by circulars, advertisements, or personal communications not grounded in prior personal relations is “unprofessional” and constitutes malpractice under Act No. 2828.
• Direct or indirect advertisement aimed at securing clients lowers the standards of the legal profession and encourages needless litigation.
• Stirring up litigation or using intermediaries to procure clients is indictable a

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.