Case Summary (A.C. No. 5299, 157053)
Petitioner
Atty. Rizalino T. Simbillo, who placed paid newspaper advertisements promoting himself as an “Annulment of Marriage Specialist” and guaranteeing decrees within four to six months for a fee.
Respondents
- Atty. Ismael G. Khan, Jr., as complainant in the administrative action
- Integrated Bar of the Philippines Commission on Bar Discipline, which investigated and recommended suspension
Key Dates
- July 5, 2000: Advertisement appears in Philippine Daily Inquirer
- August 2–6, 2000 and August 5, 2000: Similar ads in Manila Bulletin and The Philippine Star
- September 1, 2000: Administrative complaint filed
- June 29, 2002: IBP Commission issues Resolution finding guilt and imposing one-year suspension
- October 19, 2002: IBP denies petitioner’s motion for reconsideration
- November 11, 2002: Supreme Court notes the IBP Resolution
- March 26, 2003: Supreme Court consolidates petition for certiorari with A.C. No. 5299
- July 11, 2005: Resolution of the Supreme Court’s First Division
Applicable Law (1987 Constitution)
- Code of Professional Responsibility, Rules 2.03 and 3.01
- Rule 138, Section 27 of the Rules of Court
Facts
- Atty. Simbillo placed newspaper ads offering guaranteed, expedited annulment services for a fixed fee, specifying payment terms.
- An investigator from the Supreme Court’s Public Information Office confirmed multiple publications of the ads.
- After the complaint was filed, respondent admitted authorship of the ads but argued for lifting the advertising ban.
- Despite pending proceedings, respondent repeated similar advertisements in August and October 2001.
Issues
Whether the publication and solicitation of legal services by Atty. Simbillo violated:
- Rule 2.03 (prohibition against solicitation designed primarily to obtain legal business)
- Rule 3.01 (prohibition against misleading or undignified statements regarding legal services)
- Rule 138, Section 27 (authorizing suspension for gross misconduct or violation of professional standards)
IBP Commission Findings
- Respondent’s advertisements were self-laudatory, undignified, and primarily designed to solicit clients.
- Such acts constitute improper solicitation and advertising under the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Rules of Court.
- Recommended one-year suspension from the practice of law, warning against repetition.
Supreme Court Ruling
- Affirmed the IBP Commission’s findings and sanctions.
- Emphasized that the practice of law is a public service, not a profit-driven business.
- Reiterated that only modest, decorous notices (e.g., simple signs, professional cards, listings in reputable law lists) are permissible.
Rationale
- Lawyers must subordinate personal gain to public service and the administration of justice.
- Advertising that guarantees outcomes or suggests undue influence undermines the dignity of the profession
Case Syllabus (A.C. No. 5299, 157053)
Facts of the Case
- A paid newspaper advertisement appeared on July 5, 2000 in the Philippine Daily Inquirer offering “Annulment of Marriage Specialist” services with contact numbers 532-4333/521-2667.
- Ms. Ma. Theresa B. Espeleta, a Supreme Court Public Information Office staff member, telephoned the number posing as an interested party.
- Mrs. Simbillo represented that her husband, Atty. Rizalino T. Simbillo, would secure an annulment decree within four to six months, provided there was no property separation or child-custody issue.
- The advertised fee was PHP 48,000, with half payable at filing and the remainder upon issuance of the decree.
- Further advertisements appeared on August 2 and 6, 2000 in the Manila Bulletin and on August 5, 2000 in The Philippine Star.
Administrative Complaint
- On September 1, 2000, Atty. Ismael G. Khan, Jr., in his capacity as Assistant Court Administrator and Chief of the Public Information Office, filed an administrative complaint against Atty. Simbillo.
- The complaint alleged improper advertising and solicitation in violation of:
- Rule 2.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (prohibition against acts designed primarily to solicit legal business).
- Rule 3.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (prohibition against false, misleading, undignified or self-laudatory statements).
- Rule 138, Section 27 of the Rules of Court (grounds for suspension or disbarment).
Respondent’s Answer and Contentions
- Respondent admitted publishing the advertisements but argued:
- Advertising and solicitation are not per se prohibited.
- The absolute ban on lawyer advertising is outdated and contrary to public interest.
- Lawyers should be allowed dignified advertisements of their services.
- He sought exoneration and a ruling that dignified legal service advertising is permissible.
IBP Investigation and Resolutions
- The case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Commission on Bar Discipline for investigation, report, and recommendation.
- On June 29, 2002, the IBP Commission issued Resolution No. XV-2002-306:
- Found respondent guilty of violating Rules 2.03 and 3.01 CPR and Rule 138, Sec. 27 RC.
- Suspended him from practice for one year with a warning of harsher sancti