A.C. No.

5299               August 19, 2003 RULING: YES.

ATTY. ISMAEL G. KHAN, JR., Assistant Court We agree with the IBP’s Resolutions Nos. XV-2002-306 and
Administrator and Chief, Public Information XV-2002-606.
Office, Complainant, vs.
ATTY. RIZALINO T. SIMBILLO, Respondent. Rules 2.03 and 3.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
read:
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
Rule 2.03. – A lawyer shall not do or permit to be done any
FACTS: Ms. Ma. Theresa B. Espeleta, a staff member of the act designed primarily to solicit legal business.
Public Information Office of the Supreme Court, called up the
published telephone number and pretended to be an interested Rule 3.01. – A lawyer shall not use or permit the use of any
party. She spoke to Mrs. Simbillo, who claimed that her false, fraudulent, misleading, deceptive, undignified, self-
husband, Atty. Rizalino Simbillo, was an expert in handling laudatory or unfair statement or claim regarding his
annulment cases and can guarantee a court decree within four qualifications or legal services.
to six months, provided the case will not involve separation of
property or custody of children. Mrs. Simbillo also said that Rule 138, Section 27 of the Rules of Court states:
her husband charges a fee of P48,000.00, half of which is
payable at the time of filing of the case and the other half after
a decision thereon has been rendered. 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
Further research by the Office of the Court Administrator and Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice or other gross
the Public Information Office revealed that similar misconduct in such office, grossly immoral conduct or by
advertisements were published in the August 2 and 6, 2000 reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude,
issues of the Manila Bulletin and August 5, 2000 issue of The or for any violation of the oath which he is required to take
Philippine Star. before the admission to practice, or for a willful disobedience
appearing as attorney for a party without authority to do so.
On September 1, 2000, Atty. Ismael G. Khan, Jr., in his
capacity as Assistant Court Administrator and Chief of the It has been repeatedly stressed that the practice of law is not a
Public Information Office, filed an administrative complaint business. It is a profession in which duty to public service, not
against Atty. Rizalino T. Simbillo for improper advertising money, is the primary consideration. Lawyering is not
and solicitation of his legal services, in violation of Rule 2.03 primarily meant to be a money-making venture, and law
and Rule 3.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and advocacy is not a capital that necessarily yields profits. The
Rule 138, Section 27 of the Rules of Court. gaining of a livelihood should be a secondary consideration.
The duty to public service and to the administration of justice
In his answer, respondent admitted the acts imputed to him, should be the primary consideration of lawyers, who must
but argued that advertising and solicitation per se are not subordinate their personal interests or what they owe to
prohibited acts; that the time has come to change our views themselves.15 The following elements distinguish the legal
about the prohibition on advertising and solicitation; that the profession from a business:
interest of the public is not served by the absolute prohibition
on lawyer advertising; that the Court can lift the ban on lawyer 1. A duty of public service, of which the emolument
advertising; and that the rationale behind the decades-old is a by-product, and in which one may attain the
prohibition should be abandoned. Thus, he prayed that he be highest eminence without making much money;
exonerated from all the charges against him and that the Court
promulgate a ruling that advertisement of legal services
offered by a lawyer is not contrary to law, public policy and 2. A relation as an "officer of the court" to the
public order as long as it is dignified.4 administration of justice involving thorough sincerity,
integrity and reliability;
the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline found respondent
guilty of violation of Rules 2.03 and 3.01 of the Code of 3. A relation to clients in the highest degree of
Professional Responsibility and Rule 138, Section 27 of the fiduciary;
Rules of Court, and suspended him from the practice of law
for one (1) year with the warning that a repetition of similar 4. A relation to colleagues at the bar characterized by
acts would be dealt with more severely. candor, fairness, and unwillingness to resort to
current business methods of advertising and
In the meantime, respondent filed an Urgent Motion for encroachment on their practice, or dealing directly
Reconsideration,8 which was denied by the IBP. with their clients.16

ISSUE: Should Atty. Simbillo be disciplined? There is no question that respondent committed the acts
complained of. He himself admits that he caused the
publication of the advertisements. While he professes public or the bar, or to lower dignity or standing of the
repentance and begs for the Court’s indulgence, his contrition profession.
rings hollow considering the fact that he advertised his legal
services again after he pleaded for compassion and after The use of an ordinary simple professional card is also
claiming that he had no intention to violate the rules. Eight permitted. The card may contain only a statement of his name,
months after filing his answer, he again advertised his legal the name of the law firm which he is connected with, address,
services in the August 14, 2001 issue of the Buy & Sell Free telephone number and special branch of law practiced. The
Ads Newspaper.17 Ten months later, he caused the same publication of a simple announcement of the opening of a law
advertisement to be published in the October 5, 2001 issue of firm or of changes in the partnership, associates, firm name or
Buy & Sell.18 Such acts of respondent are a deliberate and office address, being for the convenience of the profession, is
contemptuous affront on the Court’s authority. not objectionable. He may likewise have his name listed in a
telephone directory but not under a designation of special
What adds to the gravity of respondent’s acts is that in branch of law. (emphasis and italics supplied)
advertising himself as a self-styled "Annulment of Marriage
Specialist," he wittingly or unwittingly erodes and undermines Atty. Simbillo was SUSPENDED from the practice of law
not only the stability but also the sanctity of an institution still for ONE (1) YEAR. He was likewise STERNLY WARNED
considered sacrosanct despite the contemporary climate of that a repetition of the same or similar offense will be dealt
permissiveness in our society. Indeed, in assuring prospective with more severely.
clients that an annulment may be obtained in four to six
months from the time of the filing of the case, 19 he in fact
encourages people, who might have otherwise been
disinclined and would have refrained from dissolving their
marriage bonds, to do so.

Nonetheless, the solicitation of legal business is not altogether

proscribed. However, for solicitation to be proper, it must be
compatible with the dignity of the legal profession. If it is
made in a modest and decorous manner, it would bring no
injury to the lawyer and to the bar.20 Thus, the use of simple
signs stating the name or names of the lawyers, the office and
residence address and fields of practice, as well as
advertisement in legal periodicals bearing the same brief data,
are permissible. Even the use of calling cards is now
acceptable.21 Publication in reputable law lists, in a manner
consistent with the standards of conduct imposed by the
canon, of brief biographical and informative data is likewise
allowable. As explicitly stated in Ulep v. Legal Clinic, Inc.:

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