CANON 2

IN RE: TAGORDA
(G.R. No. 32329, March 23, 1929)

FACTS:
The respondent, Luis B. Tagorda, a practicing attorney and a member of the provincial
board of Isabela, that he made use of a card written in Spanish and Ilocano and distributed it to
their municipality so he could render legal service to them. Respondent also admitted having
written a letter in Ilocano addressed to a lieutenant in his home municipality in Echague, Isabela
in which he stated his continued exercise of his profession as a lawyer and a notary public,
besides being a Member of the Board of the municipality of Ilagan, Isabela. He also stated that
he would be willing to render his legal services to the people who have not contracted any other
lawyers services. Respondents service is based on the registration of land titles and charge
people three pesos for every registration.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the suspension of Luis B. Tagorda is meritorious under the code of
professional responsibility by advertising and soliciting legal work by distributing pamphlets?

HELD:
The respondent was suspended for 1 month under the Rule 2.03 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility because it is stated in the rule that A lawyer shall not do or permit to
be done any act designed primarily to solicit legal business. Practice of law is not a trade or a
business. It is a profession in which duty to public service, not money, is the primary
consideration.
 CANON 2

BURBE v. MAGULTA
(A.C. No. 5713, June 10, 2002)

FACTS:
Petitioner Dominador P. Burbe filed a complaint for disbarment, suspension or any
disciplinary action against Atty. Alberto C. Magulta. Respondent agreed to legally represent the
petitioner in a money claim and possible civil case. He prepared the demand letters and other
legal papers; however, he later on suggested that the petitioner must file the necessary complaint.
Petitioner paid an amount of P25, 000 for lawyers fees and amounts for filing the case. Months
had passed but there was still no feedback regarding the petitioners case. Petitioner would
frequently inquire yet respondent would repeatedly tell him to wait. To prove that the case was
already filed, respondent brought the petitioner to the Hall of Justice Building at Ecoland, Davao
City. He made the petitioner wait for hours at the prosecutors office and came back with the
news that the Clerk of Court was absent that day. Petitioner personally went to the Office of the
Clerk of Court and found out that the case was not filed. A confrontation took place wherein the
respondent denied the allegation. It was only when the certification was shown that Atty.
Magulta admitted that he spent the money for his own purpose and offered to reimburse the
Burbe.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Alberto C. Magulta should be disbarred?

HELD:
The Court adopted the Integrated Bar of the Philippines recommendation. It is evident
that the petitioner deposited an amount of P25, 00 for the filing fees of the Regwill complaint.
There was a lawyer-client relationship established since the respondent agreed to legally
represent the petitioner. Theres an obligation on the part of the respondent to file the complaint
within the time frame. In addition to that, there was misappropriation of funds of the client. His
actions caused damages and prejudice to his clients. His conduct was dishonest thus unsuitable to
be a member of the legal profession. He was not disbarred; nonetheless, he was suspended from
the practice of law for a period of one year.