Director of RA vs Bayot 74 Phil 579, A.C. No. L-1117, March 20, 1944
Subject: Basic Legal Ethics
FACTS
The Director of Religious
Affairs filed a complaint for disbarment against Estanislao Bayot, an
attorney-at-law, for having published an advertisement in the Sunday Tribune of
June 13, 1943, which read as follows: “Marriage license promptly secured thru our
assistance & the annoyance of delay or publicity avoided if desired, and
marriage arranged to wishes of parties. Consultation on any matter free for the
poor. Everything confidential. Legal assistance service 12 Escolta, Manila,
Room 105. Tel. 2-41-60.”
The Director of Religious
Affairs alleged that the advertisement violated Section 25 of Rule 127 of the
Rules of Court, which prohibits attorneys from soliciting cases at law for the
purpose of gain. Bayot admitted to having published the advertisement but
argued that it was not intended to solicit cases, but rather to inform the
public of his legal services. He also argued that the advertisement was not
misleading, as it accurately described the services that he offered.
ISSUE
Whether or not, Atty. Estanislao
Bayot is guilty of malpractice.
RULING:
Yes. The Supreme Court found that Bayot's
advertisement was a clear violation of Section 25 of Rule 127.
Section 25 of Rule 127
expressly provides among other things that "the practice of soliciting
cases at law for the purpose of gain, either personally or thru paid agents or
brokers, constitutes malpractice." It is highly unethical for an attorney
to advertise his talents or skill as a merchant advertises his wares.
In this case, the Court held
that the advertisement was a solicitation of cases, as it was intended to
attract clients and generate business. The Court also held that the
advertisement was misleading, as it implied that Bayot could guarantee the
prompt issuance of marriage licenses and the avoidance of publicity. Hence, the
Supreme Court ordered Bayot to be disbarred from the practice of law.
No comments:
Post a Comment