Case Digest: In Re Tagorda 57 Phil 37

In Re Tagorda 57 Phil 37, March 23, 1929

Subject: Basic Legal Ethics

Facts

The respondent, Luis B. Tagorda, a practicing attorney and a member of the provincial board of Isabela, admits that previous to the last general elections he made use of a card written in Spanish and Ilocano which translates that he is an attorney, a notary public and a candidate for the election and that he is offering his services for free. The respondent further admits that he is the author of a letter addressed to a lieutenant of barrio in his home municipality written in Ilocano, which read that the respondent is soliciting suggestions and recommendations in line his candidacy and help him transmit information of his candidacy to his barrio people during their meetings and gatherings in return, he is offering his services as a lawyer and notary public to him.

Issue

Whether or not Luis Tagorda shall be disbarred.

Ruling

No.

Under the law, common barratry consisting of frequently stirring up suits and quarrels between individuals was a crime at the common law, and one of the penalties for this offense when committed by an attorney was disbarment.

In this case, the provincial fiscal of Isabela, with whom joined the representative of the Attorney-General in the oral presentation of the case, suggests that the respondent be only reprimanded. It was held that the action should go further toward cases of this character and that the commission of offenses of this nature would amply justify permanent elimination from the bar. But as mitigating, circumstances working in favor of the respondent there are, first, his intimation that he was unaware of the impropriety of his acts, second, his youth and inexperience at the bar, and third, his promise not to commit a similar mistake in the future; SC held that a modest period of suspension would seem to fit the case of the erring attorney. But it should be distinctly understood that this result is reached in view of the considerations which have influenced the court to the relatively lenient in this particular instance and should, therefore, not be taken as indicating that future convictions of practice of this kind will not be dealt with by disbarment. Respondent Luis B. Tagorda was suspended from the practice as an attorney-at-law for the period of one month from April 1, 1929.