Anda di halaman 1dari 15

FLORES, Arienne; GARCIA, Clyde; JIMENEZ, Angeli; MOLINA, Zahreena; NOMBRES,

Clarissa (Group IV)


G01 Legal Profession

Ambulance Chasing: An Unethical Conduct in the Legal Profession

Introduction:

Being a lawyer, we are at the core of our main duty to help those who are in need,

oppressed and in distress but not at the expense of the administration of justice. A major

part of the profession is being ready when unseen circumstances come our way -

however, some happenstances take it a little too far. After an accident, most people are

at the height of their pain, anger, agony and confusion. These emotions lead to a rushed

decision that one individual may later regret when he/she seeks compensation for the

damages and injuries. There are many lawyers across the Philippines that try to

capitalize on other peoples misfortunes. Hence, the term Ambulance chasing which is

an unfortunate side effect of the practice of law. One of the ways on how they do this is

that lawyers target one individual for representation the moment one is injured. Although

it is not unheard of to actually be chased by a lawyer while you are in an ambulance, the

term also encompasses other approaches, like meeting an attorney in a doctors office,

receiving a lawyers contact information from a nurse in a hospital, or receiving a phone

call from an attorney at home after an accident. Now, there is nothing wrong with the

attorney coming to meet you in the hospital, but this should happen only after you or a

family member has contacted said Attorney.

Dizon1 said that ambulance chasing refers to the practice of soliciting legal business

from accident victims or their families at the scene of an accident or disaster. It is a

blatant solicitation in which a lawyer urges injured people to employ the lawyer to

represent them. Literally speaking, they follow victims to the hospital and accident

scenes in the hopes of securing an attorney-client relationship. Furthermore, securing

the consent of representation from the victim or the victim's family members during such

mishap is considered highly unethical. It is heavily frowned upon by those who aim to

keep the profession, a noble one. This only means that a lawyer must always uphold

the highest moral conscience and value when it comes to the practice of law.

1 Dizon, Theresa. Embracing The Legal Profession. REX Bookstore, Quezon City
(2012). Pp35
FLORES, Arienne; GARCIA, Clyde; JIMENEZ, Angeli; MOLINA, Zahreena; NOMBRES,
Clarissa (Group IV)
G01 Legal Profession

Case: Pedro Linsangan vs Atty. Nicomedes Tolentino A.C. No. 6672

(2009)2

The case at bar is a complaint for disbarment filed by Pedro Linsangan against Atty.

Nicomedes Tolentino for solicitation of clients and encroachment of professional

services. Complaint alleged that respondent, with the help of paralegal Fe Marie

Labiano, convinced his clients to transfer legal representation. Respondent promised

them financial assistance and expeditious collection on their claims. To induce them to

hire his services, he persistently called them and sent them text messages. To support

his allegations, complainant presented the sworn affidavit of James Gregorio attesting

that Labiano tried to prevail upon him to sever his lawyer-client relations with

complainant and utilize respondents services instead, in exchange for a loan of P50,

000.00. Complainant also attached respondents calling card. Respondent, in his

defense, denied knowing Labiano and authorizing the printing and circulation of the said

calling card. Hence, we question whether or not Tolentinos actions warrant disbarment.

The Supreme Court ruled that, yes, according to Rule 2.03 of the CPR provides that a

lawyer shall not do or permit to be done any act designed primarily to solicit legal

business. Hence, lawyers are prohibited from soliciting cases for the purpose of gain,

either personally or through paid agents or brokers. Such actuation constitutes

malpractice, a ground for disbarment. Rule 2.03 should be read in connection with Rule

1.03 of the CPR which provides that lawyer, shall not for any corrupt motive or interest,

encourage any suit or proceeding or delay any mans cause. This rule proscribes

ambulance chasing (the solicitation of almost any kind of legal business by an

attorney, personally or through an agent in order to gain employment) as a measure to

protect the community from barratry and champerty. In the case at bar, complainant

presented substantial evidence (consisting of the sworn statements of the very same

persons coaxed by Labiano and referred to respondents office) to prove that

respondent indeed solicited legal business as well as profited from referrals suits.

2 Linsangan v. Tolentino, A.C. No. 6672, September 4, 2009.


FLORES, Arienne; GARCIA, Clyde; JIMENEZ, Angeli; MOLINA, Zahreena; NOMBRES,
Clarissa (Group IV)
G01 Legal Profession

Through Labianos actions, respondents law practice was benefited. Hapless seamen

were enticed to transfer representation on the strength of Labianos word that

respondent could produce a more favorable result. Based on the foregoing, respondent

clearly solicited employment violating Rule 2.03, and Rule 1.03 and Canon 3 of the CPR

and section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court. Any act of solicitations constitutes

malpractice which calls for the exercise of the Courts disciplinary powers. Violation of

anti-solicitation statutes warrants serious sanctions for initiating contact with a

prospective client for the purpose of obtaining employment. Thus in this jurisdiction, the

Court adheres to the rule to protect the public from the Machiavellian machinations of

unscrupulous lawyers and to uphold the nobility of the legal profession. Canon 2: A

lawyer shall make his legal services available in an efficient and convenient manner

compatible with the independence, integrity and effectiveness of the profession. Rule

2.03: A lawyer shall not do or permit to be done any act designed primarily to solicit

legal business.

Duties on the part of lawyers being upheld by the prohibition against

ambulance chasing

Canon 1: A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote

respect for law and legal processes.

Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states the first and foremost

duty of a lawyer to maintain allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines, uphold the

Constitution and obey the laws of the land. Beyond this duty, a lawyer still has to play

the role of a servant of the law as he belongs to a profession to which society has

entrusted the administration of law and dispensation of justice. As such, a lawyer should

make himself an example for others to emulate (Lee v. Tambago, A.C. No. 5281,

February 12, 2008).

Moreover, a lawyer, as an embodying figure of justice and conduct, must at all

times observe proper decorum and respect to the law and legal processes and not by

any means creating and following his or her own version of legal profession.

Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful

conduct.
FLORES, Arienne; GARCIA, Clyde; JIMENEZ, Angeli; MOLINA, Zahreena; NOMBRES,
Clarissa (Group IV)
G01 Legal Profession

There is no distinction as to whether the transgression is committed in the

lawyers professional capacity or in his private life or in his private transactions. This is

because a lawyer may not divide his personality as to be an attorney at one time and a

mere citizen at another, and his private life may reflect unfavorably upon the good name

and prestige of the profession and the courts. It is a lawyers duty to act with honesty,

morality and lawful Conduct. Any of the three would be sufficient ground to file

disciplinary proceedings against a lawyer. The dishonesty, gross immorality and

violation of a law need not to be committed in relation to his professional duties; the

lawyer may be sanctioned for acts committed in his private affairs. Unlawful conduct is a

transgression of any provision of law which not need to be a penal law. The presence of

evil intent on the part of the lawyer is not essential in order to bring his act of omission

within the terms of this rule. Dishonest act denotes an absence of integrity, a disposition

to cheat, deceive, or defraud and betray. Immoral or deceitful conduct is defined as

wilful, shameless and has a moral indifference to the opinion of the good and

respectable members of the community. Moral turpitude is an act of baseness or

depravity in the duties which one person owes to another or to society in general which

is contrary to the usually accepted and customary rule of right and duty which a person

should follow. Thus, it is an act contrary to justice, good morals and modesty. Crimes

involving moral turpitude are falsification of public documents, bribery, estafa, murder,

abduction, seduction, concubinage, smuggling and violation of BP 22.

Rule 1.02 - A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the law or

at lessening confidence in the legal system.

According to Rules of Court, Code of Professional Ethics, Canon 32, a lawyer

advances the honor of his profession and the best interest of his client when he renders

services tending to impress upon the client and his undertaking exact compliance with

the principles of moral law.

Lawyers are expected not to promote or assist an organization which will violate the law

and afterwards, defend them.

Rule 1.03 - A lawyer shall not, for any corrupt motive or interest, encourage any suit or

proceeding or delay any man's cause.


FLORES, Arienne; GARCIA, Clyde; JIMENEZ, Angeli; MOLINA, Zahreena; NOMBRES,
Clarissa (Group IV)
G01 Legal Profession

A lawyer has a duty against barratry which is the offense of frequently exciting or

stirring up quarrels and suits, either at law or otherwise and this rule prevents

ambulance chasing which is defined as a solicitation of almost any kind of legal

business by laymen employed by a lawyer or by the attorney himself. Volunteering

advice to bring lawsuit comes within the prohibition, except where ties of blood,

relationship, and trust make it a duty to do so as stated in the Rules of Court, Canons of

Professional Ethics, Canon 28. A lawyer owes to the society and to the court the duty

not to stir up litigation. It Is their duty to encourage suits or legal actions with noble intent

to pursue or protect a right a person and not to delay any mans cause which was also

mentioned in the lawyers oath.

Rule 1.04 - A lawyer shall encourage his clients to avoid, end or settle a

controversy if it will admit of a fair settlement.

It is a lawyers duty to promote fair and amicable settlement and not an instigator

of controversy and a predator of conflict. Compromise and settlement of cases is

encouraged. As held in the case of Castaneda vs Ago, July 30, 1975, it is the duty of a

counsel to advise his client, ordinarily a layman to the intricacies and vagaries of the

law, on the merit or lack of merit of his case. If he finds that his client's cause is

defenseless, then it is his bounden duty to advise the latter to acquiesce and submit,

rather than traverse the incontrovertible. A lawyer must resist the whims and caprices of

his client, and temper his clients propensity to litigate. A lawyer's oath to uphold the

cause of justice is superior to his duty to his client; its primacy is indisputable.

General rule, lawyers may bind their clients in any case by any agreement made in

writing. However, he may not compromise his clients litigation. If the client is not

agreeable to the compromise he must immediately repudiate the same, otherwise he

cannot be heard to complain later as held in the case of Melendrez vs Decena, AM No.

2104, August 24, 1989. Rules of Court, Rule 18, Section 2 on Pre-trial, Local

Government Code and Judicial Dispute Resolution provide rules which mandate the

parties to consider the possibility of a settlement.

Canon 7 and Rule 7.03. A lawyer, in his overzealousness to earn a living, tends

to engage in the practice of ambulance chasing where he can have the opportunity to

seek and represent clients, and charge them with exorbitant fees. Unfortunately, the
FLORES, Arienne; GARCIA, Clyde; JIMENEZ, Angeli; MOLINA, Zahreena; NOMBRES,
Clarissa (Group IV)
G01 Legal Profession

practice of ambulance chasing, especially the charging of unconscionable fees, is not

only scandalous, but also debases the integrity and dignity of the legal profession,

contrary to Canon 7 and Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Canon 7

of the Code of Professional Responsibility states that a lawyer shall at all times uphold

the integrity and dignity of the legal profession. And Rule 7.03 requires that a lawyer

shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor

shall he, whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the

discredit of the legal profession. In light of these canons, a lawyer is bound to uphold

the integrity and dignity of the legal profession by not acting or behaving in a manner

that debases the legal profession.

In the case of Resurreccion v. Sayson (A.C. No. 1037, December 14, 1998), the

Supreme Court has recognized the legal profession as a noble profession, and that

the privilege to practice law is bestowed only upon individuals who are competent

intellectually, academically and, equally important, morally. Because they are vanguards

of the law and the legal system, lawyers must at all times conduct themselves,

especially in their dealings with their clients and the public at large, with honesty and

integrity in a manner beyond reproach.

Persons who have been approached or represented by ambulance chasing lawyers are

likely to circulate pejorative publicity about the legal profession. Moreover, they are likely

to entertain low opinion about the legal profession.

Canon 12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility clearly states:

Canon 12 A lawyer shall exert every effort and consider it


his duty to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of
justice.

This means that a lawyer must exercise restraint and be vigilant of himself to

avoid being embroiled in situation or practices that could prevent the realization of that

noble objective enshrined in said canonspeedy and efficient administration of

justice. This is true because lawyers are officers of court, as stated by the Supreme

Court through Justice Malcolm in the case of Arce v. Philippine National Bank (G.R. No.

L-43053, December 9, 1955). Lawyers form part of the machinery of the law for the
FLORES, Arienne; GARCIA, Clyde; JIMENEZ, Angeli; MOLINA, Zahreena; NOMBRES,
Clarissa (Group IV)
G01 Legal Profession

administration of justice (Hilado v. David, G.R. No. L-961, September 21, 1949). In the

case of City Sheriff, Iligan City v. Fortunado (G.R. No. 80390, March 27, 1998), the

Supreme Court describes the nature of the office of lawyer in this way:

[A] lawyer is, first and foremost, an officer of the court. His
duties to the court are more significant than those which he
owes to his client. His first duty is not to his client but to the
administration of justice; to that end, his client's success is
wholly subordinate; and his conduct ought to and must
always be scrupulously observant of the law and ethics of
the profession.

In connection with this, Rule 1.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility

states that a lawyer shall encourage his clients to avoid, end or settle a controversy if it

will admit of a fair settlement. In other words, if mere settlement would be enough to

give a client that which is due him, a lawyer should not encourage the client to file suit in

court. In the case of De Ysasi III v NLRC (G.R. No. 104599, March 11, 1994), the

Supreme Court says that a lawyer should serve as a mediator for concord and a

conciliator for compromise:

It is just as much their responsibility, if not more importantly,


to exert all reasonable efforts to smooth over legal conflicts,
preferably out of court [T]he useful function of a lawyer is
not only to conduct litigation but to avoid it whenever
possible by advising settlement or withholding suit. He is
often called upon less for dramatic forensic exploits than for
wise counsel in every phase of life. He should be a mediator
for concord and a conciliator for compromise, rather than a
virtuoso of technicality in the conduct of litigation.

A lawyer must therefore avoid being an instigator of controversy and a predator

of conflict and resist the whims and caprices of [his] clients and to temper the latters

propensity to litigate because the Lawyers Oath to uphold the cause of justice is

superior to his duty to his clients (Visbal v. Buban, A.M. No. MTJ-02-1432, September

3, 2004).

Thus, to uphold a speedy and efficient administration of justice, lawyersbeing

officers of courtmust exercise restraint, serve as mediators and conciliators, and not

instigate legal conflicts and induce injured people to file suits in court. Otherwise, they

would aggravate the already clogged court dockets which leads to so much delay in the
FLORES, Arienne; GARCIA, Clyde; JIMENEZ, Angeli; MOLINA, Zahreena; NOMBRES,
Clarissa (Group IV)
G01 Legal Profession

adjudication of cases, especially those which are worthy of the courts time and energy.

Canon 20

Confidence to the legal profession further erodes when ambulance chasing

lawyers charge their clients unconscionable or unreasonable fees. By this, ambulance

chasing lawyers may cause the people to think of the legal profession as a profession

composed of lawyers who are akin to predators preying on the plight of their clients.

Moreover, they do not maintain the noble character and honor of the legal profession.

Instead, they turn the legal profession into a money-making business. Justice Malcolm

emphatically states, in the case of Arce v. Philippine National Bank (G.R. No. L-43053,

December 9, 1955), The law is a profession, not a business.

The charging of unconscionable fees also violates Canon 20 of the Code of

Professional Responsibility which requires that a lawyer shall charge only fair and

reasonable fees. Although a lawyer has a right to compensation for services rendered,

such compensation must be reasonable. In the case of Arce v. Philippine National

Bank, supra, the Supreme Court states that lawyers are entitled to have and recover

from their clients a reasonable compensation for their services rendered with a view to

the importance of the subject matter of the controversy, to the extent of the services

rendered, and the professional standing of the lawyer.

A written contract or agreement is not necessary for purposes of recovering

compensation (Dee v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 77439, August 24, 1989). But as a

rule, if the amount of lawyers fees due is reduced in writing, that agreement if

conclusive as to the amount of the compensation (Compania Maritima, G.R. No.

128452, November 16, 1999). As exceptions, if there is no agreement, or if there is an

agreement but the stated amount of lawyers fees is unconscionable or unreasonable,

the agreement may be set aside, in which cases, the doctrine of quantum meruit may

be applied. The doctrine of quantum meruit in the case of Melchor v. Commission on

Audit (G.R. No. 95398, August 16, 1991) explains that where payment is based on

quantum meruit the amount of recovery would only be the reasonable value of the thing

or services rendered regardless of any agreement as to value.

And in determining the amount of lawyers fees, certain factors are considered. Rule
FLORES, Arienne; GARCIA, Clyde; JIMENEZ, Angeli; MOLINA, Zahreena; NOMBRES,
Clarissa (Group IV)
G01 Legal Profession

20.1 pertinently states: Rule 20.01 - A lawyer shall be guided by the following factors in

determining his fees:

a. The time spent and the extent of the service rendered or required
b. The novelty and difficulty of the questions involved;
c. The importance of the subject matter;
d. The skill demanded;
e. The probability of losing other employment as a result of acceptance of the
proffered case;
f. The customary charges for similar services and the schedule of fees of the IBP
chapter to which he belongs;
g. The amount involved in the controversy and the benefits resulting
to the client from the service;
h. The contingency or certainty of compensation;
i. The character of the employment, whether occasional or
established; and
j. The professional standing of the lawyer.

However, all these canons and doctrines are set aside when a lawyer engages in

this immoral, unethical, and appalling practice of ambulance chasing and exact as much

money as he can from his clients, even if the amount becomes unconscionable or

unreasonable.

Clients of ambulance chasing lawyers clearly end up suffering. And the damage extends

to the legal profession as people lose confidence in it due to some of its members who

have fallen short of the exacting standards expected of them as vanguards of the legal

profession.

Ambulance Chasing and the Seafarers Protection Act (RA No. 10706)
I. Why did Congress pass the Seafarers Protection Act?

On 26 November 2015, Republic Act No. 10706 (An Act Protecting Seafarers

against Ambulance Chasing and Excessive Fees and Providing Penalties Therefor),

otherwise known as Seafarers Protection Act, was signed into law. This law was a

reaction of the Congress to the practice of unscrupulous individuals or groupswhether

lawyers or notof taking advantage of the plight of seafarers who met accident, illness,

or death in the course of their service by engaging in ambulance chasing (Sec. 2).

As defined in Sec. 3 of the law, ambulance chasing is the act of soliciting,

personally or through an agent, from seafarers, or their heirs, the pursuit of any claim

against them employers for the purpose of recovery of monetary claim or benefit,

including legal interest, arising from accident, illness or death, in exchange of an

amount or fee which shall be retained or deducted from the monetary claim or benefit
FLORES, Arienne; GARCIA, Clyde; JIMENEZ, Angeli; MOLINA, Zahreena; NOMBRES,
Clarissa (Group IV)
G01 Legal Profession

granted to or awarded to the seafarers or their heirs. Simply put, ambulance chasing is

a flagrant move on the part of a lawyerpersonally or through an agentto induce

injured seafarers or their heirs to file monetary claims against their employers by

promising them huge monetary award and to employ him (the lawyer) to represent them

in filing said claims in exchange for an exorbitant amount or fee as compensation.

Since ambulance chasers can charge as high as 60% 3 of the monetary award, the

injured seafarers or their heirs end up losing a huge chunk of the benefits awarded to

them. Clearly, ambulance chasing is a scheme so unfair and predatory. To allow this

practice to perpetuate is to subject the poor, pitiful, and innocent injured seafarers to

further degradation, while showering undeserved blessings to greedy, unlawful,

immoral, dishonest, and deceitful ambulance chasers.

II. What are the salient features of the Seafarers Protection Act?

Thus, to bring dignity to and prevent the injured seafarers or their heirs from

being preyed upon by ambulance chasers, the Seafarers Protection Act declared as

unlawful and prohibited the practice of ambulance chasing. According to Sec. 5 of the

law, any person who violates this prohibition shall be punished by a fine of not less than

fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) but not more than one hundred thousand pesos

(P100,000.00), or by imprisonment of one (1) year but not more than two (2) years, or

both fine and imprisonment.

In addition to this criminal liability, Sec. 2, Rule V of the Implementing Rules and

Regulations of the Seafarers Protection Act provides that any person who commits

ambulance chasing shall be also be held civilly liable for damages in a separate and

distinct civil action proceeding independently of any criminal prosecution.

Moreover, the law also provides that when the contract or agreement between

the seafarers or their heirs and the ambulance chaser stipulates that the latter is entitled

to fees, such fees shall not exceed 10% of the compensation or benefit awarded to the

seafarers or their heirs. The law in other words has limited the fees that a lawyer may

impose or receive in representing the injured seafarers or their heirs to a maximum of

3 Nicholson, T. (2015, August 12). Philippines Angkla Seafarers Protection Act (Anti-Ambulance
Chasing Act) Republic Act No. 10706. Retrieved from
http://www.ukpandi.com/knowledge/article/philippines-angkla-seafarers-protection-act-anti-ambulance-
chasing-act-republic-act-no-10706-134099/)
FLORES, Arienne; GARCIA, Clyde; JIMENEZ, Angeli; MOLINA, Zahreena; NOMBRES,
Clarissa (Group IV)
G01 Legal Profession

10% of the total amount awarded. Accordingly, the injured seafarers or their heirs are no

longer legally required to pay their lawyers more than 10% of the total amount awarded.

In fact, the imposition of excessive fees by the ambulance chasing lawyer may subject

him to a civil action according to Sec. 2, Rule IV of the Implementing Rules and

Regulations of the Seafarers Protection Act.

Comparative Grounds on ambulance chasing: United States of America

In the United States, Ambulance chasers are well likely to be known as heroes to

victims, in worst case scenarios, the helpless individuals in hospitals who barely know

their rights and legal grounds for the betterment of their situation. As stated in the book

Transactions of the Annual Meeting (Bryan, 1886), Ambulance chasing is not a practice

of law, but of a legal piracy. Although it does not directly mean one is liable for such

endeavor since as stated by Bryan, an ambulance chaser do violates no law, however is

guilty of gross infraction; one of the longest known ethical precepts of the bar. The doing

(ambulance chasing) imposes such reputation of frustration, desperation and greed,

however despite the negative side some would normally appreciate such act for being

responsive to the needs of the least of society.

Privacy could be one of the most affected rights by ambulance chasers in the

USA, as illustrated and enumerated by Davis Law Groups (n.d.), ambulance chasers

have the capacity to track down information from victims of accidents across the

country. In the United States, there are many ambulance chasing groups which

consistently bother victims at peace to negotiate in legal advice and counsel with

incentives such as medical attention and service. They could track down every bit of

information available to persuade the target individual to exchange transactions with

them, in other words they reason out service in bad faith. Individuals who are

consistently bothered by this system often reject the offered package, for they are

constantly wondering on how such information was retrieved. Aside from the obvious

invasion of privacy associated with these business practices, perhaps the most

troubling issue with ambulance chasers is that their business strategy only encourages

frivolous lawsuits and continues to facilitate the negative perception that many

consumers have when it comes to attorneys. (Davis Law Groups, n.d.) Now the

question revolves around, can legal profession stop or prevent ambulance chasing from
FLORES, Arienne; GARCIA, Clyde; JIMENEZ, Angeli; MOLINA, Zahreena; NOMBRES,
Clarissa (Group IV)
G01 Legal Profession

its prominent trend amongst lawyers? As Bryan (1886) stated, ...Unfortunately, this is a

practice that cannot be stopped by legal methods. The recourse is to the moral sense of

the Bar; if this sense is weak no relief may be expected and so long as complacent

juries shall freely give away other peoples money and this class of practitioners

continue to receive the favorable consideration of Bench and Bar so long will the

practice itself continue.

Implication to Legal Profession?

Accident victims should have the liberty to freely choose medical assistance, or

to submit themselves to the participation of a lawyer.4They should not be harassed by

repetitive calls, messages and requests when they simply feel the lack for it. It is hard to

miss that a simple act of trying to get clients and trying to help out victims, is considered

wrong and deceitful. Here, we find the thin line between the duty of our legal profession

and the conduct of ambulance chasing.

Ambulance chasing diminishes the civil justice system and promotes, more than

anything, the luxury of a business in the legal profession. It can be remembered that the

practice of lawyering can never be considered as a business, but a profession alone.

This places us in a distinct area wherein we are subject not by standard compensation,

but by what is due. Our compensation is subjective to our individual contributions to the

matter.

Aside from the obvious invasion of privacy associated with these business

practices, perhaps the most troubling issue with ambulance chasers is that their

business strategy only encourages frivolous lawsuits and continues to facilitate the

negative perception that many consumers have when it comes to attorneys. 5 If the

practice of ambulance chasing maintains at this pace, lawyers will soon be regarded as

unreliable and can impair the difficulty in gaining the trust of the client, and of the public.

4 Available at https://www.injurytriallawyer.com/blog/ambulance-chasers-the-truth-
about-unethical-lawyers-and-doctors.cfm (Last accessed on Nov 24 2016)

5 Available at https://www.injurytriallawyer.com/blog/ambulance-chasers-the-truth-
about-unethical-lawyers-and-doctors.cfm (Last accessed on Nov 24 2016)
FLORES, Arienne; GARCIA, Clyde; JIMENEZ, Angeli; MOLINA, Zahreena; NOMBRES,
Clarissa (Group IV)
G01 Legal Profession

Lawyers will soon have a derogatory appellate alongside their name. The profession

ceases to be a noble one.

Conclusion

Clearly, ambulance chasing is a practice not appropriate in a profession as noble

and honorable as the legal profession. The reason is simple. Ambulance chasing

debases the dignity and integrity of the legal profession.

The legal profession is called upon to aid in the performance of one of the basic

purposes of the statethe administration of justice (Ledesma v. Climaco, G.R. No. L-

23815, June 28, 1974). Accordingly, lawyers, as officers of the court, must not only be

competent and reliable; lawyers must also be honorable, honest, and in continuous

possession of strong moral fiber. In other words, lawyers must always be in compliance

with the exacting standards expected of them as vanguards of the legal profession so

as to keep the respect of the public to the judiciary. It is interesting to note that the

organized legal profession of Philippines recognizes the existence of menace to the

ethics of the profession of law that comes into play when ambulance chasers are

operating and that recently steps have been taken to investigate and penalize members

of the profession who are guilty of such practice. That which is not wrong and also offers

benefits ought to be at least tolerated, if not approved, in codes of conduct. That which

is punished if ought to be wrong. And so we come back to that insufferable jerk,

Professor Warvelle, who is likely right about the real ambulance chasing: unfortunately,

this is a practice that cannot be stopped by legal methods. The recourse is to the moral

sense of the Bar.6

V. References

Republic Act No. 10706 (Seafarers Protection Act)

6 Available at http://www.litigationandtrial.com/2012/07/articles/attorney/contingent-
fee/ambulance-chaser/(last accessed on November 23 2016)
FLORES, Arienne; GARCIA, Clyde; JIMENEZ, Angeli; MOLINA, Zahreena; NOMBRES,
Clarissa (Group IV)
G01 Legal Profession

Arce v. Philippine National Bank (G.R. No. L-43053, December 9, 1955)

City Sheriff, Iligan City v. Fortunado (G.R. No. 80390, March 27, 1998)

Compania Maritima (G.R. No. 128452, November 16, 1999)

Dee v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 77439, August 24, 1989)

De Ysasi III v NLRC (G.R. No. 104599, March 11, 1994)

Hilado v. David (G.R. No. L-961, September 21, 1949)

Ledesma v. Climaco (G.R. No. L-2381,5 June 28, 1974)

Lee v. Tambago (A.C. No. 5281, February 12, 2008)

Melchor v. Commission on Audit (G.R. No. 95398, August 16, 1991)

Resurreccion v. Sayson (A.C. No. 1037, December 14, 1998)

Visbal v. Buban (A.M. No. MTJ-02-1432, September 3, 2004)

Nicholson, T. (2015, August 12). Philippines Angkla Seafarers Protection Act (Anti-

Ambulance Chasing Act) Republic Act No. 10706. Retrieved from

http://www.ukpandi.com/knowledge/article/philippines-angkla-seafarers-protection-act-

anti-ambulance-chasing-act-republic-act-no-10706-134099/

Davis Law Groups, P.S. (n.d.) Ambulance Chasing. Retrieved from

https://www.injurytriallawyer.com/blog/ambulance-chasers-the-truth-about-unethical-

lawyers-and-doctors.cfm.

Bryan, R.L. (1886) Transactions of the Annual Meeting. ,

Castaneda vs Ago, GR No. L-28546, July 30, 1975

Melendrez vs Decena, AM No. 2104, August 24, 1989

Rules of Court, Canons of Professional Ethics, Canon 28.

Rules of Court, Code of Professional Ethics, Canon 32

Linsangan vs Tolentino, AC No 6672

AGPALO, Ethics

PINEDA, Legal Ethics, 2009

PINEDA, Legal
FLORES, Arienne; GARCIA, Clyde; JIMENEZ, Angeli; MOLINA, Zahreena; NOMBRES,
Clarissa (Group IV)
G01 Legal Profession

FUNA, Ethics