1 LE-Practice of Law-Ulep Vs Legal Clinic-AGB

EN BANC
Bar Matter No. 553 June 17, 1993

MAURICIO C. ULEP, petitioner,
vs.
THE LEGAL CLINIC, INC., respondent.
FACTS:
Mauricio Ulep prays this Court "to order the The Legal Clinic, Inc. to cease and desist from issuing advertisements
similar to or of the same tenor as that of annexes "A" and "B" (of said petition) and to perpetually prohibit persons or
entities from making advertisements pertaining to the exercise of the law profession other than those allowed by law."
ANNEX A SECRET MARRIAGE?
P560.00 for a valid marriage.
Info on DIVORCE. ABSENCE.
ANNULMENT. VISA.
THE Please call: 521-0767 LEGAL 5217232, 5222041 CLINIC, INC. 8:30 am— 6:00 pm 7-Flr. Victoria Bldg.,
UN Ave., Mla.
ANNEX B GUAM DIVORCE.
DON PARKINSON an Attorney in Guam, is giving FREE BOOKS on Guam Divorce through The Legal Clinic
beginning Monday to Friday during office hours.
Guam divorce. Annulment of Marriage. Immigration Problems, Visa Ext. Quota/Non-quota Res. & Special
Retiree's Visa. Declaration of Absence. Remarriage to Filipina Fiancees. Adoption. Investment in the Phil.
US/Foreign Visa for Filipina Spouse/Children. Call Marivic.
THE 7F Victoria Bldg. 429 UN Ave., LEGAL Ermita, Manila nr. US Embassy CLINIC, INC. 1 Tel. 521-7232; 521-
7251; 522-2041; 521-0767
Mauricio Ulep contends that the advertisements are champterous, unethical, demeaning of the law profession, and
destructive of the confidence of the community in the integrity of the members of the bar and that, as a member of
the legal profession, he is ashamed and offended by the said advertisements, hence the relief sought in his petition.
In its answer to the petition, The Legal Clinic, Inc. admits the fact of publication of the advertisement, but claims that
it is not engaged in the practice of law but in the rendering of "legal support services" through paralegals with the use
of modern computers and electronic machines. The Legal Clinic, Inc. further argues that assuming that the services
advertised are legal services, the act of advertising these services should be allowed supposedly in the light of the case
of John R. Bates and Van O'Steen vs. State Bar of Arizona, decided by the United States Supreme Court on June 7,
1977.
Considering the critical implications on the legal profession of the issues raised, the Supreme Court required the (1)
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), (2) Philippine Bar Association (PBA), (3) Philippine Lawyers' Association (PLA),
(4) U.P. Womens Lawyers' Circle (WILOCI), (5) Women Lawyers Association of the Philippines (WLAP), and (6)
Federacion International de Abogadas (FIDA) to submit their respective position papers on the controversy and,
thereafter, their memoranda. The said bar associations readily responded and extended their valuable services and
cooperation of which this Court takes note with appreciation and gratitude.
ISSUE:
WON the services offered by The Legal Clinic, Inc. as advertised constitutes practice of law.
RULING:
Yes. Practice of law means any activity, in or out of court, which requires the application of law, legal procedures,
knowledge, training and experience. To engage in the practice of law is to perform those acts which are characteristic
of the profession. Generally, to practice law is to give advice or render any kind of service that involves legal knowledge
or skill. The practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases in court. It includes legal advice and counsel, and the
preparation of legal instruments and contract by which legal rights are secured, although such matter may or may not
be pending in a court.
The practice of law, therefore, covers a wide range of activities in and out of court. Applying the aforementioned criteria
in the cases of Cayetano v. Monsod and Philippine Lawyers Association v. Agrave to the case at bar, we agree with the
perceptive findings and observations of the aforestated bar associations that the activities of respondent, as advertised,
constitute "practice of law."
What is palpably clear is that respondent corporation gives out legal information to laymen and lawyers. Its contention
that such function is non-advisory and non-diagnostic is more apparent than real. In providing information, for example,
about foreign laws on marriage, divorce and adoption, it strains the credulity of this Court that all the respondent
corporation will simply do is look for the law, furnish a copy thereof to the client, and stop there as if it were merely a
bookstore. With its attorneys and so called paralegals, it will necessarily have to explain to the client the intricacies of
the law and advise him or her on the proper course of action to be taken as may be provided for by said law. That is
what its advertisements represent and for which services it will consequently charge and be paid. That activity falls
squarely within the jurisprudential definition of "practice of law." Such a conclusion will not be altered by the fact that
respondent corporation does not represent clients in court since law practice, as the weight of authority holds, is not
limited merely giving legal advice, contract drafting and so forth.

1 LE-Practice of Law-Ulep Vs Legal Clinic-AGB

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1 LE-Practice of Law-Ulep Vs Legal Clinic-AGB

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

1 LE-Practice of Law-Ulep Vs Legal Clinic-AGB

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

EN BANC

Bar Matter No. 553 June 17, 1993

You might also like