ULEP v. THE LEGAL CLINIC

8/30/2021 [ B.M. No.
553, June 17, 1993 ]
295 Phil. 454
EN BANC
[ B.M. No. 553, June 17, 1993 ]
MAURICIO C. ULEP, PETITIONER,
VS. THE LEGAL CLINIC, INC.,
RESPONDENT.
RESOLUTION
REGALADO, J.:
Petitioner prays this Court "to order the

respondent 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."
The advertisements complained of by herein petitioner

are as follows:
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
Guam,
is giving FREE BOOKS on Guam Divorce through The Legal
an Attorney in
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
[1]
CLINIC, INC. Tel. 521-7232
521-7251
https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/elibsearch 1/19
8/30/2021 [ B.M. No. 553, June 17, 1993 ]
522-2041
521-0767
It
is the submission of petitioner that the advertisements above reproduced are champertous,
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 reliefs
sought in his petition as
hereinbefore quoted.
In
its answer to the petition, respondent admits the fact of publication of said
advertisements at
its instance, 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.
Respondent 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
[2]
case of John R. Bates and Van O'Steen
vs. State Bar of Arizona.
reportedly decided by the
United States Supreme Court on June 7, 1977.
Considering
the critical implications on the legal profession of the issues raised herein, we
required the .(1) Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), (2) Philippine Bar
Association (PBA), (3)
Philippine Lawyers' Association (PLA), (4) U.P. Women
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
[3]
memoranda.
The said bar associations readily responded and extended their valuable
services
and cooperation of which this Court takes note with appreciation and
gratitude.
The
main issues posed for resolution before the Court are whether or not the
services offered
by respondent, The Legal Clinic, Inc., as advertised by it
constitutes practice of law and, in
either case, whether the same can properly
be the subject of the advertisements herein
complained of.
Before
proceeding with an in-depth analysis of the merits of this case, we deem it
proper and
enlightening to present hereunder, excerpts from the respective
position papers adopted by the
aforementioned bar associations and the
memoranda submitted by them on the issues involved
in this bar matter.
1. Integrated Bar of the Philippines:
X
X X
Notwithstanding
the subtle manner by which respondent endeavored to distinguish the two
terms,
i.e., "legal support services" vis-a-vis
"legal services", common sense would readily
dictate that the same
are essentially without substantial distinction. For who could deny that
document search, evidence gathering, assistance to layman in need of basic
institutional
services from government or non-government agencies like birth,
marriage, property, or
business registration, obtaining documents like
clearance, passports, local or foreign visas,
constitute practice of law?
x
x x
The
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) does not wish to make issue with
respondent's
foreign citations. Suffice it to state that the IBP has made its
position manifest, to wit, that it
strongly opposes the view espoused by
respondent (to the effect that today it is alright to
advertise one's legal
services).
The
IBP accordingly declares in no uncertain terms its opposition to respondent's
act of
establishing a "legal clinic" and of concomitantly advertising
the same through newspaper
publications.
The
IBP would therefore invoke the administrative supervision of this Honorable
Court to
perpetually restrain respondent from undertaking highly unethical
activities in the field of law
[4]
practice as aforedescribed.
8/30/2021 [ B.M. No. 553, June 17, 1993 ]
X
X X
A.
The use of the name "The Legal Clinic, Inc." gives the impression
that respondent
corporation is being operated by lawyers and that it renders
legal services.
While
the respondent repeatedly denies that it offers legal services to the public,
the
advertisements in question give the impression that respondent is offering
legal services.
The Petition in fact simply assumes this to be so, as earlier
mentioned, apparently because
this (is) the effect that the advertisements have
on the reading public.
The
impression created by the advertisements in question can be traced, first of
all, to the
very name being used by respondent - "The Legal Clinic,
Inc." Such a name, it is
respectfully submitted connotes the rendering of
legal services for legal problems, just like a
medical clinic connotes medical
services for medical problems. More importantly, the term
"Legal
Clinic" connotes lawyers, as the term medical clinic connotes doctors.
Furthermore,
the respondent's name, as published in the advertisements subject of the
present case, appears with (the) scale(s) of justice, which all the more
reinforces the
impression that it is being operated by members of the bar and
that it offers legal services.
In addition, the advertisements in question
appear with a picture and name of a person
being represented as a lawyer from Guam,
and this practically removes whatever doubt
may still remain as to the nature
of the service or services being offered.
It
thus becomes irrelevant whether respondent is merely offering "legal
support services" as
claimed by it, or whether it offers legal services as
any lawyer actively engaged in law
practice does. And it becomes unnecessary to
make a distinction between "legal services"
and "legal support
services," as the respondent would have it. The advertisements in
question
leave no room for doubt in the minds of the reading public that legal services
are
being offered by lawyers, whether true or not.
B.
The advertisements in question are meant to induce the performance of acts
contrary to
law, morals, public order and public policy.
It
may be conceded that, as the respondent claims, the advertisements in question
are only
meant to inform the general public of the services being offered by
it. Said advertisements,
however, emphasize a Guam
divorce, and any law student ought to know that under
the Family Code, there is
only one instance when a foreign divorce is recognized,
and that is:
Article
26. x x x.
Where
a marriage between a Filipino citizen and a foreigner is validly celebrated and
a divorce is
thereafter validly obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating
him or her to remarry, the Filipino
spouse shall have capacity to remarry
under Philippine Law.
It
must not be forgotten, too, that the Family Code (defines) a marriage as
follows:
Article
1. Marriage is a special contract of permanent union between a man and a
woman entered into in
accordance with law for the establishment of conjugal and
family life. It is the foundation of the family
and an inviolable
social institution whose nature, consequences, and incidents are governed
by law and
not subject .to stipulation, except that marriage settlements may
fix the property relation during the
marriage within the limits provided by
this Code.
By
simply reading the questioned advertisements, it is obvious that the message
being
conveyed is that Filipinos can avoid the legal consequences of a marriage
celebrated in
accordance with our law, by simply going to Guam
for a divorce. This is not only misleading,
but encourages, or serves to
induce, violation of Philippine law. At the very least, this can be
considered
"the dark side" of legal practice, where certain defects in
Philippine laws are
exploited for the sake of profit. At worst, this is
outright malpractice.
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.
8/30/2021 [ B.M. No. 553, June 17, 1993 ]
In
addition, it may also be relevant to point out that advertisements such as that
shown in Annex
"A" of the Petition, which contains a cartoon of a
motor vehicle with the words "Just Married" on
its bumper and seems
to address those planning a "secret marriage," if not suggesting a
"secret
marriage," makes light of the "special contract of
permanent union," the inviolable social
institution," which is how
the Family Code describes marriage, obviously to emphasize its
sanctity and
inviolability. Worse, this particular advertisement appears to encourage
marriages
celebrated in secrecy, which is suggestive of immoral publication of
applications for a marriage
license.
If
the article "Rx for Legal Problems" is to be reviewed, it can readily
be concluded that the
above impressions one may gather from the advertisements
in question are accurate. The
Sharon Cuneta-Gabby Concepcion example alone confirms what the advertisements
suggest.
Here it can be seen that criminal acts are being encouraged or
committed (a bigamous
marriage in Hong Kong or Las Vegas) with impunity simply
because the jurisdiction of Philippine
courts does not extend to the place
where the, crime is committed.
Even
if it be assumed, arguendo, (that) the "legal
support services" respondent offers do not
constitute legal services as
commonly understood, the advertisements in question give the
impression that
respondent corporation is being operated by 'lawyers and that it offers legal
services, as earlier discussed. Thus, the only logical consequence is that, in
the eyes of an
ordinary newspaper reader, members of the bar themselves are
encouraging or inducing the
performance of acts which are contrary to law,
morals, good customs and the public good,
thereby destroying and demeaning the
integrity of the Bar.
x
x x
It
is respectfully submitted that respondent should be enjoined from causing the
publication of
the advertisements in question, or any other advertisements
similar thereto. It is also submitted
that respondent should be prohibited from
further performing or offering some of the services it
presently offers, or, at
the very least, from offering such services to the public in general.
The
IBP is aware of the fact that providing computerized legal research, electronic
data
gathering, storage and retrieval, standardized legal forms, investigators
for gathering of
evidence, and like services will greatly benefit the legal
profession and should not be stifled but
instead encouraged. However, when the
conduct of such business by non-members of the Bar
encroaches upon the practice
of law, there can be no choice but to prohibit such business.
Admittedly,
many of the services involved in the case at bar can be better performed
by-
specialists in other fields, such as computer experts, who by reason of
their having devoted time
and effort exclusively to such field cannot fulfill
the exacting requirements for admission to the
Bar. To prohibit them from
"encroaching" upon the legal profession will deny the profession of
the great benefits and advantages of modern technology. Indeed, a lawyer using
a computer will
be doing better than a lawyer using a typewriter, even if both
are (equal) in skill.
Both
the Bench and the Bar, however, should be careful not to allow or tolerate the
illegal
practice of law in any form, not only for the protection of members of
the Bar but also, and more
importantly, for the protection of the public.
Technological development in the profession may be
encouraged without
tolerating, but instead ensuring prevention of, illegal practice.
There
might be nothing objectionable if respondent is allowed to perform all of its
services, but
only if such services are made available exclusively to members
of the Bench and Bar.
Respondent would then be offering technical assistance,
not legal services. Alternatively, the
more difficult task of carefully
distinguishing between which service may be offered to the public
in general
and which should be made available exclusively to members of the Bar may be
undertaken.
This, however, may require further proceedings because of the factual
considerations involved.
It
must be emphasized, however, that some of respondent's services ought to be
prohibited
outright, such as acts which tend to suggest or induce celebration
abroad of marriages which
are bigamous or otherwise illegal and void under
Philippine law. While respondent may not be
prohibited from simply
disseminating information regarding such matters, it must be required to
include, in the information given, a disclaimer that it is not authorized to
practice law, that certain
course of action may be illegal under Philippine
law, that it is not authorized or capable of
rendering a legal opinion, that a
lawyer should be consulted before deciding on which course of
8/30/2021 [ B.M. No. 553, June 17, 1993 ]
action to take,
and that it cannot recommend any particular lawyer without subjecting itself to
possible sanctions for illegal practice of law.
If
respondent is allowed to advertise, advertising should be directed exclusively
at members of
the Bar, with a clear and unmistakable disclaimer that it is not
authorized to practice law or
perform legal services.
The
benefits of being assisted by paralegals cannot be ignored. But nobody should
be allowed
to represent himself as a "paralegal" for profit, without
such term being clearly defined by rule or
regulation, and without any adequate
and effective means of regulating his activities. Also, law
practice in a
corporate form may prove to be advantageous to the legal profession, but before
allowance of such practice may be considered, the corporation's Articles of
Incorporation and
By-laws must conform to each and every provision of the Code
of Professional Responsibility
[5]
and the Rules of Court.
2. Philippine Bar Association:
XXX
Respondent
asserts that it "is not engaged in the practice of law but engaged in
giving legal
support services to lawyers and laymen, through experienced
paralegals, with the use of
modern computers and electronic machines"
(pars. 2 and 3, Comment). This is absurd.
Unquestionably, respondent's acts of
holding out itself to the public under the trade name "The
Legal Clinic,
Inc.," and soliciting employment for its enumerated services fall within
the realm of
a practice which thus yields itself to the regulatory powers of
the Supreme Court. For
respondent to say that it is merely engaged in paralegal
work is to ' stretch credulity.
Respondent's own commercial advertisement which
announces a. certain Atty. Don Parkinson
to be handling the fields of
law belies its pretense. From all indications, respondent "The Legal
Clinic, Inc." is offering and rendering legal services through its
reserve of lawyers. It has been
held that the practice of law is not limited to
the conduct of cases in court, but includes drawing
of deeds, incorporation,
rendering opinions, and advising clients as to their legal rights and then
take them to an attorney and ask the latter to look after their case in court
(See Martin, Legal
and Judicial Ethics, 1984 ed., P. 39).
It
is apt to recall that only natural persons can engage in the practice of
law, and such limitation
cannot be evaded by a corporation employing
competent lawyers to practice for it. Obviously,
this is the scheme or device
by which respondent "The Legal Clinic, Inc." holds out itself to the
public and solicits employment of its legal services. It is an odious
vehicle for deception,
especially so when the public cannot ventilate any
grievance for malpractice against the
business conduit. Precisely, the
limitation of practice of law to persons who have been duly
admitted as members
of the Bar (Sec. 1, Rule 138, Revised Rules of Court) is to subject the
members
to the discipline of the Supreme Court. Although respondent uses its business
name,
the persons and the lawyers who act for it are subject to court discipline.
The practice of law is
not a profession open to all who wish to engage in it
nor can it be assigned to another (See 5
Am. Jur.
270). It is a personal right limited to persons who have qualified
themselves under the
law. It follows that not only respondent but also all the
persons who are acting for respondent
[6]
are the persons engaged in unethical law
practice.
3. Philippine Lawyers" Association:
The
Philippine Lawyers' Association's position, in answer to the issues stated
herein, are, to wit:
1. The Legal Clinic is engaged in the

practice of law;
2. Such practice is unauthorized;
3. The advertisements complained of are not

only unethical, but also misleading and
patently immoral; and
4. The Honorable Supreme Court has the power

to suppress and punish the Legal Clinic
and its corporate officers for its
unauthorized practice of law and for its unethical, misleading
and immoral
advertising.
X
X X
8/30/2021 [ B.M. No. 553, June 17, 1993 ]
Respondent
posits that it is not engaged in the practice of law. It claims that it merely
renders
"legal support services" to lawyers, litigants and the
general public as enunciated in the Primary
Purpose Clause of its Article(s) of
Incorporation. (See pages 2 to 5 of Respondent's Comment).
But its advertised
services, as enumerated above, clearly and convincingly show that it is
indeed
engaged in law practice, albeit outside of court.
As
advertised, it offers the general public its advisory services on Persons and
Family Relations
Law, particularly regarding foreign divorces, annulment of
marriages, secret marriages, absence
and adoption; Immigration Laws,
particularly on visa related problems, immigration problems;
the Investment Law
of the Philippines
and such other related laws.
Its
advertised services unmistakably require the application of the aforesaid laws,
the legal
principles and procedures related thereto, the legal advices based
thereon and which activities
call for legal training, knowledge and experience.
Applying
the test laid down by the Court in the aforecited Agrava Case, the activities of
respondent fall squarely and
are embraced in what lawyers and laymen equally term as "the
[7]
practice of
law."
4. U.P. Women Lawyers' Circle:
In
resolving the issues before this Honorable Court, paramount consideration
should be given to
the protection of the general public from the danger of
being, exploited by unqualified persons
or entities who may be engaged in the
practice of law.
At
present, becoming a lawyer requires one to take a rigorous four-year course of
study on top
of a four-year bachelor of arts or sciences course and then to
take and pass the bar
examinations. Only then, is a lawyer qualified to
practice law.
While
the use of a paralegal is sanctioned in many jurisdictions as an aid to the administration
of justice, there are in those jurisdictions, courses of study and/or standards
which would qualify
these paralegals to deal with the general public as such.
While it may now be the opportune
time to establish these courses of study
and/or standards, the fact remains that at present,
these do not exist in the Philippines.
In the meantime, this Honorable Court may decide to take
measures to protect
the general public from being exploited by those who may be dealing with
the
general public in the guise of being "paralegals" without being
qualified to do so.
In
the same manner, the general public should also be protected from the dangers
which may
be brought about by advertising of legal services. While it appears
that lawyers are prohibited
under the present Code of Professional
Responsibility from advertising, it appears in the instant
case that legal
services are being advertised not by lawyers but, by an entity staffed by
"paralegals." Clearly, measures should be taken to protect the
general public from falling prey to
[8]
those who advertise legal services without
being qualified to offer such services."
A
perusal of the questioned advertisements of Respondent, however, seems to give
the
impression that information regarding validity of marriages, divorce,
annulment of marriage,
immigration, visa extensions, declaration of absence,
adoption and foreign investment, which
are in essence, legal matters, will be
given to them if they avail of its services. The
Respondent's name - The Legal
Clinic, Inc. - does not help matters. It gives the impression
again that
Respondent will or can cure the legal problems brought to them. Assuming that
Respondent is, as claimed, staffed purely by paralegals, it also gives the
misleading impression
that there are lawyers involved in The Legal Clinic,
Inc., as there are doctors in any medical
clinic, when only
"paralegals" are involved in The Legal Clinic, Inc.
Respondent's
allegations are further belied by the very admissions of its President and
majority
stockholder, Atty. Nogales, who gave an insight on the structure and
main purpose of
[9]
Respondent corporation in the aforementioned "Starweek" article."
5. Women Lawyer's Association of the Philippines:
Annexes
"A" and "B" of the petition are clearly advertisements to solicit,
cases for the purpose
of gain which, as provided for under the above cited law,
(are) illegal and against the Code of
Professional Responsibility of lawyers in
this country.
8/30/2021 [ B.M. No. 553, June 17, 1993 ]
Annex
"A" of the petition is not only illegal in that it is an advertisement
to solicit cases, but it is
illegal in that in bold letters it announces that
the Legal Clinic, Inc., could work out/cause the
celebration of a secret
marriage-which is not only illegal but immoral in this country. While it is
advertised that one has to go to said agency and pay P560 for a valid marriage
it is certainly
fooling the public for valid marriages in the Philippines
are solemnized only by officers
authorized to do so under the law. And to
employ an agency for said purpose of contracting
marriage is not necessary.
No
amount of reasoning that in the. USA, Canada and other countries the trend is
towards
allowing lawyers to advertise their special skills to enable people to
obtain from qualified
practitioners legal services for their particular needs
can justify the use of advertisements such
as are the subject matter of this
petition, for one (cannot) justify an illegal act even by whatever
merit the
illegal act may serve. The law has yet to be amended so that such as act could
become justifiable.
We
submit further that these advertisements that seem to project that secret
marriages and
divorce are possible in this country for a fee, when in
fact it is not so, are highly reprehensible.
It
would encourage people to consult this clinic about how they could go about
having a secret
marriage here, when it cannot nor should ever be attempted, and
seek advice on divorce, where
in this country there is none, except under the
Code of Muslim Personal Laws in the
Philippines.
It is also against good morals and is deceitful because it falsely represents
to the
public to be able to do that which by our laws cannot be done (and) by
our Code of Morals
should not be done.
In
the case (of) In re Taguda, 53 Phil. 37, the Supreme
Court held that solicitation for clients by
an attorney by circulars of
advertisements, is unprofessional, and offenses of this character
[10]
justify
permanent elimination from the Bar.
6. Federacion Internacional de Abogadas:
XXX
1.7
That entities admittedly not engaged in the practice of law, such as management
consultancy firms or travel agencies, whether run by lawyers or not, perform
the services
rendered by Respondent does not necessarily lead to the conclusion
that Respondent is not
unlawfully practicing law. In the same vein, however,
the fact that the business of respondent
(assuming it can be engaged in
independently of the practice of law) involves knowledge of the
law does not
necessarily make respondent guilty of unlawful practice of law.
"x
x x Of necessity, no one x x x acting as a consultant can
render effective service unless
he is familiar with such statutes and
regulations. He must be careful not to suggest a course
of conduct which the
law forbids. It seems x x x
clear that (the consultant's) knowledge of
the law, and his use of that
knowledge as a factor in determining what measures he shall
recommend, do not
constitute the practice of law x x x. It is not only presumed that all men
know the law, but
it is a fact that most men have considerable acquaintance with the broad
features of the law x x x.
Our knowledge of the law - accurate or inaccurate - moulds our
conduct not only
when we are acting for ourselves, but when we are serving others.
Bankers,
liquor dealers and laymen generally possess rather precise knowledge of the
laws
touching their particular business or profession. A good example is the
architect, who must
be familiar with zoning, building and fire prevention
codes, factory and tenement house
statutes, and who draws plans and
specifications in harmony with the law. This is not
practicing law.
"But
suppose the architect, asked by his client to omit a fire tower, replies that
it is required
by the statute. Or the industrial relations expert cites, in
support of some measure that he
recommends, a decision of the National Labor
Relations Board. Are they practicing law? In
my opinion, they are not,
provided no separate fee is charged for the legal advice or
information, and
the legal question is subordinate and incidental to a major non-legal
problem.
"It
is largely a matter of degree and of custom.
8/30/2021 [ B.M. No. 553, June 17, 1993 ]
"If
it were usual for one intending to erect a building on his land to engage a
lawyer to advise
him and the architect in respect to the building code and the
like, then an architect who
performed this function would probably be considered
to be trespassing on territory reserved
for licensed attorneys. Likewise, if
the industrial relations field had been pre-empted by
lawyers, or custom placed
a lawyer always at the elbow of the lay personnel man. But this is
not the
case. The most important body of industrial relations experts are the officers
and
business agents of the labor unions and few of them are lawyers. Among the
larger
corporate employers, it has been the practice for some years to delegate
special
responsibility in employee matters to a management group chosen for
their practical
knowledge and skill in such matters, and without regard to
legal training or lack of it. More
recently, consultants like the defendant
have tendered to the smaller employers the same
service that the larger
employers get from their own specialized staff.
"The
handling of industrial relations is growing into a recognized profession for
which
appropriate courses are offered by our leading universities. The court
should be very
cautious about declaring [that] a widespread, well-established
method of conducting
business is unlawful, or that the considerable class of
men who customarily perform a
certain function have no right to do so, or that
the technical education given by our schools
cannot be used by the graduates in
their business.
“In
determining whether a man is practicing law we should consider his work for any
particular client or customer, as a whole. I can imagine
defendant being engaged
primarily to advise as to the law defining his client's
obligations to his employees, to
guide his client along the path charted by
law. This, of course, would be the practice
of the law. But such is not the
fact in the case before me. Defendant's primary efforts
are along economic and
psychological lines. The law only provides the frame within
which he must work,
just as the zoning code limits the kind of building the architect
may plan. The
incidental legal advice or information defendant may give, does not
transform
his activities into the practice of law. Let me add that if, even as a minor
feature of his work, he performed services which are customarily reserved to
members of the bar, he would be practicing law. For instance, if as part of
a welfare
program, he drew employees wills.
"Another
branch of defendant's work is the representation of the employer in the
adjustment
of grievances and in collective bargaining, with or without a
mediator. This is not per se the
practice of law. Anyone may use an agent for
negotiations and may select an agent
particularly skilled in the subject under
discussion, and the person appointed is free to
accept the employment whether
or not he is a member of the bar. Here, however, there may
be an exception
where the business turns on a question of law. Most real estate sales are
negotiated
by brokers who are not lawyers. But if the value of the land depends on a
disputed right-of-way and the principal role of the negotiator is to assess the
probable
outcome of the dispute and persuade the opposite party to the same
opinion, then it may be
that only a lawyer can accept the assignment. Or if a
controversy between an employer and
his men grows from differing
interpretations of a contract, or of a statute, it is quite likely that
defendant should not handle it. But I need not reach a definite conclusion
here, since the
situation is not presented by the proofs.
"Defendant
also appears to represent the employer before administrative agencies of the
federal government, especially before trial examiners of the National Labor
Relations Board.
An agency of the federal government, acting by virtue of an
authority granted by the
Congress, may regulate the representation of parties
before such agency. The State of New
Jersey
is without power to interfere with such determination or to forbid
representation
before the agency by one whom the agency admits. The rules of the
National
Labor Relations Board give to a party the right to appear 'in person, or by
counsel, or by other representative. Rules and Regulations, September 11th, 1946, S.
203.31. ‘Counsel’
here means a licensed attorney, and 'other representative' one not a
lawyer. In
this phase of his work, defendant may lawfully do whatever the Labor
Board
allows, even arguing questions purely legal." (Auerbacher
v. Wood, 53 A. 2d
800, cited in Statsky, Introduction
to Paralegalism [1974], at pp. 154-156.)
1.8
From the foregoing, it can be said that a person engaged in a lawful calling
(which may
involve knowledge of the law) is not engaged in the practice of law
provided that:
(a)
The legal question is subordinate and incidental to a major non-legal problem;
8/30/2021 [ B.M. No. 553, June 17, 1993 ]
(b)
The services performed are not customarily reserved to members of the bar;
(c)
No separate fee is charged for the legal advice or information.
All
these must be considered in relation to the work for any particular client as a
whole.
1.9.
If the person involved is both lawyer and non-lawyer, the Code of Professional
Responsibility succinctly states the rule of conduct:
"Rule
15.08 - A lawyer who is engaged in another profession or occupation
concurrently with
the practice of law shall make clear to his client whether he
is acting as a lawyer or in
another capacity."
1.10.
In the present case, the Legal Clinic appears to render wedding services (See
Annex "A",
Petition). Services on routine, straightforward marriages,
like securing a marriage license, and
making arrangements with a priest or a
judge, may not constitute practice of law. However, if the
problem is as complicated
as that described in "Rx for Legal Problems" on the Sharon Cuneta-
Gabby Concepcion-Richard
Gomez case, then what may be involved is actually the practice of
law. If a
non-lawyer, such as the Legal Clinic, renders such services, then it is engaged
in the
unauthorized practice of law.
1.11.
The Legal Clinic also appears to give information on divorce, absence,
annulment of
marriage and visas (See Annexes "A" and "B",
Petition). Purely giving informational materials
may not constitute practice of
law. The business is similar to that of a bookstore where the
customer buys
materials on the subject and determines by himself what courses of action to
take.
It
is not entirely improbable, however, that aside from purely giving information,
the Legal
Clinic's paralegals may apply the law to the particular problem of
the client, and give legal
advice. Such would constitute unauthorized practice
of law.
"It
cannot be claimed that the publication of a legal text which purports to say
what the law is
amounts to legal practice. And the mere fact that the
principles or rules stated in the text
may be accepted by a particular reader
as a solution to his problem does not affect this. x x
x Apparently it is urged that the conjoining of these
two, that is, the text and the forms, with
advice as to how the forms should be
filled out, constitutes the unlawful practice of law. But
that is the situation
with many approved and accepted texts. Dacey's book
is sold to the
public at large. There is no personal contact or relationship
with a particular individual. Nor
does there exist that relation of confidence
and trust so necessary to the status of attorney
and client. THIS IS THE
ESSENTIAL OF LEGAL PRACTICE - THE REPRESENTATION
AND ADVISING OF A PARTICULAR
PERSON IN A PARTICULAR SITUATION. At most the
book assumes to offer general
advice on common problems, and does not purport to give
personal advice on a
specific problem peculiar to a designated or readily identified person.
Similarly the defendant's publication does not purport to give personal advice
on a specific
problem peculiar, to a designated or readily identified person in
a particular situation - in the
publication and sale of the kits, such
publication and sale did not constitute the unlawful
practice of law x x x. There being no legal impediment under the statute to
the sale of the kit,
there was no proper basis for the injunction against
defendant maintaining an office for the
purpose of selling to persons seeking a
divorce, separation, annulment or separation
agreement any printed material or
writings relating to matrimonial law or the prohibition in
the memorandum of
modification of the judgment against defendant having an interest in
any
publishing house publishing his manuscript on divorce and against his having
any
personal contact with any prospective purchaser. The record does fully
support, however,
the finding that for the charge of $75 or $100 for the kit,
the defendant gave legal advice in
the course of personal contacts concerning
particular problems which might arise in the
preparation and presentation of
the purchaser's asserted matrimonial cause of action or
pursuit of other legal
remedies and assistance in the preparation of necessary documents
(The
injunction therefore sought to) enjoin conduct constituting the practice of
law,
particularly with reference to the giving of advice and counsel by the
defendant, relating to
specific problems of particular individuals in
connection with a divorce, separation,
annulment of separation agreement sought
and should be affirmed." (State v. Winder, 348,
NYS 2d 270 [1973],
cited in Statsky, supra at p. 101.)
8/30/2021 [ B.M. No. 553, June 17, 1993 ]
1.12.
Respondent, of course, states that its services are "strictly
non-diagnostic, non-advisory."
It is not controverted,
however, that if the services “involve giving legal advice or counselling,"
such would constitute practice of law
(Comment, par. 6.2). It is in this light that FIDA submits
that a factual
inquiry may be necessary for the judicious disposition of this case.
x
x x
2.10.
Annex "A" may be ethically objectionable in that it can give the
impression (or perpetuate
the wrong notion) that there is a secret marriage.
With all the solemnities, formalities and other
requisites of marriages (See
Articles 2, et seq., Family Code), no Philippine marriage can be
secret.
2.11.
Annex "B" may likewise be ethically objectionable. The second
paragraph thereof (which is
not necessarily related to the first paragraph)
fails to state the limitation that only "paralegal
[11]
services" or
"legal support services", and not legal services, are
available."
A
prefatory discussion on the meaning of the phrase "practice of law"
becomes exigent for a
proper determination of the issues raised by the petition
at bar. On this score, we note that the
clause "practice of law" has long
been the subject of judicial construction and interpretation. The
courts have
laid down general principles and doctrines explaining the meaning and scope of
the
term, some of which we now take into account.
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
[12]
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
contracts by which legal rights are
[13]
secured, although such matter may or may
not be pending in a court.
In
the practice of his profession, a licensed attorney at law generally engages in
three principal
types of professional activity: legal advice and instructions
to clients to inform them of their
rights and obligations, preparation for
clients of documents requiring knowledge of legal
principles not possessed by
ordinary layman, and appearance for clients before public tribunals
which
possess power and authority to determine rights of life, liberty, and property
according to
[14]
law, in order to assist in proper interpretation and enforcement
of law.
When
a person participates in a trial and advertises himself as a lawyer, he is in
the practice of
[15]
law.
One who confers with clients, advises them as to their legal rights and then
takes the
[16]
business to an attorney and asks the latter to look after the case in
court, is also practicing law.
Giving advice for compensation regarding the legal status and rights of another
and the conduct
[17]
with respect thereto constitutes a practice of law.
One who renders an opinion as to the proper
[18]
interpretation of a statute, and
receives pay for it, is, to that extent, practicing law.
[19]
In
the recent case of Cayetano vs. Monsod.
after citing the doctrines in several cases, we laid
down the test to determine
whether certain acts constitute "practice of law," thus:
Black
defines "practice of law" as:
"The
rendition of services requiring the knowledge and the application of legal
principles and
technique to serve the interest of ' another with his consent.
It is not limited to appearing in
court, or advising and assisting in the
conduct of litigation, but embraces the preparation of
pleadings, and other
papers incident to .actions and special proceedings, conveyancing,
the
preparation of legal instruments of all kinds, and the giving of all legal
advice to clients. It
embraces all advice to clients and all actions taken for
them in matters connected with the
law."
8/30/2021 [ B.M. No. 553, June 17, 1993 ]
The
practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases in court. (Land Title
Abstract and Trust
Co. v. Dworken, 129
Ohio St. 23, 193 N.E. 650). A person is also
considered to be in the
practice of law when he:
"x
x x for valuable
consideration engages in the business of advising persons, firms,
associations
or corporations as to their rights under the law, or appears in a
representative
capacity as an advocate in proceedings, pending or prospective,
before any court,
commissioner, referee, board, body, committee, or commission
constituted by law or
authorized to settle controversies and there, in such
representative capacity, performs any
act or acts for the purpose of obtaining
or defending the rights of their clients under the law.
Otherwise stated, one
who, in a representative capacity, engages in the business of advising
clients
as to their rights under the law, or while so engaged performs any act or acts
either in
court or outside of court for that purpose, is engaged in the
practice of law. (State ex. rel.
Mckittrick
v. C.S. Dudley and Co., 102 S.W. 2d 895, 340 Mo. 852)."
This
Court, in the case of Philippine Lawyers Association v. Agrava
(105 Phil. 173, 176-177),
stated:
"The
practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases or litigation in court;
it embraces
the preparation of pleadings and other papers incident to actions
and special proceedings,
the management of such actions and proceedings on
behalf of clients before judges and
courts, and in addition, conveying. In
general, all advice to clients, and all action taken for
them in matters connected
with the law incorporation services, assessment and
condemnation services
contemplating an appearance before a judicial body, the foreclosure
of a
mortgage, enforcement of a creditor's claim in bankruptcy and insolvency
proceedings,
and conducting proceedings in attachment, and in matters of estate
and guardianship have
been held to constitute law practice, as do the
preparation and drafting of legal instruments,
where the work done involves the
determination by the trained legal mind of the legal effect
of facts and
conditions. (5 Am. Jr.
p. 262, 263).
"Practice
of law under modern conditions consists in no small part of work performed
outside of any court and having no immediate relation to proceedings in court.
It embraces
conveyancing, the giving of legal advice
on a large variety of subjects, and the preparation
and execution of legal
instruments covering an extensive field of business and trust relations
and
other affairs. Although these transactions may have no direct connection with
court
proceedings, they are always subject to become involved in litigation.
They require in many
aspects a high degree of legal skill, a wide experience
with men and affairs, and great
capacity for adaptation to difficult and
complex situations. These customary functions of an
attorney or counselor at
law bear an intimate relation to the administration of justice by the
courts.
No valid distinction, so far as concerns the question set forth in the order,
can be
drawn between that part of the work of the lawyer which involves
appearance in court and
that part which involves advice and drafting of
instruments in his office. It is of importance to
the welfare of the public
that these manifold customary functions be performed by persons
possessed of
adequate learning and skill, of sound moral character, and acting at all times
under the heavy trust obligations to clients which rests upon all attorneys.
(Moran,
Comments on the Rules of Court, Vol. 3 [1973 ed.], pp. 665-666, citing
In Re Opinion of the
Justices [Mass.], 194 N.E. 313, quoted in Rhode Is. Bar
Assoc. v. Automobile Service
Assoc. [R.I.] 179 A. 139, 144)."
The
practice of law, therefore, covers a wide range of activities in and out of
court. Applying the
aforementioned criteria 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."
The
contention of respondent that it merely offers legal support services can
neither be
seriously considered nor sustained. Said proposition is belied by
respondent's own description
of the services it has been offering, to wit:
"Legal
support services basically consist of giving ready information by trained
paralegals to
laymen and lawyers, which are strictly non-diagnostic,
non-advisory, through the extensive use
of computers and modern information
technology in the gathering, processing, storage,
transmission and reproduction
of information and, communication, such as computerized, legal
research; encoding
and reproduction of. documents and pleadings prepared by laymen or
lawyers;
document search; evidence gathering; locating parties or witnesses to a case;
fact
8/30/2021 [ B.M. No. 553, June 17, 1993 ]
finding investigations; and assistance to laymen in need of basic

institutional services from
government or non-government agencies, like birth,
marriage, property, or business
registrations; educational or employment
records or certifications, obtaining documentation like
clearances, passports,
local or foreign visas; giving information about laws of other countries
that
they may find useful, like foreign divorce, marriage or adoption laws that they
can avail of
preparatory to emigration to that foreign country, and other
matters that do not involve
representation of clients in court; designing and
installing computer systems, programs, or
software for the efficient management
of law offices, corporate legal departments, courts, and
[20]
other entities engaged
in dispensing or administering legal services."
While
some of the services being offered by respondent corporation merely involve
mechanical
and technical know-how, such as the installation of computer systems
and programs for the
efficient management of law offices, or the
computerization of research aids and materials,
these will not suffice to justify
an exception to the general rule.
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 that 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 to court appearances but extends to legal research,
giving legal
advice, contract drafting, and so forth.
The
aforesaid conclusion is further strengthened by an article published in the January 13, 1991
issue of the Starweek/The Sunday Magazine of the Philippine
Star, entitled "Rx for Legal
Problems," where an insight into the
structure, main purpose and operations of respondent
corporation was given by
its own "proprietor," Atty. Rogelio P. Nogales:
This
is the kind of business that is transacted everyday at The Legal Clinic, with
offices on the
seventh floor of the Victoria
Building along U.N.
Avenue in Manila.
No matter what the client's
problem, and even if it is as complicated as the Cuneta-Concepcion domestic situation, Atty.
Nogales and his
staff of lawyers, who, like doctors, are "specialists" in various
fields, can take
care of it. The Legal Clinic, Inc. has specialists in taxation
and criminal law, medico-legal
problems, labor, litigation and family law.
These specialists are backed up by a battery of
paralegals, counsellors
and attorneys.
Atty.
Nogales set up The Legal Clinic in 1984. Inspired by the trend in the medical
field toward
specialization, it caters to clients who cannot afford the
services of the big law firms.
The
Legal Clinic has regular and walk-in clients. "When they come, we start by
analyzing the
problem. That's what doctors do also. They ask you how you
contracted what's bothering you,
they take your temperature, they observe you
for the symptoms, and so on. That's how we
operate, too. And once the problem
has been categorized, then it's referred to one of our
specialists."
There
are cases which do not, in medical terms, require surgery or, follow-up
treatment. These
The Legal Clinic disposes of in a matter of minutes.
"Things like preparing a simple deed of sale
or an affidavit of loss can
be taken care of by our staff or, if this were a hospital, the residents or
the
interns. We can take care of these matters on a while you wait basis. Again,
kung baga sa
ospital, out-patient, hindi kailangang ma-confine. It's just like a common cold or
diarrhea,"
explains Atty. Nogales.
Those
cases which require more extensive "treatment" are dealt with
accordingly. "If you had a
rich relative who died and named you her sole
heir, and you stand to inherit millions of pesos of
property, we would refer
you to a specialist in taxation. There would be real estate taxes and
arrears
which would need to be put in order, and your relative is even taxed by the
state for the
right to transfer her property, and only a specialist in taxation
would be properly trained to deal
8/30/2021 [ B.M. No. 553, June 17, 1993 ]
with that problem. Now, if there were other heirs

contesting your rich relative's will, then you
would need a litigator, who
knows how to arrange the problem for presentation in court, and
[21]
gather evidence
to support the case."
That
fact that the corporation employs paralegals to carry «out its services is not
controlling.
What is important is that it is engaged in the practice of law by
virtue of the nature of the
services it renders which thereby brings it within
the ambit of the statutory prohibitions against
the advertisements which it has
caused to be published and are now assailed in this
proceeding.
Further,
as correctly and appropriately pointed out by the U.P. WILOCI, said reported
facts,
sufficiently establish that the main purpose of respondent is to serve
as a one-stop-shop of sorts
for various legal problems wherein a client
may-avail of legal services from simple
documentation to complex litigation and
corporate undertakings. Most of these services are
undoubtedly beyond the
domain of paralegals, but rather, are exclusive functions of lawyers
[22]
engaged in
the practice of law.
It
should be noted that in our jurisdiction the services being offered by private
respondent which
constitute practice of law cannot be performed by paralegals.
Only a person duly admitted as a
member of the bar, or hereafter admitted as
such in accordance with the provisions of the Rules
[23]
of Court, and who is in
good and regular standing, is entitled to practice law.
Public
policy requires that the practice of law be limited to those individuals found
duly qualified
in education and character. The permissive right conferred on
the lawyers is an individual and
limited privilege subject to withdrawal if he
fails to maintain proper standards of moral and
professional conduct. The
purpose is to protect the public, the court, the client and the bar from
the
'incompetence or dishonesty' of those unlicensed to practice law and not
subject to the
[24]
disciplinary control of the court.
The
same rule is observed in the American jurisdiction wherefrom respondent would
wish to
draw support for his thesis. The doctrines there also stress that the
practice of law is limited to
those who meet the requirements for, and have
been admitted to, the bar, and various statutes
[25]
or rules specifically so
provide.
The practice of law is not a lawful business except for
members of the bar who
have complied with all the conditions required by statute and the rules
of
court. Only those persons are allowed to practice law who, by reason of
attainments
previously acquired through education and study, have been
recognized by the courts as
possessing profound knowledge of legal science
entitling them to advise, counsel with, protect,
or defend the rights, claims,
or liabilities of their clients, with respect to the construction,
[26]
interpretation, operation and effect of law.
The justification for excluding from the practice of
law those not admitted to
the bar is found, not in the protection of the bar from competition, but
in the
protection of the public from being advised and represented in legal matters by
incompetent and unreliable persons over whom the judicial department can
exercise little
[27]
control.
We
have to necessarily and definitely reject respondent's position that the
concept in the United
States
of paralegals as an occupation separate from the law profession be adopted in
this
jurisdiction. Whatever may be its merits, respondent cannot but be aware
that this should first be
a matter for judicial rules or legislative action,
and not of unilateral adoption as it has done.
Paralegals
in the United States
are trained professionals. As admitted by respondent, there are
schools and
universities there which offer studies and degrees in paralegal education,
while
[28]
there are none in the Philippines.
As the concept of the "paralegal" or "legal assistant"
evolved
in the United States,
standards and guidelines also evolved to protect the general public. One of
the
major standards or guidelines was developed by the American Bar Association
which set up
Guidelines for the Approval of Legal Assistant Education Programs
(1973). Legislation has
even been proposed to certify legal assistants. There
are also associations of paralegals in the
United
States with their own code of professional
ethics, such as the National Association of
[29]
Legal Assistants, Inc. and the
American Paralegal Association.
8/30/2021 [ B.M. No. 553, June 17, 1993 ]
In
the Philippines,
we still have a restricted concept and limited acceptance of what may be
considered as paralegal service. As pointed out by FIDA, some persons not duly
licensed to
practice law are or have been allowed limited representation in
behalf of another or to render
.legal services, but such allowable services are
limited in scope and extent by the law, rules or
[30]
regulations granting
permission therefor.
Accordingly,
we have adopted the American judicial policy that, in the absence of
constitutional
or statutory authority, a person who has not been admitted as an
attorney cannot practice law
for the proper administration of justice cannot be
hindered by the unwarranted intrusion of an
[31]
unauthorized and unskilled person into
the practice of law.
That policy should continue to be
one of encouraging persons who are unsure of
their legal rights and remedies to seek legal
[32]
assistance only from persons
licensed to practice law in the state.
Anent
the issue on the validity of the questioned advertisements, the Code of
Professional
Responsibility provides that a lawyer in making known his legal
services shall use only true,
[33]
honest, fair, dignified and objective information
or statement of facts.
He is not supposed to
use or permit the use of any false, fraudulent,
misleading, deceptive, undignified, self-laudatory
[34]
or unfair statement or claim
regarding his qualifications or legal services.
Nor shall he pay or
give something of value to representatives of the mass
media in anticipation of, or in return for,
[35]
publicity to attract legal
business.
Prior to the adoption of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, the Canons of
Professional Ethics had also warned that lawyers should not resort
to indirect
advertisements for professional employment, such as furnishing or inspiring
newspaper comments, or procuring his photograph to be published in connection
with causes in
which the lawyer has been or is engaged or concerning the manner
of their conduct, the
magnitude of the interest involved, the importance of the
lawyer's position, and all other like
[36]
self-laudation.
The
standards of the legal profession condemn the lawyer's advertisement, of his
talents. A
lawyer cannot, without violating the ethics of his profession,
advertise his talents or skills as in a
[37]
manner similar to a merchant
advertising his goods.
The proscription against advertising of
legal services or solicitation of legal
business rests on the fundamental postulate that the
practice of law is a
profession. Thus, in the case of The Director of Religious Affairs vs.
[38]
Estanislao R. Bayot
an advertisement, similar to those of respondent which are involved in the
[39]
present proceeding,
was held to constitute improper advertising or solicitation.
The
pertinent part of the decision therein reads:
It
is undeniable that the advertisement in question was a flagrant violation by
the respondent of
the ethics of his profession, it being a brazen solicitation
of business from the public. 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. Law is a profession and
not a trade. The lawyer degrades himself and his
profession who stoops to and
adopts the practices of mercantilism by advertising his services or
offering
them to the public. As a member of the bar, he defiles the temple of justice
with
mercenary activities as the money-changers of old defiled the temple
of Jehovah. "The most
worthy
and effective advertisement possible, even for a young lawyer, * * * is the
establishment
of a well-merited reputation for professional capacity and
fidelity to trust. This cannot be forced
but must be the outcome of character
and conduct." (Canon 27, Code of Ethics.)
We
repeat, the canons of the profession tell us that the best advertising possible
for a lawyer is
a well-merited reputation for professional capacity and
fidelity to trust, which must be earned as
the outcome of character and
conduct. Good and efficient service to a client as well as to the
community has
a way of publicizing itself and catching public attention. That publicity is a
normal by-product of effective service which is right and proper. A good and
reputable lawyer
needs no artificial stimulus to generate it and to magnify his
success. He easily sees the
difference between a normal by-product of able
service and the unwholesome result of
[40]
propaganda.
8/30/2021 [ B.M. No. 553, June 17, 1993 ]
Of
course, not all types of advertising or solicitation are prohibited. The canons
of the profession
enumerate exceptions to the rule against advertising or
solicitation and define the extent to
which they may be undertaken. The exceptions
are of two broad categories, namely, those
[41]
which are expressly allowed and
those which are necessarily implied from the restrictions.
The
first of such exceptions is the publication in reputable law lists, in a manner
consistent, with
the standards of conduct imposed by the canons, of brief
biographical and informative data.
"Such data must not be misleading and
may include only a statement of the lawyer's name and
the names of his
professional associates; addresses, telephone numbers, cable addresses;
branches of law practiced; date and place of birth and admission to the bar;
schools attended
with dates of graduation, degrees and other educational
distinction; public or quasi-public
offices; posts of honor; legal authorships;
legal teaching positions; membership and offices in
bar associations and
committees thereof, in legal and scientific societies and legal fraternities;
the fact of listings in other reputable law lists; the names and addresses of
references; and, with
[42]
their written consent, the names of clients regularly
represented."
The
law list must be a reputable law list published primarily for that purpose; it
cannot be a mere
supplemental feature of a paper, magazine, trade journal or
periodical which is published
principally for other purposes. For that reason,
a lawyer may not properly publish his brief
biographical and informative data
in a daily paper, magazine, trade journal or society program.
Nor may a lawyer
permit his name to be published in a law list the conduct, management or
contents of which are calculated or likely to deceive or injure the public or
the bar, or to lower
[43]
the dignity or standing of the profession.
The
use of an ordinary simple professional card is also permitted. The card may
contain only a
statement of his name, the name of the law firm which he is
connected with, address, telephone
number and special branch of law practiced.
The publication of a simple announcement of the
opening of a law firm or of
changes in the partnership, associates, firm name or office address,
being for
the convenience of the profession, is not objectionable. He may likewise have
his
[44]
name listed in a telephone directory but not under a designation of special
branch of law.
Verily,
taking into consideration the nature and contents of the advertisements for
which
respondent is being taken to task, which even includes a quotation of the
fees charged by said
respondent corporation for services rendered, we find and
so hold that the same definitely do
not and conclusively cannot fall under any
of the above-mentioned exceptions.
[45]
The
ruling in the case of Bates, et al. vs. State Bar of Arizona.
which is repeatedly invoked
and constitutes the justification relied upon by
respondent, is obviously not applicable to the
case at bar. Foremost is the
fact that the disciplinary rule involved in said case explicitly allows
a
lawyer, as an exception to the prohibition against advertisements by lawyers,
to publish a
statement of legal fees for an initial consultation or the
availability upon request of a written
schedule of fees or an estimate of the
fee to be charged for the specific services. No such
exception is provided for,
expressly or impliedly, whether in our former Canons of Professional
Ethics or
the present Code of Professional Responsibility. Besides, even the disciplinary
rule in
the Bates case contains a proviso that the exceptions stated therein
are "not applicable in any
[46]
state unless and until it is implemented by
such authority in that state."
This goes to show that
an exception to the general rule, such as that being
invoked by herein respondent, can be made
only if and when the canons expressly
provide for such an exception. Otherwise, the prohibition
stands, as in the
case at bar.
It
bears mention that in a survey conducted by the American Bar Association after
the decision
in Bates, on the attitude of the public about lawyers after
viewing television commercials, it was
[47]
found that public opinion dropped
significantly
with respect to these characteristics of lawyers:
Trustworthy from 71% to 14%
Professional from
71% to 14%
Honest from
65% to 14%
Dignified from
45% to 14%
8/30/2021 [ B.M. No. 553, June 17, 1993 ]
Secondly,
it is our firm belief that with the present situation of our legal and judicial
systems, to
allow the publication of advertisements of the kind used by respondent
would only serve to
aggravate what is already a deteriorating public opinion of
the legal profession whose integrity
has consistently been under attack lately
by media and the community in general. At this point
in time, it is of utmost
importance in the face of such negative, even if unfair, criticisms at times,
to adopt and maintain that level of professional conduct which is beyond
reproach, and to exert
all efforts to regain the high esteem formerly accorded
to the legal profession.
In
sum, it is undoubtedly a misbehavior on the part of the lawyer, subject to
disciplinary action,
[48]
to advertise his services except in allowable instances
or to aid a layman in the unauthorized
[49]
practice of law.
Considering that Atty. Rogelio P. Nogales, who is the prime incorporator,
major
stockholder and proprietor of The Legal Clinic, Inc. is a member of the
Philippine Bar, he
is hereby reprimanded, with a warning that a repetition of
the same or similar acts which are
involved in this proceeding will be dealt with
more severely.
While
we deem it necessary that the question as to the legality or illegality of the
purpose/s for
which the Legal Clinic, Inc. was created should be passed upon
and determined, we are
constrained to refrain from lapsing into an obiter
on that aspect since it is clearly not within the
adjudicative parameters of
the present proceeding which is merely administrative in nature. It is,
of
course, imperative that this matter be promptly determined, albeit in a
different proceeding
and forum, since, under the present state of our law and
jurisprudence, a corporation cannot be
organized for or engage in the practice
of law in this country. This interdiction, just like the rule
against unethical
advertising, cannot be subverted by employing some so-called paralegals
supposedly rendering the alleged support services.
The
remedy for the apparent breach of this prohibition by respondent is the concern
and
[50]
province of the Solicitor General who can institute the corresponding quo warranto action,
after due ascertainment of the factual background and basis for the grant of
respondent's
corporate charter, in light of the putative misuse thereof. That
spin-off from the instant bar
matter is referred to the Solicitor General for
such action as may be necessary under the
circumstances.
ACCORDINGLY, the Court Resolved to

RESTRAIN and ENJOIN herein respondent, The Legal
Clinic, Inc., from issuing or
causing the publication or dissemination of any advertisement in
any form which
is of the same or similar tenor and purpose as Annexes "A" and
"B" of this
petition, and from conducting, directly or indirectly,
any activity, operation or transaction
proscribed by law or the Code of
Professional Ethics as indicated herein. Let copies of this
resolution be
furnished the Integrated Bar of the Philippines,
the Office of the Bar Confidant,
and the Office of the Solicitor General for
appropriate action in accordance herewith.
Narvasa, C.J., Cruz, Feliciano, Padilla, Bidin, Griño-Aquino, Davide, Jr., Romero, Nocon,
Bellosillo, Melo, and Quiason, JJ., concur.

[1]

Rollo, 5. A facsimile of the scales of justice is
printed together with and on the left side of
"The Legal Clinic,
Inc." in both advertisements which were published in a newspaper of
general
circulation.
[2]

433 U.S. 350, 53
L Ed 2d 810, 97 S Ct. 2691.
[3]

Resolution dated January 15, 1991,
Rollo, 60; Resolution dated December 10, 1991, Rollo,
328.
[4]
Position Paper prepared by Atty. Basilio H. Alo, IBP Director'for Legal Affairs, 1, 10; Rollo,
209, 218.
[5]

Memorandum prepared by Atty. Jose A. Grapilon,
Chairman,
'Committee on Bar Discipline, and Atty. Kenny H. Tantuico,
16-18, 27-29; Rollo 414-416,. 425-427.
8/30/2021 [ B.M. No. 553, June 17, 1993 ]
[6]

Position Paper prepared by Atty. Rafael D. Abiera,
Jr., Chairman, Committee on Lawyers'
Rights and Legal Ethics, and Atty. Arturo
M. del Rosario, President, 5-6; Rollo, 241-242.
[7]

Position Paper prepared by Atty. Lorenzo Sumulong,
President, and Atty. Mariano M.
Magsalin,
Vice-President, 2, 4-5; Rollo, 93, 95-96.
[8]

Position Paper prepared by Atty. Victoria C. de los
Reyes,1-2; Rollo, 105-106.
[9]

Memorandum prepared by Atty. Victoria C. de los
Reyes,10-11; Rollo, 370-371.
[10]

Position Paper prepared by Atty. Leticia E. Sablan,
Officer-in-Charge, WLAP Free Legal Aid
Clinic, 1-2; Rollo,
169-170.
[11]

Position Paper prepared by Atty. Lily C. #Limpe,
President, and Atty. Barbara Anne c.
Migallos, 8-12,
23-24; Rollo, 139-143, 154-155.
[12]

Annotation: 111 ALR 23.
[13]

Howton vs. Morrow, 269 Ky'.
1.
[14]

West Virginia State Bar vs. Earley, 109'S.E. 2d 420, 144 W.Va.
504; Rhode Is. Bar Assoc. vs.
Automobile Service Assoc. (R.I.) 179 A. 139, 144.
[15]

People vs. Castleman, 88 Colo.
229.
[16]

Depew, et al. vs. Witchita
Assn. of Credit Men., Inc.,142 Kan.
403.
[17]

Fitchette vs. Taylor,
94 ALR 356.
[18]

Mandelaum vs. Gilbert & Barker Mfg. Co., 290 NYS
46218.
[19]

201 SCRA 210 (1991).
[20]

Comment of Respondent, 3; Rollo, 15.
[21]

Rollo, 130-131.
[22]

Memorandum of U.P. WILOCI, 12-13; Rollo, 372-373
[23]

Sec. 1, Rule 138, Rules of Court.
[24]

Phil. Ass'n. of Free Labor Unions, et al. vs. Binalbagan-Isabela Sugar Co.', et al., 42 SCRA
302 (1971).
[25]

7 C.J.S., Attorney & Client, 863, 864.
[26]

Mounier vs. Regcinh, 170
So. 567.
[27]

Lowell Bar Ass'n.
vs. Loeb. 52 N.E. 2d 27, 315 Mass.
176;7 C.J.S., Attorney & Client 64,
865.
[28]

Comment of Respondent, 2; Rollo, 14.
[29]

Position Paper, U.P. Women Lawyers' Circle (WILOCI),11-12, citing Statsky, Introduction to
Paralegalism,
214-224, West Publishing Co. (1974) and Shayne, The Paralegal Profession,
Oceana Publications, 1977, Appendix II & III; Rollo,
116-117.
8/30/2021 [ B.M. No. 553, June 17, 1993 ]
[30]

Illustrations: (a) A law student who has successfully completed his third year
of the regular
four-year prescribed law curriculum and is enrolled in a
recognized law school's clinical legal
education program approved by the
Supreme Court (Rule 138-A, Rules of Court);
(b) An official or other person appointed or designated in accordance

with law - to appear for the Government of the
Philippines in a case in which
the government has an interest (Sec. 33, Rule 138, id-);
(c) An agent or friend who aids a party-litigant in a municipal court

for the purpose of conducting the litigation (Sec.
34, Rule 138, id.);
(d) A person, resident of the province and of good repute for probity
and ability, who is appointed counsel de oficio
to
defend the accused in localities where members of the bar are not available
(Sec. 4, Rule 116, id.);
(e) Persons registered or specially recognized to practice in the

Philippine Patent Office (now known as the Bureau
of Patents, Trademarks and
Technology Transfer) in trademark, service mark and trade name cases (Rule 23,
Rules of Practice in Trademark Cases);
(f) A non-lawyer who may appear before the National Labor Relations
Commission or any Labor Arbiter only if (1)
he represents himself as a party to
the case; (2) he represents an organization or its members, provided that he
shall be made to present written proof that he is properly authorized; or (3)
he is a duly-accredited member of any
legal aid office duly recognized by the
Department of Justice or the Integrated Bar of the Philippines in cases
referred thereto by the latter (New Rules of Procedure of the National Labor
Relations Commission);
(g) An agent, not an attorney, representing the lot owner or claimant

in a case falling under the Cadastral Act (Sec.
9, Act No. 2259); and
(h) Notaries public for municipalities where completion and passing the
studies of law in a reputable university or
school of law is deemed sufficient
qualification for appointment (Sec. 233, Administrative Code of 1917). See Rollo,
144-145.
[31]

7 C.J.S., Attorney & Client, 866; Johnstown Coal & Coke Co. of New
York vs. U.S., 102 Ct.
Cl.
285.
[32]

Florida Bar vs. Brurnbaugth, 355 So. 2d 1186.
[33]

Canon 3, Code of Professional Responsibility.
[34]

Rule 3.01, id.
[35]

Rule 3.04, id..
[36]

Canon 27, Canons of Professional Ethics.
[37]

People vs. Smith, 93 Am. St. Rep. 206.
[38]

74 Phil. 579 (1944).
[39]

The advertisement in said case was 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."
[40]

Agpalo, Legal Ethics, Fourth Edition (1989), 79-80.
[41]

Op. cit., 80.
[42]

Op. cit., 80, citing Canon 27, Canons of Professional Ethics.
[43]

Op. cit., 80, 81, citing A.B.A. Op. 69 (Mar. 19, 1932);A.B.A. Op. 133 (Mar. 13,
1935);
A.B.A. Op. 24 (Jan. 24, 1930); and Canon 43, Canons of Professional
Ethics.
8/30/2021 [ B.M. No. 553, June 17, 1993 ]
[44]

Op. cit., 81, citing A.B.A. Op. 11 (May 11, 1927); A.B.A. Op. 24 (Jan. 24,
1930); A.B.A.
Ops. 53 (Dec. 14, 1931),
123 (Dec. 14, 1934), (July 12, 1941), 241 (Feb. 21, 1942), 284 (Aug.
1951); and
286 (Sept. 25, 1952).
[45]

Supra, Fn 2.
[46]

Id., 810, 825.
[47]

Position Paper of the Philippine Bar Association, 12, citing the American Bar Association
Journal, January, 1989, p. 60; Rollo, 248.
[48]

In re Tagorda, 53 Phil. 37 (1929); The Director of
Religious Affairs vs. Bayot, supra. Fn 38.
[49]

U.S. vs. Ney & Bosque, 8 Phil. 146 (1907); People vs. Luna, 102
Phil. 968 (1958).
[50]

Secs. 2 and 3, Rule 66, Rules of Court, in relation to Sec. 6(1), P.D. No.
902-A and Sec. 121,
Corporation Code.
Source: Supreme Court E-Library | Date created: October 04, 2017
This page was dynamically generated by the E-Library Content Management System
Supreme Court E-Library

ULEP v. THE LEGAL CLINIC

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ULEP v. THE LEGAL CLINIC

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

ULEP v. THE LEGAL CLINIC

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

8/30/2021 [ B.M. No.

553, June 17, 1993 ]

295 Phil. 454

Petitioner prays this Court "to order the

The advertisements complained of by herein petitioner

P560.00 for a valid marriage.

Info on DIVORCE. ABSENCE.

CLINIC, INC. 8:30 am - 6:00 pm

7-Flr. Victoria Bldg.

LEGAL Ermita, Manila nr. US Embassy

1. Integrated Bar of the Philippines:

Rule 1.02. - A lawyer, shall not counsel or abet

2. Philippine Bar Association:

3. Philippine Lawyers" Association:

1. The Legal Clinic is engaged in the

2. Such practice is unauthorized;

3. The advertisements complained of are not

4. The Honorable Supreme Court has the power

4. U.P. Women Lawyers' Circle:

5. Women Lawyer's Association of the Philippines:

6. Federacion Internacional de Abogadas:

finding investigations; and assistance to laymen in need of basic

with that problem. Now, if there were other heirs

Trustworthy from 71% to 14%

ACCORDINGLY, the Court Resolved to

(b) An official or other person appointed or designated in accordance

(c) An agent or friend who aids a party-litigant in a municipal court

(e) Persons registered or specially recognized to practice in the

(g) An agent, not an attorney, representing the lot owner or claimant

Source: Supreme Court E-Library | Date created: October 04, 2017

Supreme Court E-Library

You might also like