Bar Matter No.

553 June 17, 1993

MAURICIO C. ULEP, petitioner,
vs.
THE LEGAL CLINIC, INC., respondent.
R E SO L U T I O N

REGALAO, J.:
Petitioner prays this Court "to order the respondent to cease and desist fro
issuin! advertiseents sii"ar to or of the sae tenor as that of anne#es "$" and
"%" &of said petition' and to perpetua""y prohi(it persons or entities fro a)in!
advertiseents pertainin! to the e#ercise of the "a* profession other than those
a""o*ed (y "a*."
The advertiseents cop"ained of (y herein petitioner are as fo""o*s+
Annex A
SECRET ,$RRI$-E.
P/01.11 for a va"id arria!e.
Info on 2I3ORCE. $%SENCE.
$NNUL,ENT. 3IS$.
T4E P"ease ca""+ /5671808 LE-$L /568595, /5551:6 CLINIC, INC. ;+91 a<
0+11 p 87="r. 3ictoria %"d!., UN $ve., ,"a.
Annex B
-U$, 2I3ORCE.
2ON P$R>INSON
an $ttorney in -ua, is !ivin! =REE %OO>S on -ua 2ivorce throu!h The
Le!a" C"inic (e!innin! ,onday to =riday durin! office hours.
-ua divorce. $nnu"ent of ,arria!e. Ii!ration Pro("es, 3isa E#t.
?uota@Non7Auota Res. B Specia" RetireeCs 3isa. 2ec"aration of $(sence.
Rearria!e to =i"ipina =iancees. $doption. Investent in the Phi". US@=orei!n
3isa for =i"ipina Spouse@Chi"dren. Ca"" ,arivic.
T4E 8= 3ictoria %"d!. :5D UN $ve., LE-$L Erita, ,ani"a nr. US E(assy
CLINIC, INC.
1
Te". /5678595E /56785/6E /55751:6E /5671808
It is the su(ission of petitioner that the advertiseents a(ove reproduced are
chapterous, unethica", deeanin! of the "a* profession, and destructive of the
confidence of the counity in the inte!rity of the e(ers of the (ar and that,
as a e(er of the "e!a" profession, he is ashaed and offended (y the said
advertiseents, hence the re"iefs sou!ht in his petition as herein(efore Auoted.
In its ans*er to the petition, respondent adits the fact of pu("ication of said
advertiseent at its instance, (ut c"ais that it is not en!a!ed in the practice of
"a* (ut in the renderin! of ""e!a" support services" throu!h para"e!a"s *ith the
use of odern coputers and e"ectronic achines. Respondent further ar!ues
that assuin! that the services advertised are "e!a" services, the act of
advertisin! these services shou"d (e a""o*ed supposed"y
in the "i!ht of the case of John R. Bates and Van O'Steen vs. State Bar of
Arizona,
!
reported"y decided (y the United States Supree Court on Fune 8,
6D88.
Considerin! the critica" ip"ications on the "e!a" profession of the issues raised
herein, *e reAuired the &6' Inte!rated %ar of the Phi"ippines &I%P', &5' Phi"ippine
%ar $ssociation &P%$', &9' Phi"ippine La*yersC $ssociation &PL$', &:' U.P.
Goens La*yersC Circ"e &GILOCI', &/' Goen La*yers $ssociation of the
Phi"ippines &GL$P', and &0' =ederacion Internationa" de $(o!adas &=I2$' to
su(it their respective position papers on the controversy and, thereafter, their
eoranda.
3
The said (ar associations readi"y responded and e#tended their
va"ua("e services and cooperation of *hich this Court ta)es note *ith
appreciation and !ratitude.
The ain issues posed for reso"ution (efore the Court are *hether or not the
services offered (y respondent, The Le!a" C"inic, Inc., as advertised (y it
constitutes practice of "a* and, in either case, *hether the sae can proper"y (e
the su(Hect of the advertiseents herein cop"ained of.
%efore proceedin! *ith an in7depth ana"ysis of the erits of this case, *e dee it
proper and en"i!htenin! to present hereunder e#cerpts fro the respective
position papers adopted (y the aforeentioned (ar associations and the
eoranda su(itted (y the on the issues invo"ved in this (ar atter.
6. Integrated Bar of the Philippines+
### ### ###
Not*ithstandin! the su(t"e anner (y *hich respondent endeavored to
distin!uish the t*o ters, i.e., ""e!a" support services" vis-a-vis ""e!a" services",
coon sense *ou"d readi"y dictate that the sae are essentia""y *ithout
su(stantia" distinction. =or *ho cou"d deny that docuent search, evidence
!atherin!, assistance to "ayan in need of (asic institutiona" services fro
!overnent or non7!overnent a!encies "i)e (irth, arria!e, property, or
(usiness re!istration, o(tainin! docuents "i)e c"earance, passports, "oca" or
forei!n visas, constitutes practice of "a*.
### ### ###
The Inte!rated %ar of the Phi"ippines &I%P' does not *ish to a)e issue *ith
respondentCs forei!n citations. Suffice it to state that the I%P has ade its
position anifest, to *it, that it stron!"y opposes the vie* espoused (y
respondent &to the effect that today it is a"ri!ht to advertise oneCs "e!a" services'.
The I%P accordin!"y dec"ares in no uncertain ters its opposition to respondentCs
act of esta("ishin! a ""e!a" c"inic" and of concoitant"y advertisin! the sae
throu!h ne*spaper pu("ications.
The I%P *ou"d therefore invo)e the adinistrative supervision of this 4onora("e
Court to perpetua""y restrain respondent fro underta)in! hi!h"y unethica"
activities in the fie"d of "a* practice as aforedescri(ed.
"
### ### ###
$. The use of the nae "The Le!a" C"inic, Inc." !ives the ipression that
respondent corporation is (ein! operated (y "a*yers and that it renders "e!a"
services.
Ghi"e the respondent repeated"y denies that it offers "e!a" services to the pu("ic,
the advertiseents in Auestion !ive the ipression that respondent is offerin!
"e!a" services. The Petition in fact sip"y assues this to (e so, as ear"ier
entioned, apparent"y (ecause this &is' the effect that the advertiseents have
on the readin! pu("ic.
The ipression created (y the advertiseents in Auestion can (e traced, first of
a"", to the very nae (ein! used (y respondent < "The Le!a" C"inic, Inc." Such a
nae, it is respectfu""y su(itted connotes the renderin! of "e!a" services for
"e!a" pro("es, Hust "i)e a edica" c"inic connotes edica" services for edica"
pro("es. ,ore iportant"y, the ter "Le!a" C"inic" connotes "a*yers, as the ter
edica" c"inic connotes doctors.
=urtherore, the respondentCs nae, as pu("ished in the advertiseents su(Hect
of the present case, appears *ith &the' sca"e&s' of Hustice, *hich a"" the ore
reinforces the ipression that it is (ein! operated (y e(ers of the (ar and
that it offers "e!a" services. In addition, the advertiseents in Auestion appear
*ith a picture and nae of a person (ein! represented as a "a*yer fro -ua,
and this practica""y reoves *hatever dou(t ay sti"" reain as to the nature of
the service or services (ein! offered.
It thus (ecoes irre"evant *hether respondent is ere"y offerin! ""e!a" support
services" as c"aied (y it, or *hether it offers "e!a" services as any "a*yer
active"y en!a!ed in "a* practice does. $nd it (ecoes unnecessary to a)e a
distinction (et*een ""e!a" services" and ""e!a" support services," as the
respondent *ou"d have it. The advertiseents in Auestion "eave no roo for
dou(t in the inds of the readin! pu("ic that "e!a" services are (ein! offered (y
"a*yers, *hether true or not.
%. The advertiseents in Auestion are eant to induce the perforance of acts
contrary to "a*, ora"s, pu("ic order and pu("ic po"icy.
It ay (e conceded that, as the respondent c"ais, the advertiseents in
Auestion are on"y eant to infor the !enera" pu("ic of the services (ein! offered
(y it. Said advertiseents, ho*ever, ephasiIe to -ua divorce, and any "a*
student ou!ht to )no* that under the =ai"y Code, there is on"y one instance
*hen a forei!n divorce is reco!niIed, and that is+
$rtic"e 50. . . .
Ghere a arria!e (et*een a =i"ipino citiIen and a forei!ner is
va"id"y ce"e(rated and a divorce is thereafter validl o!tained
a!road ! the alien spo"se capacitating hi# or her to re#arr,
the =i"ipino spouse sha"" have capacity to rearry under
Phi"ippine La*.
It ust not (e for!otten, too, that the =ai"y Code &defines' a arria!e as
fo""o*s+
$rtic"e 6. ,arria!e is special contract of per#anent "nion
(et*een a an and *oan entered into accordance *ith "a* for
the esta("ishent of conHu!a" and fai"y "ife. It is the fo"ndation
of the fa#il and an inviola!le social instit"tion *hose nature,
conseAuences, and incidents are !overned (y "a* and not
su(Hect to stipu"ation, e#cept that arria!e sett"eents ay fi#
the property re"ation durin! the arria!e *ithin the "iits
provided (y this Code.
%y sip"y readin! the Auestioned advertiseents, it is o(vious that the essa!e
(ein! conveyed is that =i"ipinos can avoid the "e!a" conseAuences of a arria!e
ce"e(rated in accordance *ith our "a*, (y sip"y !oin! to -ua for a divorce.
This is not on"y is"eadin!, (ut encoura!es, or serves to induce, vio"ation of
Phi"ippine "a*. $t the very "east, this can (e considered "the dar) side" of "e!a"
practice, *here certain defects in Phi"ippine "a*s are e#p"oited for the sa)e of
profit. $t *orst, this is outri!ht a"practice.
Ru"e 6.15. < $ "a*yer sha"" not counse" or a(et activities aied
at defiance of the "a* or at "essenin! confidence in the "e!a"
syste.
In addition, it ay a"so (e re"evant to point out that advertiseents such as that
sho*n in $nne# "$" of the Petition, *hich contains a cartoon of a otor vehic"e
*ith the *ords "Fust ,arried" on its (uper and sees to address those
p"annin! a "secret arria!e," if not su!!estin! a "secret arria!e," a)es "i!ht of
the "specia" contract of peranent union," the invio"a("e socia" institution," *hich
is ho* the =ai"y Code descri(es arria!e, o(vious"y to ephasiIe its sanctity
and invio"a(i"ity. Gorse, this particu"ar advertiseent appears to encoura!e
arria!es ce"e(rated in secrecy, *hich is su!!estive of iora" pu("ication of
app"ications for a arria!e "icense.
If the artic"e "R# for Le!a" Pro("es" is to (e revie*ed, it can readi"y (e
conc"uded that the a(ove ipressions one ay !ather fro the advertiseents
in Auestion are accurate. The Sharon Cuneta7-a((y Concepcion e#ap"e a"one
confirs *hat the advertiseents su!!est. 4ere it can (e seen that criina" acts
are (ein! encoura!ed or coitted
&a (i!aous arria!e in 4on! >on! or Las 3e!as' *ith ipunity sip"y (ecause
the Hurisdiction of Phi"ippine courts does not e#tend to the p"ace *here the crie
is coitted.
Even if it (e assued, arg"endo, &that' the ""e!a" support services" respondent
offers do not constitute "e!a" services as coon"y understood, the
advertiseents in Auestion !ive the ipression that respondent corporation is
(ein! operated (y "a*yers and that it offers "e!a" services, as ear"ier discussed.
Thus, the on"y "o!ica" conseAuence is that, in the eyes of an ordinary ne*spaper
reader, e(ers of the (ar these"ves are encoura!in! or inducin! the
perforance of acts *hich are contrary to "a*, ora"s, !ood custos and the
pu("ic !ood, there(y destroyin! and deeanin! the inte!rity of the %ar.
### ### ###
It is respectfu""y su(itted that respondent shou"d (e enHoined fro causin! the
pu("ication of the advertiseents in Auestion, or any other advertiseents sii"ar
thereto. It is a"so su(itted that respondent shou"d (e prohi(ited fro further
perforin! or offerin! soe of the services it present"y offers, or, at the very
"east, fro offerin! such services to the pu("ic in !enera".
The I%P is a*are of the fact that providin! coputeriIed "e!a" research,
e"ectronic data !atherin!, stora!e and retrieva", standardiIed "e!a" fors,
investi!ators for !atherin! of evidence, and "i)e services *i"" !reat"y (enefit the
"e!a" profession and shou"d not (e stif"ed (ut instead encoura!ed. 4o*ever,
*hen the conduct of such (usiness (y non7e(ers of the %ar encroaches upon
the practice of "a*, there can (e no choice (ut to prohi(it such (usiness.
$ditted"y, any of the services invo"ved in the case at (ar can (e (etter
perfored (y specia"ists in other fie"ds, such as coputer e#perts, *ho (y
reason of their havin! devoted tie and effort e#c"usive"y to such fie"d cannot
fu"fi"" the e#actin! reAuireents for adission to the %ar. To prohi(it the fro
"encroachin!" upon the "e!a" profession *i"" deny the profession of the !reat
(enefits and advanta!es of odern techno"o!y. Indeed, a "a*yer usin! a
coputer *i"" (e doin! (etter than a "a*yer usin! a type*riter, even if (oth are
&eAua"' in s)i"".
%oth the %ench and the %ar, ho*ever, shou"d (e carefu" not to a""o* or to"erate
the i""e!a" practice of "a* in any for, not on"y for the protection of e(ers of
the %ar (ut a"so, and ore iportant"y, for the protection of the pu("ic.
Techno"o!ica" deve"opent in the profession ay (e encoura!ed *ithout
to"eratin!, (ut instead ensurin! prevention of i""e!a" practice.
There i!ht (e nothin! o(Hectiona("e if respondent is a""o*ed to perfor a"" of its
services, (ut on"y if such services are ade avai"a("e e#c"usive"y to e(ers of
the %ench and %ar. Respondent *ou"d then (e offerin! technica" assistance, not
"e!a" services. $"ternative"y, the ore difficu"t tas) of carefu""y distin!uishin!
(et*een *hich service ay (e offered to the pu("ic in !enera" and *hich shou"d
(e ade avai"a("e e#c"usive"y to e(ers of the %ar ay (e underta)en. This,
ho*ever, ay reAuire further proceedin!s (ecause of the factua" considerations
invo"ved.
It ust (e ephasiIed, ho*ever, that soe of respondentCs services ou!ht to (e
prohi(ited outri!ht, such as acts *hich tend to su!!est or induce ce"e(ration
a(road of arria!es *hich are (i!aous or other*ise i""e!a" and void under
Phi"ippine "a*. Ghi"e respondent ay not (e prohi(ited fro sip"y
disseinatin! inforation re!ardin! such atters, it ust (e reAuired to inc"ude,
in the inforation !iven, a disc"aier that it is not authoriIed to practice "a*, that
certain course of action ay (e i""e!a" under Phi"ippine "a*, that it is not
authoriIed or capa("e of renderin! a "e!a" opinion, that a "a*yer shou"d (e
consu"ted (efore decidin! on *hich course of action to ta)e, and that it cannot
recoend any particu"ar "a*yer *ithout su(Hectin! itse"f to possi("e sanctions
for i""e!a" practice of "a*.
If respondent is a""o*ed to advertise, advertisin! shou"d (e directed e#c"usive"y
at e(ers of the %ar, *ith a c"ear and unista)a("e disc"aier that it is not
authoriIed to practice "a* or perfor "e!a" services.
The (enefits of (ein! assisted (y para"e!a"s cannot (e i!nored. %ut no(ody
shou"d (e a""o*ed to represent hise"f as a "para"e!a"" for profit, *ithout such
ter (ein! c"ear"y defined (y ru"e or re!u"ation, and *ithout any adeAuate and
effective eans of re!u"atin! his activities. $"so, "a* practice in a corporate for
ay prove to (e advanta!eous to the "e!a" profession, (ut (efore a""o*ance of
such practice ay (e considered, the corporationCs $rtic"e of Incorporation and
%y7"a*s ust confor to each and every provision of the Code of Professiona"
Responsi(i"ity and the Ru"es of Court.
5
5. Philippine Bar Association+
### ### ###.
Respondent asserts that it "is not en!a!ed in the practice of "a* (ut en!a!ed in
!ivin! "e!a" support services to "a*yers and "ayen, throu!h e#perienced
para"e!a"s, *ith the use of odern coputers and e"ectronic achines" &pars. 5
and 9, Coent'. This is a(surd. UnAuestiona("y, respondentCs acts of ho"din!
out itse"f to the pu("ic under the trade nae "The Le!a" C"inic, Inc.," and so"icitin!
ep"oyent for its enuerated services fa"" *ithin the rea" of a practice *hich
thus yie"ds itse"f to the re!u"atory po*ers of the Supree Court. =or respondent
to say that it is ere"y en!a!ed in para"e!a" *or) is to stretch credu"ity.
RespondentCs o*n coercia" advertiseent *hich announces a certain Att.
$on Par%inson to (e hand"in! the fie"ds of "a* (e"ies its pretense. =ro a""
indications, respondent "The Le!a" C"inic, Inc." is offerin! and renderin! legal
services throu!h its reserve of "a*yers. It has (een he"d that the practice of "a* is
not "iited to the conduct of cases in court, (ut inc"udes dra*in! of deeds,
incorporation, renderin! opinions, and advising clients as to their legal right and
then ta%e the# to an attorne and as% the latter to loo% after their case in co"rt
See ,artin, Le!a" and Fudicia" Ethics, 6D;: ed., p. 9D'.
It is apt to reca"" that on"y nat"ral persons can en!a!e in the practice of "a*, and
such "iitation cannot (e evaded (y a corporation ep"oyin! copetent "a*yers
to practice for it. O(vious"y, this is the schee or device (y *hich respondent
"The Le!a" C"inic, Inc." ho"ds out itse"f to the pu("ic and so"icits ep"oyent of its
"e!a" services. It is an odio"s vehicle for deception, especia""y so *hen the pu("ic
cannot venti"ate any !rievance for #alpractice a!ainst the (usiness conduit.
Precise"y, the "iitation of practice of "a* to persons *ho have (een du"y
aditted as e(ers of the %ar &Sec. 6, Ru"e 69;, Revised Ru"es of Court' is to
su(Hect the e(ers to the discipline of the Supree Court. $"thou!h
respondent uses its !"siness na#e, the persons and the "a*yers *ho act for it
are su(Hect to court discip"ine. The practice of "a* is not a profession open to a""
*ho *ish to en!a!e in it nor can it (e assi!ned to another &See / $. Fur. 581'.
It is a personal right "iited to persons *ho have Aua"ified these"ves under the
"a*. It fo""o*s that not on"y respondent (ut a"so a"" the persons *ho are actin! for
respondent are the persons en!a!ed in unethica" "a* practice.
#
9. Philippine &a'ers' Association+
The Phi"ippine La*yersC $ssociationCs position, in ans*er to the issues stated
herein, are *it+
6. The Le!a" C"inic is en!a!ed in the practice of "a*E
5. Such practice is unauthoriIedE
9. The advertiseents cop"ained of are not on"y unethica", (ut a"so is"eadin!
and patent"y iora"E and
:. The 4onora("e Supree Court has the po*er to supress and punish the Le!a"
C"inic and its corporate officers for its unauthoriIed practice of "a* and for its
unethica", is"eadin! and iora" advertisin!.
### ### ###
Respondent posits that is it not en!a!ed in the practice of "a*. It c"ais that it
ere"y renders ""e!a" support services" to ans*ers, "iti!ants and the !enera"
pu("ic as enunciated in the Priary Purpose C"ause of its $rtic"e&s' of
Incorporation. &See pa!es 5 to / of RespondentCs Coent'. %ut its advertised
services, as enuerated a(ove, c"ear"y and convincin!"y sho* that it is indeed
en!a!ed in "a* practice, a"(eit outside of court.
$s advertised, it offers the !enera" pu("ic its advisory services on Persons and
=ai"y Re"ations La*, particu"ar"y re!ardin! forei!n divorces, annu"ent of
arria!es, secret arria!es, a(sence and adoptionE Ii!ration La*s,
particu"ar"y on visa re"ated pro("es, ii!ration pro("esE the Investents La*
of the Phi"ippines and such other re"ated "a*s.
Its advertised services unista)a("y reAuire the app"ication of the aforesaid "a*,
the "e!a" princip"es and procedures re"ated thereto, the "e!a" advices (ased
thereon and *hich activities ca"" for "e!a" trainin!, )no*"ed!e and e#perience.
$pp"yin! the test "aid do*n (y the Court in the aforecited $!rava Case, the
activities of respondent fa"" sAuare"y and are e(raced in *hat "a*yers and
"ayen eAua""y ter as "the practice of "a*."
7
:. (.P. )o#en &a'ers' *ircle+
In reso"vin!, the issues (efore this 4onora("e Court, paraount consideration
shou"d (e !iven to the protection of the !enera" pu("ic fro the dan!er of (ein!
e#p"oited (y unAua"ified persons or entities *ho ay (e en!a!ed in the practice
of "a*.
$t present, (ecoin! a "a*yer reAuires one to ta)e a ri!orous four7year course of
study on top of a four7year (ache"or of arts or sciences course and then to ta)e
and pass the (ar e#ainations. On"y then, is a "a*yer Aua"ified to practice "a*.
Ghi"e the use of a para"e!a" is sanctioned in any Hurisdiction as an aid to the
adinistration of Hustice, there are in those Hurisdictions, courses of study and@or
standards *hich *ou"d Aua"ify these para"e!a"s to dea" *ith the !enera" pu("ic as
such. Ghi"e it ay no* (e the opportune tie to esta("ish these courses of study
and@or standards, the fact reains that at present, these do not e#ist in the
Phi"ippines. In the eantie, this 4onora("e Court ay decide to a)e
easures to protect the !enera" pu("ic fro (ein! e#p"oited (y those *ho ay
(e dea"in! *ith the !enera" pu("ic in the !uise of (ein! "para"e!a"s" *ithout (ein!
Aua"ified to do so.
In the sae anner, the !enera" pu("ic shou"d a"so (e protected fro the
dan!ers *hich ay (e (rou!ht a(out (y advertisin! of "e!a" services. Ghi"e it
appears that "a*yers are prohi(ited under the present Code of Professiona"
Responsi(i"ity fro advertisin!, it appears in the instant case that "e!a" services
are (ein! advertised not (y "a*yers (ut (y an entity staffed (y "para"e!a"s."
C"ear"y, easures shou"d (e ta)en to protect the !enera" pu("ic fro fa""in! prey
to those *ho advertise "e!a" services *ithout (ein! Aua"ified to offer such
services.
$
$ perusa" of the Auestioned advertiseents of Respondent, ho*ever, sees to
!ive the ipression that inforation re!ardin! va"idity of arria!es, divorce,
annu"ent of arria!e, ii!ration, visa e#tensions, dec"aration of a(sence,
adoption and forei!n investent, *hich are in essence, "e!a" atters , *i"" (e
!iven to the if they avai" of its services. The RespondentCs nae < The Le!a"
C"inic, Inc. < does not he"p atters. It !ives the ipression a!ain that
Respondent *i"" or can cure the "e!a" pro("es (rou!ht to the. $ssuin! that
Respondent is, as c"aied, staffed pure"y (y para"e!a"s, it a"so !ives the
is"eadin! ipression that there are "a*yers invo"ved in The Le!a" C"inic, Inc., as
there are doctors in any edica" c"inic, *hen on"y "para"e!a"s" are invo"ved in
The Le!a" C"inic, Inc.
RespondentCs a""e!ations are further (e"ied (y the very adissions of its
President and aHority stoc)ho"der, $tty. No!a"es, *ho !ave an insi!ht on the
structure and ain purpose of Respondent corporation in the aforeentioned
"Star*ee)" artic"e."
9
/. )o#en &a'er's Association of the Philippines+
$nne#es "$" and "%" of the petition are c"ear"y advertiseents to so"icit cases for
the purpose of !ain *hich, as provided for under the a(ove cited "a*, &are' i""e!a"
and a!ainst the Code of Professiona" Responsi(i"ity of "a*yers in this country.
$nne# "$" of the petition is not on"y i""e!a" in that it is an advertiseent to so"icit
cases, (ut it is i""e!a" in that in (o"d "etters it announces that the Le!a" C"inic, Inc.,
cou"d *or) out@cause the ce"e(ration of a secret arria!e *hich is not on"y i""e!a"
(ut iora" in this country. Ghi"e it is advertised that one has to !o to said
a!ency and pay P/01 for a va"id arria!e it is certain"y foo"in! the pu("ic for va"id
arria!es in the Phi"ippines are so"eniIed on"y (y officers authoriIed to do so
under the "a*. $nd to ep"oy an a!ency for said purpose of contractin! arria!e
is not necessary.
No aount of reasonin! that in the US$, Canada and other countries the trend is
to*ards a""o*in! "a*yers to advertise their specia" s)i""s to ena("e peop"e to
o(tain fro Aua"ified practitioners "e!a" services for their particu"ar needs can
Hustify the use of advertiseents such as are the su(Hect atter of the petition, for
one &cannot' Hustify an i""e!a" act even (y *hatever erit the i""e!a" act ay
serve. The "a* has yet to (e aended so that such act cou"d (ecoe Hustifia("e.
Ge su(it further that these advertiseents that see to proHect that secret
arria!es and divorce are possi("e in this country for a fee, *hen in fact it is not
so, are hi!h"y reprehensi("e.
It *ou"d encoura!e peop"e to consu"t this c"inic a(out ho* they cou"d !o a(out
havin! a secret arria!e here, *hen it cannot nor shou"d ever (e attepted, and
see) advice on divorce, *here in this country there is none, e#cept under the
Code of ,us"i Persona" La*s in the Phi"ippines. It is a"so a!ainst !ood ora"s
and is deceitfu" (ecause it fa"se"y represents to the pu("ic to (e a("e to do that
*hich (y our "a*s cannot (e done &and' (y our Code of ,ora"s shou"d not (e
done.
In the case &of' In re Ta!uda, /9 Phi". 98, the Supree Court he"d that so"icitation
for c"ients (y an attorney (y circu"ars of advertiseents, is unprofessiona", and
offenses of this character Hustify peranent e"iination fro the %ar.
1%
0. +ederacion Internacional de A!ogados+
### ### ###
6.8 That entities aditted"y not en!a!ed in the practice of "a*, such as
ana!eent consu"tancy firs or trave" a!encies, *hether run (y "a*yers or not,
perfor the services rendered (y Respondent does not necessari"y "ead to the
conc"usion that Respondent is not un"a*fu""y practicin! "a*. In the sae vein,
ho*ever, the fact that the (usiness of respondent &assuin! it can (e en!a!ed in
independent"y of the practice of "a*' invo"ves )no*"ed!e of the "a* does not
necessari"y a)e respondent !ui"ty of un"a*fu" practice of "a*.
. . . . Of necessity, no one . . . . actin! as a consu"tant can render
effective service un"ess he is fai"iar *ith such statutes and
re!u"ations. 4e ust (e carefu" not to su!!est a course of
conduct *hich the "a* for(ids. It sees . . . .c"ear that &the
consu"tantCs' )no*"ed!e of the "a*, and his use of that
)no*"ed!e as a factor in deterinin! *hat easures he sha""
recoend, do not constitute the practice of "a* . . . . It is not
on"y presued that a"" en )no* the "a*, (ut it is a fact that
ost en have considera("e acAuaintance *ith (road features
of the "a* . . . . Our )no*"ed!e of the "a* < accurate or
inaccurate < ou"ds our conduct not on"y *hen *e are actin!
for ourse"ves, (ut *hen *e are servin! others. %an)ers, "iAuor
dea"ers and "ayen !enera""y possess rather precise )no*"ed!e
of the "a*s touchin! their particu"ar (usiness or profession. $
!ood e#ap"e is the architect, *ho ust (e fai"iar *ith Ionin!,
(ui"din! and fire prevention codes, factory and teneent house
statutes, and *ho dra*s p"ans and specification in harony *ith
the "a*. This is not practicin! "a*.
%ut suppose the architect, as)ed (y his c"ient to oit a fire to*er,
rep"ies that it is reAuired (y the statute. Or the industria" re"ations
e#pert cites, in support of soe easure that he recoends, a
decision of the Nationa" La(or Re"ations %oard. $re they
practicin! "a*. In y opinion, they are not, provided no separate
fee is char!ed for the "e!a" advice or inforation, and the "e!a"
Auestion is su(ordinate and incidenta" to a aHor non7"e!a"
pro("e.
It is "ar!e"y a atter of de!ree and of custo.
If it *ere usua" for one intendin! to erect a (ui"din! on his "and to
en!a!e a "a*yer to advise hi and the architect in respect to the
(ui"din! code and the "i)e, then an architect *ho perfored this
function *ou"d pro(a("y (e considered to (e trespassin! on
territory reserved for "icensed attorneys. Li)e*ise, if the industria"
re"ations fie"d had (een pre7epted (y "a*yers, or custo
p"aced a "a*yer a"*ays at the e"(o* of the "ay personne" an.
%ut this is not the case. The ost iportant (ody of the industria"
re"ations e#perts are the officers and (usiness a!ents of the
"a(or unions and fe* of the are "a*yers. $on! the "ar!er
corporate ep"oyers, it has (een the practice for soe years to
de"e!ate specia" responsi(i"ity in ep"oyee atters to a
ana!eent !roup chosen for their practica" )no*"ed!e and s)i""
in such atter, and *ithout re!ard to "e!a" thin)in! or "ac) of it.
,ore recent"y, consu"tants "i)e the defendants have the sae
service that the "ar!er ep"oyers !et fro their o*n specia"iIed
staff.
The hand"in! of industria" re"ations is !ro*in! into a reco!niIed
profession for *hich appropriate courses are offered (y our
"eadin! universities. The court shou"d (e very cautious a(out
dec"arin! JthatK a *idespread, *e""7esta("ished ethod of
conductin! (usiness is un"a*fu", or that the considera("e c"ass of
en *ho custoari"y perfor a certain function have no ri!ht to
do so, or that the technica" education !iven (y our schoo"s
cannot (e used (y the !raduates in their (usiness.
In deter#ining 'hether a #an is practicing la', 'e sho"ld
consider his 'or% for an partic"lar client or c"sto#er, as a
'hole. I can ia!ine defendant (ein! en!a!ed priari"y to
advise as to the "a* definin! his c"ientCs o("i!ations to his
ep"oyees, to !uide his c"ientCs o("i!ations to his ep"oyees, to
!uide his c"ient a"on! the path charted (y "a*. This, of course,
*ou"d (e the practice of the "a*. %ut such is not the fact in the
case (efore e. 2efendantCs priari"y efforts are a"on!
econoic and psycho"o!ica" "ines. The "a* on"y provides the
frae *ithin *hich he ust *or), Hust as the Ionin! code "iits
the )ind of (ui"din! the "iits the )ind of (ui"din! the architect
ay p"an. -he incidental legal advice or infor#ation defendant
#a give, does not transfor# his activities into the practice of
la'. &et #e add that if, even as a #inor feat"re of his 'or%, he
perfor#ed services 'hich are c"sto#aril reserved to #e#!ers
of the !ar, he 'o"ld !e practicing la'. =or instance, if as part of a
*e"fare pro!ra, he dre* ep"oyeesC *i""s.
$nother (ranch of defendantCs *or) is the representations of the
ep"oyer in the adHustent of !rievances and in co""ective
(ar!ainin!, *ith or *ithout a ediator. This is not per se the
practice of "a*. $nyone ay use an a!ent for ne!otiations and
ay se"ect an a!ent particu"ar"y s)i""ed in the su(Hect under
discussion, and the person appointed is free to accept the
ep"oyent *hether or not he is a e(er of the (ar. 4ere,
ho*ever, there ay (e an e#ception *here the (usiness turns
on a Auestion of "a*. ,ost rea" estate sa"es are ne!otiated (y
(ro)ers *ho are not "a*yers. %ut if the va"ue of the "and depends
on a disputed ri!ht7of7*ay and the principa" ro"e of the ne!otiator
is to assess the pro(a("e outcoe of the dispute and persuade
the opposite party to the sae opinion, then it ay (e that on"y a
"a*yer can accept the assi!nent. Or if a controversy (et*een
an ep"oyer and his en !ro*s fro differin! interpretations of
a contract, or of a statute, it is Auite "i)e"y that defendant shou"d
not hand"e it. %ut I need not reach a definite conc"usion here,
since the situation is not presented (y the proofs.
2efendant a"so appears to represent the ep"oyer (efore
adinistrative a!encies of the federa" !overnent, especia""y
(efore tria" e#ainers of the Nationa" La(or Re"ations %oard. $n
a!ency of the federa" !overnent, actin! (y virtue of an authority
!ranted (y the Con!ress, ay re!u"ate the representation of
parties (efore such a!ency. The State of Ne* Fersey is *ithout
po*er to interfere *ith such deterination or to for(id
representation (efore the a!ency (y one *ho the a!ency
adits. The ru"es of the Nationa" La(or Re"ations %oard !ive to a
party the ri!ht to appear in person, or (y counse", or (y other
representative. Ru"es and Re!u"ations, Septe(er 66th, 6D:0,
S. 519.96. CCounse"C here eans a "icensed attorney, and ther
representativeC one not a "a*yer. In this phase of his *or),
defendant ay "a*fu""y do *hatever the La(or %oard a""o*s,
even ar!uin! Auestions pure"y "e!a". &$uer(acher v. Good, /9 $.
5d ;11, cited in Stats)y, Introduction to Para"e!a"is J6D8:K, at
pp. 6/:76/0.'.
6.; =ro the fore!oin!, it can (e said that a person en!a!ed in a "a*fu" ca""in!
&*hich ay invo"ve )no*"ed!e of the "a*' is not en!a!ed in the practice of "a*
provided that+
&a' The "e!a" Auestion is su(ordinate and incidenta" to a aHor non7"e!a"
pro("eE.
&(' The services perfored are not custoari"y reserved to e(ers of the (arE .
&c' No separate fee is char!ed for the "e!a" advice or inforation.
$"" these ust (e considered in re"ation to the *or) for any particu"ar c"ient as a
*ho"e.
6.D. If the person invo"ved is (oth "a*yer and non7"a*yer, the Code of
Professiona" Responsi(i"ity succint"y states the ru"e of conduct+
Ru"e 6/.1; < $ "a*yer *ho is en!a!ed in another profession or occupation
concurrent"y *ith the practice of "a* sha"" a)e c"ear to his c"ient *hether he is
actin! as a "a*yer or in another capacity.
6.61. In the present case. the Le!a" C"inic appears to render *eddin! services
&See $nne# "$" Petition'. Services on routine, strai!htfor*ard arria!es, "i)e
securin! a arria!e "icense, and a)in! arran!eents *ith a priest or a Hud!e,
ay not constitute practice of "a*. 4o*ever, if the pro("e is as cop"icated as
that descri(ed in "R# for Le!a" Pro("es" on the Sharon Cuneta7-a((y
Concepcion7Richard -oeI case, then *hat ay (e invo"ved is actua""y the
practice of "a*. If a non7"a*yer, such as the Le!a" C"inic, renders such services
then it is en!a!ed in the unauthoriIed practice of "a*.
6.66. The Le!a" C"inic a"so appears to !ive inforation on divorce, a(sence,
annu"ent of arria!e and visas &See $nne#es "$" and "%" Petition'. Pure"y
!ivin! inforationa" ateria"s ay not constitute of "a*. The (usiness is sii"ar to
that of a (oo)store *here the custoer (uys ateria"s on the su(Hect and
deterines on the su(Hect and deterines (y hise"f *hat courses of action to
ta)e.
It is not entire"y ipro(a("e, ho*ever, that aside fro pure"y !ivin! inforation,
the Le!a" C"inicCs para"e!a"s ay app"y the "a* to the particu"ar pro("e of the
c"ient, and !ive "e!a" advice. Such *ou"d constitute unauthoriIed practice of "a*.
It cannot (e c"aied that the pu("ication of a "e!a" te#t *hich
pu("ication of a "e!a" te#t *hich purports to say *hat the "a* is
aount to "e!a" practice. $nd the ere fact that the princip"es or
ru"es stated in the te#t ay (e accepted (y a particu"ar reader as
a so"ution to his pro("e does not affect this. . . . . $pparent"y it is
ur!ed that the conHoinin! of these t*o, that is, the te#t and the
fors, *ith advice as to ho* the fors shou"d (e fi""ed out,
constitutes the un"a*fu" practice of "a*. %ut that is the situation
*ith any approved and accepted te#ts. 2aceyCs (oo) is so"d to
the pu("ic at "ar!e. -here is no personal contact or relationship
'ith a partic"lar individ"al. .or does there exist that relation of
confidence and tr"st so necessar to the stat"s of attorne and
client. -/IS IS -/0 0SS0.-IA& O+ &01A& PRA*-I*0 2 -/0
R0PR0S0.-A-IO. A.$ A$VISI.1 O+ A PAR-I*(&AR
P0RSO. I. A PAR-I*(&AR SI-(A-IO.. $t ost the (oo)
assues to offer !enera" advice on coon pro("es, and does
not purport to !ive persona" advice on a specific pro("e
pecu"iar to a desi!nated or readi"y identified person. Sii"ar"y the
defendantCs pu("ication does not purport to !ive persona" advice
on a specific pro("e pecu"iar to a desi!nated or readi"y
identified person in a particu"ar situation < in their pu("ication
and sa"e of the )its, such pu("ication and sa"e did not constitutes
the un"a*fu" practice of "a* . . . . There (ein! no "e!a"
ipedient under the statute to the sa"e of the )it, there *as no
proper (asis for the inHunction a!ainst defendant aintainin! an
office for the purpose of se""in! to persons see)in! a divorce,
separation, annu"ent or separation a!reeent any printed
ateria" or *ritin!s re"atin! to atrionia" "a* or the prohi(ition
in the eorandu of odification of the Hud!ent a!ainst
defendant havin! an interest in any pu("ishin! house pu("ishin!
his anuscript on divorce and a!ainst his havin! any persona"
contact *ith any prospective purchaser. The record does fu""y
support, ho*ever, the findin! that for the chan!e of L8/ or L611
for the )it, the defendant !ave "e!a" advice in the course of
persona" contacts concernin! particu"ar pro("es *hich i!ht
arise in the preparation and presentation of the purchaserCs
asserted atrionia" cause of action or pursuit of other "e!a"
reedies and assistance in the preparation of necessary
docuents &The inHunction therefore sou!ht to' enHoin conduct
constitutin! the practice of "a*, particu"ar"y *ith reference to the
!ivin! of advice and counse" (y the defendant re"atin! to specific
pro("es of particu"ar individua"s in connection *ith a divorce,
separation, annu"ent of separation a!reeent sou!ht and
shou"d (e affired. &State v. Ginder, 9:;, NMS 52 581 J6D89K,
cited in Stats)y, s"pra at p. 616.'.
6.65. Respondent, of course, states that its services are "strict"y non7dia!nostic,
non7advisory. "It is not controverted, ho*ever, that if the services "invo"ve !ivin!
"e!a" advice or counse""in!," such *ou"d constitute practice of "a* &Coent,
par. 0.5'. It is in this "i!ht that =I2$ su(its that a factua" inAuiry ay (e
necessary for the Hudicious disposition of this case.
### ### ###
5.61. $nne# "$" ay (e ethica""y o(Hectiona("e in that it can !ive the ipression
&or perpetuate the *ron! notion' that there is a secret arria!e. Gith a"" the
so"enities, fora"ities and other reAuisites of arria!es &See $rtic"es 5, et se3.,
=ai"y Code', no Phi"ippine arria!e can (e secret.
5.66. $nne# "%" ay "i)e*ise (e ethica""y o(Hectiona("e. The second para!raph
thereof &*hich is not necessari"y re"ated to the first para!raph' fai"s to state the
"iitation that on"y "para"e!a" services." or ""e!a" support services", and not "e!a"
services, are avai"a("e."
11
$ prefatory discussion on the eanin! of the phrase "practice of "a*" (ecoes
e#i!ent for the proper deterination of the issues raised (y the petition at (ar. On
this score, *e note that the c"ause "practice of "a*" has "on! (een the su(Hect of
Hudicia" construction and interpretation. The courts have "aid do*n !enera"
princip"es and doctrines e#p"ainin! the eanin! and scope of the ter, soe of
*hich *e no* ta)e into account.
Practice of "a* eans any activity, in or out of court, *hich reAuires the
app"ication of "a*, "e!a" procedures, )no*"ed!e, trainin! and e#perience. To
en!a!e in the practice of "a* is to perfor those acts *hich are characteristic of
the profession. -enera""y, to practice "a* is to !ive advice or render any )ind of
service that invo"ves "e!a" )no*"ed!e or s)i"".
1!
The practice of "a* is not "iited to the conduct of cases in court. It inc"udes "e!a"
advice and counse", and the preparation of "e!a" instruents and contract (y
*hich "e!a" ri!hts are secured, a"thou!h such atter ay or ay not (e pendin!
in a court.
13
In the practice of his profession, a "icensed attorney at "a* !enera""y en!a!es in
three principa" types of professiona" activity+ "e!a" advice and instructions to
c"ients to infor the of their ri!hts and o("i!ations, preparation for c"ients of
docuents reAuirin! )no*"ed!e of "e!a" princip"es not possessed (y ordinary
"ayan, and appearance for c"ients (efore pu("ic tri(una"s *hich possess po*er
and authority to deterine ri!hts of "ife, "i(erty, and property accordin! to "a*, in
order to assist in proper interpretation and enforceent of "a*.
1"
Ghen a person participates in the a tria" and advertises hise"f as a "a*yer, he is
in the practice of "a*.
15
One *ho confers *ith c"ients, advises the as to their
"e!a" ri!hts and then ta)es the (usiness to an attorney and as)s the "atter to "oo)
after the case in court, is a"so practicin! "a*.
1#
-ivin! advice for copensation
re!ardin! the "e!a" status and ri!hts of another and the conduct *ith respect
thereto constitutes a practice of "a*.
17
One *ho renders an opinion as to the
proper interpretation of a statute, and receives pay for it, is, to that e#tent,
practicin! "a*.
1$
In the recent case of *aetano vs. 4onsod,
19
after citin! the doctrines in severa"
cases, *e "aid do*n the test to deterine *hether certain acts constitute
"practice of "a*," thus+
%"ac) defines "practice of "a*" as+
The rendition of services reAuirin! the )no*"ed!e and the app"ication of "e!a"
princip"es and techniAue to serve the interest of another *ith his consent. It is not
"iited to appearin! in court, or advisin! and assistin! in the conduct of "iti!ation,
(ut e(races the preparation of p"eadin!s, and other papers incident to actions
and specia" proceedin!s, conveyancin!, the preparation of "e!a" instruents of
a"" )inds, and the !ivin! of a"" "e!a" advice to c"ients. It e(races a"" advice to
c"ients and a"" actions ta)en for the in atters connected *ith the "a*.
The practice of "a* is not "iited to the conduct of cases on court.&Land Tit"e
$(stract and Trust Co. v. 2*or)en , 65D Ohio St. 59, 6D9N. E. 0/1'. $ person is
a"so considered to (e in the practice of "a* *hen he+
. . . . for va"ua("e consideration en!a!es in the (usiness of advisin! person,
firs, associations or corporations as to their ri!ht under the "a*, or appears in a
representative capacity as an advocate in proceedin!s, pendin! or prospective,
(efore any court, coissioner, referee, (oard, (ody, coittee, or coission
constituted (y "a* or authoriIed to sett"e controversies and there, in such
representative capacity, perfors any act or acts for the purpose of o(tainin! or
defendin! the ri!hts of their c"ients under the "a*. Other*ise stated, one *ho, in
a representative capacity, en!a!es in the (usiness of advisin! c"ients as to their
ri!hts under the "a*, or *hi"e so en!a!ed perfors any act or acts either in court
or outside of court for that purpose, is en!a!ed in the practice of "a*. &State e#.
re". ,c)ittric) v. C.S. 2ud"ey and Co., 615 S. G. 5d ;D/, 9:1 ,o. ;/5'.
This Court, in the case of Philippines &a'ers Association v. Agrava &61/ Phi".
689, 6807688',stated+
The practice of "a* is not "iited to the conduct of cases or "iti!ation in courtE it
e(races the preparation of p"eadin!s and other papers incident to actions and
specia" proceedin!s, the ana!eent of such actions and proceedin!s on (eha"f
of c"ients (efore Hud!es and courts, and in addition, conveyin!. In !enera", a""
advice to c"ients, and a"" action ta)en for the in atters connected *ith the "a*
incorporation services, assessent and condenation services contep"atin! an
appearance (efore a Hudicia" (ody, the forec"osure of a ort!a!e, enforceent of
a creditorCs c"ai in (an)ruptcy and inso"vency proceedin!s, and conductin!
proceedin!s in attachent, and in atters or estate and !uardianship have (een
he"d to constitute "a* practice, as do the preparation and draftin! of "e!a"
instruents, *here the *or) done invo"ves the deterination (y the trained "e!a"
ind of the "e!a" effect of facts and conditions. &/ $. Fr. p. 505, 509'.
Practice of "a* under odern conditions consists in no sa"" part of *or)
perfored outside of any court and havin! no iediate re"ation to proceedin!s
in court. It e(races conveyancin!, the !ivin! of "e!a" advice on a "ar!e variety
of su(Hects and the preparation and e#ecution of "e!a" instruents coverin! an
e#tensive fie"d of (usiness and trust re"ations and other affairs. $"thou!h these
transactions ay have no direct connection *ith court proceedin!s, they are
a"*ays su(Hect to (ecoe invo"ved in "iti!ation. They reAuire in any aspects a
hi!h de!ree of "e!a" s)i"", a *ide e#perience *ith en and affairs, and !reat
capacity for adaptation to difficu"t and cop"e# situations. These custoary
functions of an attorney or counse"or at "a* (ear an intiate re"ation to the
adinistration of Hustice (y the courts. No va"id distinction, so far as concerns the
Auestion set forth in the order, can (e dra*n (et*een that part of the *or) of the
"a*yer *hich invo"ves appearance in court and that part *hich invo"ves advice
and draftin! of instruents in his office. It is of iportance to the *e"fare of the
pu("ic that these anifo"d custoary functions (e perfored (y persons
possessed of adeAuate "earnin! and s)i"", of sound ora" character, and actin! at
a"" ties under the heavy trust o("i!ations to c"ients *hich rests upon a""
attorneys. &,oran, Coents on the Ru"es o Court, 3o". 9 J6D89 ed.K, pp. 00/7
000, citin! In Re Opinion of the Fustices J,assK, 6D: N. E. 969, Auoted in Rhode
Is. %ar $ssoc. v. $utoo(i"e Service $ssoc. JR.I.K 6D8 $. 69D, 6::'.
The practice of "a*, therefore, covers a *ide ran!e of activities in and out of
court. $pp"yin! the aforeentioned criteria to the case at (ar, *e a!ree *ith the
perceptive findin!s and o(servations of the aforestated (ar associations that the
activities of respondent, as advertised, constitute "practice of "a*."
The contention of respondent that it ere"y offers "e!a" support services can
neither (e serious"y considered nor sustained. Said proposition is (e"ied (y
respondentCs o*n description of the services it has (een offerin!, to *it+
Le!a" support services (asica""y consists of !ivin! ready inforation (y trained
para"e!a"s to "ayen and "a*yers, *hich are strict"y non7dia!nostic, non7
advisory, throu!h the e#tensive use of coputers and odern inforation
techno"o!y in the !atherin!, processin!, stora!e, transission and reproduction
of inforation and counication, such as coputeriIed "e!a" researchE
encodin! and reproduction of docuents and p"eadin!s prepared (y "ayen or
"a*yersE docuent searchE evidence !atherin!E "ocatin! parties or *itnesses to a
caseE fact findin! investi!ationsE and assistance to "ayen in need of (asic
institutiona" services fro !overnent or non7!overnent a!encies, "i)e (irth,
arria!e, property, or (usiness re!istrationsE educationa" or ep"oyent records
or certifications, o(tainin! docuentation "i)e c"earances, passports, "oca" or
forei!n visasE !ivin! inforation a(out "a*s of other countries that they ay find
usefu", "i)e forei!n divorce, arria!e or adoption "a*s that they can avai" of
preparatory to ei!ration to the forei!n country, and other atters that do not
invo"ve representation of c"ients in courtE desi!nin! and insta""in! coputer
systes, pro!ras, or soft*are for the efficient ana!eent of "a* offices,
corporate "e!a" departents, courts and other entities en!a!ed in dispensin! or
adinisterin! "e!a" services.
!%
Ghi"e soe of the services (ein! offered (y respondent corporation ere"y
invo"ve echanica" and technica" )no*ho*, such as the insta""ation of coputer
systes and pro!ras for the efficient ana!eent of "a* offices, or the
coputeriIation of research aids and ateria"s, these *i"" not suffice to Hustify an
e#ception to the !enera" ru"e.
Ghat is pa"pa("y c"ear is that respondent corporation !ives out "e!a" inforation
to "ayen and "a*yers. Its contention that such function is non7advisory and non7
dia!nostic is ore apparent than rea". In providin! inforation, for e#ap"e,
a(out forei!n "a*s on arria!e, divorce and adoption, it strains the credu"ity of
this Court that a"" the respondent corporation *i"" sip"y do is "oo) for the "a*,
furnish a copy thereof to the c"ient, and stop there as if it *ere ere"y a
(oo)store. Gith its attorneys and so ca""ed para"e!a"s, it *i"" necessari"y have to
e#p"ain to the c"ient the intricacies of the "a* and advise hi or her on the proper
course of action to (e ta)en as ay (e provided for (y said "a*. That is *hat its
advertiseents represent and for the *hich services it *i"" conseAuent"y char!e
and (e paid. That activity fa""s sAuare"y *ithin the Hurisprudentia" definition of
"practice of "a*." Such a conc"usion *i"" not (e a"tered (y the fact that respondent
corporation does not represent c"ients in court since "a* practice, as the *ei!ht
of authority ho"ds, is not "iited ere"y !ivin! "e!a" advice, contract draftin! and
so forth.
The aforesaid conc"usion is further stren!thened (y an artic"e pu("ished in the
Fanuary 69, 6DD6 issue of the Star*ee)@The Sunday ,a!aIine of the Phi"ippines
Star, entit"ed "R# for Le!a" Pro("es," *here an insi!ht into the structure, ain
purpose and operations of respondent corporation *as !iven (y its o*n
"proprietor," $tty. Ro!e"io P. No!a"es+
This is the )ind of (usiness that is transacted everyday at The Le!a" C"inic, *ith
offices on the seventh f"oor of the 3ictoria %ui"din! a"on! U. N. $venue in ,ani"a.
No atter *hat the c"ientCs pro("e, and even if it is as cop"icated as the
Cuneta7Concepcion doestic situation, $tty. No!a"es and his staff of "a*yers,
*ho, "i)e doctors are "specia"ists" in various fie"ds can ta)e care of it. The Le!a"
C"inic, Inc. has specia"ists in ta#ation and criina" "a*, edico7"e!a" pro("es,
"a(or, "iti!ation, and fai"y "a*. These specia"ist are (ac)ed up (y a (attery of
para"e!a"s, counse""ors and attorneys.
$tty. No!a"es set up The Le!a" C"inic in 6D;:. Inspired (y the trend in the edica"
fie"d to*ard specia"iIation, it caters to c"ients *ho cannot afford the services of
the (i! "a* firs.
The Le!a" C"inic has re!u"ar and *a")7in c"ients. "*hen they coe, *e start (y
ana"yIin! the pro("e. ThatCs *hat doctors do a"so. They as) you ho* you
contracted *hatCs (otherin! you, they ta)e your teperature, they o(serve you
for the syptos and so on. ThatCs ho* *e operate, too. $nd once the pro("e
has (een cate!oriIed, then itCs referred to one of our specia"ists.
There are cases *hich do not, in edica" ters, reAuire sur!ery or fo""o*7up
treatent. These The Le!a" C"inic disposes of in a atter of inutes. "Thin!s "i)e
preparin! a sip"e deed of sa"e or an affidavit of "oss can (e ta)en care of (y our
staff or, if this *ere a hospita" the residents or the interns. Ge can ta)e care of
these atters on a *hi"e you *ait (asis. $!ain, )un! (a!a sa hospita", out7
patient, hindi )ai"an!an! a7confine. ItCs Hust "i)e a coon co"d or diarrhea,"
e#p"ains $tty. No!a"es.
Those cases *hich reAuires ore e#tensive "treatent" are dea"t *ith
accordin!"y. "If you had a rich re"ative *ho died and naed you her so"e heir, and
you stand to inherit i""ions of pesos of property, *e *ou"d refer you to a
specia"ist in ta#ation. There *ou"d (e rea" estate ta#es and arrears *hich *ou"d
need to (e put in order, and your re"ative is even ta#ed (y the state for the ri!ht
to transfer her property, and on"y a specia"ist in ta#ation *ou"d (e proper"y trained
to dea" *ith the pro("e. No*, if there *ere other heirs contestin! your rich
re"atives *i"", then you *ou"d need a "iti!ator, *ho )no*s ho* to arran!e the
pro("e for presentation in court, and !ather evidence to support the case.
!1
That fact that the corporation ep"oys para"e!a"s to carry out its services is not
contro""in!. Ghat is iportant is that it is en!a!ed in the practice of "a* (y virtue
of the nature of the services it renders *hich there(y (rin!s it *ithin the a(it of
the statutory prohi(itions a!ainst the advertiseents *hich it has caused to (e
pu("ished and are no* assai"ed in this proceedin!.
=urther, as correct"y and appropriate"y pointed out (y the U.P. GILOCI, said
reported facts sufficient"y esta("ish that the ain purpose of respondent is to
serve as a one7stop7shop of sorts for various "e!a" pro("es *herein a c"ient ay
avai" of "e!a" services fro sip"e docuentation to cop"e# "iti!ation and
corporate underta)in!s. ,ost of these services are undou(ted"y (eyond the
doain of para"e!a"s, (ut rather, are e#c"usive functions of "a*yers en!a!ed in
the practice of "a*.
!!
It shou"d (e noted that in our Hurisdiction the services (ein! offered (y private
respondent *hich constitute practice of "a* cannot (e perfored (y para"e!a"s.
On"y a person du"y aditted as a e(er of the (ar, or hereafter aditted as
such in accordance *ith the provisions of the Ru"es of Court, and *ho is in !ood
and re!u"ar standin!, is entit"ed to practice "a*.
!3
Pu("ic po"icy reAuires that the practice of "a* (e "iited to those individua"s found
du"y Aua"ified in education and character. The perissive ri!ht conferred on the
"a*yers is an individua" and "iited privi"e!e su(Hect to *ithdra*a" if he fai"s to
aintain proper standards of ora" and professiona" conduct. The purpose is to
protect the pu("ic, the court, the c"ient and the (ar fro the incopetence or
dishonesty of those un"icensed to practice "a* and not su(Hect to the discip"inary
contro" of the court.
!"
The sae ru"e is o(served in the aerican Hurisdiction *herefro respondent
*ou"d *ish to dra* support for his thesis. The doctrines there a"so stress that the
practice of "a* is "iited to those *ho eet the reAuireents for, and have (een
aditted to, the (ar, and various statutes or ru"es specifica""y so provide.
!5
The
practice of "a* is not a "a*fu" (usiness e#cept for e(ers of the (ar *ho have
cop"ied *ith a"" the conditions reAuired (y statute and the ru"es of court. On"y
those persons are a""o*ed to practice "a* *ho, (y reason of attainents
previous"y acAuired throu!h education and study, have (een reco!niIed (y the
courts as possessin! profound )no*"ed!e of "e!a" science entit"in! the to
advise, counse" *ith, protect, or defend the ri!hts c"ais, or "ia(i"ities of their
c"ients, *ith respect to the construction, interpretation, operation and effect of
"a*.
!#
The Hustification for e#c"udin! fro the practice of "a* those not aditted to
the (ar is found, not in the protection of the (ar fro copetition, (ut in the
protection of the pu("ic fro (ein! advised and represented in "e!a" atters (y
incopetent and unre"ia("e persons over *ho the Hudicia" departent can
e#ercise "itt"e contro".
!7
Ge have to necessari"y and definite"y reHect respondentCs position that the
concept in the United States of para"e!a"s as an occupation separate fro the
"a* profession (e adopted in this Hurisdiction. Ghatever ay (e its erits,
respondent cannot (ut (e a*are that this shou"d first (e a atter for Hudicia" ru"es
or "e!is"ative action, and not of uni"atera" adoption as it has done.
Para"e!a"s in the United States are trained professiona"s. $s aditted (y
respondent, there are schoo"s and universities there *hich offer studies and
de!rees in para"e!a" education, *hi"e there are none in the Phi"ippines.
!$
$s the
concept of the "para"e!a"s" or ""e!a" assistant" evo"ved in the United States,
standards and !uide"ines a"so evo"ved to protect the !enera" pu("ic. One of the
aHor standards or !uide"ines *as deve"oped (y the $erican %ar $ssociation
*hich set up -uide"ines for the $pprova" of Le!a" $ssistant Education Pro!ras
&6D89'. Le!is"ation has even (een proposed to certify "e!a" assistants. There are
a"so associations of para"e!a"s in the United States *ith their o*n code of
professiona" ethics, such as the Nationa" $ssociation of Le!a" $ssistants, Inc. and
the $erican Para"e!a" $ssociation.
!9
In the Phi"ippines, *e sti"" have a restricted concept and "iited acceptance of
*hat ay (e considered as para"e!a" service. $s pointed out (y =I2$, soe
persons not du"y "icensed to practice "a* are or have (een a""o*ed "iited
representation in (eha"f of another or to render "e!a" services, (ut such a""o*a("e
services are "iited in scope and e#tent (y the "a*, ru"es or re!u"ations !rantin!
perission therefor.
3%
$ccordin!"y, *e have adopted the $erican Hudicia" po"icy that, in the a(sence of
constitutiona" or statutory authority, a person *ho has not (een aditted as an
attorney cannot practice "a* for the proper adinistration of Hustice cannot (e
hindered (y the un*arranted intrusion of an unauthoriIed and uns)i""ed person
into the practice of "a*.
31
That po"icy shou"d continue to (e one of encoura!in!
persons *ho are unsure of their "e!a" ri!hts and reedies to see) "e!a"
assistance on"y fro persons "icensed to practice "a* in the state.
3!
$nent the issue on the va"idity of the Auestioned advertiseents, the Code of
Professiona" Responsi(i"ity provides that a "a*yer in a)in! )no*n his "e!a"
services sha"" use on"y true, honest, fair, di!nified and o(Hective inforation or
stateent of facts.
33
4e is not supposed to use or perit the use of any fa"se,
fraudu"ent, is"eadin!, deceptive, undi!nified, se"f7"audatory or unfair stateent
or c"ai re!ardin! his Aua"ifications or "e!a" services.
3"
Nor sha"" he pay or !ive
soethin! of va"ue to representatives of the ass edia in anticipation of, or in
return for, pu("icity to attract "e!a" (usiness.
35
Prior to the adoption of the code of
Professiona" Responsi(i"ity, the Canons of Professiona" Ethics had a"so *arned
that "a*yers shou"d not resort to indirect advertiseents for professiona"
ep"oyent, such as furnishin! or inspirin! ne*spaper coents, or procurin!
his photo!raph to (e pu("ished in connection *ith causes in *hich the "a*yer has
(een or is en!a!ed or concernin! the anner of their conduct, the a!nitude of
the interest invo"ved, the iportance of the "a*yerCs position, and a"" other "i)e
se"f7"audation.
3#
The standards of the "e!a" profession conden the "a*yerCs advertiseent of his
ta"ents. $ "a*yer cannot, *ithout vio"atin! the ethics of his profession. advertise
his ta"ents or s)i"" as in a anner sii"ar to a erchant advertisin! his !oods.
37
The prescription a!ainst advertisin! of "e!a" services or so"icitation of "e!a"
(usiness rests on the fundaenta" postu"ate that the that the practice of "a* is a
profession. Thus, in the case of The $irector of Religio"s Affairs. vs. 0stanislao
R. Baot
3$
an advertiseent, sii"ar to those of respondent *hich are invo"ved in
the present proceedin!,
39
*as he"d to constitute iproper advertisin! or
so"icitation.
The pertinent part of the decision therein reads+
It is undenia("e that the advertiseent in Auestion *as a f"a!rant vio"ation (y the
respondent of the ethics of his profession, it (ein! a (raIen so"icitation of
(usiness fro the pu("ic. Section 5/ of Ru"e 658 e#press"y provides aon! other
thin!s that "the practice of so"icitin! cases at "a* for the purpose of !ain, either
persona""y or thru paid a!ents or (ro)ers, constitutes a"practice." It is hi!h"y
unethica" for an attorney to advertise his ta"ents or s)i"" as a erchant advertises
his *ares. La* is a profession and not a trade. The "a*yer de!rades hise"f and
his profession *ho stoops to and adopts the practices of ercanti"is (y
advertisin! his services or offerin! the to the pu("ic. $s a e(er of the (ar, he
defi"es the tep"e of Hustice *ith ercenary activities as the oney7chan!ers of
o"d defi"ed the tep"e of Fehovah. "The ost *orthy and effective advertiseent
possi("e, even for a youn! "a*yer, . . . . is the esta("ishent of a *e""7erited
reputation for professiona" capacity and fide"ity to trust. This cannot (e forced (ut
ust (e the outcoe of character and conduct." &Canon 58, Code of Ethics.'.
Ge repeat, the canon of the profession te"" us that the (est advertisin! possi("e
for a "a*yer is a *e""7erited reputation for professiona" capacity and fide"ity to
trust, *hich ust (e earned as the outcoe of character and conduct. -ood and
efficient service to a c"ient as *e"" as to the counity has a *ay of pu("iciIin!
itse"f and catchin! pu("ic attention. That pu("icity is a nora" (y7product of
effective service *hich is ri!ht and proper. $ !ood and reputa("e "a*yer needs no
artificia" stiu"us to !enerate it and to a!nify his success. 4e easi"y sees the
difference (et*een a nora" (y7product of a("e service and the un*ho"esoe
resu"t of propa!anda.
"%
Of course, not a"" types of advertisin! or so"icitation are prohi(ited. The canons of
the profession enuerate e#ceptions to the ru"e a!ainst advertisin! or so"icitation
and define the e#tent to *hich they ay (e underta)en. The e#ceptions are of
t*o (road cate!ories, nae"y, those *hich are e#press"y a""o*ed and those
*hich are necessari"y ip"ied fro the restrictions.
"1
The first of such e#ceptions is the pu("ication in reputa("e "a* "ists, in a anner
consistent *ith the standards of conduct iposed (y the canons, of (rief
(io!raphica" and inforative data. "Such data ust not (e is"eadin! and ay
inc"ude on"y a stateent of the "a*yerCs nae and the naes of his professiona"
associatesE addresses, te"ephone nu(ers, ca("e addressesE (ranches of "a*
practicedE date and p"ace of (irth and adission to the (arE schoo"s attended *ith
dates of !raduation, de!rees and other educationa" distinctionE pu("ic or Auasi7
pu("ic officesE posts of honorE "e!a" authorshipsE "e!a" teachin! positionsE
e(ership and offices in (ar associations and coittees thereof, in "e!a" and
scientific societies and "e!a" fraternitiesE the fact of "istin!s in other reputa("e "a*
"istsE the naes and addresses of referencesE and, *ith their *ritten consent, the
naes of c"ients re!u"ar"y represented."
"!
The "a* "ist ust (e a reputa("e "a* "ist pu("ished priari"y for that purposeE it
cannot (e a ere supp"eenta" feature of a paper, a!aIine, trade Hourna" or
periodica" *hich is pu("ished principa""y for other purposes. =or that reason, a
"a*yer ay not proper"y pu("ish his (rief (io!raphica" and inforative data in a
dai"y paper, a!aIine, trade Hourna" or society pro!ra. Nor ay a "a*yer perit
his nae to (e pu("ished in a "a* "ist the conduct, ana!eent or contents of
*hich are ca"cu"ated or "i)e"y to deceive or inHure the pu("ic or the (ar, or to "o*er
the di!nity or standin! of the profession.
"3
The use of an ordinary sip"e professiona" card is a"so peritted. The card ay
contain on"y a stateent of his nae, the nae of the "a* fir *hich he is
connected *ith, address, te"ephone nu(er and specia" (ranch of "a* practiced.
The pu("ication of a sip"e announceent of the openin! of a "a* fir or of
chan!es in the partnership, associates, fir nae or office address, (ein! for the
convenience of the profession, is not o(Hectiona("e. 4e ay "i)e*ise have his
nae "isted in a te"ephone directory (ut not under a desi!nation of specia"
(ranch of "a*.
""
3eri"y, ta)in! into consideration the nature and contents of the advertiseents for
*hich respondent is (ein! ta)en to tas), *hich even inc"udes a Auotation of the
fees char!ed (y said respondent corporation for services rendered, *e find and
so ho"d that the sae definite"y do not and conc"usive"y cannot fa"" under any of
the a(ove7entioned e#ceptions.
The ru"in! in the case of Bates, et al. vs. State Bar of Arizona,
"5
*hich is
repeated"y invo)ed and constitutes the Hustification re"ied upon (y respondent, is
o(vious"y not app"ica("e to the case at (ar. =oreost is the fact that the
discip"inary ru"e invo"ved in said case e#p"icit"y a""o*s a "a*yer, as an e#ception
to the prohi(ition a!ainst advertiseents (y "a*yers, to pu("ish a stateent of
"e!a" fees for an initia" consu"tation or the avai"a(i"ity upon reAuest of a *ritten
schedu"e of fees or an estiate of the fee to (e char!ed for the specific services.
No such e#ception is provided for, e#press"y or ip"ied"y, *hether in our forer
Canons of Professiona" Ethics or the present Code of Professiona"
Responsi(i"ity. %esides, even the discip"inary ru"e in the Bates case contains a
proviso that the e#ceptions stated therein are "not app"ica("e in any state un"ess
and unti" it is ip"eented (y such authority in that state."
"#
This !oes to sho*
that an e#ception to the !enera" ru"e, such as that (ein! invo)ed (y herein
respondent, can (e ade on"y if and *hen the canons e#press"y provide for such
an e#ception. Other*ise, the prohi(ition stands, as in the case at (ar.
It (ears ention that in a survey conducted (y the $erican %ar $ssociation
after the decision in %ates, on the attitude of the pu("ic a(out "a*yers after
vie*in! te"evision coercia"s, it *as found that pu("ic opinion dropped
si!nificant"y
"7
*ith respect to these characteristics of "a*yers+
Trust*orthy fro 86N to 6:N
Professiona" fro 86N to 6:N
4onest fro 0/N to 6:N
2i!nified fro :/N to 6:N
Second"y, it is our fir (e"ief that *ith the present situation of our "e!a" and
Hudicia" systes, to a""o* the pu("ication of advertiseents of the )ind used (y
respondent *ou"d on"y serve to a!!ravate *hat is a"ready a deterioratin! pu("ic
opinion of the "e!a" profession *hose inte!rity has consistent"y (een under attac)
"ate"y (y edia and the counity in !enera". $t this point in tie, it is of utost
iportance in the face of such ne!ative, even if unfair, criticiss at ties, to
adopt and aintain that "eve" of professiona" conduct *hich is (eyond reproach,
and to e#ert a"" efforts to re!ain the hi!h estee forer"y accorded to the "e!a"
profession.
In su, it is undou(ted"y a is(ehavior on the part of the "a*yer, su(Hect to
discip"inary action, to advertise his services e#cept in a""o*a("e instances
"$
or to
aid a "ayan in the unauthoriIed practice of "a*.
"9
Considerin! that $tty. Ro!e"io
P. No!a"es, *ho is the prie incorporator, aHor stoc)ho"der and proprietor of
The Le!a" C"inic, Inc. is a e(er of the Phi"ippine %ar, he is here(y
reprianded, *ith a *arnin! that a repetition of the sae or sii"ar acts *hich
are invo"ved in this proceedin! *i"" (e dea"t *ith ore severe"y.
Ghi"e *e dee it necessary that the Auestion as to the "e!a"ity or i""e!a"ity of the
purpose@s for *hich the Le!a" C"inic, Inc. *as created shou"d (e passed upon
and deterined, *e are constrained to refrain fro "apsin! into an o(iter on that
aspect since it is c"ear"y not *ithin the adHudicative paraeters of the present
proceedin! *hich is ere"y adinistrative in nature. It is, of course, iperative
that this atter (e propt"y deterined, a"(eit in a different proceedin! and
foru, since, under the present state of our "a* and Hurisprudence, a corporation
cannot (e or!aniIed for or en!a!e in the practice of "a* in this country. This
interdiction, Hust "i)e the ru"e a!ainst unethica" advertisin!, cannot (e su(verted
(y ep"oyin! soe so7ca""ed para"e!a"s supposed"y renderin! the a""e!ed
support services.
The reedy for the apparent (reach of this prohi(ition (y respondent is the
concern and province of the So"icitor -enera" *ho can institute the
correspondin! 3"o 'arranto action,
5%
after due ascertainent of the factua"
(ac)!round and (asis for the !rant of respondentCs corporate charter, in "i!ht of
the putative isuse thereof. That spin7off fro the instant (ar atter is referred to
the So"icitor -enera" for such action as ay (e necessary under the
circustances.
$CCOR2IN-LM, the Court Reso"ved to RESTR$IN and ENFOIN herein
respondent, The Le!a" C"inic, Inc., fro issuin! or causin! the pu("ication or
disseination of any advertiseent in any for *hich is of the sae or sii"ar
tenor and purpose as $nne#es "$" and "%" of this petition, and fro conductin!,
direct"y or indirect"y, any activity, operation or transaction proscri(ed (y "a* or the
Code of Professiona" Ethics as indicated herein. Let copies of this reso"ution (e
furnished the Inte!rated %ar of the Phi"ippines, the Office of the %ar Confidant
and the Office of the So"icitor -enera" for appropriate action in accordance
here*ith.
.arvasa, *.J., *r"z, +eliciano, Padilla, Bidin, 1ri5o-A3"ino, $avide, Jr., Ro#ero,
.ocon, Bellosillo, 4elo and 6"iason, JJ., conc"r