III. CANON 9.

Unauthorized Practice of Law

A LAWYER SHALL NOT, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, ASSIST IN THE UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW.

1. PP vs. Hon. Maceda

Facts: Judge Maceda issued an order giving custody over Javallera to the Clerk of Court of RTC, Atty. Del
Rosario. The order specifically provided that Javallera should be detained at the residence of the CoC. This
order was not strictly followed because he went about his normal activities as if he were a free man,
including engaging in the practice of law by accepting a criminal case.

Issue: WON private respondent engaged in the unauthorized practice of law.

Held: As a detention prisoner, Javallena is not allowed to practice his profession as a necessary
consequence of his status as a detention prisoner. All prisoners whether under preventive detention or
serving final sentence cannot practice their profession or engage in the any business or occupation or hold
office, elective or appointee, while in detention.

2. Zeta vs. Malinao

Facts: Feliciano Malinao, court interpreter, was charged for illegally appearing in court for parties like
attorney when he is not an attorney and for the crime of falsification when he unfaithfully filed his time
record with the CFI.

Held: The SC held that Malinao, apart from appearing as counsel in various municipal courts without
permission of his superiors in violation of civil service rules and regulations, falsified his time record of
services by making it appear therein that he was present where in fact he was absent and appearing as
counsel, without being member of the Bar, which further constitute illegal practice of law. The SC
dismissed Malinao as an interpreter with prejudice to re-employment with the judicial branch of the
government.

3. Tan and Pagayakan vs Balajadia

Facts: Tan and Pagayakan claimed that Balajadia is liable for indirect contempt for misrepresenting himself
as a lawyer. He filed a criminal case againt them with the Office of the City Prosecutor (Baguio) for
usurpation of authority, grave coercion and violation of City Ordinance due to alleged illegal collection of
parking fees.

Held: The unauthorized practice of law by assuming to be an attorney and acting as such without authority
constitutes indirect contempt which is punishable by fine or imprisonment or both. In determining liability
for criminal contempt, intent is a necessary element. In the case at bar, the respondent has satisfactorily
shown that the allegation that he is a practicing lawyer was the result of the inadvertence and cannot by
itself, establish intent as to make him liable for indirect contempt – lack of intent to practice law illegally.

4. Aguirre vs Rana

- see previous case

IV. Rule 9.01

- A lawyer shall not delegate to any unqualified person the performance of any task which by law may
only be performed by a member of the bar in good standing.

V. Rule 9.02

- A lawyer shall not divide or stipulate to divide a fee for legal services with persons not licensed to practice
law, except:

(a) Where there is a pre-existing agreement with a partner or associate that, upon the latter's death,
money shall be paid over a reasonable period of time to his estate or to persons specified in the
agreement; or

(b) Where a lawyer undertakes to complete unfinished legal business of a deceased lawyer; or

(c) Where a lawyer or law firm includes non-lawyer employees in a retirement plan even if the plan is
based in whole or in part, on a profit sharing agreement.

1. Lijuaco vs Atty Terrado

Facts: The complainant engaged the service of Atty. Terrado for P 70,000.00 to assist in recovering her
deposit with Planter’s Development Bank in the amount of P 180,000 and released of her foreclosed house
and lot in Calamba. Complainant alleged that Atty Terrado failed to appear before the Trial Court.

Held: Respondent’s admission that he divided the legal fees with two other people as a referral fee does
not release him from liability. A lawyer shall not divide or stipulate to divide a fee for legal services with
persons not licensed to practice law except in certain cases.

- Suspended from practice of law for 6 months.

2) Plus Builders Inc. VS Atty. Revilla Jr.

Facts: The complainant alleged that Atty. Revilla Jr. committed willful and intentional falsehood before
the court, misused court procedure and processes to delay the execution of judgment and collaborating
with non-lawyers in the illegal practice of law.

Held: The silence of failure of respondent to challenge the allegation the he allowed non-lawyers to
engage in the unauthorized practice of law may be deemed an admission of truth of the accusation. The
complainants successfully substantiated their claim that the respondent who hold himself out as a law
partner of the KPC Legal Services Law Office and Associates was rendering legal services together with
persons not licensed to practice law.