In re Tagorda

Facts:
The respondent Atty. Luis Tagorda, a member of the provincial board of Isabela, admits that in the last
general elections he made use of a card written in Spanish and Ilocano, which in translation, read as
follows:
“LUIS B. TAGORDA” Attoney; Notary Public; CANDIDATE FOR BOARD MEMBER, Province of
Isabela. (NOTE.- as notaty public, he can execute for a deed of sale for the purchase of land as required
by the cadastral office, can renew lost documents of your animals; can make your application and final
requisites for your homestead; and can execute any kind of affidavit. As a lawyer he can help you
collect your loans although long overdue, as well as any complaint for or against you. Come or write
to him in his town Echague, Isabela. He offers free consultation, and is willing to help and serve the
poor.)
The respondent further admits that he is the author of a letter addressed to a lieutenant of barrio in his
home municipality written in Ilocano, which letter reads as follow:
“ I would like you all to be informed of this matter for the reason that some people are in the belief that
my residence as member of the Board will be in Iligan and that I would then be disqualified to exercise
my profession as lawyer and as notary public. Such is not the case and I would make it clear that I am
free to exercise my profession as formerly and that I will have my residence here in Echague, I would
request your kind favor to transmit this information to your barrio people in any of your meeting or
social gatherings so that they may be informed of my desire to live and to serve with you in my
capacity as lawyer and notary public. If the people in your locality have not as yet contracted the
services of other lawyers in connection with the registration of their land titles, I would be willing to
handle the work in court and would charge only three pesos for every registration.”

Held:
Tagorda admitted doing the foregoing acts. The practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of
gain, either personally or through paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice.
The most worthy and effective advertisement possible, even for a young lawyer, and especially with his
brother lawyers, 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. Solicitation of
business by circulars or advertisements, or by personal communications or interviews not warranted by
personal relations, is unprofessional. It is equally unprofessional to procure business by indirection
through touters of any kind, whether allied real estate firms or trust companies advertising to secure the
drawing of deeds or wills or offering retainers in exchange for executorships or trusteeships to be
influenced by the lawyer. Indirect advertisement for business by furnishing or inspiring newspaper
comments concerning the manner of their conduct, the magnitude of the interests involved, the
importance of the lawyer’s position, and all other like self-laudation, defy the traditions and lower the
tone of our high calling, and are intolerable.
It is unprofessional for a lawyer to volunteer advice to bring a lawsuit, except in rare cases where ties
of blood, relationship or trust make it his duty to do so.
Tagorda’s liability is however mitigated by the fact that he is a young inexperienced lawyer and that he
was unaware of the impropriety of his acts. So instead of being disbarred, he was suspended from the
practice of law for a month.

Ulep vs. Legal Clinic

In 1984, The Legal Clinic was formed by Atty. Rogelio Nogales. Its aim, according to Nogales was to
move toward specialization and to cater to clients who cannot afford the services of big law firms. Now,
Atty. Mauricio Ulep filed a complaint against The Legal Clinic because of the latter’s advertisements
which contain the following:
SECRET MARRIAGE?

P560.00 for a valid marriage.

Info on DIVORCE. ABSENCE. ANNULMENT. VISA.

THE LEGAL CLINIC, INC.

Please call: 521-0767; 521-7232; 522-2041

8:30am – 6:00pm

7th Flr. Victoria Bldg., UN Ave., Manila

GUAM DIVORCE

DON PARKINSON

An attorney in Guam is giving FREE BOOKS on Guam Divorce through The Legal Clinic
beginning Monday to Friday during office hours.

Guam divorce. Annulment of Marriage. Immigration Problems, Visa Ext. Quota/Non-quota

Res. & Special Retiree’s Visa. Declaration of Absence. Remarriage to Filipina Fiancees.
Adoption. Investment in the Phil. US/Foreign Visa for Filipina Spouse/Children.

Call Marivic.

THE LEGAL CLINIC, INC.

7th Flr. Victoria Bldg., UN Ave., Manila nr. US Embassy

Tel. 521-7232, 521-7251, 522-2041, 521-0767

It is also alleged that The Legal Clinic published an article entitled “Rx for Legal Problems” in Star
Week of Philippine Star wherein Nogales stated that they The Legal Clinic is composed of specialists
that can take care of a client’s problem no matter how complicated it is even if it is as complicated as
the Sharon Cuneta-Gabby Concepcion situation. He said that he 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, counselors and attorneys.
As for its advertisement, Nogales said it should be allowed in view of the jurisprudence in the US
which now allows it (John Bates vs The State Bar of Arizona). And that besides, the advertisement is
merely making known to the public the services that The Legal Clinic offers.
ISSUE: Whether or not The Legal Clinic is engaged in the practice of law; whether such is allowed;
whether or not its advertisement may be allowed.
HELD: Yes, The Legal Clinic is engaged in the practice of law however, such practice is not allowed.
The Legal Clinic is composed mainly of paralegals. The services it offered include 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 engaged in the practice of law. Under Philippine
jurisdiction however, the services being offered by Legal Clinic which constitute practice of law cannot
be performed by paralegals. Only a person duly admitted as a member of the bar and who is in good
and regular standing, is entitled to practice law.
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, honest,
fair, dignified and objective information or statement of facts. 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 manner similar to a merchant advertising his
goods. Further, the advertisements of Legal Clinic seem to promote divorce, secret marriage, bigamous
marriage, and other circumventions of law which their experts can facilitate. Such is highly
reprehensible.
The Supreme Court also noted which forms of advertisement are allowed. 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 propaganda. The Supreme Court also
enumerated the following as allowed forms of advertisement:
1. Advertisement in a reputable law list
2. Use of ordinary simple professional card
3. Listing in a phone directory but without designation as to his specialization

Dacanay vs. Baker and Mackenzie

Facts: Atty. Dacanay sought to enjoin Juan Collas and nine other lawyers from practicing law under the
name Baker and McKenzie, a law firm organized in Illinois. In 1979 respondent Vicente A. Torres
used the letterhead of Baker & McKenzie which contains the names of the ten lawyers asking Rosie
Clurman for the release of 87 shares of Cathay Products International, Inc. to H.E. Gabriel, a client.
Atty. Dacanay replied denying any liability of Clurman and asking the lawyer his purpose of using the
letterhead of another law office.

Issue: Whether or not respondents should enjoin from practising law under the firm name Baker &
McKenzie.

Ruling: YES. Baker & McKenzie, being an alien law firm, cannot practice law in the Philippines (Sec.
1, Rule 138, Rules of Court).
 Who may practice law. - Any person heretofore duly admitted as a member of the bar, or
hereafter admitted as such in accordance with the provisions of this rule, and who is in good and
regular standing, is entitled to practice law.
Respondents' use of the firm name Baker & McKenzie constitutes a representation that being
associated with the firm they could "render legal services of the highest quality to multinational
business enterprises and others engaged in foreign trade and investment" which the Court finds
unethical because Baker & McKenzie is not authorized to practice law here.

WHEREFORE, the respondents are enjoined from practising law under the firm name Baker &
McKenzie.