January 9, 1973

IN THE MATTER OF THE INTEGRATION OF THE BAR OF THE

PHILIPPINES.
RESOLUTION
PER CURIAM:
On December 1, 1972, the Commission on Bar Integration 1 submitted its
Report dated November 30, 1972, with the "earnest recommendation" on
the basis of the said Report and the proceedings had in Administrative Case
No. 526 2 of the Court, and "consistently with the views and counsel received
from its [the Commission's] Board of Consultants, as well as the
overwhelming nationwide sentiment of the Philippine Bench and Bar"
that "this Honorable Court ordain the integration of the Philippine Bar as soon
as possible through the adoption and promulgation of an appropriate Court
Rule."

The petition in Adm. Case No. 526 formally prays the Court to order the
integration of the Philippine Bar, after due hearing, giving recognition as
far as possible and practicable to existing provincial and other local Bar
associations. On August 16, 1962, arguments in favor of as well as in
opposition to the petition were orally expounded before the Court. Written
oppositions were admitted, 3 and all parties were thereafter granted leave to
file written memoranda. 4

Since then, the Court has closely observed and followed significant
developments relative to the matter of the integration of the Bar in this
jurisdiction.
In 1970, convinced from preliminary surveys that there had grown a
strong nationwide sentiment in favor of Bar integration, the Court created
the Commission on Bar Integration for the purpose of ascertaining the
advisability of unifying the Philippine Bar.
In September, 1971, Congress passed House Bill No. 3277 entitled "An
Act Providing for the Integration of the Philippine Bar, and Appropriating
Funds Therefor." The measure was signed by President Ferdinand E.
Marcos on September 17, 1971 and took effect on the same day as Rep.
Act 6397. This law provides as follows:
SECTION 1. Within two years from the approval of this
Act, the Supreme Court may adopt rules of court to effect
the integration of the Philippine Bar under such conditions
as it shall see fit in order to raise the standards of the
legal profession, improve the administration of justice,
and enable the Bar to discharge its public responsibility
more effectively.
SEC. 2. The sum of five hundred thousand pesos is
hereby appropriated, out of any funds in the National
Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to carry out the
purposes of this Act. Thereafter, such sums as may be

necessary for the same purpose shall be included in the

annual appropriations for the Supreme Court.
SEC. 3. This Act shall take effect upon its approval.
The Report of the Commission abounds with argument on the
constitutionality of Bar integration and contains all necessary factual data
bearing on the advisability (practicability and necessity) of Bar
integration. Also embodied therein are the views, opinions, sentiments,
comments and observations of the rank and file of the Philippine lawyer
population relative to Bar integration, as well as a proposed integration
Court Rule drafted by the Commission and presented to them by that
body in a national Bar plebiscite. There is thus sufficient basis as well as
ample material upon which the Court may decide whether or not to
integrate the Philippine Bar at this time.
The following are the pertinent issues:
(1) Does the Court have the power to integrate the
Philippine Bar?
(2) Would the integration of the Bar be constitutional?
(3) Should the Court ordain the integration of the Bar at
this time?
A resolution of these issues requires, at the outset, a statement of the
meaning of Bar integration. It will suffice, for this purpose, to adopt the
concept given by the Commission on Bar Integration on pages 3 to 5 of
its Report, thus:
Integration of the Philippine Bar means the official
unification of the entire lawyer population of the
Philippines.
This
requires membership and financial
support (in reasonable amount) of every attorney as
conditions sine qua non to the practice of law and the
retention of his name in the Roll of Attorneys of the
Supreme Court.
The term "Bar" refers to the collectivity of all persons
whose names appear in the Roll of Attorneys. An
Integrated Bar (or Unified Bar) perforce must include all
lawyers.
Complete unification is not possible unless it is decreed
by an entity with power to do so: the State. Bar
integration, therefore, signifies the setting up by
Government authority of a national organization of the
legal profession based on the recognition of the lawyer as
an officer of the court.
Designed to improve the position of the Bar as an
instrumentality of justice and the Rule of Law, integration
fosters cohesion among lawyers, and ensures, through
their own organized action and participation, the

promotion of the objectives of the legal profession,

pursuant to the principle of maximum Bar autonomy with
minimum supervision and regulation by the Supreme
Court.
The purposes of an integrated Bar, in general, are:
(1) Assist in the administration of justice;
(2) Foster and maintain on the part of its members high
ideals of integrity, learning, professional competence,
public service and conduct;
(3) Safeguard the professional interests of its members;
(4) Cultivate among its members a spirit of cordiality and
brotherhood;
(5) Provide a forum for the discussion of law,
jurisprudence, law reform, pleading, practice and
procedure, and the relations of the Bar to the Bench and
to the public, and publish information relating thereto;
(6) Encourage and foster legal education;
(7) Promote a continuing program of legal research in
substantive and adjective law, and make reports and
recommendations thereon; and
(8) Enable the Bar to discharge its public responsibility
effectively.
Integration of the Bar will, among other things, make it
possible for the legal profession to:
(1) Render more effective assistance in maintaining the
Rule of Law;
(2) Protect lawyers and litigants against the abuse of
tyrannical judges and prosecuting officers;
(3) Discharge, fully and properly, its responsibility in the
disciplining and/or removal of incompetent and unworthy
judges and prosecuting officers;
(4) Shield the judiciary, which traditionally cannot defend
itself except within its own forum, from the assaults that
politics and self-interest may level at it, and assist it to
maintain its integrity, impartiality and independence;
(5) Have an effective voice in the selection of judges and
prosecuting officers;
(6) Prevent the unauthorized practice of law, and break
up any monopoly of local practice maintained through
influence or position;
(7) Establish welfare funds for families of disabled and
deceased lawyers;
(8) Provide placement services, and establish legal aid
offices and set up lawyer reference services throughout

the country so that the poor may not lack competent legal
service;
(9) Distribute educational and informational materials that
are difficult to obtain in many of our provinces;
(10) Devise and maintain a program of continuing legal
education for practising attorneys in order to elevate the
standards of the profession throughout the country;
(11) Enforce rigid ethical standards, and promulgate
minimum fees schedules;
(12) Create law centers and establish law libraries for
legal research;
(13) Conduct campaigns to educate the people on their
legal rights and obligations, on the importance of
preventive legal advice, and on the functions and duties
of the Filipino lawyer; and
(14) Generate and maintain pervasive and meaningful
country-wide involvement of the lawyer population in the
solution of the multifarious problems that afflict the nation.
Anent the first issue, the Court is of the view that it may integrate the
Philippine Bar in the exercise of its power, under Article VIII, Sec. 13 of
the Constitution, "to promulgate rules concerning pleading, practice, and
procedure in all courts, and the admission to the practice of law." Indeed,
the power to integrate is an inherent part of the Court's constitutional
authority over the Bar. In providing that "the Supreme Court may adopt
rules of court to effect the integration of the Philippine Bar," Republic Act
6397 neither confers a new power nor restricts the Court's inherent
power, but is a mere legislative declaration that the integration of the Bar
will promote public interest or, more specifically, will "raise the standards
of the legal profession, improve the administration of justice, and enable
the Bar to discharge its public responsibility more effectively."
Resolution of the second issue whether the unification of the Bar
would be constitutional hinges on the effects of Bar integration on the
lawyer's constitutional rights of freedom of association and freedom of
speech, and on the nature of the dues exacted from him.
The Court approvingly quotes the following pertinent discussion made by
the Commission on Bar Integration pages 44 to 49 of its Report:
Constitutionality of Bar Integration
Judicial Pronouncements.
In all cases where the validity of Bar integration measures
has been put in issue, the Courts have upheld their
constitutionality.
The judicial pronouncements support this reasoning:
Courts have inherent power to supervise and regulate
the practice of law.

 The practice of law is not a vested right but a privilege;

a privilege, moreover, clothed with public interest,
because a lawyer owes duties not only to his client, but
also to his brethren in the profession, to the courts, and to
the nation; and takes part in one of the most important
functions of the State, the administration of justice, as an
officer of the court.
Because the practice of law is privilege clothed with
public interest, it is far and just that the exercise of that
privilege be regulated to assure compliance with the
lawyer's public responsibilities.
These public responsibilities can best be discharged
through collective action; but there can be no collective
action without an organized body; no organized body can
operate effectively without incurring expenses; therefore,
it is fair and just that all attorneys be required to contribute
to the support of such organized body; and, given existing
Bar conditions, the most efficient means of doing so is by
integrating the Bar through a rule of court that requires all
lawyers to pay annual dues to the Integrated Bar.
1. Freedom of Association.
To compel a lawyer to be a member of an integrated Bar
is not violative of his constitutional freedom to associate
(or the corollary right not to associate).
Integration does not make a lawyer a member of any
group of which he is not already a member. He became a
member of the Bar when he passed the Bar
examinations. All that integration actually does is to
provide an official national organization for the welldefined but unorganized and incohesive group of which
every lawyer is already a member.
Bar integration does not compel the lawyer to associate
with anyone. He is free to attend or not attend the
meetings of his Integrated Bar Chapter or vote or refuse
to vote in its elections as he chooses. The body
compulsion to which he is subjected is the payment of
annual dues.
Otherwise stated, membership in the Unified Bar imposes
only the duty to pay dues in reasonable amount. The
issue therefore, is a question of compelled financial
support of group activities, not involuntary membership in
any other aspect.
The greater part of Unified Bar activities serves the
function of elevating the educational and ethical

standards of the Bar to the end of improving the quality of

the legal service available to the people. The Supreme
Court, in order to further the State's legitimate interest in
elevating the quality of professional services, may require
that the cost of improving the profession in this fashion be
shared by the subjects and beneficiaries of the regulatory
program the lawyers.
Assuming that Bar integration does compel a lawyer to be
a member of the Integrated Bar, such compulsion is
justified as an exercise of the police power of the State.
The legal profession has long been regarded as a proper
subject of legislative regulation and control. Moreover, the
inherent power of the Supreme Court to regulate the Bar
includes the authority to integrate the Bar.
2. Regulatory Fee.
For the Court to prescribe dues to be paid by the
members does not mean that the Court levies a tax.
A membership fee in the Integrated Bar is an exaction for
regulation, while the purpose of a tax is revenue. If the
Court has inherent power to regulate the Bar, it follows
that as an incident to regulation, it may impose a
membership fee for that purpose. It would not be possible
to push through an Integrated Bar program without means
to defray the concomitant expenses. The doctrine of
implied powers necessarily includes the power to impose
such an exaction.
The only limitation upon the State's power to regulate the
Bar is that the regulation does not impose an
unconstitutional burden. The public interest promoted by
the integration of the Bar far outweighs the
inconsequential inconvenience to a member that might
result from his required payment of annual dues.
3. Freedom of Speech.
A lawyer is free, as he has always been, to voice his
views on any subject in any manner he wishes, even
though such views be opposed to positions taken by the
Unified Bar.
For the Integrated Bar to use a member's due to promote
measures to which said member is opposed, would not
nullify or adversely affect his freedom of speech.
Since a State may constitutionally condition the right to
practice law upon membership in the Integrated Bar, it is
difficult to understand why it should become

unconstitutional for the Bar to use the member's dues to

fulfill the very purposes for which it was established.
The objection would make every Governmental exaction
the material of a "free speech" issue. Even the income tax
would be suspect. The objection would carry us to lengths
that have never been dreamed of. The conscientious
objector, if his liberties were to be thus extended, might
refuse to contribute taxes in furtherance of war or of any
other end condemned by his conscience as irreligious or
immoral. The right of private judgment has never yet been
exalted above the powers and the compulsion of the
agencies of Government.
4. Fair to All Lawyers.
Bar integration is not unfair to lawyers already practising
because although the requirement to pay annual dues is
a new regulation, it will give the members of the Bar a
new system which they hitherto have not had and through
which, by proper work, they will receive benefits they
have not heretofore enjoyed, and discharge their public
responsibilities in a more effective manner than they have
been able to do in the past. Because the requirement to
pay dues is a valid exercise of regulatory power by the
Court, because it will apply equally to all lawyers, young
and old, at the time Bar integration takes effect, and
because it is a new regulation in exchange for new
benefits, it is not retroactive, it is not unequal, it is not
unfair.
To resolve the third and final issue whether the Court should ordain
the integration of the Bar at this time requires a careful overview of the
practicability and necessity as well as the advantages and disadvantages
of Bar integration.
In many other jurisdictions, notably in England, Canada and the United
States, Bar integration has yielded the following benefits: (1) improved
discipline among the members of the Bar; (2) greater influence and
ascendancy of the Bar; (3) better and more meaningful participation of
the individual lawyer in the activities of the Integrated Bar; (4) greater Bar
facilities and services; (5) elimination of unauthorized practice; (6)
avoidance of costly membership campaigns; (7) establishment of an
official status for the Bar; (8) more cohesive profession; and (9) better
and more effective discharge by the Bar of its obligations and
responsibilities to its members, to the courts, and to the public. No less
than these salutary consequences are envisioned and in fact expected
from the unification of the Philippine Bar.

Upon the other hand, it has been variously argued that in the event of
integration, Government authority will dominate the Bar; local Bar
associations will be weakened; cliquism will be the inevitable result;
effective lobbying will not be possible; the Bar will become an impersonal
Bar; and politics will intrude into its affairs.
It is noteworthy, however, that these and other evils prophesied by
opponents of Bar integration have failed to materialize in over fifty years
of Bar integration experience in England, Canada and the United States.
In all the jurisdictions where the Integrated Bar has been tried, none of
the abuses or evils feared has arisen; on the other hand, it has restored
public confidence in the Bar, enlarged professional consciousness,
energized the Bar's responsibilities to the public, and vastly improved the
administration of justice.
How do the Filipino lawyers themselves regard Bar integration? The
official statistics compiled by the Commission on Bar integration show
that in the national poll recently conducted by the Commission in the
matter of the integration of the Philippine Bar, of a total of 15,090 lawyers
from all over the archipelago who have turned in their individual
responses, 14,555 (or 96.45 per cent) voted in favor of Bar integration,
while only 378 (or 2.51 per cent) voted against it, and 157 (or 1.04 per
cent) are non-commital. In addition, a total of eighty (80) local Bar
association and lawyers' groups all over the Philippines have submitted
resolutions and other expressions of unqualified endorsement and/or
support for Bar integration, while not a single local Bar association or
lawyers' group has expressed opposed position thereto. Finally, of the
13,802 individual lawyers who cast their plebiscite ballots on the
proposed integration Court Rule drafted by the Commission, 12,855 (or
93.14 per cent) voted in favor thereof, 662 (or 4.80 per cent) vote against
it, and 285 (or 2.06 per cent) are non-committal. 5 All these clearly indicate
an overwhelming nationwide demand for Bar integration at this time.

The Court is fully convinced, after a thoroughgoing conscientious study of

all the arguments adduced in Adm. Case No. 526 and the authoritative
materials and the mass of factual data contained in the
exhaustive Report of the Commission on Bar Integration, that the
integration of the Philippine Bar is "perfectly constitutional and legally
unobjectionable," within the context of contemporary conditions in the
Philippines, has become an imperative means to raise the standards of
the legal profession, improve the administration of justice, and enable the
Bar to discharge its public responsibility fully and effectively.
ACCORDINGLY, the Court, by virtue of the power vested in it by Section
13 of Article VIII of the Constitution, hereby ordains the integration of the
Bar of the Philippines in accordance with the attached COURT RULE,
effective on January 16, 1973.

G.R. No. 100113 September 3, 1991

RENATO
CAYETANO, petitioner,
vs.
CHRISTIAN MONSOD, HON. JOVITO R. SALONGA, COMMISSION
ON APPOINTMENT, and HON. GUILLERMO CARAGUE, in his
capacity as Secretary of Budget and Management, respondents.
Renato L. Cayetano for and in his own behalf.
Sabina E. Acut, Jr. and Mylene Garcia-Albano co-counsel for petitioner.
PARAS, J.:p
We are faced here with a controversy of far-reaching proportions. While
ostensibly only legal issues are involved, the Court's decision in this case
would indubitably have a profound effect on the political aspect of our
national existence.
The 1987 Constitution provides in Section 1 (1), Article IX-C:
There shall be a Commission on Elections composed of a
Chairman and six Commissioners who shall be naturalborn citizens of the Philippines and, at the time of their
appointment, at least thirty-five years of age, holders of a
college degree, and must not have been candidates for
any elective position in the immediately preceding elections. However, a majority thereof, including the
Chairman, shall be members of the Philippine Bar who
have been engaged in the practice of law for at least ten
years. (Emphasis supplied)
The aforequoted provision is patterned after Section l(l), Article XII-C of
the 1973 Constitution which similarly provides:
There shall be an independent Commission on Elections composed of a
Chairman and eight Commissioners who shall be natural-born citizens of
the Philippines and, at the time of their appointment, at least thirty-five
years of age and holders of a college degree. However, a majority
thereof, including the Chairman, shall be members of the Philippine
Bar who have been engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years.'
(Emphasis supplied)
Regrettably, however, there seems to be no jurisprudence as to what
constitutes practice of law as a legal qualification to an appointive office.
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.
An attorney engages in the practice of law by maintaining
an office where he is held out to be-an attorney, using a
letterhead describing himself as an attorney, counseling
clients in legal matters, negotiating with opposing counsel
about pending litigation, and fixing and collecting fees for
services rendered by his associate. (Black's Law
Dictionary, 3rd ed.)
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:
... for valuable consideration engages in the business of
advising person, 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). (Emphasis supplied)
Practice of law under modem 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 [1953 ed.] , p. 665-666, citingIn 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). (Emphasis ours)
The University of the Philippines Law Center in conducting orientation
briefing for new lawyers (1974-1975) listed the dimensions of the practice
of law in even broader terms as advocacy, counselling and public
service.
One may be a practicing attorney in following any line of
employment in the profession. If what he does exacts
knowledge of the law and is of a kind usual for attorneys
engaging in the active practice of their profession, and he
follows some one or more lines of employment such as

this he is a practicing attorney at law within the meaning

of the statute. (Barr v. Cardell, 155 NW 312)
Practice of law means any activity, in or out of court, which requires the
application of law, legal procedure, knowledge, training and experience.
"To engage in the practice of law is to perform those acts which are
characteristics of the profession. Generally, to practice law is to give
notice or render any kind of service, which device or service requires the
use in any degree of legal knowledge or skill." (111 ALR 23)
The following records of the 1986 Constitutional Commission show that it
has adopted a liberal interpretation of the term "practice of law."
MR. FOZ. Before we suspend the session,
may I make a manifestation which I forgot
to do during our review of the provisions
on the Commission on Audit. May I be
allowed to make a very brief statement?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Jamir).
The Commissioner will please proceed.
MR. FOZ. This has to do with the
qualifications of the members of the
Commission on Audit. Among others, the
qualifications provided for by Section I is
that "They must be Members of the
Philippine Bar" I am quoting from the
provision "who have been engaged in
the practice of law for at least ten years".
To avoid any misunderstanding which would result in
excluding members of the Bar who are now employed in
the COA or Commission on Audit, we would like to make
the clarification that this provision on qualifications
regarding members of the Bar does not necessarily refer
or involve actual practice of law outside the COA We
have to interpret this to mean that as long as the lawyers
who are employed in the COA are using their legal
knowledge or legal talent in their respective work within
COA, then they are qualified to be considered for
appointment as members or commissioners, even
chairman, of the Commission on Audit.
This has been discussed by the Committee on
Constitutional Commissions and Agencies and we deem
it important to take it up on the floor so that this
interpretation may be made available whenever this
provision on the qualifications as regards members of the
Philippine Bar engaging in the practice of law for at least
ten years is taken up.

MR. OPLE. Will Commissioner Foz yield

to just one question.
MR. FOZ. Yes, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. OPLE. Is he, in effect, saying that
service in the COA by a lawyer is
equivalent to the requirement of a law
practice that is set forth in the Article on
the Commission on Audit?
MR. FOZ. We must consider the fact that
the work of COA, although it is auditing,
will necessarily involve legal work; it will
involve legal work. And, therefore, lawyers
who are employed in COA now would
have the necessary qualifications in
accordance with the Provision on
qualifications under our provisions on the
Commission on Audit. And, therefore, the
answer is yes.
MR. OPLE. Yes. So that the construction
given to this is that this is equivalent to the
practice of law.
MR. FOZ. Yes, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. OPLE. Thank you.
... ( Emphasis supplied)
Section 1(1), Article IX-D of the 1987 Constitution, provides, among
others, that the Chairman and two Commissioners of the Commission on
Audit (COA) should either be certified public accountants with not less
than ten years of auditing practice, or members of the Philippine Bar who
have been engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years.
(emphasis supplied)
Corollary to this is the term "private practitioner" and which is in many
ways synonymous with the word "lawyer." Today, although many lawyers
do not engage in private practice, it is still a fact that the majority of
lawyers are private practitioners. (Gary Munneke, Opportunities in Law
Careers [VGM Career Horizons: Illinois], [1986], p. 15).
At this point, it might be helpful to define private practice. The term, as
commonly understood, means "an individual or organization engaged in
the business of delivering legal services." (Ibid.). Lawyers who practice
alone are often called "sole practitioners." Groups of lawyers are called
"firms." The firm is usually a partnership and members of the firm are the
partners. Some firms may be organized as professional corporations and
the members called shareholders. In either case, the members of the firm
are the experienced attorneys. In most firms, there are younger or more
inexperienced salaried attorneyscalled "associates." (Ibid.).

The test that defines law practice by looking to traditional areas of law
practice is essentially tautologous, unhelpful defining the practice of law
as that which lawyers do. (Charles W. Wolfram, Modern Legal
Ethics [West Publishing Co.: Minnesota, 1986], p. 593). The practice of
law is defined as the performance of any acts . . . in or out of court,
commonly understood to be the practice of law. (State Bar Ass'n v.
Connecticut Bank & Trust Co., 145 Conn. 222, 140 A.2d 863, 870 [1958]
[quoting Grievance Comm. v. Payne, 128 Conn. 325, 22 A.2d 623, 626
[1941]). Because lawyers perform almost every function known in the
commercial and governmental realm, such a definition would obviously
be too global to be workable.(Wolfram, op. cit.).
The appearance of a lawyer in litigation in behalf of a client is at once the
most publicly familiar role for lawyers as well as an uncommon role for
the average lawyer. Most lawyers spend little time in courtrooms, and a
large percentage spend their entire practice without litigating a case.
(Ibid., p. 593). Nonetheless, many lawyers do continue to litigate and the
litigating lawyer's role colors much of both the public image and the self
perception of the legal profession. (Ibid.).
In this regard thus, the dominance of litigation in the public mind reflects
history, not reality. (Ibid.). Why is this so? Recall that the late Alexander
SyCip, a corporate lawyer, once articulated on the importance of a lawyer
as a business counselor in this wise: "Even today, there are still
uninformed laymen whose concept of an attorney is one who principally
tries cases before the courts. The members of the bench and bar and the
informed laymen such as businessmen, know that in most developed
societies today, substantially more legal work is transacted in law offices
than in the courtrooms. General practitioners of law who do both litigation
and non-litigation work also know that in most cases they find themselves
spending more time doing what [is] loosely desccribe[d] as business
counseling than in trying cases. The business lawyer has been described
as the planner, the diagnostician and the trial lawyer, the surgeon. I[t]
need not [be] stress[ed] that in law, as in medicine, surgery should be
avoided where internal medicine can be effective." (Business Star,
"Corporate Finance Law," Jan. 11, 1989, p. 4).
In the course of a working day the average general practitioner wig
engage in a number of legal tasks, each involving different legal
doctrines, legal skills, legal processes, legal institutions, clients, and other
interested parties. Even the increasing numbers of lawyers in specialized
practice wig usually perform at least some legal services outside their
specialty. And even within a narrow specialty such as tax practice, a
lawyer will shift from one legal task or role such as advice-giving to an
importantly different one such as representing a client before an
administrative agency. (Wolfram, supra, p. 687).

By no means will most of this work involve litigation, unless the lawyer is
one of the relatively rare types a litigator who specializes in this work
to the exclusion of much else. Instead, the work will require the lawyer to
have mastered the full range of traditional lawyer skills of client
counselling, advice-giving, document drafting, and negotiation. And
increasingly lawyers find that the new skills of evaluation and mediation
are both effective for many clients and a source of employment. (Ibid.).
Most lawyers will engage in non-litigation legal work or in litigation work
that is constrained in very important ways, at least theoretically, so as to
remove from it some of the salient features of adversarial litigation. Of
these special roles, the most prominent is that of prosecutor. In some
lawyers' work the constraints are imposed both by the nature of the client
and by the way in which the lawyer is organized into a social unit to
perform that work. The most common of these roles are those of
corporate practice and government legal service. (Ibid.).
In several issues of the Business Star, a business daily, herein below
quoted are emerging trends in corporate law practice, a departure from
the traditional concept of practice of law.
We are experiencing today what truly may be called a
revolutionary transformation in corporate law practice.
Lawyers and other professional groups, in particular those
members participating in various legal-policy decisional
contexts, are finding that understanding the major
emerging trends in corporation law is indispensable to
intelligent decision-making.
Constructive adjustment to major corporate problems of
today requires an accurate understanding of the nature
and implications of the corporate law research function
accompanied by an accelerating rate of information
accumulation. The recognition of the need for such
improved corporate legal policy formulation, particularly
"model-making" and "contingency planning," has
impressed upon us the inadequacy of traditional
procedures in many decisional contexts.
In a complex legal problem the mass of information to be
processed, the sorting and weighing of significant
conditional factors, the appraisal of major trends, the
necessity of estimating the consequences of given
courses of action, and the need for fast decision and
response in situations of acute danger have prompted the
use of sophisticated concepts of information flow theory,
operational analysis, automatic data processing, and
electronic computing equipment. Understandably, an
improved decisional structure must stress the predictive

component of the policy-making process, wherein a

"model", of the decisional context or a segment thereof is
developed to test projected alternative courses of action
in terms of futuristic effects flowing therefrom.
Although members of the legal profession are regularly
engaged in predicting and projecting the trends of the law,
the subject of corporate finance law has received
relatively little organized and formalized attention in the
philosophy of advancing corporate legal education.
Nonetheless, a cross-disciplinary approach to legal
research has become a vital necessity.
Certainly, the general orientation for productive
contributions by those trained primarily in the law can be
improved through an early introduction to multi-variable
decisional context and the various approaches for
handling such problems. Lawyers, particularly with either
a master's or doctorate degree in business administration
or management, functioning at the legal policy level of
decision-making now have some appreciation for the
concepts and analytical techniques of other professions
which are currently engaged in similar types of complex
decision-making.
Truth to tell, many situations involving corporate finance
problems would require the services of an astute attorney
because of the complex legal implications that arise from
each and every necessary step in securing and
maintaining the business issue raised. (Business Star,
"Corporate Finance Law," Jan. 11, 1989, p. 4).
In our litigation-prone country, a corporate lawyer is
assiduously referred to as the "abogado de campanilla."
He is the "big-time" lawyer, earning big money and with a
clientele composed of the tycoons and magnates of
business and industry.
Despite the growing number of corporate lawyers, many
people could not explain what it is that a corporate lawyer
does. For one, the number of attorneys employed by a
single corporation will vary with the size and type of the
corporation. Many smaller and some large corporations
farm out all their legal problems to private law firms. Many
others have in-house counsel only for certain matters.
Other corporation have a staff large enough to handle
most legal problems in-house.
A corporate lawyer, for all intents and purposes, is a
lawyer who handles the legal affairs of a corporation. His

areas of concern or jurisdiction may include, inter alia:

corporate legal research, tax laws research, acting out as
corporate secretary (in board meetings), appearances in
both courts and other adjudicatory agencies (including the
Securities and Exchange Commission), and in other
capacities which require an ability to deal with the law.
At any rate, a corporate lawyer may assume
responsibilities other than the legal affairs of the business
of the corporation he is representing. These include such
matters as determining policy and becoming involved in
management. ( Emphasis supplied.)
In a big company, for example, one may have a feeling of
being isolated from the action, or not understanding how
one's work actually fits into the work of the orgarnization.
This can be frustrating to someone who needs to see the
results of his work first hand. In short, a corporate lawyer
is sometimes offered this fortune to be more closely
involved in the running of the business.
Moreover, a corporate lawyer's services may sometimes
be engaged by a multinational corporation (MNC). Some
large MNCs provide one of the few opportunities available
to corporate lawyers to enter the international law field.
After all, international law is practiced in a relatively small
number of companies and law firms. Because working in
a foreign country is perceived by many as glamorous, tills
is an area coveted by corporate lawyers. In most cases,
however, the overseas jobs go to experienced attorneys
while the younger attorneys do their "international
practice" in law libraries. (Business Star, "Corporate Law
Practice," May 25,1990, p. 4).
This brings us to the inevitable, i.e., the role of the lawyer
in the realm of finance. To borrow the lines of Harvardeducated lawyer Bruce Wassertein, to wit: "A bad lawyer
is one who fails to spot problems, a good lawyer is one
who perceives the difficulties, and the excellent lawyer is
one who surmounts them." (Business Star, "Corporate
Finance Law," Jan. 11, 1989, p. 4).
Today, the study of corporate law practice direly needs a
"shot in the arm," so to speak. No longer are we talking of
the traditional law teaching method of confining the
subject study to the Corporation Code and the Securities
Code but an incursion as well into the intertwining modern
management issues.

Such corporate legal management issues deal primarily

with three (3) types of learning: (1) acquisition of insights
into current advances which are of particular significance
to the corporate counsel; (2) an introduction to usable
disciplinary skins applicable to a corporate counsel's
management responsibilities; and (3) a devotion to the
organization and management of the legal function itself.
These three subject areas may be thought of as
intersecting circles, with a shared area linking them.
Otherwise
known
as
"intersecting
managerial
jurisprudence," it forms a unifying theme for the corporate
counsel's total learning.
Some current advances in behavior and policy sciences
affect the counsel's role. For that matter, the corporate
lawyer reviews the globalization process, including the
resulting strategic repositioning that the firms he provides
counsel for are required to make, and the need to think
about a corporation's; strategy at multiple levels. The
salience of the nation-state is being reduced as firms deal
both with global multinational entities and simultaneously
with sub-national governmental units. Firms increasingly
collaborate not only with public entities but with each
other often with those who are competitors in other
arenas.
Also, the nature of the lawyer's participation in decisionmaking within the corporation is rapidly changing. The
modem corporate lawyer has gained a new role as a
stakeholder in some cases participating in the
organization and operations of governance through
participation on boards and other decision-making roles.
Often these new patterns develop alongside existing legal
institutions and laws are perceived as barriers. These
trends are complicated as corporations organize for
global operations. ( Emphasis supplied)
The practising lawyer of today is familiar as well with
governmental policies toward the promotion and
management
of
technology.
New
collaborative
arrangements for promoting specific technologies or
competitiveness more generally require approaches from
industry that differ from older, more adversarial
relationships and traditional forms of seeking to influence
governmental policies. And there are lessons to be
learned
from
other
countries.
In
Europe, Esprit, Eureka and Race are
examples
of

collaborative efforts between governmental and business

Japan's MITI is world famous. (Emphasis supplied)
Following the concept of boundary spanning, the office of
the Corporate Counsel comprises a distinct group within
the managerial structure of all kinds of organizations.
Effectiveness of both long-term and temporary groups
within organizations has been found to be related to
indentifiable factors in the group-context interaction such
as the groups actively revising their knowledge of the
environment coordinating work with outsiders, promoting
team achievements within the organization. In general,
such external activities are better predictors of team
performance than internal group processes.
In a crisis situation, the legal managerial capabilities of
the corporate lawyer vis-a-vis the managerial mettle of
corporations are challenged. Current research is seeking
ways both to anticipate effective managerial procedures
and to understand relationships of financial liability and
insurance considerations. (Emphasis supplied)
Regarding the skills to apply by the corporate counsel,
three factors are apropos:
First System Dynamics. The field of systems dynamics
has been found an effective tool for new managerial
thinking regarding both planning and pressing immediate
problems. An understanding of the role of feedback loops,
inventory levels, and rates of flow, enable users to
simulate all sorts of systematic problems physical,
economic, managerial, social, and psychological. New
programming techniques now make the system dynamics
principles more accessible to managers including
corporate counsels. (Emphasis supplied)
Second Decision Analysis. This enables users to make
better decisions involving complexity and uncertainty. In
the context of a law department, it can be used to
appraise the settlement value of litigation, aid in
negotiation settlement, and minimize the cost and risk
involved in managing a portfolio of cases. (Emphasis
supplied)
Third Modeling for Negotiation Management. Computerbased models can be used directly by parties and
mediators in all lands of negotiations. All integrated set of
such tools provide coherent and effective negotiation
support, including hands-on on instruction in these

techniques. A simulation case of an international joint

venture may be used to illustrate the point.
[Be this as it may,] the organization and management of
the legal function, concern three pointed areas of
consideration, thus:
Preventive Lawyering. Planning by lawyers requires
special skills that comprise a major part of the general
counsel's responsibilities. They differ from those of
remedial law. Preventive lawyering is concerned with
minimizing the risks of legal trouble and maximizing legal
rights for such legal entities at that time when
transactional or similar facts are being considered and
made.
Managerial Jurisprudence. This is the framework within
which are undertaken those activities of the firm to which
legal consequences attach. It needs to be directly
supportive of this nation's evolving economic and
organizational fabric as firms change to stay competitive
in a global, interdependent environment. The practice and
theory of "law" is not adequate today to facilitate the
relationships needed in trying to make a global economy
work.
Organization and Functioning of the Corporate Counsel's
Office. The general counsel has emerged in the last
decade as one of the most vibrant subsets of the legal
profession. The corporate counsel hear responsibility for
key aspects of the firm's strategic issues, including
structuring its global operations, managing improved
relationships with an increasingly diversified body of
employees, managing expanded liability exposure,
creating new and varied interactions with public decisionmakers, coping internally with more complex make or by
decisions.
This whole exercise drives home the thesis that knowing
corporate law is not enough to make one a good general
corporate counsel nor to give him a full sense of how the
legal system shapes corporate activities. And even if the
corporate lawyer's aim is not the understand all of the
law's effects on corporate activities, he must, at the very
least, also gain a working knowledge of the management
issues if only to be able to grasp not only the basic legal
"constitution' or makeup of the modem corporation.
"Business Star", "The Corporate Counsel," April 10, 1991,
p. 4).

The challenge for lawyers (both of the bar and the bench)
is to have more than a passing knowledge of financial law
affecting each aspect of their work. Yet, many would
admit to ignorance of vast tracts of the financial law
territory. What transpires next is a dilemma of
professional security: Will the lawyer admit ignorance and
risk opprobrium?; or will he feign understanding and risk
exposure? (Business Star, "Corporate Finance law," Jan.
11, 1989, p. 4).
Respondent Christian Monsod was nominated by President Corazon C.
Aquino to the position of Chairman of the COMELEC in a letter received
by the Secretariat of the Commission on Appointments on April 25, 1991.
Petitioner opposed the nomination because allegedly Monsod does not
possess the required qualification of having been engaged in the practice
of law for at least ten years.
On June 5, 1991, the Commission on Appointments confirmed the
nomination of Monsod as Chairman of the COMELEC. On June 18,
1991, he took his oath of office. On the same day, he assumed office as
Chairman of the COMELEC.
Challenging the validity of the confirmation by the Commission on
Appointments of Monsod's nomination, petitioner as a citizen and
taxpayer, filed the instant petition for certiorari and Prohibition praying
that said confirmation and the consequent appointment of Monsod as
Chairman of the Commission on Elections be declared null and void.
Atty. Christian Monsod is a member of the Philippine Bar, having passed
the bar examinations of 1960 with a grade of 86-55%. He has been a
dues paying member of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines since its
inception in 1972-73. He has also been paying his professional license
fees as lawyer for more than ten years. (p. 124, Rollo)
After graduating from the College of Law (U.P.) and having hurdled the
bar, Atty. Monsod worked in the law office of his father. During his stint in
the World Bank Group (1963-1970), Monsod worked as an operations
officer for about two years in Costa Rica and Panama, which involved
getting acquainted with the laws of member-countries negotiating loans
and coordinating legal, economic, and project work of the Bank. Upon
returning to the Philippines in 1970, he worked with the Meralco Group,
served as chief executive officer of an investment bank and subsequently
of a business conglomerate, and since 1986, has rendered services to
various companies as a legal and economic consultant or chief executive
officer. As former Secretary-General (1986) and National Chairman
(1987) of NAMFREL. Monsod's work involved being knowledgeable in
election law. He appeared for NAMFREL in its accreditation hearings
before the Comelec. In the field of advocacy, Monsod, in his personal
capacity and as former Co-Chairman of the Bishops Businessmen's

Conference for Human Development, has worked with the under

privileged sectors, such as the farmer and urban poor groups, in
initiating, lobbying for and engaging in affirmative action for the agrarian
reform law and lately the urban land reform bill. Monsod also made use
of his legal knowledge as a member of the Davide Commission, a quast
judicial body, which conducted numerous hearings (1990) and as a
member of the Constitutional Commission (1986-1987), and Chairman of
its Committee on Accountability of Public Officers, for which he was cited
by the President of the Commission, Justice Cecilia Muoz-Palma for
"innumerable amendments to reconcile government functions with
individual freedoms and public accountability and the party-list system for
the House of Representative. (pp. 128-129 Rollo) ( Emphasis supplied)
Just a word about the work of a negotiating team of which Atty. Monsod
used to be a member.
In a loan agreement, for instance, a negotiating panel
acts as a team, and which is adequately constituted to
meet the various contingencies that arise during a
negotiation. Besides top officials of the Borrower
concerned, there are the legal officer (such as the legal
counsel), the finance manager, and an operations
officer (such as an official involved in negotiating the
contracts) who comprise the members of the team.
(Guillermo V. Soliven, "Loan Negotiating Strategies for
Developing Country Borrowers," Staff Paper No. 2,
Central Bank of the Philippines, Manila, 1982, p. 11).
(Emphasis supplied)
After a fashion, the loan agreement is like a country's
Constitution; it lays down the law as far as the loan
transaction is concerned. Thus, the meat of any Loan
Agreement can be compartmentalized into five (5)
fundamental parts: (1) business terms; (2) borrower's
representation; (3) conditions of closing; (4) covenants;
and (5) events of default. (Ibid., p. 13).
In the same vein, lawyers play an important role in any
debt restructuring program. For aside from performing the
tasks of legislative drafting and legal advising, they score
national development policies as key factors in
maintaining their countries' sovereignty. (Condensed from
the work paper, entitled "Wanted: Development Lawyers
for Developing Nations," submitted by L. Michael Hager,
regional legal adviser of the United States Agency for
International Development, during the Session on Law for
the Development of Nations at the Abidjan World
Conference in Ivory Coast, sponsored by the World

Peace Through Law Center on August 26-31, 1973). (

Emphasis supplied)
Loan concessions and compromises, perhaps even more
so than purely renegotiation policies, demand expertise in
the law of contracts, in legislation and agreement drafting
and in renegotiation. Necessarily, a sovereign lawyer may
work with an international business specialist or an
economist in the formulation of a model loan agreement.
Debt restructuring contract agreements contain such a
mixture of technical language that they should be
carefully drafted and signed only with the advise of
competent counsel in conjunction with the guidance of
adequate technical support personnel. (See International
Law Aspects of the Philippine External Debts, an
unpublished dissertation, U.S.T. Graduate School of Law,
1987, p. 321). ( Emphasis supplied)
A critical aspect of sovereign debt restructuring/contract
construction is the set of terms and conditions which
determines the contractual remedies for a failure to
perform one or more elements of the contract. A good
agreement must not only define the responsibilities of
both parties, but must also state the recourse open to
either party when the other fails to discharge an
obligation. For a compleat debt restructuring represents a
devotion to that principle which in the ultimate analysis
is sine qua non for foreign loan agreements-an adherence
to the rule of law in domestic and international affairs of
whose kind U.S. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell
Holmes, Jr. once said: "They carry no banners, they beat
no drums; but where they are, men learn that bustle and
bush are not the equal of quiet genius and serene
mastery." (See Ricardo J. Romulo, "The Role of Lawyers
in Foreign Investments," Integrated Bar of the Philippine
Journal, Vol. 15, Nos. 3 and 4, Third and Fourth Quarters,
1977, p. 265).
Interpreted in the light of the various definitions of the term Practice of
law". particularly the modern concept of law practice, and taking into
consideration the liberal construction intended by the framers of the
Constitution, Atty. Monsod's past work experiences as a lawyereconomist, a lawyer-manager, a lawyer-entrepreneur of industry, a
lawyer-negotiator of contracts, and a lawyer-legislator of both the rich and
the poor verily more than satisfy the constitutional requirement that
he has been engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years.

Besides in the leading case of Luego v. Civil Service Commission, 143

SCRA 327, the Court said:
Appointment is an essentially discretionary power and
must be performed by the officer in which it is vested
according to his best lights, the only condition being that
the appointee should possess the qualifications required
by law. If he does, then the appointment cannot be faulted
on the ground that there are others better qualified who
should have been preferred. This is a political question
involving considerations of wisdom which only the
appointing authority can decide. (emphasis supplied)
No less emphatic was the Court in the case of (Central Bank v. Civil
Service Commission, 171 SCRA 744) where it stated:
It is well-settled that when the appointee is qualified, as in
this case, and all the other legal requirements are
satisfied, the Commission has no alternative but to attest
to the appointment in accordance with the Civil Service
Law. The Commission has no authority to revoke an
appointment on the ground that another person is more
qualified for a particular position. It also has no authority
to direct the appointment of a substitute of its choice. To
do so would be an encroachment on the discretion vested
upon the appointing authority. An appointment is
essentially within the discretionary power of whomsoever
it is vested, subject to the only condition that the
appointee should possess the qualifications required by
law. ( Emphasis supplied)
The appointing process in a regular appointment as in the case at bar,
consists of four (4) stages: (1) nomination; (2) confirmation by the
Commission on Appointments; (3) issuance of a commission (in the
Philippines, upon submission by the Commission on Appointments of its
certificate of confirmation, the President issues the permanent
appointment; and (4) acceptance e.g., oath-taking, posting of bond, etc. .
. . (Lacson v. Romero, No. L-3081, October 14, 1949; Gonzales, Law on
Public Officers, p. 200)
The power of the Commission on Appointments to give its consent to the
nomination of Monsod as Chairman of the Commission on Elections is
mandated by Section 1(2) Sub-Article C, Article IX of the Constitution
which provides:
The Chairman and the Commisioners shall be appointed
by the President with the consent of the Commission on
Appointments for a term of seven years without
reappointment. Of those first appointed, three Members
shall hold office for seven years, two Members for five

years, and the last Members for three years, without

reappointment. Appointment to any vacancy shall be only
for the unexpired term of the predecessor. In no case
shall any Member be appointed or designated in a
temporary or acting capacity.
Anent Justice Teodoro Padilla's separate opinion, suffice
it to say that his definition of the practice of law is the
traditional or stereotyped notion of law practice, as
distinguished from the modern concept of the practice of
law, which modern connotation is exactly what was
intended by the eminent framers of the 1987
Constitution. Moreover, Justice Padilla's definition would
require generally a habitual law practice, perhaps
practised two or three times a week and would
outlaw say, law practice once or twice a year for ten
consecutive years. Clearly, this is far from the
constitutional intent.
Upon the other hand, the separate opinion of Justice Isagani Cruz states
that in my written opinion, I made use of a definition of law practice which
really means nothing because the definition says that law practice " . . . is
what people ordinarily mean by the practice of law." True I cited the
definition but only by way of sarcasm as evident from my statement that
the definition of law practice by "traditional areas of law practice is
essentially tautologous" or defining a phrase by means of the phrase
itself that is being defined.
Justice Cruz goes on to say in substance that since the law covers
almost all situations, most individuals, in making use of the law, or in
advising others on what the law means, are actually practicing law. In
that sense, perhaps, but we should not lose sight of the fact that Mr.
Monsod is a lawyer, a member of the Philippine Bar, who has been
practising law for over ten years. This is different from the acts of persons
practising law, without first becoming lawyers.
Justice Cruz also says that the Supreme Court can even disqualify an
elected President of the Philippines, say, on the ground that he lacks one
or more qualifications. This matter, I greatly doubt. For one thing, how
can an action or petition be brought against the President? And even
assuming that he is indeed disqualified, how can the action be
entertained since he is the incumbent President?
We now proceed:
The Commission on the basis of evidence submitted doling the public
hearings on Monsod's confirmation, implicitly determined that he
possessed the necessary qualifications as required by law. The judgment
rendered by the Commission in the exercise of such an acknowledged
power is beyond judicial interference except only upon a clear showing of

a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.

(Art. VIII, Sec. 1 Constitution). Thus, only where such grave abuse of
discretion is clearly shown shall the Court interfere with the Commission's
judgment. In the instant case, there is no occasion for the exercise of the
Court's corrective power, since no abuse, much less a grave abuse of
discretion, that would amount to lack or excess of jurisdiction and would
warrant the issuance of the writs prayed, for has been clearly shown.
Additionally, consider the following:
(1) If the Commission on Appointments rejects a nominee
by the President, may the Supreme Court reverse the
Commission, and thus in effect confirm the appointment?
Clearly, the answer is in the negative.
(2) In the same vein, may the Court reject the nominee,
whom the Commission has confirmed? The answer is
likewise clear.
(3) If the United States Senate (which is the confirming
body in the U.S. Congress) decides to confirm a
Presidential nominee, it would be incredible that the U.S.
Supreme Court would still reverse the U.S. Senate.
Finally, one significant legal maxim is:
We must interpret not by the letter that killeth, but by the
spirit that giveth life.
Take this hypothetical case of Samson and Delilah. Once, the procurator
of Judea asked Delilah (who was Samson's beloved) for help in capturing
Samson. Delilah agreed on condition that
No blade shall touch his skin;
No blood shall flow from his veins.
When Samson (his long hair cut by Delilah) was captured, the procurator
placed an iron rod burning white-hot two or three inches away from in
front of Samson's eyes. This blinded the man. Upon hearing of what had
happened to her beloved, Delilah was beside herself with anger, and
fuming with righteous fury, accused the procurator of reneging on his
word. The procurator calmly replied: "Did any blade touch his skin? Did
any blood flow from his veins?" The procurator was clearly relying on the
letter, not the spirit of the agreement.
In view of the foregoing, this petition is hereby DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED

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
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
an Attorney in Guam, is giving FREE BOOKS on Guam
Divorce through The Legal Clinic beginning Monday to
Friday during office hours.
Guam divorce. Annulment of Marriage. Immigration
Problems, Visa Ext. Quota/Non-quota Res. & Special
Retiree's Visa. Declaration of Absence. Remarriage to
Filipina Fiancees. Adoption. Investment in the Phil.
US/Foreign Visa for Filipina Spouse/Children. Call
Marivic.
THE 7F Victoria Bldg. 429 UN Ave., LEGAL Ermita,
Manila nr. US Embassy CLINIC, INC. 1 Tel. 521-7232; 5217251; 522-2041; 521-0767

It is the submission of petitioner that the advertisements above

reproduced are champterous, unethical, demeaning of the law
profession, and destructive of the confidence of the community in the
integrity of the members of the bar and that, as a member of the legal
profession, he is ashamed and offended by the said advertisements,
hence the reliefs sought in his petition as hereinbefore quoted.
In its answer to the petition, respondent admits the fact of publication of
said advertisement 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 case of John R. Bates and Van O'Steen vs. State Bar of
Arizona, 2 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. Womens Lawyers' Circle (WILOCI), (5) Women Lawyers
Association of the Philippines (WLAP), and (6) Federacion International
de Abogadas (FIDA) to submit their respective position papers on the
controversy and, thereafter, their memoranda. 3 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:
xxx xxx xxx
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, constitutes practice of law?
xxx xxx xxx
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 practice as aforedescribed. 4
xxx xxx xxx

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 to 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. . . .
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 special contract of
permanent union between a man and
woman entered into 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.
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.
xxx xxx xxx

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 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 Article of Incorporation and By-laws must
conform to each and every provision of the Code of
Professional Responsibility and the Rules of Court. 5
2. Philippine Bar Association:

xxx xxx 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 certainAtty. 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 right 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 are the persons engaged in unethical law
practice. 6
3. Philippine Lawyers' Association:

The Philippine Lawyers' Association's position, in answer

to the issues stated herein, are 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
supress and punish the Legal Clinic and its corporate
officers for its unauthorized practice of law and for its
unethical, misleading and immoral advertising.

xxx xxx xxx

Respondent posits that is it not engaged in the practice of
law. It claims that it merely renders "legal support
services" to answers, 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 Investments Law of the
Philippines and such other related laws.
Its advertised services unmistakably require the
application of the aforesaid law, 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 practice of law." 7
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
jurisdiction 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 make 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 those who advertise legal
services without being qualified to offer such services. 8
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 Respondent corporation in the aforementioned
"Starweek" article." 9
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.
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 the 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 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 justify permanent elimination
from the Bar. 10
6. Federacion Internacional de Abogados:

xxx xxx 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.

. . . . Of necessity, no one . . . . 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 . . . .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 . . . . It is not only presumed that all
men know the law, but it is a fact that most
men have considerable acquaintance with
broad features of the law . . . . 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 specification 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 nonlegal problem.
It is largely a matter of degree and of
custom.
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 preempted 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 the 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
matter, and without regard to legal
thinking or lack of it. More recently,
consultants like the defendants have 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'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 primarily 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 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
representations 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 ther 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;.
(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 succintly 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 of law. The business is
similar to that of a bookstore where the customer buys
materials on the subject and determines 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 publication of a legal
text which purports to say what the law is
amount 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. . . . . 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 their publication and sale of
the kits, such publication and sale did not
constitutes the unlawful practice of law . . .
. 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 change 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.).
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.
xxx xxx xxx
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 services?" or "legal support services",
and not legal services, are available." 11
A prefatory discussion on the meaning of the phrase "practice of law"
becomes exigent for the 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 or render any kind of service that involves legal knowledge or

skill. 12
The practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases in court. It
includes legal advice and counsel, and the preparation of legal
instruments and contract by which legal rights are secured, although
such matter may or may not be pending in a court. 13
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 law, in order to assist in
proper interpretation and enforcement of law. 14
When a person participates in the a trial and advertises himself as a
lawyer, he is in the practice of law. 15 One who confers with clients, advises
them as to their legal rights and then takes the business to an attorney and
asks the latter to look after the case in court, is also practicing law. 16 Giving
advice for compensation regarding the legal status and rights of another and
the conduct with respect thereto constitutes a practice of law. 17 One who
renders an opinion as to the proper interpretation of a statute, and receives
pay for it, is, to that extent, practicing law. 18
In the recent case of Cayetano vs. Monsod, 19 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.
The practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases on court.(Land
Title Abstract and Trust Co. v. Dworken , 129 Ohio St. 23, 193N. E. 650).
A person is also considered to be in the practice of law when he:
. . . . for valuable consideration engages in the business
of advising person, firms, associations or corporations as
to their right 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 Philippines 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 or 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 o 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.] 197 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 consists 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 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 the
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 other entities engaged in dispensing or
administering legal services. 20
While some of the services being offered by respondent corporation
merely involve mechanical and technical knowhow, 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 the respondent
corporation will simply do is look for the law, furnish a copy thereof to the
client, and stop there as if it were merely a bookstore. With its attorneys
and so called paralegals, it will necessarily have to explain to the client
the intricacies of the law and advise him or her on the proper course of
action to be taken as may be provided for by said law. That is what its
advertisements represent and for the which services it will consequently
charge and be paid. That activity falls squarely within the jurisprudential
definition of "practice of law." Such a conclusion will not be altered by the
fact that respondent corporation does not represent clients in court since
law practice, as the weight of authority holds, is not limited merely giving
legal advice, contract drafting and so forth.
The aforesaid conclusion is further strengthened by an article published
in the January 13, 1991 issue of the Starweek/The Sunday Magazine of
the Philippines 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 specialist 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 hospital, outpatient, hindi kailangang ma-confine. It's just like a
common cold or diarrhea," explains Atty. Nogales.
Those cases which requires 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 with the problem. Now, if there
were other heirs contesting your rich relatives will, then
you would need a litigator, who knows how to arrange the
problem for presentation in court, and gather evidence to
support the case. 21
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 engaged in the practice of

law. 22
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
of Court, and who is in good and regular standing, is entitled to practice
law. 23
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 disciplinary control
of the court. 24
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 or rules specifically so provide. 25 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, interpretation, operation and effect of
law. 26 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 control. 27

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 there are none in the
Philippines. 28As the concept of the "paralegals" 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 Legal Assistants, Inc. and the American Paralegal
Association. 29

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 regulations granting permission therefor. 30
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 unauthorized and unskilled person into the practice of law. 31 That
policy should continue to be one of encouraging persons who are unsure of
their legal rights and remedies to seek legal assistance only from persons
licensed to practice law in the state. 32

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. 33 He is not supposed to use or
permit the use of any false, fraudulent, misleading, deceptive, undignified,
self-laudatory or unfair statement or claim regarding his qualifications or legal
services. 34 Nor shall he pay or give something of value to representatives of
the mass media in anticipation of, or in return for, publicity to attract legal
business. 35 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
self-laudation. 36

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 skill as in a manner similar to a
merchant advertising his goods. 37 The prescription against advertising of
legal services or solicitation of legal business rests on the fundamental
postulate that the that the practice of law is a profession. Thus, in the case of
The Director of Religious Affairs. vs. Estanislao R. Bayot 38 an advertisement,
similar to those of respondent which are involved in the present
proceeding, 39 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 moneychangers 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 canon 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 propaganda. 40
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
which are expressly allowed and those which are necessarily implied
from the restrictions. 41
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
their written consent, the names of clients regularly represented." 42
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
the dignity or standing of the profession. 43
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 name listed in a telephone
directory but not under a designation of special branch of law. 44
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.
The ruling in the case of Bates, et al. vs. State Bar of Arizona, 45 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 state unless and until it is
implemented by such authority in that state." 46 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 found that public
opinion dropped significantly 47 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%
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, to advertise his services except in allowable
instances 48 or to aid a layman in the unauthorized practice of
law. 49 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 province of the Solicitor General who can institute the
corresponding quo warranto action, 50 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.