homework help,online homework help,online tutors,online tutoring,research paper help,do my homework, https://www.homeworkping.com/

1. Get Homework/Assignment
Done
Homeworkping.com
Homework Help
https://www.homeworkping.com/
Research Paper help
https://www.homeworkping.com/
Online Tutoring
https://www.homeworkping.com/
click here for freelancing tutoring sites
CANON 3
1. IN RE LUIS B. TAGORDA
MALCOLM, J.:
The respondent,Luis B. Tagorda, a practising attorney and a memberofthe provincialboard of Isabela, admits
that previous tothe last general elections he made use ofa card written in Spanish and Ilocano, which, in
translation, reads as follows:
LUIS B. TAGORDA
Attorney
Notary Public
CANDIDATEFOR THIRD MEMBER
Province ofIsabela
(NOTE. — As notary public,he canexecutefor you a deed ofsale for the purchase ofland as required by the
cadastraloffice; can renew lost documents ofyouranimals; can makeyour application and final requisites for
your homestead; and canexecuteany kind ofaffidavit. As a lawyer,he canhelp youcollect your loans although
long overdue, as well as anycomplaintfor or against you. Comeor writeto him inhis town,Echague, Isabela.He
offers free consultation, and is willing to help and serve the poor.)
The respondent further admits that heis theauthor ofa letter addressedto a lieutenant ofbarrio in his home
municipality written in Ilocano, which letter, in translation, reads as follows:
ECHAGUE, ISABELA, September 18, 1928
MY DEAR LIEUTENANT: I would like to inform you of the approaching date for our induction into office as
member oftheProvincial Board, thatis on the 16th ofnext month. Beforemy induction into office I should be
very glad to hear yoursuggestions or recommendations for the good ofthe province in general and for your
barrio in particular. You can come to my house at any time here in Echague, to submit to me any kind of
suggestion or recommendation as you may desire.
I also informyou that despite my membership in the Board I will have my residence here in Echague. I will
attend the session oftheBoard ofIlagan,but willcomeback homeon thefollowing dayherein Echague to live
and servewith youas a lawyer and notary public. Despitemy electionas memberofthe Provincial Board, I will
exercisemy legal profession as a lawyer andnotary public. Incase youcannot seemeathome onanyweek day,
I assureyou that youcan always findmethereon everySunday. I also inform you that I will receive any work
regarding preparations ofdocuments ofcontract ofsales and affidavits to be sworn to before me as notary
public even on Sundays.
I would likeyou all to be informed ofthis matter for the reason that some people are in the beliefthat my
residence as member of the Board will be in Ilagan and that I would then be disqualified to exercise my
profession as lawyer and as notary public. Such is not the case and I would make it clear that I am free to
exercise my profession as formerly and that I will have my residence here in Echague.
I would request youkindfavor to transmit this information to your barrio people in any ofyour meetings or
socialgatherings so that they may be informed ofmy desire to live and to serve with you in my capacity as
lawyer and notary public. Ifthepeople in yourlocality havenotas yet contracted theservices ofother lawyers in
connectionwiththeregistration oftheir landtitles, I would be willing to handle the work in court and would
charge only three pesos for every registration.
Yours respectfully,
(Sgd.) LUIS TAGORDA
Attorney
Notary Public.

2. The facts being conceded, itis next inorder towritedowntheapplicable legalprovisions. Section21ofthe Code
of Civil Procedure as originally conceived related to disbarments of members of the bar. In 1919 at the
instigation of thePhilippineBarAssociation, said codalsection was amended by Act No. 2828 by adding at the
end thereof thefollowing: "Thepractice ofsoliciting cases atlaw for the purpose ofgain, either personally or
through paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice."
The statuteas amended conforms in principle totheCanons ofProfessionals Ethics adopted by the American
Bar Association in 1908and by the PhilippineBar Association in 1917. Canons 27 and 28 ofthe Code ofEthics
provide:
27. ADVERTISING, DIRECT OR INDIRECT. — The mostworthyandeffective advertisement possible, even for a
young lawyer, and especially with his brother lawyers, is the establishment ofa well-merited reputation for
professionalcapacity and fidelity to trust. This cannot be forced, but must be the outcome ofcharacter and
conduct. Thepublicationor circulation ofordinarysimplebusiness cards, being a matter ofpersonal taste or
local custom,and sometimes ofconvenience, is notperseimproper. Butsolicitationofbusiness by circulars or
advertisements, or by personal communications or interview not warranted by personal relations, is
unprofessional. It is equally unprofessional to procure business by indirection through touters ofany kind,
whether allied real estatefirms ortrustcompanies advertising to secure the drawing ofdeeds or wills or offering
retainers inexchangefor executorships ortrusteeships to beinfluencedby thelawyer. Indirect advertisement
for business by furnishing or inspiring newspaper comments concerning the manner oftheir conduct, the
magnitudeof theinterestinvolved, theimportanceofthelawyer's position, and all other like self-laudation,
defy the traditions and lower the tone ofour high calling, and are intolerable.
28. STIRRING UP LITIGATION,DIRECTLYOR THROUGH AGENTS. — It is unprofessional for a lawyer to volunteer
advice tobring a lawsuit, exceptin rarecases where ties ofblood, relationship or trust makeithis duty to doso.
Stirring up strife and litigationis not only unprofessional, butit is indictable at common law. It is disreputable to
hunt up defects in titles orother causes ofactionandinform thereofin order totheemployed tobring suit, or to
breed litigationby seeking out those with claims for personal injuries or those having any other grounds of
action inorder tosecurethem as clients, orto employ agents or runners for likepurposes, or to pay or reward
directlyor indirectly, those who bring or influence the bringing ofsuch cases to his office, or to remunerate
policemen, court orprison officials,physicians, hospital attaches or others who may succeed, under theguise of
giving disinterested friendly advice,in influencing thecriminal, the sick and the injured, the ignorant or others,
to seek his professionalservices. Aduty tothepublic and totheprofession devolves uponevery member ofthe
bar having knowledgeof such practices uponthepartofany practitionerimmediately to inform thereofto the
end that the offender may be disbarred.
Common barratryconsisting offrequently stirring up suits and quarrels between individuals was a crime at the
common law, and one of the penalties for this offense when committed by an attorney was disbarment.
Statutes intendedto reach the sameevilhave been providedin a number ofjurisdictions usually at the instance
ofthe bar itself, and havebeenupheld as constitutional. Thereason behind statutes ofthis type is not difficult
to discover. Thelaw is a profession and not a business. The lawyer may not seek or obtain employment by
himselfor through others for to doso would beunprofessional. (Statevs. Rossman[1909], 53 Wash., 1; 17 Ann.
Cas., 625; People vs. Mac Cabe [1893], 19 L. R. A., 231; 2 R. C. L., 1097.)
It becomes our duty to condemn inno uncertain terms the ugly practiceofsolicitationofcases by lawyers. It is
destructive of thehonorof a greatprofession. It lowers thestandards ofthat profession. It works against the
confidence of thecommunity intheintegrity ofthemembers ofthebar. Itresults in needless litigation and in
incenting to strife otherwise peacefully inclined citizens.
The solicitation of employment by an attorney is a ground for disbarment or suspension. That should be
distinctly understood.
Giving application ofthe lawandtheCanons ofEthics totheadmittedfacts, therespondentstands convicted of
having solicitedcases indefianceofthelaw andthosecanons. Accordingly, theonlyremaining duty ofthe court
is to fix upon the action which should here be taken. The provincial fiscal ofIsabela, with whom joined the
representative ofthe Attorney-Generalin the oral presentation ofthe case, suggests that the respondent be
only reprimanded.Wethink thatour action should go further than this ifonly to reflect our attitude toward
cases ofthis characterofwhich unfortunately therespondent's is only one. Thecommission ofoffenses ofthis
nature wouldamply justify permanent eliminationfrom the bar. But as mitigating, circumstances working in
favor ofthe respondent there are, first, his intimation that he was unaware ofthe impropriety ofhis acts,
second, his youth and inexperience at the bar,and, third, his promise not to commit a similar mistake in the
future. A modest period of suspension would seem to fit the case ofthe erring attorney. But it should be
distinctly understood thatthis result is reachedin view ofthe considerations which haveinfluencedthecourt to
the relatively lenient inthis particular instance and should, therefore, not be taken as indicating that future
convictions ofpractice ofthis kind will not be dealt with by disbarment.
In view ofall the circumstances ofthis case,thejudgment ofthe courtis that therespondent Luis B. Tagorda be
and is hereby suspended fromthepracticeas an attorney-at-lawfor theperiod ofonemonth fromApril 1,1929,
Street, Johns, Romualdez, and Villa-Real, JJ., concur.
Johnson, J., reserves his vote.
Separate Opinions
OSTRAND, J., dissenting:
I dissent. Under the circumstances ofthe case a reprimand would have been sufficient punishment.
2. THE DIRECTOR OF RELIGIOUS AFFAIRS vs. ESTANISLAOR. BAYOT
OZAETA, J.:
The respondent,who is an attorney-at-law, is charged with malpracticefor having published an advertisementin
the Sunday Tribune ofJune 13, 1943, which reads as follows:
Marriage
licensepromptly secured thru our assistance & the annoyance ofdelay or publicity avoided ifdesired, and
marriagearranged towishes ofparties.Consultation onanymatter free for the poor. Everything confidential.
Legal assistance service
12 Escolta, Manila, Room, 105
Tel. 2-41-60.
Appearing in his own behalf, respondent at first denied having published the said advertisement; but
subsequently, thruhis attorney, headmitted having caused its publicationandprayed for "the indulgence and
mercy"ofthe Court, promising "not torepeatsuch professionalmisconduct inthefuture andto abide himselfto
the strict ethicalrules ofthelaw profession."In further mitigationhe allegedthat the said advertisement was
published only once in the Tribune and that he never had any case at law by reason thereof.
Upon that plea the case was submitted to the Court for decision.

3. It is undeniablethat the advertisement in question was a flagrant violationby therespondentofthe ethics ofhis
profession,it being a brazen solicitation ofbusiness from thepublic. Section 25 ofRule 127 expressly provides
among other things that"thepractice ofsoliciting cases atlaw for the purposeofgain, either personally or thru
paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice."It is highly unethicalfor an attorneyto advertise his talents or
skill as a merchant advertises his wares.Law is a profession andnota trade.The lawyerdegrades himselfand his
profession who stoops to andadopts thepractices ofmercantilism by advertising his services oroffering themto
the public. As a member of the bar,he defiles the temple ofjustice with mercenary activities as the money-
changers of olddefiled the templeofJehovah. "The most worth andeffectiveadvertisement possible,even for a
young lawyer, . . . is theestablishment ofa well-merited reputationfor professional capacity and fidelity to trust.
This cannot be forced but must be the outcome ofcharacter and conduct."(Canon 27, Code ofEthics.)
In In re Tagorda, 53Phil., therespondentattorney was suspended fromthepractice oflawfor theperiodofone
month for advertising his services and soliciting work from the public by writing circular letters. That case,
however, was more serious thanthis because there the solicitations were repeatedly made and were more
elaborate and insistent.
Considering his plea for leniency and his promise not torepeatthemisconduct, the Court is of the opinion and
so decided that the respondent should be, as he hereby is, reprimanded.
3. MAURICIOC. ULEP, vs. THELEGAL CLINIC, INC.
REGALADO, J.:
Petitioner prays this Court "to order therespondent toceaseand desistfrom issuing advertisements similar to
or ofthe sametenoras thatofannexes "A"and "B"(ofsaid petition) and to perpetually prohibit persons or
entities from making advertisements pertaining to theexerciseofthelaw profession other than those allowed
by law."
The advertisements complained ofby herein petitioner are as follows:
Annex A
SECRETMARRIAGE?
P560.00 for a valid marriage.
Info on DIVORCE. ABSENCE.
ANNULMENT. VISA.
THE Pleasecall: 521-0767LEGAL 5217232, 5222041 CLINIC, INC. 8:30 am— 6:00 pm 7-
Flr. Victoria Bldg., UN Ave., Mla.
Annex B
GUAMDIVORCE.
DON PARKINSON
an Attorney in Guam, is giving FREEBOOKS 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 ofAbsence. 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; 521-7251; 522-2041; 521-0767
It is the submission ofpetitioner that the advertisements above reproduced are champterous, unethical,
demeaning ofthe lawprofession, and destructive ofthe confidence of the community in the integrity ofthe
members ofthebarand that, as a member ofthe legal profession, he is ashamed and offended by the said
advertisements, hence the reliefs sought in his petition as hereinbefore quoted.
In its answer tothepetition, respondentadmits thefact ofpublicationofsaidadvertisement at its instance, but
claims that it is not engaged in the practice oflaw 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 theservices advertised arelegalservices, the actofadvertising theseservices should be allowed
supposedly
in the lightofthe caseofJohnR. Bates andVan O'Steen vs. State Bar ofArizona, 2 reportedly decided by the
United States Supreme Court on June 7, 1977.
Considering thecriticalimplications on the legal profession ofthe issues raised herein, we required the (1)
Integrated Bar ofthe Philippines (IBP), (2) Philippine Bar Association (PBA), (3) Philippine Lawyers'Association
(PLA), (4) U.P. Womens Lawyers'Circle(WILOCI), (5) WomenLawyers Association ofthePhilippines (WLAP), and
(6) FederacionInternationalde Abogadas (FIDA) to submit their respectiveposition papers on the controversy
and, thereafter, their memoranda. 3 Thesaid bar associations readily responded and extended their valuable
services and cooperation ofwhich this Court takes note with appreciation and gratitude.
The main issues posedfor resolution beforetheCourt are whetheror notthe services offered by respondent,
The Legal Clinic, Inc., as advertised byit constitutes practice oflaw and, in either case, whether the same can
properly be the subject ofthe advertisements herein complained of.
Before proceeding with an in-depthanalysis ofthemerits ofthis 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 ofthe Philippines:
xxx xxx xxx
Notwithstanding thesubtle manner by which respondentendeavored to distinguish the two terms, i.e., "legal
support services"vis-a-vis "legalservices", common sense would readily dictate that the same are essentially
without substantial distinction. Forwho could deny that document search, evidence gathering, assistance to
layman in needofbasic institutional services from government ornon-government agencies likebirth,marriage,
property, or business registration, obtaining documents like clearance, passports, local or foreign visas,
constitutes practice oflaw?
xxx xxx xxx
The Integrated Bar ofthePhilippines (IBP) does not wish to make issue with respondent's foreign citations.
Suffice it to state that the IBPhas madeits position manifest, towit, thatit strongly opposes the viewespoused
by respondent (to the effect that today it is alright to advertise one's legal services).

4. The IBP accordinglydeclares inno uncertain terms its opposition to respondent's act ofestablishing a "legal
clinic"and of concomitantly advertising the same through newspaper publications.
The IBP would therefore invoke the administrative supervision ofthis Honorable Court to perpetually restrain
respondent from undertaking highly unethical activities in the field oflaw practice as aforedescribed. 4
xxx xxx xxx
A. The use of the name "The LegalClinic, Inc."gives theimpression thatrespondent corporationis being
operated by lawyers and that it renders legal services.
While therespondent repeatedly denies thatit offers legalservices to the public, the advertisements in question
give the impression that respondentis offering legal services.The Petitionin fact simply assumes this to beso, as
earlier mentioned, apparently becausethis (is) the effectthat the advertisements have on the reading public.
The impressioncreated by theadvertisements in question can betraced, firstofall, totheverynamebeing used
by respondent — "The Legal Clinic, Inc."Sucha name,it is respectfully submitted connotes therendering oflegal
services for legalproblems,just likea medical clinic connotes medical services for medical problems. More
importantly, the term "Legal Clinic"connotes lawyers, as the term medical clinic connotes doctors.
Furthermore,therespondent's name, as publishedin the advertisements subjectofthepresent case, appears
with (the) scale(s) of justice, which allthemorereinforces theimpression thatit is being operated by members
ofthe bar andthat itoffers legal services. In addition, theadvertisements in questionappearwith a picture and
name of a person being represented as a lawyer fromGuam,and this practically removes whatever doubt may
still remain as to the nature ofthe service or services being offered.
It thus becomes irrelevant whether respondentis merely offering "legal support services"as claimed by it, or
whether itoffers legal services as any lawyer actively engaged in law practicedoes. Andit becomes unnecessary
to make a distinction between "legal services"and "legal support services,"as therespondent wouldhave it. The
advertisements in question leave noroomfor doubt in theminds ofthereading public that legal services are
being offered by lawyers, whether true or not.
B. The advertisements inquestion aremeant toinducethe performanceofacts contrary tolaw, morals,
public order and public policy.
It may be conceded that, as the respondentclaims,theadvertisements inquestion areonly meant toinformthe
general publicof theservices being offeredby 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 marriagebetweena Filipino citizenand a foreigner is validly celebrated and a divorce is thereafter
validly obtained abroadby thealienspousecapacitating himor 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 contractofpermanentunion betweena man andwomanenteredinto accordance
with law for the establishment ofconjugal and family life. It is the foundation ofthe family and an inviolable
socialinstitutionwhosenature,consequences, andincidents are governed by law andnotsubjectto stipulation,
except thatmarriage settlements mayfix theproperty relation during themarriage withinthelimits providedby
this Code.
By simply reading thequestioned advertisements, itis obvious that themessagebeing conveyedis that Filipinos
can avoidthelegal consequences ofa marriagecelebrated inaccordancewith ourlaw, bysimply going to Guam
for a divorce.This is notonly misleading, butencourages,or serves to induce, violation ofPhilippine law. At the
very least,this canbe considered "thedark side"oflegalpractice, wherecertain defects in Philippine laws are
exploited for the sake ofprofit. At worst, this is outright malpractice.
Rule 1.02. — Alawyershall not counselor abetactivities aimedat defianceofthelaw or at lessening confidence
in the legal system.
In addition,it may alsobe relevant to point out that advertisements such as that shown in Annex "A"ofthe
Petition, which contains a cartoon ofa motor vehiclewith the words "JustMarried"on its bumper and seems to
address thoseplanning a "secretmarriage,"if not suggesting a "secret marriage,"makes light ofthe "special
contract of permanent union," the inviolable social institution,"which is how the Family Code describes
marriage, obviously to emphasize its sanctityandinviolability. Worse, this particular advertisement appears to
encourage marriages celebratedin secrecy, which is suggestive ofimmoral publication ofapplications for a
marriage license.
Ifthe article"Rx for LegalProblems"is to bereviewed, it canreadily beconcluded that the above impressions
one may gather from the advertisements in question are accurate. The Sharon Cuneta -Gabby Concepcion
examplealoneconfirms what theadvertisements suggest. Here it can be seen that criminal acts are being
encouraged or committed
(a bigamous marriagein Hong Kong or Las Vegas) withimpunity simply because the jurisdiction ofPhilippine
courts does not extend to the place where the crime is committed.
Even ifit be assumed,arguendo, (that) the "legal supportservices"respondent offers do not constitute legal
services as commonly understood, the advertisements in question give the impression that respondent
corporationis being operated by lawyers andthatit offers legal services, as earlier discussed. Thus, the only
logical consequenceis that,in the eyes ofan ordinary newspaper reader, members ofthe bar themselves are
encouraging orinducing the performanceofacts which arecontrary to law, morals, good customs andthepublic
good, thereby destroying and demeaning the integrity ofthe Bar.
xxx xxx xxx
It is respectfully submitted that respondent should be enjoined from causing the publication of the
advertisements in question, or anyother advertisements similar thereto. Itis also submitted that respondent
should beprohibitedfrom further performing or offering someoftheservices itpresentlyoffers, or,at the very
least, from offering such services to the public in general.
The IBP is awareofthefact thatproviding computerized legal research,electronic data gathering, storage and
retrieval, standardized legalforms, investigators for gathering ofevidence, and likeservices will greatly benefit
the legalprofessionand should not be stifled but instead encouraged. However, when the conduct ofsuch
business by non-members oftheBar encroaches upon the practice oflaw,therecan beno choicebut toprohibit
such business.
Admittedly, many oftheservices involvedin the case at bar can be better performed by specialists in other
fields, suchas computer experts,whoby reasonoftheir having devoted timeand effortexclusively to such field
cannot fulfilltheexacting requirements for admissionto theBar. To prohibit themfrom "encroaching"upon the
legal professionwill denytheprofessionofthe great benefits andadvantages of modern technology. Indeed, a
lawyer using a computer willbedoing better than a lawyer using a typewriter, even ifboth are (equal) in skill.
Both the Bench and theBar, however,should becarefulnot toallow or tolerate the illegalpractice oflawin any
form, not only for theprotection ofmembers oftheBar butalso, and more importantly, for the protection of

5. the public. Technological development intheprofession may be encouraged without tolerating, but instead
ensuring prevention of illegal practice.
There might benothing objectionable ifrespondent is allowed to perform all ofits services, but only ifsuch
services aremadeavailableexclusively tomembers oftheBenchandBar. Respondent would then be offering
technicalassistance,not legalservices. Alternatively,themoredifficulttask ofcarefully distinguishing between
which service may be offered to the public in general and which should be made available exclusively to
members of theBarmay be undertaken. This, however, may require further proceedings becauseofthefactual
considerations involved.
It must be emphasized, however, thatsomeofrespondent's services ought to be prohibited outright, such as
acts which tend to suggest or inducecelebration abroadofmarriages whichare bigamous or otherwise illegal
and void under Philippinelaw.Whilerespondent maynot beprohibited fromsimply 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 ofaction may be illegal under Philippine law, that it is not
authorized or capable of rendering a legalopinion, thata lawyershould beconsulted before deciding on which
course of action to take, and that it cannot recommend any particular lawyer without subjecting itselfto
possible sanctions for illegal practice oflaw.
Ifrespondent is allowedto advertise, advertising should bedirectedexclusively at members ofthe Bar, with a
clear and unmistakable disclaimer that it is not authorized to practice law or perform legal services.
The benefits of being assisted byparalegals cannot be ignored. But nobody should be allowed to represent
himselfas a "paralegal"for profit,without such term being clearly definedby rule orregulation, and withoutany
adequateand effectivemeans ofregulating his activities. Also, lawpracticein a corporate formmay prove tobe
advantageous to the legal profession, but before allowance of such practice may be considered, the
corporation's Articleof Incorporation and By-laws must conform to each and every provision ofthe Code of
Professional Responsibility and the Rules ofCourt. 5
2. Philippine Bar Association:
xxx xxx xxx.
Respondentasserts thatit "is notengaged in thepracticeoflaw butengaged in giving legal support services to
lawyers and laymen, through experienced paralegals, with the use ofmodern computers and electronic
machines"(pars. 2and 3, Comment). This is absurd. Unquestionably, respondent's acts ofholding out itselfto
the publicunderthetradename"The Legal Clinic, Inc.,"andsoliciting employment for its enumerated services
fall within therealmof a practicewhich thus yields itselfto the regulatory powers ofthe Supreme Court. For
respondent to say that it is merely engaged in paralegal work is to stretch credulity. Respondent's own
commercial advertisementwhichannounces a certainAtty. Don Parkinson tobe handling the fields oflaw belies
its pretense. Fromall indications, respondent "The Legal Clinic, Inc."is offering and rendering legal services
through its reserveof lawyers. Ithas been heldthat the practice oflaw is not limited tothe conduct ofcases in
court, but includes drawing ofdeeds, incorporation,rendering opinions, and advising clients as to their legal
right and then takethemto an attorney and ask thelatter to look after their case incourt See Martin,Legal and
Judicial Ethics, 1984 ed., p. 39).
It is apt to recall that only natural persons can engage in the practice oflaw, and such limitation cannot be
evaded by a corporation employing competent lawyers to practicefor it.Obviously, this is theschemeor device
by which respondent"The Legal Clinic, Inc."holds outitselfto the public and solicits employment ofits legal
services. It is an odious vehiclefor deception, especially so whenthepubliccannot ventilate any grievance for
malpracticeagainstthebusiness conduit. Precisely,thelimitationofpracticeoflaw to persons who have been
duly admitted as members of theBar (Sec.1, Rule138, Revised Rules ofCourt) is to subject the members to the
discipline of theSupremeCourt. Although respondentuses its business name, the persons and the lawyers who
act for it aresubject to court discipline. Thepracticeoflawis not a professionopen toall who wishto 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 respondentbutalsoall 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 oflaw;
2. Such practice is unauthorized;
3. The advertisements complained ofarenotonly unethical,but alsomisleading andpatently immoral;
and
4. The HonorableSupreme Courthas thepower tosupress andpunish the LegalClinicand its corporate
officers for its unauthorized practice oflaw and for its unethical, misleading and immoral advertising.
xxx xxx xxx
Respondentposits that is it notengaged in thepracticeoflaw. It claims that it merely renders "legal support
services" to answers,litigants and the general publicas enunciated inthePrimary Purpose Clauseofits Article(s)
ofIncorporation.(See pages 2 to 5 ofRespondent's Comment). But its advertised services, as enumerated
above, clearly and convincingly show that it is indeed engaged in law practice, albeit outside ofcourt.
As advertised, it offers thegeneralpublic its advisory services on Persons and Family Relations Law,particularly
regarding foreign divorces,annulmentofmarriages, secret marriages, absence and adoption; Immigration Laws,
particularly on visa relatedproblems,immigration problems; theInvestments Law ofthe Philippines and such
other related laws.
Its advertised services unmistakably require the application ofthe 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 bytheCourt intheaforecitedAgrava Case, theactivities ofrespondent fallsquarely
and are embraced in what lawyers and laymen equally term as "the practice oflaw."7
4. U.P. Women Lawyers'Circle:
In resolving, theissues beforethis HonorableCourt, paramount considerationshould begiven totheprotection
ofthe general publicfrom thedanger ofbeing exploitedby unqualified persons or entities whomay beengaged
in the practice oflaw.
At present, becoming a lawyer requires oneto take a rigorous four-year course ofstudy on top ofa four-year
bachelor ofarts or sciences course and then to take and pass the bar examinations. Only then, is a lawyer
qualified to practice law.
While theuse ofa paralegal is sanctioned inmany jurisdiction as anaid to the administration ofjustice, there
are in thosejurisdictions, courses ofstudy and/or standards whichwould qualify these paralegals to deal with
the generalpublicas such. While it may now betheopportunetimeto establish these courses ofstudy and/or
standards, the fact remains that at present, these do not exist in the Philippines. In the meantime, this

6. Honorable Courtmay decideto makemeasures toprotect thegeneralpublicfrom being exploited by those who
may be dealing with the general public in the guise ofbeing "paralegals"without being qualified to do so.
In the same manner, the general publicshould alsobe protected from thedangers which may bebrought 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 byan entitystaffed by "paralegals."Clearly,measures should betaken to protect
the generalpublicfrom falling prey to those who advertiselegalservices without being qualified to offer such
services. 8
A perusal of the questioned advertisements ofRespondent, however, seems to give the impression that
information regarding validity ofmarriages, divorce, annulment ofmarriage, immigration, visa extensions,
declaration of absence, adoption andforeign investment, which are inessence, legal matters , will be given to
them ifthey availof its services. TheRespondent's name — The Legal Clinic, Inc. — does not help matters. It
gives the impression againthat Respondentwill or cancure the legalproblems brought to them. Assuming that
Respondentis, as claimed, staffedpurely by paralegals,it also gives the misleading impression that there are
lawyers involvedin TheLegalClinic,Inc., as there aredoctors in any medicalclinic, when only "paralegals"are
involved in The Legal Clinic, Inc.
Respondent's allegations are further belied by the very admissions ofits President and majority stockholder,
Atty. Nogales, who gave an insight on the structure and main purpose ofRespondent corporation in the
aforementioned "Starweek"article."9
5. Women Lawyer's Association ofthe Philippines:
Annexes "A"and "B"of the petitionareclearly advertisements to solicit cases for thepurpose ofgain which, as
provided for under theabove cited law, (are) illegal and against the Code ofProfessional Responsibility of
lawyers in this country.
Annex "A"of the petitionis not onlyillegalin that itis anadvertisement to solicitcases, but itis illegal in that in
bold letters itannounces thattheLegal Clinic, Inc., could work out/causethe celebration ofa secret marriage
which is not only illegal but immoral inthis country. While itis advertisedthat onehas togo to said agency and
pay P560 for a valid marriage it is certainly fooling the public for valid marriages in the Philippines are
solemnizedonly 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 theUSA, Canada andother countries the trend is towards allowing lawyers to
advertisetheir specialskills to enable people to obtain from qualified practitioners legal services for their
particular needs can justify the useofadvertisements such as are the subject matter ofthe petition, for one
(cannot) justify an illegalact evenby whatever merit theillegalact may serve. The lawhas yet tobe amended so
that such act could become justifiable.
We submitfurther 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 encouragepeopleto consult this clinicabouthow they could go about having a secret marriage here,
when it cannot norshould everbe attempted, and seek adviceon divorce, whereinthis country there is none,
except under theCode of Muslim Personal Laws in thePhilippines.It is also againstgoodmorals andis deceitful
because it falsely represents to the publicto be ableto dothat 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 SupremeCourt held thatsolicitation for clients by an attorney by
circulars ofadvertisements, is unprofessional,and offenses ofthis characterjustify permanent elimination from
the Bar. 10
6. Federacion Internacional de Abogados:
xxx xxx xxx
1.7 That entities admittedly not engagedin the practiceoflaw, such as management consultancy firms or travel
agencies, whetherrun by lawyers or not, perform theservices rendered by Respondent does not necessarily
lead to theconclusion that Respondentis not unlawfully practicing law.In thesame vein, however, thefact that
the business ofrespondent (assuming it can be engaged in independently ofthe practice oflaw) involves
knowledge ofthe law does not necessarily make respondent guilty ofunlawful practice oflaw.
. . . . Of necessity, noone. . . . acting as a consultant can rendereffective serviceunless heis familiar with such
statutes and regulations. Hemustbe carefulnotto suggesta courseofconduct which thelawforbids. It seems .
. . .clear that(theconsultant's) knowledgeofthelaw, andhis use ofthatknowledge as a factor in determining
what measures he shall recommend, donotconstitutethepracticeoflaw . . . . It is not only presumed that all
men know thelaw, but itis a fact thatmostmenhave considerableacquaintancewith broad features ofthelaw
. . . . Our knowledge ofthelaw— accurateor inaccurate — moulds our conductnot only when weareacting for
ourselves, but when weare serving others. Bankers, liquor dealers and laymen generally possess rather precise
knowledgeofthe laws touching their particular business or profession. Agood example is the architect, who
must be familiar withzoning, building and firepreventioncodes,factoryandtenementhousestatutes,and who
draws plans and specification in harmony with the law. This is not practicing law.
But suppose thearchitect, askedby his clientto omita firetower, replies that it is required by the statute. Or
the industrial relations expert cites, insupport ofsomemeasurethathe recommends, a decisionofthe National
Labor Relations Board. Are theypracticing law? In myopinion,they are not, provided noseparate feeis charged
for the legaladviceor information, and the legalquestion is subordinate and incidental to a major non-legal
problem.
It is largely a matter ofdegree and ofcustom.
If it were usual for one intending to erect a building on his land to engage a lawyer to advise him and the
architectin respectto thebuilding code and the like, then an architect who performed this function would
probably beconsideredto betrespassing on territory reservedfor licensedattorneys. Likewise, ifthe industrial
relations field had been pre-empted by lawyers, or custom placed a lawyer always at the elbow ofthe lay
personnelman. Butthis is not the case. Themost important body ofthe industrial relations experts are the
officers and business agents ofthe labor unions and few ofthem are lawyers. Among the larger corporate
employers,it has beenthepracticefor someyears to delegate special responsibility in employee matters to a
management group chosen for their practical knowledgeand skill in such matter, and without regard to legal
thinking or lack ofit. Morerecently, consultants like the defendants have the same service that the larger
employers get from their own specialized staff.
The handling ofindustrialrelations is growing into a recognizedprofession for which appropriate courses are
offered by our leading universities. The court shouldbe very cautious about declaring [that]a widespread, well-
establishedmethod ofconducting business is unlawful,or thattheconsiderableclass ofmen who customarily
perform a certain function haveno rightto do so,or that thetechnicaleducation givenby 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 canimagine defendant being engaged primarily to advise as to the law defining his
client's obligations tohis employees, to guidehis client's obligations tohis employees, to guide his client along

7. the path charted by law. This,ofcourse, would bethepractice ofthe law. But such is not the fact in the case
before me. Defendant's primarily efforts arealong economic andpsychological lines. Thelaw only provides the
frame within which he must work, just as the zoning code limits the kind ofbuilding the limits the kind of
building the architect may plan. The incidental legal advice or information defendant may give, does not
transformhis activities into the practice oflaw. Let me add that if, even as a minor feature ofhis work, he
performed services which arecustomarily reserved to members ofthe bar, he would be practicing law. For
instance, if as part of a welfare program, he drew employees'wills.
Another branchof defendant's work is the representations oftheemployer intheadjustmentofgrievances and
in collectivebargaining,with or withouta mediator. This is not per se the practice oflaw. Anyone may use an
agent for negotiations and may select an agent particularly skilled in the subject under discussion, and the
person appointed is freeto accept the employmentwhether ornothe is a member ofthe bar. Here, however,
there maybe an exception wherethe business turns on a question oflaw. Mostrealestatesales arenegotiated
by brokers whoare not lawyers.But ifthe valueofthe land depends on a disputed right-of-way andtheprincipal
role ofthe negotiatoris to assess theprobableoutcomeofthedisputeand persuade the opposite party to the
same opinion,then itmay bethat only a lawyer can accept the assignment. Or ifa controversy between an
employerandhis men grows from differing interpretations ofa contract, or ofa 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 torepresenttheemployer beforeadministrativeagencies ofthe federal government,
especially beforetrialexaminers ofthe National Labor Relations Board. An agency ofthe federal government,
acting by virtueof anauthority grantedby theCongress,mayregulatethe representation ofparties before such
agency. The State of New Jersey is without power to interfere with such determination or to forbid
representation beforetheagency by onewhomtheagency admits. The rules ofthe 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'onenota lawyer. In this phaseofhis work, defendantmay lawfully do whatevertheLaborBoard
allows, even arguing questions purely legal.(Auerbacher v. Wood, 53A. 2d 800,citedin 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 oflaw 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 ofthe 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 ofProfessional Responsibility
succintly states the rule ofconduct:
Rule 15.08 — Alawyer whois engaged inanother professionor occupation concurrently with the practiceoflaw
shall make clear to his client whether he is acting as a lawyer or in another capacity.
1.10. In the present case. theLegal Clinic appears to render wedding services (See Annex "A"Petition).
Services on routine, straightforwardmarriages,likesecuring a marriage license,andmaking arrangements with
a priest or a judge, may not constitute practice oflaw. However, ifthe problem is as complicated as that
describedin "Rx for Legal Problems"on the Sharon Cuneta-Gabby Concepcion-Richard Gomez case, then what
may be involved is actually thepracticeoflaw. Ifa non-lawyer, suchas the Legal Clinic, renders such services
then it is engaged in the unauthorized practice oflaw.
1.11. The Legal Clinicalsoappears to giveinformation on divorce, absence, annulment ofmarriage and
visas (SeeAnnexes "A"and "B"Petition). Purely giving informationalmaterials may not constitute oflaw. The
business is similarto thatofa bookstore where the customer buys materials onthesubject and determines on
the subject and determines by himselfwhat courses ofaction to take.
It is not entirely improbable,however,that aside frompurely 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 oflaw.
It cannot beclaimedthat the publication ofa legaltext which publication ofa legal text which purports to say
what the lawis amount to legalpractice.And themerefact thattheprinciples orrules stated inthetext may be
accepted bya particular readeras a solutionto his problem does not affectthis.. . . . Apparently it is urged that
the conjoining ofthese two, that is, thetext and the forms, with adviceas tohowtheforms should befilled out,
constitutes theunlawful practice oflaw. 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. Nordoes there existthatrelation ofconfidenceand trust sonecessaryto thestatus ofattorney and
client. THIS IS THE ESSENTIAL OF LEGAL PRACTICE — THE REPRESENTATION AND ADVISING OF APARTICULAR
PERSON IN APARTICULAR SITUATION. At most thebook assumes to offer general adviceon commonproblems,
and does not purport togivepersonaladviceon a specificproblem peculiar toa designated or readily identified
person. Similarly thedefendant's publication does not purport to give personal advice on a specific problem
peculiar toa designated or readily identified personin a particular situation — in their publication and sale of
the kits, such publication and sale did not constitutes the unlawful practice oflaw . . . . There being no legal
impediment under the statute to the sale ofthe kit, there was no proper basis for the injunction against
defendant maintaining an officefor the purposeofselling to persons seeking a divorce, separation, annulment
or separation agreement any printedmaterial or writings relating to matrimonial law or the prohibition in the
memorandumofmodification ofthejudgmentagainst 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 thatfor thechangeof$75 or $100 for the kit,the
defendant gave legaladvice inthecourseofpersonal contacts concerning particularproblems whichmight arise
in the preparation and presentation ofthepurchaser's asserted matrimonialcauseofaction or pursuit ofother
legal remedies and assistance in thepreparation ofnecessary documents (The injunction therefore sought to)
enjoin conduct constituting the practiceoflaw,particularly with referenceto the giving ofadviceand counselby
the defendant relating tospecific problems ofparticular individuals in connection with a divorce, separation,
annulmentofseparationagreementsoughtand should beaffirmed.(State v. Winder, 348, NYS 2D 270 [1973],
cited in Statsky, supra at p. 101.).
1.12. Respondent, ofcourse,states that its services are "strictly non-diagnostic, non-advisory. "It is not
controverted, however, that iftheservices "involve giving legaladvice or counselling,"such would constitute
practice oflaw (Comment, par.6.2). It is inthis lightthatFIDAsubmits that a factual inquiry may be necessary
for the judicious disposition ofthis case.
xxx xxx xxx
2.10. Annex "A"may be ethicallyobjectionablein that itcan givetheimpression (or perpetuatethe wrong
notion) that thereis a secret marriage. Withall thesolemnities,formalities and other requisites ofmarriages
(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 relatedto the firstparagraph) fails to statethelimitation that only "paralegal services?"or "legal
support services", and not legal services, are available."11

8. A prefatory discussion on the meaning of the phrase "practice of law" becomes exigent for the proper
determinationof the issues raised by the petitionatbar. On this score,we notethat the clause"practice of law"
has long been the subject ofjudicial construction and interpretation. The courts have laid down general
principles and doctrines explaining the meaning and scope ofthe term, some ofwhich we now take into
account.
Practice of law means any activity, in orout ofcourt, whichrequires the application oflaw, legal procedures,
knowledge, training and experience. To engage in the practice oflaw is to perform those acts which are
characteristicof the profession.Generally, topractice law is to give advice or render any kind ofservice that
involves legal knowledge or skill. 12
The practiceof lawis notlimitedto the conductofcases in court. It includes legal advice and counsel, and the
preparationof legal instruments and contract bywhich 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
professionalactivity: legal advice and instructions to clients to inform them oftheir rights and obligations,
preparationfor clients of documents requiring knowledgeoflegalprinciples not possessed by ordinary layman,
and appearance for clients beforepublictribunals which possess power and authority to determine rights oflife,
liberty, andproperty according to law,in order to assist in proper interpretation and enforcement oflaw. 14
When a person participates in thea trialand advertises himselfas a lawyer,heis in thepractice oflaw. 15 One
who confers withclients,advises them as to their legal rights and then takes the business to an attorney and
asks thelatterto look afterthecase incourt,is alsopracticing law.16 Giving advicefor compensation regarding
the legalstatus and rights ofanother and theconduct with respecttheretoconstitutes a practice oflaw.17 One
who renders an opinionas to theproperinterpretationofa statute, and receives pay for it, is, to that extent,
practicing law. 18
In the recent caseof Cayetano vs. Monsod, 19afterciting thedoctrines in severalcases,we laid down the test to
determine whether certain acts constitute "practice oflaw,"thus:
Black defines "practice of law"as:
The renditionof services requiring theknowledgeand theapplicationoflegal principles and technique to serve
the interest of another with his consent. Itis not limitedto appearing incourt, or advising and assisting in the
conduct of litigation, but embraces the preparation ofpleadings, and other papers incident to actions and
special proceedings, conveyancing, the preparationoflegal instruments ofall kinds, and the giving ofall legal
advice toclients. Itembraces alladvice toclients andall actions takenfor them inmatters connected with the
law.
The practiceof lawis notlimitedto the conductofcases on court.(Land TitleAbstractand Trust Co. v. Dworken ,
129 Ohio St. 23, 193N. E. 650). Aperson is also considered to be in the practice oflaw when he:
. . . . for valuableconsideration engages inthebusiness ofadvising person, firms, associations or corporations as
to their right underthelaw,or appears in a representativecapacityas anadvocate in proceedings, pending or
prospective,before any court, commissioner,referee,board,body, committee, or commission constituted by
law or authorizedto settle controversies andthere, insuch representative capacity, performs any actor acts for
the purpose of obtaining or defending therights oftheir clients underthelaw.Otherwise stated, one who, in a
representative capacity,engages in the business ofadvising clients as to their rights under the law, or while so
engaged performs any act or acts either incourt or outsideofcourt for thatpurpose, is engaged in the practice
oflaw. (State ex. rel. Mckittrick v. C.S. Dudley and Co., 102 S. W. 2d 895, 340 Mo. 852).
This Court, in the case ofPhilippines Lawyers Association v. Agrava (105 Phil. 173, 176-177),stated:
The practiceoflawis notlimitedto the conductofcases or litigation in court; it embraces the preparation of
pleadings and otherpapers incident toactions and special proceedings, the management ofsuch actions and
proceedings on behalfofclients beforejudges and courts, and inaddition, conveying. In general, all advice to
clients, andall actiontaken for them in matters connectedwiththelaw incorporationservices, assessment and
condemnationservices contemplating an appearance before a judicial body, the foreclosure ofa mortgage,
enforcementofa creditor's claimin bankruptcy and insolvency proceedings, and conducting proceedings in
attachment,and inmatters or estateand guardianship have been held to constitute law practice, as do the
preparationanddrafting oflegalinstruments,wherethework doneinvolves the determination by the trained
legal mind ofthe legal effect offacts and conditions. (5 Am. Jr. p. 262, 263).
Practice oflaw under modern conditions consists inno smallpart ofwork performed outside ofany court and
having no immediate relation toproceedings incourt.It embraces conveyancing, the giving oflegal advice on a
large variety ofsubjects and the preparation andexecutionoflegalinstruments covering an extensive field of
business and trust relations and otheraffairs. Although thesetransactions may have nodirect connection with
court proceedings, they arealways subject tobecome involved inlitigation. They requirein many aspects a high
degree oflegalskill, a wide experiencewith menandaffairs,and greatcapacity for adaptation to difficult and
complex situations. Thesecustomary functions ofanattorney or counselor atlaw bear an intimate relation to
the administrationofjusticeby thecourts.No validdistinction, sofar as concerns the question set forth in the
order, canbe drawn betweenthat partofthework ofthelawyerwhich involves appearance in court and that
part whichinvolves adviceand drafting ofinstruments in his office. It is ofimportance to the welfare ofthe
public that thesemanifold customary functions beperformedby persons possessed ofadequate learning and
skill, ofsoundmoralcharacter,andacting at alltimes under theheavy trust obligations to clients which rests
upon all attorneys. (Moran, Comments on theRules o Court, Vol.3 [1973ed.], pp. 665-666, citing In Re Opinion
of the Justices [Mass], 194N. E. 313, quoted in Rhode Is. Bar Assoc. v. Automobile Service Assoc. [R.I.]197 A.
139, 144).
The practiceoflaw, therefore,covers a widerangeofactivities in andout ofcourt. Applying theaforementioned
criteria to the case at bar, we agree with the perceptive findings and observations ofthe aforestated bar
associations that the activities ofrespondent, as advertised, constitute "practice oflaw."
The contention ofrespondent thatit merely offers legal support services can neither beseriously considered nor
sustained.Said propositionis beliedby respondent's own description oftheservices ithas been offering, to wit:
Legal support services basically consists ofgiving readyinformationby trained paralegals tolaymenandlawyers,
which are strictly non-diagnostic, non-advisory, through the extensive use of computers and modern
information technology in the gathering, processing,storage, transmission andreproduction ofinformation and
communication,such as computerized legal research;encoding andreproduction ofdocuments and pleadings
prepared by laymen or lawyers; documentsearch; evidencegathering; locating parties or witnesses to a case;
fact finding investigations; and assistanceto laymenin need ofbasic institutionalservices from government or
non-governmentagencies, likebirth,marriage,property,or business registrations;educational or employment
records orcertifications, obtaining documentation like clearances, passports, local or foreign visas; giving
information aboutlaws ofother countries thatthey may find useful, likeforeigndivorce, marriage or adoption
laws that theycan avail ofpreparatory to emigration to the foreign country, and other matters that do not
involve representationofclients incourt; designing andinstalling computersystems,programs, or software for
the efficient management oflaw offices,corporate legal departments, courts and other entities engaged in
dispensing or administering legal services. 20
While someofthe services being offeredby respondent corporationmerely involve mechanical and technical
knowhow, such as theinstallation ofcomputer systems and programs for the efficient management oflaw
offices, or thecomputerization ofresearch aids and materials, thesewill not sufficeto justify an exception tothe
general rule.

9. What is palpably clear is that respondentcorporation gives out legal information to laymen and lawyers. Its
contentionthat such function is non-advisory and non-diagnostic is more apparent than real. In providing
information,for example,aboutforeign laws on marriage, divorce andadoption, it strains the credulity ofthis
Court that all therespondentcorporation willsimply dois lookfor thelaw, furnisha copy thereofto the client,
and stop there as if it weremerely a bookstore. Withits attorneys andso called paralegals, it will necessarily
have to explain to the client the intricacies ofthelaw and advisehimor heron theproper courseofaction tobe
taken as may beprovided for bysaidlaw.Thatis what its advertisements represent andfor thewhich services it
will consequently chargeand bepaid.Thatactivity falls squarely within the jurisprudential definition of"practice
oflaw."Such a conclusion willnotbe altered by the fact that respondent corporationdoes notrepresentclients
in court sincelaw practice,as theweight ofauthority holds,is not limited merely giving legal advice, contract
drafting and so forth.
The aforesaid conclusionis further strengthened byan article published in the January 13, 1991 issue ofthe
Starweek/The Sunday MagazineofthePhilippines Star,entitled "Rx for Legal Problems,"where an insight into
the structure,mainpurpose andoperations ofrespondentcorporation was given by its own "proprietor,"Atty.
Rogelio P. Nogales:
This is thekindof business thatis transactedeveryday atThe Legal Clinic, withoffices on theseventh floor ofthe
Victoria Building along U. N. Avenue in Manila. No matter what the client's problem, and eve n ifit is as
complicatedas theCuneta-Concepcion domestic situation, Atty. Nogales and his staffoflawyers, who, like
doctors are"specialists"in various fields can takecareofit. TheLegalClinic,Inc.has specialists in taxation and
criminal law, medico-legalproblems,labor, litigation,and family law.Thesespecialist arebackedup by a battery
ofparalegals, counsellors and attorneys.
Atty. Nogales setup TheLegalClinic in1984. Inspired bythetrend in themedicalfield toward specialization, it
caters to clients who cannot afford the services ofthe big law firms.
The Legal Clinichas regular and walk-in clients. "when they come, we start by analyzing the problem. That's
what doctors do also.They ask you how youcontracted what's bothering you, they takeyour 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 ofour specialists.
There are cases which donot, in medicalterms,require surgery or follow-up treatment. These The Legal Clinic
disposes of in a matter of minutes."Things like preparing a simple deed ofsale or an affidavit ofloss can be
taken care of by our staff or, ifthis were a hospital the residents or the interns. We can take care ofthese
matters on a whileyouwait basis.Again, kung baga sa hospital, out-patient, hindi kailangang ma-confine. It's
just like a common cold or diarrhea,"explains Atty. Nogales.
Those cases which requires more extensive"treatment"aredealt with accordingly. "Ifyou had a rich relative
who died and named you her soleheir,and youstand to inherit millions ofpesos ofproperty, we would refer
you to a specialistin taxation. Therewould bereal estatetaxes andarrears which wouldneedto be put in order,
and your relative is eventaxed by the state for the rightto transfer her property, and only a specialistin taxation
would be properly trainedto deal with theproblem.Now, ifthere wereotherheirs contesting your rich relatives
will, thenyou would needa litigator, who knows how to arrange the problem for presentation in court, and
gather evidence to support the case. 21
That fact that the corporationemploys paralegals tocarryout its services is notcontrolling. Whatis important is
that it is engaged inthepracticeoflawby virtueofthenature ofthe services it renders which thereby brings it
within theambit of thestatutory prohibitions against the advertisements which it has caused to be published
and are now assailed in this proceeding.
Further, as correctlyandappropriatelypointed out by the U.P. WILOCI, said reported facts sufficientlyestablish
that the main purposeofrespondent is toserveas a one-stop-shop ofsorts for various legal problems wherein a
client may availoflegalservices from simple documentation tocomplexlitigation and corporate undertakings.
Most oftheseservices are undoubtedlybeyondthedomain ofparalegals, butrather,areexclusive functions of
lawyers engaged in the practice oflaw. 22
It should benotedthatin ourjurisdiction theservices being offered by private respondent which constitute
practice oflaw cannotbeperformed by paralegals. Only a person duly admitted as a member ofthe bar, or
hereafter admitted as such in accordance with the provisions ofthe Rules ofCourt, and who is in good and
regular standing, is entitled to practice law. 23
Public policy requires that the practice oflaw belimited tothoseindividuals found duly qualified in education
and character. The permissiveright conferred on the lawyers is an individual and limited privilege subject to
withdrawal ifhefails to maintain proper standards ofmoral and professionalconduct.The purposeis to protect
the public, the court, the client and the bar fromtheincompetenceor dishonestyofthoseunlicensed topractice
law and not subject to the disciplinary control ofthe court. 24
The same ruleis observed intheamerican jurisdiction wherefrom respondent would wish to draw support for
his thesis. Thedoctrines therealso stress that the practice oflaw is limited to thosewho meettherequirements
for, and havebeen admitted to, thebar,andvarious statutes orrules specifically so provide. 25 The practice of
law is nota lawful business except for members ofthe barwho havecompliedwithall the conditions required
by statute and therules ofcourt. Only those persons are allowedto practicelaw who, by reason ofattainments
previously acquired through education and study, have been recognized by the courts as possessing profound
knowledge oflegal science entitling them to advise, counsel with, protect, or defend the rights claims, or
liabilities oftheir clients, with respectto the construction,interpretation, operation and effect oflaw. 26 The
justification for excluding fromthepracticeoflaw thosenot admittedto the bar is found,not in the protection
ofthe bar from competition, butin the protection ofthe public from being advised and represented in legal
matters by incompetent and unreliable persons overwhomthejudicialdepartmentcanexercise little control.
27
We have to necessarily anddefinitely reject respondent's position that the concept in the United States of
paralegals as an occupation separatefromthelaw profession beadopted in this jurisdiction. Whatever may be
its merits, respondent cannot butbe aware that this should first be a matter for judicial rules or legislative
action, and not ofunilateral adoption as it has done.
Paralegals intheUnitedStates 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 theconcept ofthe"paralegals"or "legalassistant"evolved intheUnitedStates, standards and
guidelines also evolvedto protect thegeneral public.One ofthemajor standards or guidelines was developedby
the AmericanBarAssociationwhichset up Guidelines for the ApprovalofLegal Assistant Education Programs
(1973). Legislationhas evenbeenproposedto certify legal assistants. Therearealso associations ofparalegals in
the UnitedStates with their owncodeofprofessional ethics,such as theNational AssociationofLegal Assistants,
Inc. and the American Paralegal Association. 29
In the Philippines,we stillhave a restricted concept and limited acceptance ofwhat may be considered as
paralegal service.As pointed out by FIDA, some persons not duly licensed to practice law are or have been
allowedlimited representation in behalfofanother orto render legalservices, butsuchallowable services are
limited in scope and extent by the law, rules or regulations granting permission therefor. 30
Accordingly,we have adopted the Americanjudicial policythat, in the absence ofconstitutional or statutory
authority, a person who has not been admitted as an attorney cannot practicelaw for the proper administration
ofjusticecannot behindered by the unwarranted intrusion ofan unauthorized and unskilled person into the

10. practice of law.31 That policyshould continue tobe one ofencouraging persons who are unsure oftheir legal
rights and remedies to seek legal assistance only from persons licensed to practice law in the state. 32
Anent the issueon the validity ofthe questioned advertisements, the Code ofProfessional Responsibility
provides that a lawyer in making known his legalservices shalluse only true, honest, fair, dignified andobjective
information orstatement offacts. 33 He is not supposed to use or permit the use ofany false, fraudulent,
misleading,deceptive, undignified, self-laudatory orunfairstatement 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 ofthe code of
ProfessionalResponsibility,theCanons ofProfessionalEthics had also warned thatlawyers shouldnot resort to
indirectadvertisements for professional employment, suchas furnishing or inspiring newspaper comments, or
procuring his photograph to bepublished inconnectionwith causes in which the lawyer has been oris engaged
or concerning the manner oftheir conduct, the magnitude ofthe interest involved, the importance ofthe
lawyer's position, and all other like self-laudation. 36
The standards of thelegalprofession condemn the lawyer's advertisement ofhis talents. Alawyer cannot,
without violating theethics ofhis profession. advertise his talents or skillas ina manner similar to a merchant
advertising his goods. 37 Theprescriptionagainst advertising oflegalservices or solicitation oflegal business
rests on the fundamental postulatethat the that the practice oflaw is a profession. Thus, in the case ofThe
Directorof Religious Affairs.vs.EstanislaoR. Bayot 38 an advertisement, similar to those ofrespondent 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 undeniablethat the advertisement in question was a flagrant violationby therespondentofthe ethics ofhis
profession,it being a brazen solicitation ofbusiness from thepublic. Section 25 ofRule 127 expressly provides
among other things that"thepractice ofsoliciting cases atlaw for thepurposeofgain, either personally or thru
paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice."It is highly unethicalfor an attorneyto advertise his talents or
skill as a merchant advertises his wares.Law is a profession andnota trade.The lawyerdegrades himselfand his
profession who stoops to andadopts thepractices ofmercantilism by advertising his services oroffering themto
the public. As a member of the bar,he defiles the temple ofjustice with mercenary activities as the money-
changers of olddefiled the templeofJehovah. "The most worthyand effectiveadvertisement possible,even for
a young lawyer,. . . . is the establishment ofa well-meritedreputation for professional capacity and fidelity to
trust. This cannot beforcedbut must betheoutcomeofcharacter and conduct."(Canon 27, Code ofEthics.).
We repeat, thecanonof theprofessiontell us thatthebestadvertising possible for a lawyer is a well-merited
reputationfor professional capacity and fidelity to trust,whichmust beearnedas the outcomeofcharacter and
conduct. Good andefficient serviceto a client as well as to the community has a way ofpublicizing itselfand
catching publicattention. Thatpublicity is a normalby-productofeffectiveservice which is right and proper. A
good and reputablelawyer needs no artificialstimulus to generateit and to magnify his success. He easily sees
the differencebetween a normalby-productofable service and the unwholesome result ofpropaganda. 40
Of course,not alltypes of advertising or solicitationare prohibited. The canons ofthe profession enumerate
exceptions totheruleagainstadvertising orsolicitationand definetheextentto whichthey may beundertaken.
The exceptions areof twobroad categories,namely,thosewhich are expressly allowed and those which are
necessarily implied from the restrictions. 41
The first of suchexceptions is thepublicationin reputable lawlists, in a mannerconsistentwiththestandards of
conduct imposed by the canons,ofbriefbiographicaland informative data. "Suchdata must not be misleading
and may includeonly a statement ofthelawyer's nameand the names ofhis professionalassociates; addresses,
telephonenumbers, cableaddresses; branches oflaw practiced; date and place ofbirth and admission to the
bar; schools attended with dates ofgraduation, degrees andother educational distinction; publicor quasi-public
offices; posts of honor; legal authorships; legal teaching positions; membershipand offices in bar associations
and committees thereof, in legal and scientific societies and legal fraternities; the fact oflistings in other
reputablelaw lists; thenames and addresses ofreferences; and, with theirwritten consent, thenames ofclients
regularly represented."42
The law list must bea reputable lawlistpublishedprimarilyfor that purpose; it cannot bea mere supplemental
feature ofa paper, magazine, tradejournalor periodicalwhich is publishedprincipally for other purposes. For
that reason,a lawyermaynot properly publish his briefbiographical and informative data in a daily paper,
magazine, trade journal or societyprogram. Nor maya lawyerpermit his name tobe published in a law list the
conduct, management or contents ofwhich arecalculated orlikely to deceive orinjurethepublic or the bar, or
to lower the dignity or standing ofthe profession. 43
The use ofan ordinary simpleprofessional card is also permitted. Thecardmay containonly a statement ofhis
name, thenameofthelaw firmwhichhe is connected with,address, telephonenumber and special branch of
law practiced. The publication ofa simple announcement ofthe opening ofa law firm or ofchanges in the
partnership, associates, firm name or office address, being for the convenience ofthe profession, is not
objectionable. Hemay likewisehave his namelisted in a telephone directory but not under a designation of
special branch oflaw. 44
Verily, taking intoconsideration thenatureand contents ofthe advertisements for which respondent is being
taken to task, which even includes a quotationofthe fees chargedby said respondent corporation for services
rendered, wefind andsoholdthat the same definitely do not and conclusively cannot fall under any ofthe
above-mentioned exceptions.
The ruling in the caseofBates, et al. vs. State Bar ofArizona, 45whichis repeatedly invokedand constitutes the
justification reliedupon by respondent, is obviously not applicable tothecase at bar. Foremost is the fact that
the disciplinary ruleinvolvedin said caseexplicitly allows a lawyer,as an exception to the prohibition against
advertisements by lawyers,to publish a statement oflegal fees for aninitial consultationor theavailability upon
requestofa writtenscheduleoffees or an estimateofthe feeto becharged for the specific services. No such
exception is provided for,expressly or impliedly, whether in our former Canons ofProfessional Ethics or the
presentCodeofProfessional Responsibility. Besides, even the disciplinary rule in the Bates case contains a
proviso thattheexceptions statedthereinare "notapplicableinany stateunless and untilitis implemented by
such authorityin thatstate."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 ina survey conductedby theAmerican Bar Association after thedecision in Bates, on the
attitude ofthepublic about lawyers after viewing television commercials, it was found that public opinion
dropped significantly 47 with respect to these characteristics oflawyers:
Trustworthy from 71% to 14%
Professional from 71% to 14%
Honest from 65% to 14%
Dignified from 45% to 14%
Secondly, it is ourfirm beliefthat with the present situation ofour legal and judicial systems, to allow the
publication ofadvertisements ofthe kind used by respondentwould onlyserveto aggravate what is already a
deteriorating public opinionofthelegalprofession whose integrity has consistentlybeen under attack lately by
media and the community in general. At this point in time, it is ofutmost importance in the face ofsuch
negative, evenifunfair,criticisms attimes,to adopt and maintain that level ofprofessional conduct which is
beyond reproach, and toexertall efforts to regainthehighesteem formerly accorded to the legal profession.
In sum, it is undoubtedly a misbehavioron thepartofthe lawyer, subjectto disciplinaryaction,to advertise his
services except inallowableinstances 48 orto aid a laymanin the unauthorized practiceoflaw. 49 Considering

11. that Atty. Rogelio P.Nogales, whois the prime incorporator, major stockholder and proprietor ofThe Legal
Clinic, Inc. is a member of thePhilippineBar, heis hereby reprimanded, with a warning that a repetition ofthe
same or similar acts which are involved in this proceeding will be dealt with more severely.
While we deem itnecessarythat the question as tothelegality or illegality ofthepurpose/s for which the Legal
Clinic, Inc. was created should bepassed upon anddetermined, weareconstrainedto refrain from lapsing into
an obiteron thataspect since it is clearly not within the adjudicative parameters ofthe present proceeding
which is merelyadministrativein nature. Itis,ofcourse,imperative that this matter be promptly determined,
albeit in a different proceeding and forum, since, under the present state ofour law and jurisprudence, a
corporationcannot beorganized for or engage in thepracticeoflaw in this country. This interdiction, just like
the rule againstunethicaladvertising, cannotbe subverted by employing some so-called paralegals supposedly
rendering the alleged support services.
The remedy for the apparent breach ofthis prohibition by respondent is the concern and province ofthe
SolicitorGeneralwhocan institute the corresponding quo warrantoaction, 50 after due ascertainment ofthe
factual backgroundand basis for thegrantofrespondent's corporate charter, in light ofthe putative misuse
thereof. That spin-off from theinstant barmatter is referredto the SolicitorGeneral 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 thepublication or dissemination ofany advertisement in any form which is ofthe same or
similar tenor and purposeas Annexes "A"and "B"ofthis petition, and from conducting, directly or indirectly,
any activity, operation or transactionproscribed by lawor theCode ofProfessional Ethics as indicated herein.
Let copies of this resolution befurnished the IntegratedBar ofthe Philippines, the Office ofthe Bar Confidant
and the Office of the Solicitor General for appropriate action in accordance herewith.
4. SAN JOSEHOMEOWNERS ASSN. VS. ATTY. ROMANILLOS
This is a Petition1for disbarment against Atty. Roberto B. Romanillos for allegedly representing conflicting
interests and for using thetitle "Judge"despite having been found guilty ofgrave and serious misconduct in
Zarate v. Judge Romanillos.2
The facts are as follows:
In 1985, respondent representedSanJoseHomeowners Association,Inc.(SJHAI) beforetheHuman Settlements
Regulation Commission (HSRC) ina case3 againstDurano and Corp., Inc. (DCI) for violation oftheSubdivision and
CondominiumBuyer’s Protection Act(P.D. No. 957). SJHAI alleged that Lot No. 224was designated as a school
site in thesubdivision plan thatDCI submitted totheBureau ofLands in 1961 but was sold by DCI to spouses
Ramon and Beatriz Durano without disclosing it as a school site.
While still the counselfor SJHAI,respondent represented Myrna and Antonio Montealegre in requesting for
SJHAI’s conformity to construct a school building on Lot No. 224 to be purchased from Durano.
When the request was denied, respondent applied for clearancebeforethe Housing and Land Use Regulatory
Board (HLURB) in behalf of Montealegre. Petitioner’s Board ofDirectors terminated respondent’s services as
counsel and engaged another lawyer to represent the association.
Respondentalso acted as counsel for Lydia Durano-Rodriguez whosubstituted for DCI in Civil Case No. 18014
entitled "SanJoseHomeowners,Inc.v. Durano and Corp., Inc."filed before the Regional Trial Court ofMakati
City, Branch 134.Thus, SJHAI filed a disbarmentcase againstrespondent for representing conflicting interests,
docketed as Administrative Case No. 4783.
In her Report4 datedAugust 3,1998,Investigating Commissioner Lydia A. Navarro ofthe Commission on Bar
Discipline ofthe Integrated Bar ofthe Philippines (IBP) made the following findings:
… Respondent failed to observe candor and fairness in dealing with his clients, knowing fully well that the
Montealegrecase was adverseto theComplainant wherein he had previously been not only an active board
member butits corporatesecretary having access to allits documents confidential orotherwiseand its counsel
in handling theimplementation ofthewrit ofexecutionagainst its developer and owner, Durano and Co. Inc.
Moreso, when Respondentacted as counselfor thesubstituted defendant Durano and Co. Inc., Lydia Durano-
Rodriguez; the conflict of interest between the latter and the Complainant became so revealing and yet
Respondent proceeded to represent the former.
…
For his defenseofgoodfaith indoing so; inasmuchas the samewasn’tcontroverted by the Complainant which
was his first offense; Respondent must be given the benefit ofthe doubt to rectify his error subject to the
condition that should he commit the same in the future; severe penalty will be imposed upon him.5
The Investigating Commissionerrecommendeddismissal ofthecomplaint with theadmonition thatrespondent
should observeextra care and diligence in the practice ofhis profession to uphold its dignity and integrity
beyond reproach.
The IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the report and recommendation ofthe Investigating
Commissioner, which we noted in a resolution dated March 8, 1999.
Notwithstanding theadmonition, respondentcontinued representing Lydia Durano-Rodriguez before the Court
ofAppeals6 and this Court7 and even moved for the execution ofthe decision.
Thus, a second disbarmentcase was filedagainst respondent for violation ofthe March 8, 1999 Resolution in
A.C. No. 4783 and for his alleged deceitful conduct in using the title "Judge"although he was found guilty of
grave and serious misconduct.
Respondentusedthetitle"Judge"inhis officeletterhead, correspondences and billboards which was erected in
several areas within the San Jose Subdivision sometime in October 2001.
In his Commentand Explanation,8respondent claimedthat hecontinuedto represent Lydia Durano-Rodriguez
against petitioner despite the March 8, 1999 Resolution because it was still pending when the second
disbarment casewas filed. Hemaintained thattheinstant petitionis a rehash ofthefirstdisbarment case from
which he was exonerated.Concerning thetitle "Judge", respondent stated that since the filing ofthe instant
petition he had ceased to attach the title to his name.
On July 7, 2003, the matter was referred to the IBP for investigation, report and recommendation.9
Investigating Commissioner Leland R. Villadolid, Jr. reported that respondent did not violate the admonition
because it referredto future cases only and not to cases subject ofA.C. No. 4783. Besides, petitioner never
questioned the propriety ofrespondent’s continued representation ofLydia Durano-Rodriguez on appeal until
the case was terminated.
The Investigating Commissioner, however, believed that respondent was deceitful when he used the title
"Judge", thus creating a false impression that he was an incumbent.
The Investigating Commissioner recommended thus:

12. In view of the foregoing considerations, this Commissionerrespectfully recommends the following penalty range
to be deliberated upon by the Board for imposition on Respondent: minimum penalty ofreprimand to a
maximumpenalty of four (4) months suspension.It is furtherrecommendedthat inaddition tothepenalty to be
imposed, a sternwarning be given to Respondent in that should he violate his undertaking/promise not to
handle any casein the futurewheretheComplainant would betheadverse party and/or should heagain usethe
title of"Judge"which wouldcreate an impression that he is still connected to the judiciary, a more severe
penalty shall be imposed on him by the Commission.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.
The IBP Board of Governors approved withmodification thereport and recommendation ofthe Investigating
Commissioner, thus:
RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as itis hereby ADOPTED andAPPROVED,with modification, theReport and
Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner ofthe above-entitled case, herein made part ofthis
Resolutionas Annex "A", and, finding therecommendation fully supported by the evidence on record and the
applicablelaws and rules, and considering Respondent’s violation ofRule 1.01 and Rule 3.01 ofthe Code of
ProfessionalResponsibility,Atty.RobertoRomanillos is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice oflaw for six (6)
months with a WARNING that should he violate his undertaking/promise a more severe penalty shall be
imposed against him.
Undoubtedly,respondent represented theinconsistent interests ofSJHAI, DCIas substituted by Lydia Durano-
Rodriguez and theMontealegres.Respondentwas admonishedyet hecontinuedto represent Durano-Rodriguez
against SJHAI.
It is inconsequential that petitioner never questioned thepropriety ofrespondent’s continued representation of
Lydia Durano-Rodriguez.The lack ofoppositiondoes not mean tacitconsent. As long as the lawyer represents
inconsistent interests of two (2) or moreopposing clients, he is guilty ofviolating his oath. Rule 15.03 ofthe
Code of ProfessionalResponsibilityspecifically mandates that a lawyer shall notrepresent conflicting interests
except by written consent ofall concerned given after a full disclosure. Incidentally, it is also misleading for
respondent to insist that he was exonerated in A.C. No. 4783.
We agree withtheIBP that respondent’s continued useofthetitle"Judge"violated Rules 1.01 and 3.01 ofthe
Code of ProfessionalResponsibilityprohibiting a lawyer fromengaging indeceitful conduct and from using any
misleading statement or claimregarding qualifications or legalservices. Thequasi-judicial notice he posted in
the billboards referring to himselfas a judge is deceiving. It was a clear attempt to mislead the public into
believing thattheorder was issued inhis capacity as a judge whenhe was dishonorably strippedoftheprivilege.
Respondentdidnot honorably retire fromthejudiciary. Heresigned from being a judgeduring the pendency of
Zarate v. JudgeRomanillos, wherehewas eventually foundguilty ofgrave and serious misconduct and would
have been dismissed from the service had he not resigned.
In that case, respondentwas found guilty ofillegalsolicitation and receipt ofP10,000.00 from a party litigant.
We ruled thus:
Considering theforegoing, respondentJudge RobertoB. Romanillos is herebyfound guilty ofgrave and serious
misconduct affecting his integrity and honesty. He deserves the supreme penalty ofdismissal. However,
respondent, inanobvious attemptto escapepunishment for his misdeeds, tenderedhis resignation during the
pendencyof this case. … Consequently,we arenow precluded from dismissing respondent from the service.
Nevertheless,theruling in Peoplev. Valenzuela (135 SCRA712[1985]), wherein the respondent judge likewise
resignedbeforethecasecould beresolved, finds application in this case.Therein itwas held that the rule that
the resignation or retirement ofa respondent judge in an administrative case renders the case moot and
academic, is not a hard and fast rule. …
…
ACCORDINGLY, in view ofouraforestatedfinding that respondentJudge Romanillos is guiltyofgraveand serious
misconductwhichwould havewarranted his dismissalfrom theservicehad henotresigned during thependency
ofthis case,and itappearing that respondenthas yet toapply for his retirement benefits and other privileges if
any; the Court, consistent withthepenalties imposed inValenzuela (supra.), hereby orders the FORFEITURE of
all leaveandretirement benefits andprivileges towhich herein respondent Judge Romanillos may be entitled
WITH PREJUDICEto reinstatement and/or reemployment in any branch or instrumentality ofgovernment,
including government-owned or controlled agencies or corporations.
SO ORDERED.10
The penalty imposed upon him in said caseincluded forfeitureofall leave and retirement benefits and privileges
to which he may be entitled with prejudice to reinstatement and/or reemployment in any branch or
instrumentality ofgovernment, including government-ownedor controlled agencies or corporations. Certainly,
the use of the title ‘Judge’ is one ofsuch privileges.
We have previously declared that the use oftitles such as "Justice"is reserved to incumbent and retired
members oftheSupreme Court, theCourt ofAppeals andtheSandiganbayanandmay notbe used by any other
official oftheRepublic, including those given the rank of"Justice".11 By analogy, the title "Judge"should be
reserved only to judges, incumbentand retired, andnot tothosewhowere dishonorably discharged from the
service. As correctlypointed out by the Investigating Commissioner,theright to retain and usesaid title applies
only to the aforementioned members ofthebench and noother,and certainly notto thosewho wereremoved
or dismissed from the judiciary, such as respondent.
Membershipin the legal profession is a special privilege burdened with conditions.12 It is bestowed upon
individuals who arenotonly learned inlaw, but also knownto possess good moral character.13 Lawyers should
act and comport themselves with honesty and integrity ina manner beyond reproach, in order to promote the
public’s faith in the legal profession.14
To say that lawyers must at alltimes upholdandrespect the lawis to statetheobvious, butsuch statement can
never be overemphasized. Considering that,"of allclasses andprofessions, [lawyers are]mostsacredly bound to
uphold thelaw,"it is imperative that they live by the law. Accordingly, lawyers who violate their oath and
engage in deceitful conduct have no place in the legal profession.15
Disbarment is the most severeform ofdisciplinary sanction. We are mindful that the power to disbar must
always be exercised with great caution,for onlythemost imperativereasons,16 andin clearcases ofmisconduct
affecting thestanding andmoralcharacter ofthelawyeras anofficer ofthecourtandas a member ofthebar.17
This is not respondent’s first infraction as an officerofthe court and a member ofthelegal profession. He was
stripped ofhis retirement benefits and other privileges inZarate v. Judge Romanillos.18 InA.C. No. 4783, he got
off lightly with just an admonition.Considering his previous infractions, respondentshould haveadhered to the
tenets ofhis profession with extra fervor and vigilance. He did not. On the contrary, he manifested undue
disrespectto ourmandate andexhibiteda propensity toviolatethelaws. Heis thus unfitto discharge the duties
ofhis office and unworthy ofthetrust and confidencereposed onhimas anofficer ofthecourt. His disbarment
is consequently warranted.
Section 27, Rule 138 ofthe Revised Rules ofCourt provides:
SEC. 27. Disbarmentor suspension ofattorneys by Supreme Court; grounds therefor. –Amember ofthe bar
may be disbarred orsuspended fromhis office as attorney by theSupremeCourt for any deceit, malpractice, or
other gross misconduct in such office, grossly immoral conduct, or by reason ofhis conviction ofa crime

13. involving moral turpitude, or for any violation ofthe oath which he is required to take before admission to
practice,or for a wilfuldisobedienceofany lawfulorder ofa superior court, or for corruptly or wilfully appearing
as an attorney for a party to a case without authority so to do. The practice ofsoliciting cases at law for the
purpose of gain, either personally or through paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice.
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. RobertoB. Romanillos is DISBARRED and his name is ORDERED STRICKEN from
the Roll of Attorneys.Let a copy ofthis Decisionbeenteredin respondent’s record as a member oftheBar, and
notice of the same be served on the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, and on the Office of the Court
Administrator for circulation to all courts in the country.
5. IN RE SYCIP
Two separate Petitions werefiledbefore this Court1) by the surviving partners ofAtty. Alexander Sycip, who
died on May 5, 1975,and 2) by thesurviving partners ofAtty. HerminioOzaeta, whodied onFebruary14,1976,
praying that theybe allowedto continue using, in the names oftheir firms, the names ofpartners who had
passed away. In the Court's Resolution ofSeptember 2, 1976, both Petitions were ordered consolidated.
Petitioners base their petitions on the following arguments:
1. Under the law,a partnership is not prohibited fromcontinuing its business undera firmname which
includes the name of a deceased partner; infact, Article1840ofthe Civil Codeexplicitly sanctions the practice
when it provides in the last paragraph that: têñ.£îhqwâ£
The use by the person or partnership continuing the business ofthe partnership name, or the name ofa
deceased partner as partthereof, shall not ofitselfmaketheindividual property ofthedeceased partner liable
for any debts contracted by such person or partnership. 1
2. In regulating other professions, such as accountancy andengineering, thelegislaturehas authorized
the adoptionof firm names withoutanyrestrictionas to the use, insuch firm name, ofthenameofa deceased
partner; 2thelegislative authorizationgiven to thoseengaged in the practice ofaccountancy — a profession
requiring thesamedegree oftrust and confidence in respect ofclients as that implicit in the relationship of
attorneyand client— to acquireand usea tradename, stronglyindicates that there is no fundamental policy
that is offended by the continued useby a firmofprofessionals ofa firm name which includes the name ofa
deceased partner, at least where such firm name has acquired the characteristics ofa "trade name."3
3. The Canons of Professional Ethics are not transgressed by the continued use ofthe name ofa
deceased partner inthefirm name ofa lawpartnership becauseCanon33ofthe Canons ofProfessional Ethics
adopted by the American Bar Association declares that: têñ.£îhqwâ£
... The continued useof the name ofa deceased or former partner when permissible by local custom, is not
unethical but care should be taken that no imposition or deception is practiced through this use. ... 4
4. There is no possibility ofimpositionor deceptionbecausethe deaths oftheir respective deceased
partners werewell-publicized in allnewspapers ofgeneral circulation for several days; the stationeries now
being used by themcarry new letterheads indicating the years when their respective deceased partners were
connected withthefirm;petitioners will notify all leading national and internationallaw directories ofthe fact of
their respective deceased partners'deaths. 5
5. No local custom prohibits the continued useofa deceased partner's name in a professional firm's
name; 6 thereis no customor usage inthePhilippines,or atleastin the Greater Manila Area,which recognizes
that the name of a law firm necessarily Identifies the individual members ofthe firm. 7
6. The continueduseofa deceased partner's name in the firm name oflaw partnerships has been
consistently allowedby U.S. Courts andis an accepted practice inthelegal profession ofmost countries in the
world. 8
The questioninvolved in thesePetitions first came under consideration by this Courtin 1953 whena law firm in
Cebu (the Deen case) continued its practice ofincluding in its firm name that ofa deceased partner, C.D.
Johnston. The matter was resolved with this Court advising the firm to desist from including in their firm
designation the name ofC. D. Johnston, who has long been dead."
The same issue was raised before this Court in 1958 as an incident in G. R. No. L-11964, entitled Register of
Deeds ofManila vs. China Banking Corporation. Thelaw firmofPerkins & Ponce Enrile moved to intervene as
amicus curiae.Before acting thereon, theCourt,in a Resolution ofApril15, 1957, statedthat it"would liketo be
informed why the name of Perkins is still being used although Atty. E. A. Perkins is already dead." In a
Manifestation dated May 21, 1957, the law firm ofPerkins and Ponce Enrile, raising substantially the same
arguments as thosenowbeing raised bypetitioners, prayedthat the continued useofthe firm name"Perkins &
Ponce Enrile"be held proper.
On June 16, 1958, this Court resolved: têñ.£îhqwâ£
After carefully considering the reasons given by Attorneys Alfonso Ponce Enrile and Associates for their
continued useofthe name ofthe deceasedE. G. Perkins, theCourt found noreasonto departfrom the policy it
adoptedin June1953when itrequired Attorneys Alfred P. Deen and Eddy A. Deen ofCebu City to desist from
including in their firmdesignation, the name ofC. D.Johnston, deceased. TheCourt believes that, inview ofthe
personal andconfidentialnature oftherelations between attorney and client, andthehighstandards demanded
in the canons ofprofessional ethics, nopracticeshould beallowed which evenin a remotedegree could giverise
to the possibility ofdeception. Saidattorneys areaccordingly advised to drop the name "PERKINS"from their
firm name.
Petitioners herein now seek a re-examination ofthe policy thus far enunciated by the Court.
The Court finds no sufficient reason to depart from the rulings thus laid down.
A. Inasmuch as "Sycip, Salazar, Feliciano, Hernandez and Castillo"and "Ozaeta, Romulo, De Leon,
Mabanta and Reyes"are partnerships,theuse intheirpartnershipnames ofthe names ofdeceasedpartners will
run counter to Article 1815 ofthe Civil Code which provides: têñ.£îhqwâ£
Art. 1815. Every partnership shalloperate under a firm name,which may ormay notincludethenameofoneor
more ofthe partners.
Those who, notbeing members ofthepartnership, include their names inthefirm name,shall besubject to the
liability, ofa partner.
It is clearly tacit intheaboveprovisionthat names ina firmnameofa partnership musteither bethose ofliving
partners and.in the caseofnon-partners,should be living persons who can be subjected to liability. In fact,
Article 1825oftheCivil Codeprohibits a thirdperson fromincluding his name in the firm name under pain of
assuming the liabilityofa partner. Theheirs ofa deceasedpartnerin a law firmcannot beheld liable as the old
members to the creditors ofa firm particularly where they are non-lawyers. Thus, Canon 34 ofthe Canons of
ProfessionalEthics "prohibits an agreement for thepaymentto thewidowand heirs ofa deceased lawyer ofa
percentage, either gross or net, ofthe fees received fromthefuture business ofthedeceased lawyer's clients,
both becausetherecipients ofsuch division are not lawyers and because such payments will not represent
serviceor responsibilityon thepartofthe recipient."Accordingly, neither thewidow nor theheirs can be held