Northwestern University

Northwestern University, Inc. vs.
Arquillo
FACTS:
Ben A. Nicolas, in behalf of Northwestern University, filed a letter-complaint to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
allegedly reporting that Atty. Macario Arquillo had engaged in conflicting interest by acting as counsel for both
complainant and respondent in the very same consolidated case filed to the National Labor Relations Commission.
Respondent claims that there is no conflict-of-interests as all parties are said to be on the same side.
For failing to appear in scheduled hearings, Atty. Arquillo is deemed to have waived his right to participate in the
proceedings.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondent is guilty of violating the conflict-of-interests rule under the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
HELD:
Yes.
The Court held that Atty. Arquillo is guilty of violating the conflict-of-interests rule under the Code of Professional
Responsibility. Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility requires lawyers to observe candor, fairness and
loyalty in all their dealings and transactions with their clients. Therefore, a lawyer may not represent conflicting
interests without the written consent of all parties involved, after disclosure of the facts. The Court did not agree with
Arquillo’s justification of his acts for he should have known that in representing opposing parties, there would be an
obvious conflict of interest, regardless of his belief that both parties are on the same side.
Atty. Macario Arquillo was found guilty of misconduct and was hereby suspended from the practice of law for a
period of one year.
NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY, INC., and BEN A. NICOLAS vs. Atty. MACARIO D. ARQUILLO
A.C. No. 6632. August 2, 2005
Facts: Atty. Macatrio D. Arquillo represented opposing parties in one a case before the before the National Labor
Relations Commission, Regional Arbitration Branch in San Fernando, La Union. Herein, complainants accuse Atty.
Arquillo of deceit, malpractice, gross misconduct and/or violation of his oath as attorney by representing conflicting
interests. The case was filed with the IBP-Commission on Bar Discipline which found Atty. Arquillo guilty of the charge
and recommended a penalty of suspension for 6 months. The governors of the IBP increased the penalty for 2 years.
Issue: Whether or not the acts of Arquillo merits his suspension from the practice of law.
Held: The Code of Professional Responsibility requires lawyers to observe candor, fairness and loyalty in all their
1
dealings and transactions with their clients. Corollary to this duty, lawyers shall not represent conflicting interests,
except with all the concerned clients’ written consent, given after a full disclosure of the facts. When a lawyer
represents two or more opposing parties, there is a conflict of interests, the existence of which is determined by three
separate tests: (1) when, in representation of one client, a lawyer is required to fight for an issue or claim, but is also
duty-bound to oppose it for another client; (2) when the acceptance of the new retainer will require an attorney to
perform an act that may injuriously affect the first client or, when called upon in a new relation, to use against the
first one any knowledge acquired through their professional connection; or (3) when the acceptance of a new relation
would prevent the full discharge of an attorney’s duty to give undivided fidelity and loyalty to the client or would
invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or double dealing in the performance of that duty. An attorney cannot represent
adverse interests. It is a hornbook doctrine grounded on public policy that a lawyer’s representation of both sides of
an issue is highly improper. The proscription applies when the conflicting interests arise with respect to the same
general matter, however slight such conflict may be. It applies even when the attorney acts from honest intentions or
in good faith.
In accordance with previous rulings from this court Atty. Arquillo is suspended for 1 year from the practice of law.
DECISION
PANGANIBAN, J.:
Representing conflicting interests is prohibited by the Code of Professional Responsibility. Unless all the affected
clients written consent is given after a full disclosure of all relevant facts, attorneys guilty of representing conflicting
interests shall as a rule be sanctioned with suspension from the practice of law.
The Case and the Facts
This administrative case stems from a sworn Letter-Complaint[1] filed with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines-
Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD) by Ben A. Nicolas, acting for himself and on behalf of Northwestern
University, Inc. In that Letter-Complaint, Atty. Macario D. Arquillo was charged with deceit, malpractice, gross
misconduct and/or violation of his oath as attorney by representing conflicting interests. The material averments of
the Complaint are summarized by the IBP-CBD as follows:
Herein [c]omplainants, Northwestern University, Inc. and Mr. Ben A. Nicolas, accuses (sic) herein [r]espondent, Atty.
Macario D. Arquillo, of engaging in conflicting interest in a case before the National Labor Relations Commission,
Regional Arbitration Branch No. 1, San Fernando, La Union.
Complainant alleges that in a consolidated case, herein [r]espondent appeared and acted as counsels for both
complainants (eight out of the eighteen complainants therein) and respondent (one out of the ten respondents
therein).
In a consolidation of NLRC Cases [Nos.] 1-05-1086-97, 1-05-1087-97, 1-05-1088-97, 1-05-1091-97, 1-05-1092-97, 1-05-
1097-97, 1-05-1109-97, 1-05-1096-97 (consolidated cases), herein [r]espondent appeared as counsel for complainants
therein, Teresita A. Velasco, Gervacio A. Velasco, Mariel S. Hernando, Virginio C. Rasos, Bonifacio S. Blas, Ronald A.
Daoang, Luzviminda T. Urcio and Araceli Quimoyog. In the very same consolidated case, [r]espondent was also the
counsel of one of the respondents therein, Jose G. Castro.
Complainants, as their evidence, submitted the Motion to Dismiss dated August 12, 1997 filed by Jose G. Castro,
represented by his counsel, herein [r]espondent filed before the NLRC of San Fernando, La Union. Sixteen (16) days
later or on August 28, 1997, [r]espondent filed a Complainants Consolidated Position Paper, this time representing
some of the complainants in the very same consolidated case.[2] (Citations omitted)
2
Respondent failed to file his Answer to the Complaint despite a June 24 1998 Order[3] of the IBP-CBD directing him to
do so. Even after receiving five notices, he failed to appear in any of the scheduled hearings. Consequently, he was
deemed to have waived his right to participate in the proceedings. Thereafter, the complainants were ordered to
submit their verified position paper with supporting documents, after which the case was to be deemed submitted
for decision.[4] In their Manifestation[5] dated August 30, 2004, they said that they would no longer file a position
paper. They agreed to submit the case for decision on the basis of their Letter-Affidavit dated March 16, 1998,
together with all the accompanying documents.
Report and Recommendation of the IBP
In his Report,[6] Commissioner Dennis B. Funa found respondent guilty of violating the conflict-of-interests rule under
the Code of Professional Responsibility. Thus, the former recommended the latters suspension from the practice of
law for a period of six (6) months.
In Resolution No. XVI-2004-415 dated October 7, 2004, the Board of Governors of the IBP adopted the Report and
Recommendation of Commissioner Funa, with the modification that the period of suspension was increased to two
(2) years.
On December 12, 2004, the Resolution and the records of the case were transmitted to this Court for final action,
pursuant to Section 12(b) of Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court. On January 20, 2005, respondent filed a Motion for
Reconsideration to set aside Resolution No. XVI-2004-415. The IBP denied the Motion.
The Courts Ruling
We agree with the findings of the IBP Board of Governors, but reduce the recommended period of suspension to one
year.
Administrative Liability of Respondent
The Code of Professional Responsibility requires lawyers to observe candor, fairness and loyalty in all their dealings
and transactions with their clients.[7] Corollary to this duty, lawyers shall not represent conflicting interests, except
with all the concerned clients written consent, given after a full disclosure of the facts.[8]
When a lawyer represents two or more opposing parties, there is a conflict of interests, the existence of which is
determined by three separate tests: (1) when, in representation of one client, a lawyer is required to fight for an issue
or claim, but is also duty-bound to oppose it for another client; (2) when the acceptance of the new retainer will
require an attorney to perform an act that may injuriously affect the first client or, when called upon in a new
relation, to use against the first one any knowledge acquired through their professional connection; or (3) when the
acceptance of a new relation would prevent the full discharge of an attorneys duty to give undivided fidelity and
loyalty to the client or would invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or double dealing in the performance of that duty.[9]
In the present case, Atty. Macario D. Arquillo, as counsel for Respondent Jose C. Castro in NLRC Case Nos. I-05-1083-
97 to I-05-1109-97, filed a Motion to Dismiss those cases. Shortly thereafter, a position paper was filed by Atty.
Arquillo as counsel for several complainants in consolidated NLRC Case Nos. I-05-1087-97, I-05-1088-97, I-05-1091-97,
I-05-1092-97, I-05-1096-97, I-05-1097-97, and I-05-1109-97. All the cases in the second set were included in the first
one, for which he had filed the subject Motion to Dismiss. Furthermore, in his position paper for the complainants,
Atty. Arquillo protected his other client, Respondent Jose C. Castro, in these words:
3. More than lack of valid cause for the dismissal of complainants, respondents, except Atty. Jose C. Castro and Atty.
Ernesto B. Asuncion, should be made accountable for not according complainants their right to due process.[10]
In his two-page Motion for Reconsideration, Atty. Arquillo claims that there was no conflict of interest in his
representation of both the respondent and the complainants in the same consolidated cases, because all of them
3
were allegedly on the same side. Attaching to the Motion the Decision of Labor Arbiter Norma C. Olegario on the
consolidated NLRC cases, Atty. Arquillo theorizes that her judgment absolved Castro of personal liability for the illegal
dismissal of the complainants; this fact allegedly showed that there was no conflict in the interests of all the parties
concerned.
This Court does not agree. Atty. Arquillos acts cannot be justified by the fact that, in the end, Castro was proven to be
not personally liable for the claims of the dismissed employees. Having agreed to represent one of the opposing
parties first, the lawyer should have known that there was an obvious conflict of interests, regardless of his alleged
belief that they were all on the same side. It cannot be denied that the dismissed employees were the complainants
in the same cases in which Castro was one of the respondents. Indeed, Commissioner Funa correctly enounced:
As counsel for complainants, [r]espondent had the duty to oppose the Motion to Dismiss filed by Jose G. Castro. But
under the circumstance, it would be impossible since [r]espondent is also the counsel of Jose G. Castro. And it
appears that it was [r]espondent who prepared the Motion to Dismiss, which he should be opposing [a]s counsel of
Jose G. Castro, Respondent had the duty to prove the Complaint wrong. But Respondent cannot do this because he is
the counsel for the complainants. Here lies the inconsistency. The inconsistency of interests is very clear.
Thus it has been noted
The attorney in that situation will not be able to pursue, with vigor and zeal, the clients claim against the other and to
properly represent the latter in the unrelated action, or, if he can do so, he cannot avoid being suspected by the
defeated client of disloyalty or partiality in favor of the successful client. The foregoing considerations will strongly
tend to deprive the relation of attorney and client of those special elements which make it one of trust and
confidence[.] (Legal Ethics, Agpalo, p. 230, 4th ed.; In re De la Rosa, 21 Phil. 258)[11]
An attorney cannot represent adverse interests. It is a hornbook doctrine grounded on public policy that a lawyers
representation of both sides of an issue is highly improper. The proscription applies when the conflicting interests
arise with respect to the same general matter, however slight such conflict may be. It applies even when the attorney
acts from honest intentions or in good faith.[12]
The IBP Board of Governors recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for two years.
Considering, however, prior rulings in cases also involving attorneys representing conflicting interests, we reduce the
suspension to one (1) year.[13]
WHEREFORE, Atty. Macario D. Arquillo is found GUILTY of misconduct and is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of
law for a period of one (1) year effective upon his receipt of this Decision, with a warning that a similar infraction shall
be dealt with more severely in the future.
SO ORDERED.
EN BANC
A.C. No. 6664 July 16, 2013
FERDINAND A. SAMSON, Complainant, vs.

ATTY. EDGARDO O. ERA, Respondent.
The complainant and his relatives were among the investors who fell prey to the pyramiding scam perpetrated by ICS
Corporation led by Emilia Sison and several others. They engaged the services of Atty. Era to represent and assist him
and his relatives in the prosecution of criminal case against Sison and her group.
4
Pursuant to the engagement, Atty. Era prepared the demand letter demanding the return or refund of the money
subject of their complaints. He also prepared the complaint-affidavit that Samson signed and swore to and
subsequently presented to the Office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City (OCPQC). After the preliminary
investigation, the OCPQC formally charged Sison and the others with several counts of estafa in the Regional Trial
Court, Branch 96 (RTC), in Quezon City.
In April 2003, Atty. Era called a meeting with Samson and his relatives to discuss the possibility of an amicable
settlement with Sison and her cohorts. He told Samson and the others that undergoing a trial of the cases would just
be a waste of time, money and effort for them, and that they could settle the cases with Sison and her group, with
him guaranteeing the turnover to them of a certain property located in Antipolo City belonging to ICS Corporation in
exchange for their desistance. They acceded and executed the affidavit of desistance he prepared, and in turn they
received a deed of assignment covering land registered under Transfer Certificate of Title No. R-4475 executed by
Sison in behalf of ICS Corporation.
After an amicable settlement and several negotiations with Sison and her cohorts, Atty. Era expressed that he already
accomplished his professional responsibility towards Samson. They also later found out that they could not liquidate
the property subject to the amicable settlement. During the hearings in the RTC, Atty. Era did not anymore appear for
Samson and his group. They found out that Atty. Era had already been entering his appearance as the counsel
for Sison in her other criminal cases involving the same pyramiding scam.
On January 20, 2005, Samson executed an affidavit alleging the foregoing antecedents and prayed for Atty. Era’s
disbarment on the ground of his violation of the trust, confidence and respect reposed in him as their counsel.
Atty. Era was required to file his Comment. After several extensions, Atty. Era finally filed his Comment on April 11,
2006 in the OBC. He alleged that the lawyer-client relationship ended when Samson and his group entered into the
compromise settlement.
The case was referred to IBP for investigation, report and recommendation.
IBP Recommendation: the Investigating Commissioner found Atty. Era guilty of misconduct for representing
conflicting interests, failing to serve his client with competence and diligence and champion the latter’s cause with
wholehearted fidelity, care and devotion – suspended from the practice of law for 6 months
IBP Board of Governors: adopted and approved the IBP recommendation with modification that Atty. Era be
suspended from the practice of law for 2 years.
Issue:
Whether or not Atty. Era violated the Code of Professional Responsibility on conflict of interests.
5
Ruling.
YES. The Supreme Court affirmed the findings of the IBP.
The lawyer-client relationship did not terminate when the parties entered into a compromise settlement, for the fact
remained that he still needed to oversee the implementation of the settlement as well as to proceed with the
criminal cases until they were dismissed or otherwise concluded by the trial court. It is also relevant to indicate that
the execution of a compromise settlement in the criminal cases did not ipso facto cause the termination of the cases
not only because the approval of the compromise by the trial court was still required, but also because the
compromise would have applied only to the civil aspect, and excluded the criminal aspect pursuant to Article 2034 of
the Civil Code.
Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that: "A lawyer shall not represent
conflicting interests except by written consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts." Atty. Era thus
owed to Samson and his group entire devotion to their genuine interest, and warm zeal in the maintenance and
defense of their rights. He was expected to exert his best efforts and ability to preserve the clients’ cause, for the
unwavering loyalty displayed to his clients likewise served the ends of justice.
Contrary to Atty. Era’s ill-conceived attempt to explain his disloyalty to Samson and his group, the termination of the
attorney-client relationship does not justify a lawyer to represent an interest adverse to or in conflict with that of the
former client. The spirit behind this rule is that the client’s confidence once given should not be stripped by the mere
expiration of the professional employment. Even after the severance of the relation, a lawyer should not do anything
that will injuriously affect his former client in any matter in which the lawyer previously represented the client. Nor
should the lawyer disclose or use any of the client’s confidences acquired in the previous relation. In this regard,
Canon 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility expressly declares that: "A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his
client and he shall be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him."
The lawyer’s highest and most unquestioned duty is to protect the client at all hazards and costs even to himself. The
protection given to the client is perpetual and does not cease with the termination of the litigation, nor is it affected
by the client’s ceasing to employ the attorney and retaining another, or by any other change of relation between
them. It even survives the death of the client.
In the absence of the express consent from Samson and his group after full disclosure to them of the conflict of
interest, therefore, the most ethical thing for Atty. Era to have done was either to outrightly decline representing and
entering his appearance as counsel for Sison, or to advice Sison to engage another lawyer for herself. Unfortunately,
he did neither, and should now suffer the proper sanction.
WHEREFORE, the Court FINDS and PRONOUNCES Atty. EDGARDO O. ERA guilty of violating Rule 15.03 of Canon 15,
and Canon 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility; and SUSPENDS him from the practice of law for two years
6
effective upon his receipt of this decision, with a warning that his commission of a similar offense will be dealt with
more severely.
NOTES:
Prohibition against conflict of interest rests on 5 rationales, rendered as follows:
1st : the law seeks to assure clients that their lawyers will represent them with undivided loyalty
2nd : the prohibition against conflicts of interest seeks to enhance the effectiveness of legal representation
3rd : a client has a legal right to have the lawyer safeguard the client’s confidential information
4th : conflicts rules help ensure that lawyers will not exploit clients, such as by inducing a client to make a
gift to the lawyer
5th : some conflict-of-interest rules protect interests of the legal system in obtaining adequate
presentations to tribunals.
Reason: the rule is grounded in the fiduciary obligation of loyalty. The nature of their relationship is, therefore, one of
trust and confidence of the highest degree..
Ferdinand A. Samson brought complaint for disbarment charging respondent Atty. Edgardo O. Era with violation of
trust and confidence of a client by representing the interest of Emilia C. Sison, his present client, in a manner that
blatantly conflicted with his interest.
Samson and his relatives were among the investors who fell prey to the pyramiding scam perpetrated by ICS Exports
led by Sison and other officers.
Samson engaged Atty. Era to represent and assist him and his relatives in the criminal prosecution of Sison and her
group.
After an amicable settlement and several negotiations with Sison and her cohorts, Atty. Era expressed that he already
accomplished his professional responsibility towards Samson. They also later found out that they could not liquidate
the property subject to the amicable settlement.
During the hearings in the RTC, Atty. Era did not anymore appear for Samson and his group. They found out that Atty.
7
Era had already been entering his appearance as the counsel for Sison in her other criminal cases involving the same
pyramiding scam.
iSSUE:
Is atty. Era guilty of misconduct for representing conflicting interests of his clients?
Is there a formal termination of the lawyer-client relationship with Samson?
RULING:
The Investigating Commissioner of the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD) found Atty. Era guilty.
It is recommended that respondent be SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of six (6) months and
WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar act would merit a more severe penalty.
SC affirmed the findings of the IBP.
The lawyer-client relationship did not terminate, for the fact remained that he still needed to oversee the
implementation of the settlement as well as to proceed with the criminal cases until they were dismissed or
otherwise concluded by the trial court.
In his petition for disbarment, Samson charged Atty. Era with violating Canon 15 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility for representing conflicting interests of his clients.
Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that: “A lawyer shall not represent
conflicting interests except by written consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts.”
effective upon his receipt of the decision, with a warning that his commission of a similar offense will be dealt with
more severely.
FIDUCIARY OBLIGATION OF LOYALTY TO CLIENTS
The rule prohibiting conflict of interest was fashioned to prevent situations wherein a lawyer would be representing a
client whose interest is directly adverse to any of his present or former clients. In the same way, a lawyer may only be
allowed to represent a client involving the same or a substantially related matter that is materially adverse to the
former client only if the former client consents to it after consultation. The rule is grounded in the fiduciary obligation
of loyalty. Throughout the course of a lawyer-client relationship, the lawyer learns all the facts connected with the
client’s case, including the weak and strong points of the case. Knowledge and information gathered in the course of
the relationship must be treated as sacred and guarded with care. It behooves lawyers not only to keep inviolate the
client’s confidence, but also to avoid the appearance of treachery and double-dealing, for only then can litigants be
encouraged to entrust their secrets to their lawyers, which is paramount in the administration of justice. The nature
8
of that relationship is, therefore, one of trust and confidence of the highest degree. (Ferdinand Samson vs. Atty.
Edgardo Era; A.C. No. 6664, July 16, 2013)
DECISION
BERSAMIN, J.:
An attorney who wittingly represents and serves conflicting interests may be suspended from the practice of law, or
even disbarred when circumstances so warrant.
Antecedents
Ferdinand A. Samson has brought this complaint for disbarment charging respondent Atty. Edgardo O. Era with
violation of his trust and confidence of a client by representing the interest of Emilia C. Sison, his present client, in a
manner that blatantly conflicted with his interest.
Samson and his relatives were among the investors who fell prey to the pyramiding scam perpetrated by ICS Exports,
Inc. Exporter, Importer, and Multi-Level Marketing Business (ICS Corporation), a corporation whose corporate officers
were led by Sison. The other officers were Ireneo C. Sison, William C. Sison, Mimosa H. Zamudio, Mirasol H. Aguilar
and Jhun Sison.
Samson engaged Atty. Era to represent and assist him and his relatives in the criminal prosecution of Sison and her
group. Pursuant to the engagement, Atty. Era prepared the demand letter dated July 19, 2002 demanding the return
or refund of the money subject of their complaints. He also prepared the complaint-affidavit that Samson signed and
swore to on July 26, 2002. Subsequently, the complaint-affidavit charging Sison and the other corporate officials of
ICS Corporation with several counts of estafa1was presented to the Office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City
(OCPQC). After the preliminary investigation, the OCPQC formally charged Sison and the others with several counts of
estafa in the Regional Trial Court, Branch 96 (RTC), in Quezon City.2
In April 2003, Atty. Era called a meeting with Samson and his relatives to discuss the possibility of an amicable
settlement with Sison and her cohorts. He told Samson and the others that undergoing a trial of the cases would just
be a waste of time, money and effort for them, and that they could settle the cases with Sison and her group, with
him guaranteeing the turnover to them of a certain property located in Antipolo City belonging to ICS Corporation in
exchange for their desistance. They acceded and executed the affidavit of desistance he prepared, and in turn they
received a deed of assignment covering land registered under Transfer Certificate of Title No. R-4475 executed by
Sison in behalf of ICS Corporation.3
Samson and his relatives later demanded from Atty. Era that they be given instead a deed of absolute sale to enable
them to liquidate the property among themselves. It took some period of negotiations between them and Atty. Era
before the latter delivered to them on November 27, 2003 five copies of a deed of absolute sale involving the
property. However, Atty. Era told them that whether or not the title of the property had been encumbered or free
from lien or defect would no longer be his responsibility. He further told them that as far as he was concerned he had
already accomplished his professional responsibility towards them upon the amicable settlement of the cases
between them and ICS Corporation.4
When Samson and his co-complainants verified the title of the property at the Registry of Deeds and the Assessor’s
Office of Antipolo City, they were dismayed to learn that they could not liquidate the property because it was no
longer registered under the name of ICS Corporation but was already under the name of Bank Wise Inc.5 Upon their
urging, Atty. Era negotiated as their counsel with ICS Corporation.
Due to the silence of Atty. Era for sometime thereafter, Samson and his group wrote to him on September 8, 2004 to
remind him about his guarantee and the promise to settle the issues with Sison and her cohorts. But they did not hear
from Atty. Era at all.6
9
During the hearings in the RTC, Atty. Era did not anymore appear for Samson and his group. This forced them to
engage another lawyer. They were shocked to find out later on, however, that Atty. Era had already been entering his
appearance as the counsel for Sison in her other criminal cases in the other branches of the RTC in Quezon City
involving the same pyramiding scam that she and her ICS Corporation had perpetrated.7 In this regard, they
established Atty. Era’s legal representation of Sison by submitting several certified copies of the minutes of the
proceedings in the criminal cases involving Sison and her group issued by Branch 102 and Branch 220 of the RTC in
Quezon City showing that Atty. Era had appeared as the counsel of Sison in the cases for estafa pending and being
tried in said courts.8 They also submitted a certification issued on November 3, 2004 indicating that Atty. Era had
visited Sison, an inmate in the Female Dormitory in Camp Karingal, Sikatuna Village, Quezon City as borne out by the
blotter logbook of that unit.9
On January 20, 2005, Samson executed an affidavit alleging the foregoing antecedents, and praying for Atty. Era’s
disbarment on the ground of his violation of the trust, confidence and respect reposed in him as their counsel.10
Upon being required by the Court to comment on the complaint against him within 10 days from notice, Atty. Era
several times sought the extension of his period to file the comment to supposedly enable him to collate documents
relevant to his comment.11 The Court granted his request and allowed him an extension totaling 40 days. But despite
the lapse of the extended period, he did not file his comment.
On September 27, 2005, Samson reiterated his complaint for disbarment against Atty. Era.12
By its resolution dated March 1, 2006,13 the Court required Atty. Era to show cause why he should not be
disciplinarily dealt with or held in contempt for such failure to submit his comment.
In the comment that he subsequently filed on April 11, 2006 in the Office of the Bar Confidant,14 Atty. Era alleged
that the conclusion on April 23, 2002 of the compromise settlement between Samson and his group, on one hand,
and Sison and her ICS Corporation, on the other, had terminated the lawyer-client relationship between him and
Samson and his group; and that on September 1, 2003, he had been appointed as counsel de officio for Sison by
Branch 102 of the RTC in Quezon City only for purposes of her arraignment.
On July 17, 2006, the Court referred the case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report
and recommendation.15
In his report and recommendation dated October 1, 2007,16 the Investigating Commissioner of the IBP Commission
on Bar Discipline (IBPCBD) found Atty. Era guilty of misconduct for representing conflicting interests, for failing to
serve his clients with competence and diligence, and for failing to champion his clients’ cause with wholehearted
fidelity, care and devotion.
The Investigating Commissioner observed that the evidence did not sustain Atty. Era’s claim that his legal services as
counsel for Samson and his group had terminated on April 23, 2003 upon the execution of the compromise
settlement of the criminal cases; that he even admitted during the mandatory conference that there was no formal
termination of his legal services;17 that his professional obligation towards Samson and his group as his clients did
not end upon execution of the settlement agreement, because he remained duty-bound to see to it that the
settlement was duly implemented; that he also had the obligation to appear in the criminal cases until their
termination; and that his acceptance of the engagement to appear in behalf of Sison invited suspicion of his double-
dealing and unfaithfulness.
The Investigating Commissioner recommended that Atty. Era be suspended from the practice of law for six months,
viz:
From the foregoing, it is clear that respondent is guilty of misconduct for representing conflicting interests, failing to
serve his client, complainant herein, with competence and diligence and champion the latter’s cause with
wholehearted fidelity, care and devotion. It is respectfully recommended that respondent be SUSPENDED from the
10
practice of law for a period of six (6) months and WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar act would merit a
more severe penalty.18
In Resolution No. XVIII-2007-195 passed on October 19, 2007,19 the IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved
the report and recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner of the IBP-CBD, with the modification that Atty.
Era be suspended from the practice of law for two years.
On June 9, 2012, the IBP Board of Governors passed Resolution No. XX-2012-180,20 denying Atty. Era’s motion for
reconsideration and affirming Resolution No. XVIII-2007-195.
The IBP Board of Governors then forwarded the case to the Court pursuant to Section 12(b), Rule 139-B of the Rules
of Court.21
On October 17, 2012, Atty. Era filed a Manifestation and Motion (With Leave of Court).22 However, on November 26,
2012, the Court merely noted the manifestation, and denied the motion for its lack of merit.23
Ruling
We affirm the findings of the IBP.
In his petition for disbarment, Samson charged Atty. Era with violating Canon 15 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility for representing conflicting interests by accepting the responsibility of representing Sison in the cases
similar to those in which he had undertaken to represent Samson and his group, notwithstanding that Sison was the
very same person whom Samson and his group had accused with Atty. Era’s legal assistance. He had drafted the
demand letters and the complaint-affidavit that became the bases for the filing of the estafa charges against Sison
and the others in the RTC in Quezon City.
Atty. Era’s contention that the lawyer-client relationship ended when Samson and his group entered into the
compromise settlement with Sison on April 23, 2002 was unwarranted. The lawyer-client relationship did not
terminate as of then, for the fact remained that he still needed to oversee the implementation of the settlement as
well as to proceed with the criminal cases until they were dismissed or otherwise concluded by the trial court. It is
also relevant to indicate that the execution of a compromise settlement in the criminal cases did not ipso facto cause
the termination of the cases not only because the approval of the compromise by the trial court was still required, but
also because the compromise would have applied only to the civil aspect, and excluded the criminal aspect pursuant
to Article 2034 of the Civil Code.24
Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that: "A lawyer shall not represent
conflicting interests except by written consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts." Atty. Era thus
owed to Samson and his group entire devotion to their genuine interest, and warm zeal in the maintenance and
defense of their rights.25 He was expected to exert his best efforts and ability to preserve the clients’ cause, for the
unwavering loyalty displayed to his clients likewise served the ends of justice.26
In Hornilla v. Atty. Salunat,27 the Court discussed the concept of conflict of interest in this wise:
There is conflict of interest when a lawyer represents inconsistent interests of two or more opposing parties. The test
is "whether or not in behalf of one client, it is the lawyer’s duty to fight for an issue or claim, but it is his duty to
oppose it for the other client. In brief, if he argues for one client, this argument will be opposed by him when he
argues for the other client." This rule covers not only cases in which confidential communications have been confided,
but also those in which no confidence has been bestowed or will be used. Also, there is conflict of interests if the
acceptance of the new retainer will require the attorney to perform an act which will injuriously affect his first client
in any matter in which he represents him and also whether he will be called upon in his new relation to use against his
first client any knowledge acquired through their connection. Another test of the inconsistency of interests is whether
11
the acceptance of a new relation will prevent an attorney from the full discharge of his duty of undivided fidelity and
loyalty to his client or invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or double dealing in the performance thereof.28
The prohibition against conflict of interest rests on five rationales, rendered as follows:
x x x. First, the law seeks to assure clients that their lawyers will represent them with undivided loyalty. A client is
entitled to be represented by a lawyer whom the client can trust. Instilling such confidence is an objective important
in itself. x x x.
Second, the prohibition against conflicts of interest seeks to enhance the effectiveness of legal representation. To the
extent that a conflict of interest undermines the independence of the lawyer’s professional judgment or inhibits a
lawyer from working with appropriate vigor in the client’s behalf, the client’s expectation of effective representation x
x x could be compromised.
Third, a client has a legal right to have the lawyer safeguard the client’s confidential information
xxx.1âwphi1 Preventing use of confidential client information against the interests of the client, either to benefit the
lawyer’s personal interest, in aid of some other client, or to foster an assumed public purpose is facilitated through
conflicts rules that reduce the opportunity for such abuse.
Fourth, conflicts rules help ensure that lawyers will not exploit clients, such as by inducing a client to make a gift to
the lawyer xxx.
Finally, some conflict-of-interest rules protect interests of the legal system in obtaining adequate presentations to
tribunals. In the absence of such rules, for example, a lawyer might appear on both sides of the litigation,
complicating the process of taking proof and compromise adversary argumentation x x x.29
The rule prohibiting conflict of interest was fashioned to prevent situations wherein a lawyer would be representing a
client whose interest is directly adverse to any of his present or former clients. In the same way, a lawyer may only be
allowed to represent a client involving the same or a substantially related matter that is materially adverse to the
former client only if the former client consents to it after consultation.30 The rule is grounded in the fiduciary
obligation of loyalty.31 Throughout the course of a lawyer-client relationship, the lawyer learns all the facts
connected with the client's case, including the weak and strong points of the case. Knowledge and information
gathered in the course of the relationship must be treated as sacred and guarded with care.1âwphi1 It behooves
lawyers not only to keep inviolate the client’s confidence, but also to avoid the appearance of treachery and double-
dealing, for only then can litigants be encouraged to entrust their secrets to their lawyers, which is paramount in the
administration of justice.32 The nature of that relationship is, therefore, one of trust and confidence of the highest
degree.33
Contrary to Atty. Era’s ill-conceived attempt to explain his disloyalty to Samson and his group, the termination of the
attorney-client relationship does not justify a lawyer to represent an interest adverse to or in conflict with that of the
former client. The spirit behind this rule is that the client’s confidence once given should not be stripped by the mere
expiration of the professional employment. Even after the severance of the relation, a lawyer should not do anything
that will injuriously affect his former client in any matter in which the lawyer previously represented the client. Nor
should the lawyer disclose or use any of the client’s confidences acquired in the previous relation.34 In this regard,
Canon 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility expressly declares that: "A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his
client and he shall be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him."
The lawyer’s highest and most unquestioned duty is to protect the client at all hazards and costs even to
himself.35The protection given to the client is perpetual and does not cease with the termination of the litigation, nor
is it affected by the client’s ceasing to employ the attorney and retaining another, or by any other change of relation
between them. It even survives the death of the client.36
12
In the absence of the express consent from Samson and his group after full disclosure to them of the conflict of
interest, therefore, the most ethical thing for Atty. Era to have done was either to outrightly decline representing and
entering his appearance as counsel for Sison, or to advice Sison to engage another lawyer for herself. Unfortunately,
he did neither, and should now suffer the proper sanction.
effective upon his receipt of this decision, with a warning that his commission of a similar offense will be dealt with
more severely.
Let copies of this decision be included in the personal record of Atty. EDGARDO 0. ERA and entered m his file in the
Office of the Bar Confidant.
Let copies of this decision be disseminated to all lower courts by the Office of the Court Administrator, as well as to
the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for its guidance.
SO ORDERED.
3.Ulep vs. Legal Clinic A.C. No. L-533
Topics:
“A lawyer, making known his legal services shall only use true, honest, fair, dignified and objective information or
statement of facts.”—Canon 3, Code of Professional Responsibility
“A lawyer shall not use or permit the use of any false, fraudulent, misleading, deceptive, undignified, self-laudatory or
unfair statement or claim regarding his qualifications for legal services.”—Rule 3.01, Code of Professional
Responsibility
Facts of the Case:
In 1984, The Legal Clinic was formed by Atty. Rogelio Nogales. Its aim, according to Nogales, was to move toward
specialization and to cater to clients who cannot afford the services of big law firms.
Atty. Ulep files a complaint against The Legal Clinic because of its advertisements which states undignified phrases
like-- “Secret Marriage? P560.00 for a valid marriage. Information on DIVORCE, ANNULMENT, ABSENCE, VISA. The
Legal Clinic, Inc. Please call: 5210767, 5217232, 5222041 8:30am to 6:00pm 7th Floor Victoria Bldg. UN Avenue,
Manila.”
It is also alleged that The Legal Clinic published an article entitled Rx for Legal Problems in The Philippine Star because
it is composed of specialists that can take care of a client’s situation no matter how complicated it is, especially on
marriage problems like the Sharon and Gabby situation.
13
Citing John Bates vs. The State Bar of Arizona, Atty. Nogales said that it should be allowed based on this American
Jurisprudence. According to him, there is nothing wrong with making known the legal services his Legal Clinic has to
offer.
Issue:
Whether or not such advertisement may be allowed.
Court Ruling:
The Legal Clinic is composed mainly of paralegals, which is undoubtedly beyond the domain of the paralegals. As
stated in a previous jurisprudence, practice of law is only reserved for the members of the Philippine bar, and not to
paralegals. As with the Legal Clinic’s advertisements, the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that “a lawyer
in making known his legal services must use only honest, fair, dignified and objective information or statement of
facts.
A lawyer cannot advertise his talents in a manner that a merchant advertise his goods. The Legal Clinic promotes
divorce, secret marriages, bigamous marriages which are undoubtedly contrary to law.
The only allowed form of advertisements would be: (1.) Citing your involvement in a reputable law list, (2.) An
ordinary professional card (3.) Phone directory listing without designation to a lawyer’s specialization.
FACTS: The petitioner contends that the advertisements reproduced by the respondents are champertous, unethical,
demeaning of the law profession, and destructive of the confidence of the community in the integrity of the members
of the bar and that, to which as a member of the legal profession, he is ashamed and offended by the following
advertisements:
Annex A
SECRET MARRIAGE?
P560.00 for a valid marriage.
Info on DIVORCE. ABSENCE.
ANNULMENT. VISA.
THE Please call:521-0767,
LEGAL 5217232,5222041
CLINIC, INC. 8:30 am-6:00 pm
7-Flr. Victoria Bldg., UN Ave., Mla.
Annex B
GUAM DIVORCE
DON PARKINSON
an Attorney in Guam, is giving FREE BOOKS on Guam Divorce through The Legal Clinic beginning Monday to Friday
during office hours.
Guam divorce. Annulment of Marriage. Immigration Problems, Visa Ext. Quota/Non-quota Res. & Special Retiree's
14
Visa. Declaration of Absence Remarriage to Filipina Fiancees. Adoption. Investment in the Phil. US/Force Visa for
Filipina Spouse/Children. Call Marivic.
THE 7F Victoria Bldg. 429 UN Ave.,

LEGAL Ermita, Manila nr. US Embassy
CLINIC, INC. Tel. 521-7232; 521-7251;
522-2041; 521-0767
In its answer to the petition, respondent admits the fact of publication of said advertisements at its instance, but
claims that it is not engaged in the practice of law but in the rendering of "legal support services"
through paralegals with the use of modern computers and electronic machines. Respondent further argues that
assuming that the services advertised are legal services, the act of advertising these services should be allowed
supposedly in the light of the case of John R. Bates and Van O'Steen vs. State Bar of Arizona, reportedly decided by
the United States Supreme Court on June 7, 1977. ISSUE:Whether or not, the advertised services offered by the Legal
Clinic, Inc., constitutes practice of law and whether the same are in violation of the Code of Professional responsibility
RULING: The advertisement of the respondent is covered in the term practice of law as defined in the case of
Cayetano vs. Monsod. There is a restricted concept and limited acceptance of paralegal services in the Philippines. It
is allowed that some persons not duly licensed to practice law are or have been permitted with a limited
representation in behalf of another or to render legal services, but such allowable services are limited in scope and
extent by the law, rules or regulations granting permission therefore. Canon 3 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility provides that a lawyer in making known his legal services shall use only true, honest, fair, dignified and
objective information or statement of facts. Canon 3.01 adds that he is not supposed to use or permit the use of any
false, fraudulent, misleading, deceptive, undignified, self-laudatory or unfair statement or claim regarding his
qualifications or legal services. 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 (Canon 3.04). The Canons of Professional Ethics,
before the adoption of the CPR, had also warned that lawyers should not resort to indirect advertisements for
professional employment, such as furnishing or inspiring newspaper comments, or procuring his photograph to be
published in connection with causes in which the lawyer have been engaged of concerning the manner of the
conduct, the magnitude of the interest involved, the importance the lawyer's position, and all other like self-
laudation. There are existing exceptions under the law on the rule prohibiting the advertisement of a lawyer’s
services. However, taking into consideration the nature and contents of the advertisements for which respondent is
being taken to task, which even includes a quotation of the fees charged by said respondent corporation for services
rendered, the court found and held that the same definitely do not and conclusively cannot fall under any of the
exceptions. The respondent’s defense with the case of Bates vs. State Bar applies only when there is an exception to
the prohibition against advertisements by lawyers, to publish a statement of legal fees for an initial consultation or
the availability upon request of a written schedule of fees or an estimate of the fee to be charged for the specific
services. No such exception is provided for, expressly or impliedly whether in our former Canons of Professional Ethics
or the present Code of Professional Responsibility. Besides, even the disciplinary rule in the Bates case contains a
proviso that the exceptions stand therein are "not applicable in any state unless and until it is implemented by such
authority in that state.” The Court Resolved to RESTRAIN and ENJOIN The Legal Clinic, Inc., from issuing or causing the
publication or dissemination of any advertisement in any form which is of the same or similar tenor and purpose as
Annexes "A" and "B" of this petition, and from conducting, directly or indirectly, any activity, operation or transaction
proscribed by law or the Code of Professional Ethics as indicated herein.
Mauricio C. Ulep vs. The Legal Clinic, Inc.
B.M. No. 553. June 17, 1993
15
Facts:
Mauricio C. Ulep, petitioner, prays this Court "to order the respondent, The Legal Clinic, Inc.,to cease and desist from
issuing advertisements similar to or of the same tenor as that of Annexes `A' and `B' (of said petition) and to
perpetually prohibit persons or entities from making advertisements pertaining to the exercise of the law profession
other than those allowed by law.” The advertisements complained of by herein petitioner are as follows:
Annex A
SECRET MARRIAGE?
ANNULMENT. VISA.
THEPlease call: 521-0767,

LEGAL5217232, 5222041
CLINIC, INC.8:30 am-6:00 pm
7-Flr. Victoria Bldg. UN Ave., Mla.
Annex B
GUAM DIVORCE
DON PARKINSON
Visa. Declaration of Absence. Remarriage to Filipina Fiancees. Adoption. Investment in the Phil. US/Foreign Visa for
THE 7 F Victoria Bldg. 429 UN Ave.

LEGALErmita, Manila nr. US Embassy
CLINIC, INC. Tel. 521-7232521-7251
522-2041; 521-0767
It is the submission of petitioner that the advertisements above reproduced are champertous, unethical, demeaning
of the law profession, and destructive of the confidence of the community in the integrity of the members of the bar
and that, as a member of the legal profession, he is ashamed and offended by the said advertisements, hence the
reliefs sought in his petition as herein before quoted.
In its answer to the petition, respondent admits the fact of publication of said advertisements at its instance, but
claims that it is not engaged in the practice of law but in the rendering of "legal support services" through paralegals
with the use of modern computers and electronic machines. Respondent further argues that assuming that the
services advertised are legal services, the act of advertising these services should be allowed supposedly in the light of
the case of John R. Bates and Van O'Steen vs. State Bar of Arizona, reportedly decided by the United States Supreme
Court on June 7, 1977.
16
Issue:
Whether or not the services offered by respondent, The Legal Clinic, Inc., as advertised by it constitutes
practice of law and, in either case, whether the same can properly be the subject of the advertisements herein
complained of.
Held:
Yes. The Supreme Court held that the services offered by the respondent constitute practice of law. The
definition of “practice of law” is laid down in the case of Cayetano vs. Monsod, as defined:
Black defines "practice of law" as:
"The rendition of services requiring the knowledge and the application of legal principles and technique to serve the
interest of another with his consent. It is not limited to appearing in court, or advising and assisting in the conduct of
litigation, but embraces the preparation of pleadings, and other papers incident to actions and special proceedings,
conveyancing, the preparation of legal instruments of all kinds, and the giving of all legal advice to clients. It embraces
all advice to clients and all actions taken for them in matters connected with the law."
The contention of respondent that it merely offers legal support services can neither be seriously considered nor
sustained. Said proposition is belied by respondent's own description of the services it has been offering. While some
of the services being offered by respondent corporation merely involve mechanical and technical know-how, such as
the installation of computer systems and programs for the efficient management of law offices, or the
computerization of research aids and materials, these will not suffice to justify an exception to the general rule. What
is palpably clear is that respondent corporation gives out legal information to laymen and lawyers. Its contention that
such function is non-advisory and non-diagnostic is more apparent than real. In providing information, for example,
about foreign laws on marriage, divorce and adoption, it strains the credulity of this Court that all that respondent
corporation will simply do is look for the law, furnish a copy thereof to the client, and stop there as if it were merely a
bookstore. With its attorneys and so called paralegals, it will necessarily have to explain to the client the intricacies of
the law and advise him or her on the proper course of action to be taken as may be provided for by said law. That is
what its advertisements represent and for which services it will consequently charge and be paid. That activity falls
squarely within the jurisprudential definition of "practice of law." Such a conclusion will not be altered by the fact that
respondent corporation does not represent clients in court since law practice, as the weight of authority holds, is not
limited merely to court appearances but extends to legal research, giving legal advice, contract drafting, and so forth.
That fact that the corporation employs paralegals to carry out its services is not controlling. What is important is that
it is engaged in the practice of law by virtue of the nature of the services it renders which thereby brings it within the
ambit of the statutory prohibitions against the advertisements which it has caused to be published and are now
assailed in this proceeding. The standards of the legal profession condemn the lawyer's advertisement of his talents.
A lawyer cannot, without violating the ethics of his profession, advertise his talents or skills as in a manner similar to a
merchant advertising his goods. The proscription against advertising of legal services or solicitation of legal business
rests on the fundamental postulate that the practice of law is a profession. The canons of the profession tell us that
the best advertising possible for a lawyer is a well-merited reputation for professional capacity and fidelity to trust,
which must be earned as the outcome of character and conduct. Good and efficient service to a client as well as to
the community has a way of publicizing itself and catching public attention. That publicity is a normal by-product of
effective service which is right and proper. A good and reputable lawyer needs no artificial stimulus to generate it and
17
to magnify his success. He easily sees the difference between a normal by-product of able service and the
unwholesome result of propaganda.
Ulep vs. Legal Clinic Inc. 223 SCRA 378 (1993)
***In the practice of his profession, a licensed attorney-at-law generally engages in three principal types of
professional activities:
1. legal advice and instructions to clients to inform them of their rights and obligations
2. preparation for clients of documents requiring knowledge of legal principles not possessed by ordinary layman;
and
3. appearance for clients before public tribunals which possess power and authority to determine rights of life,
liberty and property according to law, in order to assist in the proper interpretation and enforcement of law.
R E SO L U T I O N
REGALADO, J.:
Petitioner prays this Court "to order the respondent to cease and desist from issuing advertisements similar to or of
the same tenor as that of annexes "A" and "B" (of said petition) and to perpetually prohibit persons or entities from
making advertisements pertaining to the exercise of the law profession other than those allowed by law."
The advertisements complained of by herein petitioner are as follows:
Annex A
SECRET MARRIAGE?
ANNULMENT. VISA.
THE Please call: 521-0767 LEGAL 5217232, 5222041 CLINIC, INC. 8:30 am— 6:00 pm 7-Flr. Victoria Bldg., UN Ave., Mla.
Annex B
GUAM DIVORCE.
DON PARKINSON
Visa. Declaration of Absence. Remarriage to Filipina Fiancees. Adoption. Investment in the Phil. US/Foreign Visa for
18
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 of petitioner that the advertisements above reproduced are champterous, unethical, demeaning
of the law profession, and destructive of the confidence of the community in the integrity of the members of the bar
and that, as a member of the legal profession, he is ashamed and offended by the said advertisements, hence the
reliefs sought in his petition as hereinbefore quoted.
In its answer to the petition, respondent admits the fact of publication of said advertisement at its instance, but
claims that it is not engaged in the practice of law but in the rendering of "legal support services" through paralegals
with the use of modern computers and electronic machines. Respondent further argues that assuming that the
services advertised are legal services, the act of advertising these services should be allowed supposedly
in the light of the case of John R. Bates and Van O'Steen vs. State Bar of Arizona,2 reportedly decided by the United
States Supreme Court on June 7, 1977.
Considering the critical implications on the legal profession of the issues raised herein, we required the (1) Integrated
Bar of the Philippines (IBP), (2) Philippine Bar Association (PBA), (3) Philippine Lawyers' Association (PLA), (4) U.P.
Womens Lawyers' Circle (WILOCI), (5) Women Lawyers Association of the Philippines (WLAP), and (6) Federacion
International de Abogadas (FIDA) to submit their respective position papers on the controversy and, thereafter, their
memoranda. 3 The said bar associations readily responded and extended their valuable services and cooperation of
which this Court takes note with appreciation and gratitude.
The main issues posed for resolution before the Court are whether or not the services offered by respondent, The
Legal Clinic, Inc., as advertised by it constitutes practice of law and, in either case, whether the same can properly be
the subject of the advertisements herein complained of.
Before proceeding with an in-depth analysis of the merits of this case, we deem it proper and enlightening to present
hereunder excerpts from the respective position papers adopted by the aforementioned bar associations and the
memoranda submitted by them on the issues involved in this bar matter.
1. Integrated Bar of the Philippines:
xxx xxx xxx
Notwithstanding the subtle manner by which respondent endeavored to distinguish the two terms, i.e., "legal support
services" vis-a-vis "legal services", common sense would readily dictate that the same are essentially without
substantial distinction. For who could deny that document search, evidence gathering, assistance to layman in need
of basic institutional services from government or non-government agencies like birth, marriage, property, or
business registration, obtaining documents like clearance, passports, local or foreign visas, constitutes practice of
law?
xxx xxx xxx
The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) does not wish to make issue with respondent's foreign citations. Suffice it
to state that the IBP has made its position manifest, to wit, that it strongly opposes the view espoused by respondent
(to the effect that today it is alright to advertise one's legal services).
The IBP accordingly declares in no uncertain terms its opposition to respondent's act of establishing a "legal clinic"
and of concomitantly advertising the same through newspaper publications.
The IBP would therefore invoke the administrative supervision of this Honorable Court to perpetually restrain
respondent from undertaking highly unethical activities in the field of law practice as aforedescribed.4
xxx xxx xxx

19
A. The use of the name "The Legal Clinic, Inc." gives the impression that respondent corporation is being operated by
lawyers and that it renders legal services.
While the respondent repeatedly denies that it offers legal services to the public, the advertisements in question give
the impression that respondent is offering legal services. The Petition in fact simply assumes this to be so, as earlier
mentioned, apparently because this (is) the effect that the advertisements have on the reading public.
The impression created by the advertisements in question can be traced, first of all, to the very name being used by
respondent — "The Legal Clinic, Inc." Such a name, it is respectfully submitted connotes the rendering of legal
services for legal problems, just like a medical clinic connotes medical services for medical problems. More
importantly, the term "Legal Clinic" connotes lawyers, as the term medical clinic connotes doctors.
Furthermore, the respondent's name, as published in the advertisements subject of the present case, appears with
(the) scale(s) of justice, which all the more reinforces the impression that it is being operated by members of the bar
and that it offers legal services. In addition, the advertisements in question appear with a picture and name of a
person being represented as a lawyer from Guam, and this practically removes whatever doubt may still remain as to
the nature of the service or services being offered.
It thus becomes irrelevant whether respondent is merely offering "legal support services" as claimed by it, or whether
it offers legal services as any lawyer actively engaged in law practice does. And it becomes unnecessary to make a
distinction between "legal services" and "legal support services," as the respondent would have it. The
advertisements in question leave no room for doubt in the minds of the reading public that legal services are being
offered by lawyers, whether true or not.
B. The advertisements in question are meant to induce the performance of acts contrary to law, morals, public order
and public policy.
It may be conceded that, as the respondent claims, the advertisements in question are only meant to inform the
general public of the services being offered by it. Said advertisements, however, emphasize to Guam divorce, and any
law student ought to know that under the Family Code, there is only one instance when a foreign divorce is
recognized, and that is:
Article 26. . . .
Where a marriage between a Filipino citizen and a foreigner is validly celebrated and a divorce is thereafter validly
obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him or her to remarry, the Filipino spouse shall have capacity to
remarry under Philippine Law.
It must not be forgotten, too, that the Family Code (defines) a marriage as follows:
Article 1. Marriage is special contract of permanent union between a man and woman entered into accordance with
law for the establishment of conjugal and family life. It is the foundation of the family and an inviolable social
institution whose nature, consequences, and incidents are governed by law and not subject to stipulation, except that
marriage settlements may fix the property relation during the marriage within the limits provided by this Code.
By simply reading the questioned advertisements, it is obvious that the message being conveyed is that Filipinos can
avoid the legal consequences of a marriage celebrated in accordance with our law, by simply going to Guam for a
divorce. This is not only misleading, but encourages, or serves to induce, violation of Philippine law. At the very least,
this can be considered "the dark side" of legal practice, where certain defects in Philippine laws are exploited for the
sake of profit. At worst, this is outright malpractice.
Rule 1.02. — A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening confidence in
the legal system.
20
In addition, it may also be relevant to point out that advertisements such as that shown in Annex "A" of the Petition,
which contains a cartoon of a motor vehicle with the words "Just Married" on its bumper and seems to address those
planning a "secret marriage," if not suggesting a "secret marriage," makes light of the "special contract of permanent
union," the inviolable social institution," which is how the Family Code describes marriage, obviously to emphasize its
sanctity and inviolability. Worse, this particular advertisement appears to encourage marriages celebrated in secrecy,
which is suggestive of immoral publication of applications for a marriage license.
If the article "Rx for Legal Problems" is to be reviewed, it can readily be concluded that the above impressions one
may gather from the advertisements in question are accurate. The Sharon Cuneta-Gabby Concepcion example alone
confirms what the advertisements suggest. Here it can be seen that criminal acts are being encouraged or committed
(a bigamous marriage in Hong Kong or Las Vegas) with impunity simply because the jurisdiction of Philippine courts
does not extend to the place where the crime is committed.
Even if it be assumed, arguendo, (that) the "legal support services" respondent offers do not constitute legal services
as commonly understood, the advertisements in question give the impression that respondent corporation is being
operated by lawyers and that it offers legal services, as earlier discussed. Thus, the only logical consequence is that, in
the eyes of an ordinary newspaper reader, members of the bar themselves are encouraging or inducing the
performance of acts which are contrary to law, morals, good customs and the public good, thereby destroying and
demeaning the integrity of the Bar.
xxx xxx xxx
It is respectfully submitted that respondent should be enjoined from causing the publication of the advertisements in
question, or any other advertisements similar thereto. It is also submitted that respondent should be prohibited from
further performing or offering some of the services it presently offers, or, at the very least, from offering such services
to the public in general.
The IBP is aware of the fact that providing computerized legal research, electronic data gathering, storage and
retrieval, standardized legal forms, investigators for gathering of evidence, and like services will greatly benefit the
legal profession and should not be stifled but instead encouraged. However, when the conduct of such business by
non-members of the Bar encroaches upon the practice of law, there can be no choice but to prohibit such business.
Admittedly, many of the services involved in the case at bar can be better performed by specialists in other fields,
such as computer experts, who by reason of their having devoted time and effort exclusively to such field cannot
fulfill the exacting requirements for admission to the Bar. To prohibit them from "encroaching" upon the legal
profession will deny the profession of the great benefits and advantages of modern technology. Indeed, a lawyer
using a computer will be doing better than a lawyer using a typewriter, even if both are (equal) in skill.
Both the Bench and the Bar, however, should be careful not to allow or tolerate the illegal practice of law in any form,
not only for the protection of members of the Bar but also, and more importantly, for the protection of the public.
Technological development in the profession may be encouraged without tolerating, but instead ensuring prevention
of illegal practice.
There might be nothing objectionable if respondent is allowed to perform all of its services, but only if such services
are made available exclusively to members of the Bench and Bar. Respondent would then be offering technical
assistance, not legal services. Alternatively, the more difficult task of carefully distinguishing between which service
may be offered to the public in general and which should be made available exclusively to members of the Bar may be
undertaken. This, however, may require further proceedings because of the factual considerations involved.
It must be emphasized, however, that some of respondent's services ought to be prohibited outright, such as acts
which tend to suggest or induce celebration abroad of marriages which are bigamous or otherwise illegal and void
under Philippine law. While respondent may not be prohibited from simply disseminating information regarding such
21
matters, it must be required to include, in the information given, a disclaimer that it is not authorized to practice law,
that certain course of action may be illegal under Philippine law, that it is not authorized or capable of rendering a
legal opinion, that a lawyer should be consulted before deciding on which course of action to take, and that it cannot
recommend any particular lawyer without subjecting itself to possible sanctions for illegal practice of law.
If respondent is allowed to advertise, advertising should be directed exclusively at members of the Bar, with a clear
and unmistakable disclaimer that it is not authorized to practice law or perform legal services.
The benefits of being assisted by paralegals cannot be ignored. But nobody should be allowed to represent himself as
a "paralegal" for profit, without such term being clearly defined by rule or regulation, and without any adequate and
effective means of regulating his activities. Also, law practice in a corporate form may prove to be advantageous to
the legal profession, but before allowance of such practice may be considered, the corporation's Article of
Incorporation and By-laws must conform to each and every provision of the Code of Professional Responsibility and
the Rules of Court.5
2. Philippine Bar Association:
xxx xxx xxx.
Respondent asserts that it "is not engaged in the practice of law but engaged in giving legal support services to
lawyers and laymen, through experienced paralegals, with the use of modern computers and electronic machines"
(pars. 2 and 3, Comment). This is absurd. Unquestionably, respondent's acts of holding out itself to the public under
the trade name "The Legal Clinic, Inc.," and soliciting employment for its enumerated services fall within the realm of
a practice which thus yields itself to the regulatory powers of the Supreme Court. For respondent to say that it is
merely engaged in paralegal work is to stretch credulity. Respondent's own commercial advertisement which
announces a certain Atty. Don Parkinson to be handling the fields of law belies its pretense. From all indications,
respondent "The Legal Clinic, Inc." is offering and rendering legal services through its reserve of lawyers. It has been
held that the practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases in court, but includes drawing of deeds,
incorporation, rendering opinions, and advising clients as to their legal right and then take them to an attorney and
ask the latter to look after their case in court See Martin, Legal and Judicial Ethics, 1984 ed., p. 39).
It is apt to recall that only natural persons can engage in the practice of law, and such limitation cannot be evaded by
a corporation employing competent lawyers to practice for it. Obviously, this is the scheme or device by which
respondent "The Legal Clinic, Inc." holds out itself to the public and solicits employment of its legal services. It is
an odious vehicle for deception, especially so when the public cannot ventilate any grievance for malpractice against
the business conduit. Precisely, the limitation of practice of law to persons who have been duly admitted as members
of the Bar (Sec. 1, Rule 138, Revised Rules of Court) is to subject the members to the discipline of the Supreme Court.
Although respondent uses its business name, the persons and the lawyers who act for it are subject to court
discipline. The practice of law is not a profession open to all who wish to engage in it nor can it be assigned to another
(See 5 Am. Jur. 270). It is a personal right limited to persons who have qualified themselves under the law. It follows
that not only respondent but also all the persons who are acting for respondent are the persons engaged in unethical
law practice.6
3. Philippine Lawyers' Association:
The Philippine Lawyers' Association's position, in answer to the issues stated herein, are wit:
1. The Legal Clinic is engaged in the practice of law;
2. Such practice is unauthorized;
3. The advertisements complained of are not only unethical, but also misleading and patently immoral; and
22
4. The Honorable Supreme Court has the power to supress and punish the Legal Clinic and its corporate officers for its
unauthorized practice of law and for its unethical, misleading and immoral advertising.
xxx xxx xxx
Respondent posits that is it not engaged in the practice of law. It claims that it merely renders "legal support services"
to answers, litigants and the general public as enunciated in the Primary Purpose Clause of its Article(s) of
Incorporation. (See pages 2 to 5 of Respondent's Comment). But its advertised services, as enumerated above, clearly
and convincingly show that it is indeed engaged in law practice, albeit outside of court.
As advertised, it offers the general public its advisory services on Persons and Family Relations Law, particularly
regarding foreign divorces, annulment of marriages, secret marriages, absence and adoption; Immigration Laws,
particularly on visa related problems, immigration problems; the Investments Law of the Philippines and such other
related laws.
Its advertised services unmistakably require the application of the aforesaid law, the legal principles and procedures
related thereto, the legal advices based thereon and which activities call for legal training, knowledge and experience.
Applying the test laid down by the Court in the aforecited Agrava Case, the activities of respondent fall squarely and
are embraced in what lawyers and laymen equally term as "the practice of law."7
4. U.P. Women Lawyers' Circle:
In resolving, the issues before this Honorable Court, paramount consideration should be given to the protection of
the general public from the danger of being exploited by unqualified persons or entities who may be engaged in the
practice of law.
At present, becoming a lawyer requires one to take a rigorous four-year course of study on top of a four-year
bachelor of arts or sciences course and then to take and pass the bar examinations. Only then, is a lawyer qualified to
practice law.
While the use of a paralegal is sanctioned in many jurisdiction as an aid to the administration of justice, there are in
those jurisdictions, courses of study and/or standards which would qualify these paralegals to deal with the general
public as such. While it may now be the opportune time to establish these courses of study and/or standards, the fact
remains that at present, these do not exist in the Philippines. In the meantime, this Honorable Court may decide to
make measures to protect the general public from being exploited by those who may be dealing with the general
public in the guise of being "paralegals" without being qualified to do so.
In the same manner, the general public should also be protected from the dangers which may be brought about by
advertising of legal services. While it appears that lawyers are prohibited under the present Code of Professional
Responsibility from advertising, it appears in the instant case that legal services are being advertised not by lawyers
but by an entity staffed by "paralegals." Clearly, measures should be taken to protect the general public from falling
prey to those who advertise legal services without being qualified to offer such services. 8
A perusal of the questioned advertisements of Respondent, however, seems to give the impression that information
regarding validity of marriages, divorce, annulment of marriage, immigration, visa extensions, declaration of absence,
adoption and foreign investment, which are in essence, legal matters , will be given to them if they avail of its
services. The Respondent's name — The Legal Clinic, Inc. — does not help matters. It gives the impression again that
Respondent will or can cure the legal problems brought to them. Assuming that Respondent is, as claimed, staffed
purely by paralegals, it also gives the misleading impression that there are lawyers involved in The Legal Clinic, Inc., as
there are doctors in any medical clinic, when only "paralegals" are involved in The Legal Clinic, Inc.
23
Respondent's allegations are further belied by the very admissions of its President and majority stockholder, Atty.
Nogales, who gave an insight on the structure and main purpose of Respondent corporation in the aforementioned
"Starweek" article."9
5. Women Lawyer's Association of the Philippines:
Annexes "A" and "B" of the petition are clearly advertisements to solicit cases for the purpose of gain which, as
provided for under the above cited law, (are) illegal and against the Code of Professional Responsibility of lawyers in
this country.
Annex "A" of the petition is not only illegal in that it is an advertisement to solicit cases, but it is illegal in that in bold
letters it announces that the Legal Clinic, Inc., could work out/cause the celebration of a secret marriage which is not
only illegal but immoral in this country. While it is advertised that one has to go to said agency and pay P560 for a
valid marriage it is certainly fooling the public for valid marriages in the Philippines are solemnized only by officers
authorized to do so under the law. And to employ an agency for said purpose of contracting marriage is not
necessary.
No amount of reasoning that in the USA, Canada and other countries the trend is towards allowing lawyers to
advertise their special skills to enable people to obtain from qualified practitioners legal services for their particular
needs can justify the use of advertisements such as are the subject matter of the petition, for one (cannot) justify an
illegal act even by whatever merit the illegal act may serve. The law has yet to be amended so that such act could
become justifiable.
We submit further that these advertisements that seem to project that secret marriages and divorce are possible in
this country for a fee, when in fact it is not so, are highly reprehensible.
It would encourage people to consult this clinic about how they could go about having a secret marriage here, when it
cannot nor should ever be attempted, and seek advice on divorce, where in this country there is none, except under
the Code of Muslim Personal Laws in the Philippines. It is also against good morals and is deceitful because it falsely
represents to the public to be able to do that which by our laws cannot be done (and) by our Code of Morals should
not be done.
In the case (of) In re Taguda, 53 Phil. 37, the Supreme Court held that solicitation for clients by an attorney by
circulars of advertisements, is unprofessional, and offenses of this character justify permanent elimination from the
Bar. 10
6. Federacion Internacional de Abogados:
xxx xxx xxx
1.7 That entities admittedly not engaged in the practice of law, such as management consultancy firms or travel
agencies, whether run by lawyers or not, perform the services rendered by Respondent does not necessarily lead to
the conclusion that Respondent is not unlawfully practicing law. In the same vein, however, the fact that the business
of respondent (assuming it can be engaged in independently of the practice of law) involves knowledge of the law
does not necessarily make respondent guilty of unlawful practice of law.
. . . . Of necessity, no one . . . . acting as a consultant can render effective service unless he is familiar with such
statutes and regulations. He must be careful not to suggest a course of conduct which the law forbids. It seems . . .
.clear that (the consultant's) knowledge of the law, and his use of that knowledge as a factor in determining what
measures he shall recommend, do not constitute the practice of law . . . . It is not only presumed that all men know
the law, but it is a fact that most men have considerable acquaintance with broad features of the law . . . . Our
knowledge of the law — accurate or inaccurate — moulds our conduct not only when we are acting for ourselves, but
when we are serving others. Bankers, liquor dealers and laymen generally possess rather precise knowledge of the
24
laws touching their particular business or profession. A good example is the architect, who must be familiar with
zoning, building and fire prevention codes, factory and tenement house statutes, and who draws plans and
specification in harmony with the law. This is not practicing law.
But suppose the architect, asked by his client to omit a fire tower, replies that it is required by the statute. Or the
industrial relations expert cites, in support of some measure that he recommends, a decision of the National Labor
Relations Board. Are they practicing law? In my opinion, they are not, provided no separate fee is charged for the
legal advice or information, and the legal question is subordinate and incidental to a major non-legal problem.
It is largely a matter of degree and of custom.
If it were usual for one intending to erect a building on his land to engage a lawyer to advise him and the architect in
respect to the building code and the like, then an architect who performed this function would probably be
considered to be trespassing on territory reserved for licensed attorneys. Likewise, if the industrial relations field had
been pre-empted by lawyers, or custom placed a lawyer always at the elbow of the lay personnel man. But this is not
the case. The most important body of the industrial relations experts are the officers and business agents of the labor
unions and few of them are lawyers. Among the larger corporate employers, it has been the practice for some years
to delegate special responsibility in employee matters to a management group chosen for their practical knowledge
and skill in such matter, and without regard to legal thinking or lack of it. More recently, consultants like the
defendants have the same service that the larger employers get from their own specialized staff.
The handling of industrial relations is growing into a recognized profession for which appropriate courses are offered
by our leading universities. The court should be very cautious about declaring [that] a widespread, well-established
method of conducting business is unlawful, or that the considerable class of men who customarily perform a certain
function have no right to do so, or that the technical education given by our schools cannot be used by the graduates
in their business.
In determining whether a man is practicing law, we should consider his work for any particular client or customer, as a
whole. I can imagine defendant being engaged primarily to advise as to the law defining his client's obligations to his
employees, to guide his client's obligations to his employees, to guide his client along the path charted by law. This, of
course, would be the practice of the law. But such is not the fact in the case before me. Defendant's primarily efforts
are along economic and psychological lines. The law only provides the frame within which he must work, just as the
zoning code limits the kind of building the limits the kind of building the architect may plan. The incidental legal
advice or information defendant may give, does not transform his activities into the practice of law. Let me add that
if, even as a minor feature of his work, he performed services which are customarily reserved to members of the bar,
he would be practicing law. For instance, if as part of a welfare program, he drew employees' wills.
Another branch of defendant's work is the representations of the employer in the adjustment of grievances and in
collective bargaining, with or without a mediator. This is not per se the practice of law. Anyone may use an agent for
negotiations and may select an agent particularly skilled in the subject under discussion, and the person appointed is
free to accept the employment whether or not he is a member of the bar. Here, however, there may be an exception
where the business turns on a question of law. Most real estate sales are negotiated by brokers who are not lawyers.
But if the value of the land depends on a disputed right-of-way and the principal role of the negotiator is to assess the
probable outcome of the dispute and persuade the opposite party to the same opinion, then it may be that only a
lawyer can accept the assignment. Or if a controversy between an employer and his men grows from differing
interpretations of a contract, or of a statute, it is quite likely that defendant should not handle it. But I need not reach
a definite conclusion here, since the situation is not presented by the proofs.
Defendant also appears to represent the employer before administrative agencies of the federal government,
especially before trial examiners of the National Labor Relations Board. An agency of the federal government, acting
by virtue of an authority granted by the Congress, may regulate the representation of parties before such agency. The
25
State of New Jersey is without power to interfere with such determination or to forbid representation before the
agency by one whom the agency admits. The rules of the National Labor Relations Board give to a party the right to
appear in person, or by counsel, or by other representative. Rules and Regulations, September 11th, 1946, S. 203.31.
'Counsel' here means a licensed attorney, and ther representative' one not a lawyer. In this phase of his work,
defendant may lawfully do whatever the Labor Board allows, even arguing questions purely legal. (Auerbacher v.
Wood, 53 A. 2d 800, cited in Statsky, Introduction to Paralegalism [1974], at pp. 154-156.).
1.8 From the foregoing, it can be said that a person engaged in a lawful calling (which may involve knowledge of the
law) is not engaged in the practice of law provided that:
(a) The legal question is subordinate and incidental to a major non-legal problem;.
(b) The services performed are not customarily reserved to members of the bar; .
(c) No separate fee is charged for the legal advice or information.
All these must be considered in relation to the work for any particular client as a whole.
1.9. If the person involved is both lawyer and non-lawyer, the Code of Professional Responsibility succintly states the
rule of conduct:
Rule 15.08 — A lawyer who is engaged in another profession or occupation concurrently with the practice of law shall
make clear to his client whether he is acting as a lawyer or in another capacity.
1.10. In the present case. the Legal Clinic appears to render wedding services (See Annex "A" Petition). Services on
routine, straightforward marriages, like securing a marriage license, and making arrangements with a priest or a
judge, may not constitute practice of law. However, if the problem is as complicated as that described in "Rx for Legal
Problems" on the Sharon Cuneta-Gabby Concepcion-Richard Gomez case, then what may be involved is actually the
practice of law. If a non-lawyer, such as the Legal Clinic, renders such services then it is engaged in the unauthorized
practice of law.
1.11. The Legal Clinic also appears to give information on divorce, absence, annulment of marriage and visas (See
Annexes "A" and "B" Petition). Purely giving informational materials may not constitute of law. The business is similar
to that of a bookstore where the customer buys materials on the subject and determines on the subject and
determines by himself what courses of action to take.
It is not entirely improbable, however, that aside from purely giving information, the Legal Clinic's paralegals may
apply the law to the particular problem of the client, and give legal advice. Such would constitute unauthorized
practice of law.
It cannot be claimed that the publication of a legal text which publication of a legal text which purports to say what
the law is amount to legal practice. And the mere fact that the principles or rules stated in the text may be accepted
by a particular reader as a solution to his problem does not affect this. . . . . Apparently it is urged that the conjoining
of these two, that is, the text and the forms, with advice as to how the forms should be filled out, constitutes the
unlawful practice of law. But that is the situation with many approved and accepted texts. Dacey's book is sold to the
public at large. There is no personal contact or relationship with a particular individual. Nor does there exist that
relation of confidence and trust so necessary to the status of attorney and client. THIS IS THE ESSENTIAL OF LEGAL
PRACTICE — THE REPRESENTATION AND ADVISING OF A PARTICULAR PERSON IN A PARTICULAR SITUATION. At most
the book assumes to offer general advice on common problems, and does not purport to give personal advice on a
specific problem peculiar to a designated or readily identified person. Similarly the defendant's publication does not
purport to give personal advice on a specific problem peculiar to a designated or readily identified person in a
particular situation — in their publication and sale of the kits, such publication and sale did not constitutes the
unlawful practice of law . . . . There being no legal impediment under the statute to the sale of the kit, there was no
26
proper basis for the injunction against defendant maintaining an office for the purpose of selling to persons seeking a
divorce, separation, annulment or separation agreement any printed material or writings relating to matrimonial law
or the prohibition in the memorandum of modification of the judgment against defendant having an interest in any
publishing house publishing his manuscript on divorce and against his having any personal contact with any
prospective purchaser. The record does fully support, however, the finding that for the change of $75 or $100 for the
kit, the defendant gave legal advice in the course of personal contacts concerning particular problems which might
arise in the preparation and presentation of the purchaser's asserted matrimonial cause of action or pursuit of other
legal remedies and assistance in the preparation of necessary documents (The injunction therefore sought to) enjoin
conduct constituting the practice of law, particularly with reference to the giving of advice and counsel by the
defendant relating to specific problems of particular individuals in connection with a divorce, separation, annulment
of separation agreement sought and should be affirmed. (State v. Winder, 348, NYS 2D 270 [1973], cited in
Statsky, supra at p. 101.).
1.12. Respondent, of course, states that its services are "strictly non-diagnostic, non-advisory. "It is not controverted,
however, that if the services "involve giving legal advice or counselling," such would constitute practice of law
(Comment, par. 6.2). It is in this light that FIDA submits that a factual inquiry may be necessary for the judicious
disposition of this case.
xxx xxx xxx
2.10. Annex "A" may be ethically objectionable in that it can give the impression (or perpetuate the wrong notion)
that there is a secret marriage. With all the solemnities, formalities and other requisites of marriages (See Articles
2, et seq., Family Code), no Philippine marriage can be secret.
2.11. Annex "B" may likewise be ethically objectionable. The second paragraph thereof (which is not necessarily
related to the first paragraph) fails to state the limitation that only "paralegal services?" or "legal support services",
and not legal services, are available." 11
A prefatory discussion on the meaning of the phrase "practice of law" becomes exigent for the proper determination
of the issues raised by the petition at bar. On this score, we note that the clause "practice of law" has long been the
subject of judicial construction and interpretation. The courts have laid down general principles and doctrines
explaining the meaning and scope of the term, some of which we now take into account.
Practice of law means any activity, in or out of court, which requires the application of law, legal procedures,
knowledge, training and experience. To engage in the practice of law is to perform those acts which are characteristic
of the profession. Generally, to practice law is to give advice or render any kind of service that involves legal
knowledge or skill. 12
The practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases in court. It includes legal advice and counsel, and the
preparation of legal instruments and contract by which legal rights are secured, although such matter may or may not
be pending in a court. 13
In the practice of his profession, a licensed attorney at law generally engages in three principal types of professional
activity: legal advice and instructions to clients to inform them of their rights and obligations, preparation for clients
of documents requiring knowledge of legal principles not possessed by ordinary layman, and appearance for clients
before public tribunals which possess power and authority to determine rights of life, liberty, and property according
to law, in order to assist in proper interpretation and enforcement of law. 14
When a person participates in the a trial and advertises himself as a lawyer, he is in the practice of law. 15 One who
confers with clients, advises them as to their legal rights and then takes the business to an attorney and asks the
latter to look after the case in court, is also practicing law. 16 Giving advice for compensation regarding the legal
27
status and rights of another and the conduct with respect thereto constitutes a practice of law. 17 One who renders
an opinion as to the proper interpretation of a statute, and receives pay for it, is, to that extent, practicing law. 18
In the recent case of Cayetano vs. Monsod, 19 after citing the doctrines in several cases, we laid down the test to
determine whether certain acts constitute "practice of law," thus:
Black defines "practice of law" as:
The rendition of services requiring the knowledge and the application of legal principles and technique to serve the
interest of another with his consent. It is not limited to appearing in court, or advising and assisting in the conduct of
litigation, but embraces the preparation of pleadings, and other papers incident to actions and special proceedings,
conveyancing, the preparation of legal instruments of all kinds, and the giving of all legal advice to clients. It embraces
all advice to clients and all actions taken for them in matters connected with the law.
The practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases on court.(Land Title Abstract and Trust Co. v. Dworken , 129
Ohio St. 23, 193N. E. 650). A person is also considered to be in the practice of law when he:
. . . . for valuable consideration engages in the business of advising person, firms, associations or corporations as to
their right under the law, or appears in a representative capacity as an advocate in proceedings, pending or
prospective, before any court, commissioner, referee, board, body, committee, or commission constituted by law or
authorized to settle controversies and there, in such representative capacity, performs any act or acts for the purpose
of obtaining or defending the rights of their clients under the law. Otherwise stated, one who, in a representative
capacity, engages in the business of advising clients as to their rights under the law, or while so engaged performs any
act or acts either in court or outside of court for that purpose, is engaged in the practice of law. (State ex. rel.
Mckittrick v. C.S. Dudley and Co., 102 S. W. 2d 895, 340 Mo. 852).
This Court, in the case of Philippines Lawyers Association v. Agrava (105 Phil. 173, 176-177),stated:
The practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases or litigation in court; it embraces the preparation of
pleadings and other papers incident to actions and special proceedings, the management of such actions and
proceedings on behalf of clients before judges and courts, and in addition, conveying. In general, all advice to clients,
and all action taken for them in matters connected with the law incorporation services, assessment and
condemnation services contemplating an appearance before a judicial body, the foreclosure of a mortgage,
enforcement of a creditor's claim in bankruptcy and insolvency proceedings, and conducting proceedings in
attachment, and in matters or estate and guardianship have been held to constitute law practice, as do the
preparation and drafting of legal instruments, where the work done involves the determination by the trained legal
mind of the legal effect of facts and conditions. (5 Am. Jr. p. 262, 263).
Practice of law under modern conditions consists in no small part of work performed outside of any court and having
no immediate relation to proceedings in court. It embraces conveyancing, the giving of legal advice on a large variety
of subjects and the preparation and execution of legal instruments covering an extensive field of business and trust
relations and other affairs. Although these transactions may have no direct connection with court proceedings, they
are always subject to become involved in litigation. They require in many aspects a high degree of legal skill, a wide
experience with men and affairs, and great capacity for adaptation to difficult and complex situations. These
customary functions of an attorney or counselor at law bear an intimate relation to the administration of justice by
the courts. No valid distinction, so far as concerns the question set forth in the order, can be drawn between that part
of the work of the lawyer which involves appearance in court and that part which involves advice and drafting of
instruments in his office. It is of importance to the welfare of the public that these manifold customary functions be
performed by persons possessed of adequate learning and skill, of sound moral character, and acting at all times
under the heavy trust obligations to clients which rests upon all attorneys. (Moran, Comments on the Rules o Court,
Vol. 3 [1973 ed.], pp. 665-666, citing In Re Opinion of the Justices [Mass], 194 N. E. 313, quoted in Rhode Is. Bar Assoc.
v. Automobile Service Assoc. [R.I.] 197 A. 139, 144).
28
The practice of law, therefore, covers a wide range of activities in and out of court. Applying the aforementioned
criteria to the case at bar, we agree with the perceptive findings and observations of the aforestated bar associations
that the activities of respondent, as advertised, constitute "practice of law."
The contention of respondent that it merely offers legal support services can neither be seriously considered nor
sustained. Said proposition is belied by respondent's own description of the services it has been offering, to wit:
Legal support services basically consists of giving ready information by trained paralegals to laymen and lawyers,
which are strictly non-diagnostic, non-advisory, through the extensive use of computers and modern information
technology in the gathering, processing, storage, transmission and reproduction of information and communication,
such as computerized legal research; encoding and reproduction of documents and pleadings prepared by laymen or
lawyers; document search; evidence gathering; locating parties or witnesses to a case; fact finding investigations; and
assistance to laymen in need of basic institutional services from government or non-government agencies, like birth,
marriage, property, or business registrations; educational or employment records or certifications, obtaining
documentation like clearances, passports, local or foreign visas; giving information about laws of other countries that
they may find useful, like foreign divorce, marriage or adoption laws that they can avail of preparatory to emigration
to the foreign country, and other matters that do not involve representation of clients in court; designing and
installing computer systems, programs, or software for the efficient management of law offices, corporate legal
departments, courts and other entities engaged in dispensing or administering legal services. 20
While some of the services being offered by respondent corporation merely involve mechanical and technical
knowhow, such as the installation of computer systems and programs for the efficient management of law offices, or
the computerization of research aids and materials, these will not suffice to justify an exception to the general rule.
What is palpably clear is that respondent corporation gives out legal information to laymen and lawyers. Its
contention that such function is non-advisory and non-diagnostic is more apparent than real. In providing
information, for example, about foreign laws on marriage, divorce and adoption, it strains the credulity of this Court
that all the respondent corporation will simply do is look for the law, furnish a copy thereof to the client, and stop
there as if it were merely a bookstore. With its attorneys and so called paralegals, it will necessarily have to explain to
the client the intricacies of the law and advise him or her on the proper course of action to be taken as may be
provided for by said law. That is what its advertisements represent and for the which services it will consequently
charge and be paid. That activity falls squarely within the jurisprudential definition of "practice of law." Such a
conclusion will not be altered by the fact that respondent corporation does not represent clients in court since law
practice, as the weight of authority holds, is not limited merely giving legal advice, contract drafting and so forth.
The aforesaid conclusion is further strengthened by an article published in the January 13, 1991 issue of the
Starweek/The Sunday Magazine of the Philippines Star, entitled "Rx for Legal Problems," where an insight into the
structure, main purpose and operations of respondent corporation was given by its own "proprietor," Atty. Rogelio P.
Nogales:
This is the kind of business that is transacted everyday at The Legal Clinic, with offices on the seventh floor of the
Victoria Building along U. N. Avenue in Manila. No matter what the client's problem, and even if it is as complicated as
the Cuneta-Concepcion domestic situation, Atty. Nogales and his staff of lawyers, who, like doctors are "specialists" in
various fields can take care of it. The Legal Clinic, Inc. has specialists in taxation and criminal law, medico-legal
problems, labor, litigation, and family law. These specialist are backed up by a battery of paralegals, counsellors and
attorneys.
Atty. Nogales set up The Legal Clinic in 1984. Inspired by the trend in the medical field toward specialization, it caters
to clients who cannot afford the services of the big law firms.
The Legal Clinic has regular and walk-in clients. "when they come, we start by analyzing the problem. That's what
doctors do also. They ask you how you contracted what's bothering you, they take your temperature, they observe
29
you for the symptoms and so on. That's how we operate, too. And once the problem has been categorized, then it's
referred to one of our specialists.
There are cases which do not, in medical terms, require surgery or follow-up treatment. These The Legal Clinic
disposes of in a matter of minutes. "Things like preparing a simple deed of sale or an affidavit of loss can be taken
care of by our staff or, if this were a hospital the residents or the interns. We can take care of these matters on a
while you wait basis. Again, kung baga sa hospital, 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" are dealt with accordingly. "If you had a rich relative who
died and named you her sole heir, and you stand to inherit millions of pesos of property, we would refer you to a
specialist in taxation. There would be real estate taxes and arrears which would need to be put in order, and your
relative is even taxed by the state for the right to transfer her property, and only a specialist in taxation would be
properly trained to deal with the problem. Now, if there were other heirs contesting your rich relatives will, then you
would need a litigator, who knows how to arrange the problem for presentation in court, and gather evidence to
support the case. 21
That fact that the corporation employs paralegals to carry out its services is not controlling. What is important is that
it is engaged in the practice of law by virtue of the nature of the services it renders which thereby brings it within the
ambit of the statutory prohibitions against the advertisements which it has caused to be published and are now
assailed in this proceeding.
Further, as correctly and appropriately pointed out by the U.P. WILOCI, said reported facts sufficiently establish that
the main purpose of respondent is to serve as a one-stop-shop of sorts for various legal problems wherein a client
may avail of legal services from simple documentation to complex litigation and corporate undertakings. Most of
these services are undoubtedly beyond the domain of paralegals, but rather, are exclusive functions of lawyers
engaged in the practice of law. 22
It should be noted that in our jurisdiction the services being offered by private respondent which constitute practice
of law cannot be performed by paralegals. Only a person duly admitted as a member of the bar, or hereafter
admitted as such in accordance with the provisions of the Rules of Court, and who is in good and regular standing, is
entitled to practice law. 23
Public policy requires that the practice of law be limited to those individuals found duly qualified in education and
character. The permissive right conferred on the lawyers is an individual and limited privilege subject to withdrawal if
he fails to maintain proper standards of moral and professional conduct. The purpose is to protect the public, the
court, the client and the bar from the incompetence or dishonesty of those unlicensed to practice law and not subject
to the disciplinary control of the court. 24
The same rule is observed in the american jurisdiction wherefrom respondent would wish to draw support for his
thesis. The doctrines there also stress that the practice of law is limited to those who meet the requirements for, and
have been admitted to, the bar, and various statutes or rules specifically so provide. 25 The practice of law is not a
lawful business except for members of the bar who have complied with all the conditions required by statute and the
rules of court. Only those persons are allowed to practice law who, by reason of attainments previously acquired
through education and study, have been recognized by the courts as possessing profound knowledge of legal science
entitling them to advise, counsel with, protect, or defend the rights claims, or liabilities of their clients, with respect to
the construction, interpretation, operation and effect of law. 26 The justification for excluding from the practice of
law those not admitted to the bar is found, not in the protection of the bar from competition, but in the protection of
the public from being advised and represented in legal matters by incompetent and unreliable persons over whom
the judicial department can exercise little control.27
30
We have to necessarily and definitely reject respondent's position that the concept in the United States of paralegals
as an occupation separate from the law profession be adopted in this jurisdiction. Whatever may be its merits,
respondent cannot but be aware that this should first be a matter for judicial rules or legislative action, and not of
unilateral adoption as it has done.
Paralegals in the United States are trained professionals. As admitted by respondent, there are schools and
universities there which offer studies and degrees in paralegal education, while there are none in the
Philippines. 28As the concept of the "paralegals" or "legal assistant" evolved in the United States, standards and
guidelines also evolved to protect the general public. One of the major standards or guidelines was developed by the
American Bar Association which set up Guidelines for the Approval of Legal Assistant Education Programs (1973).
Legislation has even been proposed to certify legal assistants. There are also associations of paralegals in the United
States with their own code of professional ethics, such as the National Association of Legal Assistants, Inc. and the
American Paralegal Association. 29
In the Philippines, we still have a restricted concept and limited acceptance of what may be considered as paralegal
service. As pointed out by FIDA, some persons not duly licensed to practice law are or have been allowed limited
representation in behalf of another or to render legal services, but such allowable services are limited in scope and
extent by the law, rules or regulations granting permission therefor. 30
Accordingly, we have adopted the American judicial policy that, in the absence of constitutional or statutory
authority, a person who has not been admitted as an attorney cannot practice law for the proper administration of
justice cannot be hindered by the unwarranted intrusion of an unauthorized and unskilled person into the practice of
law. 31 That policy should continue to be one of encouraging persons who are unsure of their legal rights and
remedies to seek legal assistance only from persons licensed to practice law in the state. 32
Anent the issue on the validity of the questioned advertisements, the Code of Professional Responsibility provides
that a lawyer in making known his legal services shall use only true, honest, fair, dignified and objective information
or statement of facts. 33 He is not supposed to use or permit the use of any false, fraudulent, misleading, deceptive,
undignified, self-laudatory or unfair statement or claim regarding his qualifications or legal services. 34 Nor shall he
pay or give something of value to representatives of the mass media in anticipation of, or in return for, publicity to
attract legal business. 35 Prior to the adoption of the code of Professional Responsibility, the Canons of Professional
Ethics had also warned that lawyers should not resort to indirect advertisements for professional employment, such
as furnishing or inspiring newspaper comments, or procuring his photograph to be published in connection with
causes in which the lawyer has been or is engaged or concerning the manner of their conduct, the magnitude of the
interest involved, the importance of the lawyer's position, and all other like self-laudation. 36
The standards of the legal profession condemn the lawyer's advertisement of his talents. A lawyer cannot, without
violating the ethics of his profession. advertise his talents or skill as in a manner similar to a merchant advertising his
goods. 37 The prescription against advertising of legal services or solicitation of legal business rests on the
fundamental postulate that the that the practice of law is a profession. Thus, in the case of The Director of Religious
Affairs. vs. Estanislao R. Bayot 38 an advertisement, similar to those of respondent which are involved in the present
proceeding, 39 was held to constitute improper advertising or solicitation.
The pertinent part of the decision therein reads:
It is undeniable that the advertisement in question was a flagrant violation by the respondent of the ethics of his
profession, it being a brazen solicitation of business from the public. Section 25 of Rule 127 expressly provides among
other things that "the practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either personally or thru paid agents
or brokers, constitutes malpractice." It is highly unethical for an attorney to advertise his talents or skill as a merchant
advertises his wares. Law is a profession and not a trade. The lawyer degrades himself and his profession who stoops
to and adopts the practices of mercantilism by advertising his services or offering them to the public. As a member of
31
the bar, he defiles the temple of justice with mercenary activities as the money-changers of old defiled the temple of
Jehovah. "The most worthy and effective advertisement possible, even for a young lawyer, . . . . is the establishment
of a well-merited reputation for professional capacity and fidelity to trust. This cannot be forced but must be the
outcome of character and conduct." (Canon 27, Code of Ethics.).
We repeat, the canon of the profession tell us that the best advertising possible for a lawyer is a well-merited
reputation for professional capacity and fidelity to trust, which must be earned as the outcome of character and
conduct. Good and efficient service to a client as well as to the community has a way of publicizing itself and catching
public attention. That publicity is a normal by-product of effective service which is right and proper. A good and
reputable lawyer needs no artificial stimulus to generate it and to magnify his success. He easily sees the difference
between a normal by-product of able service and the unwholesome result of propaganda. 40
Of course, not all types of advertising or solicitation are prohibited. The canons of the profession enumerate
exceptions to the rule against advertising or solicitation and define the extent to which they may be undertaken. The
exceptions are of two broad categories, namely, those which are expressly allowed and those which are necessarily
implied from the restrictions. 41
The first of such exceptions is the publication in reputable law lists, in a manner consistent with the standards of
conduct imposed by the canons, of brief biographical and informative data. "Such data must not be misleading and
may include only a statement of the lawyer's name and the names of his professional associates; addresses,
telephone numbers, cable addresses; branches of law practiced; date and place of birth and admission to the bar;
schools attended with dates of graduation, degrees and other educational distinction; public or quasi-public offices;
posts of honor; legal authorships; legal teaching positions; membership and offices in bar associations and
committees thereof, in legal and scientific societies and legal fraternities; the fact of listings in other reputable law
lists; the names and addresses of references; and, with their written consent, the names of clients regularly
represented." 42
The law list must be a reputable law list published primarily for that purpose; it cannot be a mere supplemental
feature of a paper, magazine, trade journal or periodical which is published principally for other purposes. For that
reason, a lawyer may not properly publish his brief biographical and informative data in a daily paper, magazine,
trade journal or society program. Nor may a lawyer permit his name to be published in a law list the conduct,
management or contents of which are calculated or likely to deceive or injure the public or the bar, or to lower the
dignity or standing of the profession. 43
The use of an ordinary simple professional card is also permitted. The card may contain only a statement of his name,
the name of the law firm which he is connected with, address, telephone number and special branch of law practiced.
The publication of a simple announcement of the opening of a law firm or of changes in the partnership, associates,
firm name or office address, being for the convenience of the profession, is not objectionable. He may likewise have
his name listed in a telephone directory but not under a designation of special branch of law. 44
Verily, taking into consideration the nature and contents of the advertisements for which respondent is being taken
to task, which even includes a quotation of the fees charged by said respondent corporation for services rendered, we
find and so hold that the same definitely do not and conclusively cannot fall under any of the above-mentioned
exceptions.
The ruling in the case of Bates, et al. vs. State Bar of Arizona, 45 which is repeatedly invoked and constitutes the
justification relied upon by respondent, is obviously not applicable to the case at bar. Foremost is the fact that the
disciplinary rule involved in said case explicitly allows a lawyer, as an exception to the prohibition against
advertisements by lawyers, to publish a statement of legal fees for an initial consultation or the availability upon
request of a written schedule of fees or an estimate of the fee to be charged for the specific services. No such
exception is provided for, expressly or impliedly, whether in our former Canons of Professional Ethics or the present
32
Code of Professional Responsibility. Besides, even the disciplinary rule in the Bates case contains a proviso that the
exceptions stated therein are "not applicable in any state unless and until it is implemented by such authority in that
state." 46 This goes to show that an exception to the general rule, such as that being invoked by herein respondent,
can be made only if and when the canons expressly provide for such an exception. Otherwise, the prohibition stands,
as in the case at bar.
It bears mention that in a survey conducted by the American Bar Association after the decision in Bates, on the
attitude of the public about lawyers after viewing television commercials, it was found that public opinion dropped
significantly 47 with respect to these characteristics of lawyers:
Trustworthy from 71% to 14%

Professional from 71% to 14%
Honest from 65% to 14%
Dignified from 45% to 14%
Secondly, it is our firm belief that with the present situation of our legal and judicial systems, to allow the publication
of advertisements of the kind used by respondent would only serve to aggravate what is already a deteriorating
public opinion of the legal profession whose integrity has consistently been under attack lately by media and the
community in general. At this point in time, it is of utmost importance in the face of such negative, even if unfair,
criticisms at times, to adopt and maintain that level of professional conduct which is beyond reproach, and to exert all
efforts to regain the high esteem formerly accorded to the legal profession.
In sum, it is undoubtedly a misbehavior on the part of the lawyer, subject to disciplinary action, to advertise his
services except in allowable instances 48 or to aid a layman in the unauthorized practice of law. 49 Considering that
Atty. Rogelio P. Nogales, who is the prime incorporator, major stockholder and proprietor of The Legal Clinic, Inc. is a
member of the Philippine Bar, he is hereby reprimanded, with a warning that a repetition of the same or similar acts
which are involved in this proceeding will be dealt with more severely.
While we deem it necessary that the question as to the legality or illegality of the purpose/s for which the Legal Clinic,
Inc. was created should be passed upon and determined, we are constrained to refrain from lapsing into an obiter on
that aspect since it is clearly not within the adjudicative parameters of the present proceeding which is merely
administrative in nature. It is, of course, imperative that this matter be promptly determined, albeit in a different
proceeding and forum, since, under the present state of our law and jurisprudence, a corporation cannot be
organized for or engage in the practice of law in this country. This interdiction, just like the rule against unethical
advertising, cannot be subverted by employing some so-called paralegals supposedly rendering the alleged support
services.
The remedy for the apparent breach of this prohibition by respondent is the concern and province of the Solicitor
General who can institute the corresponding quo warranto action, 50 after due ascertainment of the factual
background and basis for the grant of respondent's corporate charter, in light of the putative misuse thereof. That
spin-off from the instant bar matter is referred to the Solicitor General for such action as may be necessary under the
circumstances.
ACCORDINGLY, the Court Resolved to RESTRAIN and ENJOIN herein respondent, The Legal Clinic, Inc., from issuing or
causing the publication or dissemination of any advertisement in any form which is of the same or similar tenor and
purpose as Annexes "A" and "B" of this petition, and from conducting, directly or indirectly, any activity, operation or
transaction proscribed by law or the Code of Professional Ethics as indicated herein. Let copies of this resolution be
furnished the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, the Office of the Bar Confidant and the Office of the Solicitor General
for appropriate action in accordance herewith.
33

Northwestern University

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Northwestern University

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Northwestern University, Inc. vs.

The Case and the Facts

Report and Recommendation of the IBP

The Courts Ruling

Administrative Liability of Respondent

Thus it has been noted

A.C. No. 6664 July 16, 2013

FERDINAND A. SAMSON, Complainant, vs.

YES. The Supreme Court affirmed the findings of the IBP.

Prohibition against conflict of interest rests on 5 rationales, rendered as follows:

Is there a formal termination of the lawyer-client relationship with Samson?

SC affirmed the findings of the IBP.

FIDUCIARY OBLIGATION OF LOYALTY TO CLIENTS

We affirm the findings of the IBP.

3.Ulep vs. Legal Clinic A.C. No. L-533

Facts of the Case:

Whether or not such advertisement may be allowed.

THE 7F Victoria Bldg. 429 UN Ave.,

Mauricio C. Ulep vs. The Legal Clinic, Inc.

B.M. No. 553. June 17, 1993

THEPlease call: 521-0767,

THE 7 F Victoria Bldg. 429 UN Ave.

Black defines "practice of law" as:

Ulep vs. Legal Clinic Inc. 223 SCRA 378 (1993)

The advertisements complained of by herein petitioner are as follows:

1. Integrated Bar of the Philippines:

xxx xxx xxx

xxx xxx xxx

xxx xxx xxx

xxx xxx xxx

2. Philippine Bar Association:

xxx xxx xxx.

3. Philippine Lawyers' Association:

1. The Legal Clinic is engaged in the practice of law;

2. Such practice is unauthorized;

xxx xxx xxx

4. U.P. Women Lawyers' Circle:

5. Women Lawyer's Association of the Philippines:

6. Federacion Internacional de Abogados:

xxx xxx xxx

It is largely a matter of degree and of custom.

(c) No separate fee is charged for the legal advice or information.

xxx xxx xxx

Black defines "practice of law" as:

The pertinent part of the decision therein reads:

Trustworthy from 71% to 14%

You might also like