Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Case Digest - Alexcel
Case Digest - Alexcel
CELEDONIO AGRAVA
G.R. No. L-12426. February 16, 1959.
FACTS:
On may 27, 1957, respondent Director issued a circular announcing that he had scheduled an
examination for the purpose of determining who are qualified to practice as patent attorneys
before the Philippines Patent Office. According to the circular, members of the Philippine Bar,
engineers and other persons with sufficient scientific and technical training are qualified to take
the said examination. The petitioner contends that one who has passed the bar examination
sand is licensed by the Supreme Court to practice law in the Philippines and who is in good
standing is duly qualified to practice before the Philippines Patent Office and that the
respondent Directors holding an examination for the purpose is in excess of his jurisdiction and
is in violation of the law.The respondent, in reply, maintains the prosecution of patent cases
does not involve entirely or purely the practice of law but includes the application of scientific
and technical knowledge and training as a matter of actual practice so as to include engineers
and other individuals who passed the examination can practice before the Patent office.
Furthermore, he stressed that for the long time he is holding tests, this is the first time that his
right has been questioned formally.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the appearance before the patent Office and the preparation and the
prosecution of patent application, etc., constitutes or is included in the practice of law.
HELD:
The Supreme Court held that the practice of law includes such appearance before the Patent
Office, the representation of applicants, oppositors, and other persons, and the prosecution of
their applications for patent, their opposition thereto, or the enforcement of their rights in
patent cases. Moreover, the practice before the patent Office involves the interpretation and
application of other laws and legal principles, as well as the existence of facts to be established
in accordance with the law of evidence and procedure. The practice of law is not limited to the
conduct of cases or litigation in court but also embraces all other matters connected with the
law and any work involving the determination by the legal mind of the legal effects of facts and
conditions. Furthermore, the law provides that any party may appeal to the Supreme Court from
any final order or decision of the director. Thus, if the transactions of business in the Patent
Office involved exclusively or mostly technical and scientific knowledge and training, then
logically, the appeal should be taken not to a court or judicial body, but rather to a board of
scientists, engineers or technical men, which is not the case.
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 lawyers
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 respondents
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.
In The Matter of the Integration of the Bar of the Philippines, January 9, 1973
FACTS:
In 1970, the Supreme Court created the Commission on Bar Integration (CBI) to ascertain the
advisability of unifying the Philippine Bar. In 1971, the Congress passed HB 3277 (An Act
Providing for the Integration of the Philippine Bar, and Appropriating Funds Therefore).
President Marcos signed it and it became RA 6397.In 1972, the CBI submitted its Report with the
earnest recommendation to ordain the integration of the Philippine Bar through the adoption
and promulgation of an appropriate Court Rule. The Report, alongside the proceedings in
Administrative Case 526 and the views and sentiments of the Board of Consultants and the
Philippine Bench and Bar, prayed for such integration.
ISSUE/S:
WON the integration of the Bar is constitutional.
HELD:
Yes. The integration of the Bar is constitutional.
RATIO:
The CBI Report defines the Bar Integration as the official unification of the entire lawyer
population of the Philippines, requiring membership and financial support of every lawyer
as sine qua non to the practice of law and the retention of his name in the Roll of Attorneys. It is
based on the recognition that a lawyer is an officer of the court. It improves the position of the
Bar as an instrument of justice and rule of law. It fosters cohesion among lawyers and ensures
the promotion of the objectives of the legal profession. The constitutionality of the Bar
Integration hinges on the constitutional rights of freedom of association and freedom of speech.
As the practice of law is a privilege vested with public interest, it can best discharge its public
responsibilities through collective action. Collective actions can only be done through an
organized body. To compel a lawyer to be a member of an Integrated Bar does not violate his
constitutional freedom to associate because integration does not make a lawyer a member of
any group of which he is not already member. Integration only provides an official national
organization for the well-defined but unorganized and in cohesive group of which every lawyer
is already a member. Also, an Integrated Bar serves to elevate the educational and ethical
standards of the Bar with the goal of improving the quality of the
e States legitimate interest. Even assuming that a lawyer is compelled to join the Integrated
Bar, it is still a justified compulsion as it is an exercise of the police power of the State in
regulating and controlling the legal profession. Also, the inherent power of the Supreme Court
to regulate the Bar includes the authority to integrate it.
NOTE:
This case falls under Canon 7 but this Canon is not explicitly provided for in the case. However,
the relation can be seen. Canon 7 provides that a lawyer s hall at all times uphold the integrity
and dignity of the legal profession and support the activities of the integrated bar. In using the
word shall, this Canon makes it mandatory for all lawyers to:
(1) uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession, and (2) support the activities of the
Integrated Bar. In being a member of the Integrated Bar, a lawyer has certain responsibilities,
which, if complied with, will uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession. Therefore, it
is neither unlawful to have a Bar Integration nor be a member of an Integrated Bar.