SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED Cayetano vs. Monsod G.R. No. 100113.

September Constitutional Law; Qualifications of COMELEC Chairman; Definition of “Practice of Law".—

3, 1991.*
RENATO L. CAYETANO, petitioner, vs. CHRISTIAN MONSOD, HON. JOVITO R. SALONGA,
COMMISSION ON APPOINTMENTS, and HON. GUILLERMO CARAGUE, in his capacity as
Secretary of Budget and Management, respondents.
Constitutional Law; Qualifications of COMELEC Chairman; “Practice of law” defined.—
Practice of law means any activity, in or out of court, which requires the application of law,
legal procedure, knowledge, training and experience. “To engage in the practice of law is to
perform those acts which are characteristics of the profession. Generally, to practice law is to
give notice or render any kind of service, which device or service requires the use in any
degree of legal knowledge or skill.” (111 ALR 23) Interpreted in the light of the various
definitions of the term “practice of law”, particularly the modern concept of law practice, and
taking into consideration the liberal construc-tion intended by the framers of the
Constitution, Atty. Monsod’s past work experiences as a lawyer-economist, a lawyer-
manager, a lawyerentrepreneur of industry, a lawyer-negotiator of contracts, and a lawyer-
legislator of both the rich and the poor—verily more than satisfy the constitutional
requirement—that he has been engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years. Same;
Same; Judicial review of judgments rendered by the Commission on Appointments.—The
Commission on the basis of evidence submitted during the public hearings on Monsod’s
confirmation, implicitly determined that he possessed the necessary qualifications as
required by law. The judgment rendered by the Commission in the exercise of such an
acknowledged power is beyond judicial interference except only upon a clear showing of a
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. (Art. VIII, Sec. 1
Constitution). Thus, only where such grave abuse of discretion is clearly shown shall the
Court interfere with the Commission’s judgment. In the instant case, there is no occasion for
the exercise of the Court’s corrective power, since no abuse, much less a grave abuse of
discretion, that would amount to lack or excess of jurisdiction and would warrant the
issuance of the writs prayed, for has been clearly shown.
VOL. 201, SEPTEMBER 3, 1991 211 Cayetano vs. Monsod
The Constitution uses the phrase “engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years.” The
deliberate choice of words shows that the practice envisioned is active and regular, not
isolated, occasional, accidental, intermittent, incidental, seasonal, or extemporaneous. To be
“engaged” in an activity for ten years requires committed participation in something which is
the result of one’s decisive choice. It means that one is occupied and involved in the
enterprise; one is obliged or pledged to carry it out with intent and attention during the ten-
year period.
G.R. No. 100113 September 3, 1991
RENATO CAYETANO, petitioner,
vs.
CHRISTIAN MONSOD, HON. JOVITO R. SALONGA, COMMISSION ON APPOINTMENT, and
HON. GUILLERMO CARAGUE, in his capacity as Secretary of Budget and Management,
respondents.
Renato L. Cayetano for and in his own behalf.
Sabina E. Acut, Jr. and Mylene Garcia-Albano co-counsel for petitioner.
PARAS, J.:
We are faced here with a controversy of far-reaching proportions. While ostensibly only legal
issues are involved, the Court's decision in this case would indubitably have a profound effect
on the political aspect of our national existence.

PADILLA, J., Dissenting:

Constitutional Law; Qualifications of COMELEC Chairman; Definition of “Practice of Law".—
What constitutes practice of law? As commonly understood, “practice” refers to the actual
performance or application of knowledge as distinguished from mere possession of
knowledge; it connotes an active, habitual, repeated or customary action. To “practice” law,
or any profession for that matter, means, to exercise or pursue an employment or profession
actively, habitually, repeatedly or customarily. Therefore, a doctor of medicine who is
employed and is habitually performing the tasks of a nursing aide, cannot be said to be in the
“practice of medicine.” A certified public accountant who works as a clerk, cannot be said to
practice his profession as an accountant. In the same way, a lawyer who is employed as a
business executive or a corporate manager, other than as head or attorney of a Legal
Department of a corporation or a governmental agency, cannot be said to be in the practice
of law. GUTIERREZ, JR., J., Dissenting:
The 1987 Constitution provides in Section 1 (1), Article IX-C:
There shall be a Commission on Elections composed of a Chairman and six Commissioners
who shall be natural-born citizens of the Philippines and, at the time of their appointment, at
least thirty-five years of age, holders of a college degree, and must not have been candidates
for any elective position in the immediately preceding -elections. However, a majority
thereof, including the Chairman, shall be members of the Philippine Bar who have been
engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years. (Emphasis supplied)
The aforequoted provision is patterned after Section l(l), Article XII-C of the 1973 Constitution
which similarly provides:
There shall be an independent Commission on Elections composed of a Chairman and eight
Commissioners who shall be natural-born citizens of the Philippines and, at the time of their
appointment, at least thirty-five years of age and holders of a college degree. However, a
majority thereof, including the Chairman, shall be members of the Philippine Bar who have
been engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years.' (Emphasis supplied)
Regrettably, however, there seems to be no jurisprudence as to what constitutes practice of
law as a legal qualification to an appointive office.
Black defines "practice of law" as:
The rendition of services requiring the knowledge and the application of legal principles and
technique to serve the interest of another with his consent. It is not limited to appearing in
court, or advising and assisting in the conduct of litigation, but embraces the preparation of
pleadings, and other papers incident to actions and special proceedings, conveyancing, the
preparation of legal instruments of all kinds, and the giving of all legal advice to clients. It
embraces all advice to clients and all actions taken for them in matters connected with the
law. An attorney engages in the practice of law by maintaining an office where he is held out
to be-an attorney, using a letterhead describing himself as an attorney, counseling clients in
legal matters, negotiating with opposing counsel about pending litigation, and fixing and
collecting fees for services rendered by his associate. (Black's Law Dictionary, 3rd ed.)
The practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases in court. (Land Title Abstract and
Trust Co. v. Dworken, 129 Ohio St. 23, 193 N.E. 650) A person is also considered to be in the
practice of law when he:
... for valuable consideration engages in the business of advising person, firms, associations
or corporations as to their rights under the law, or appears in a representative capacity as an
advocate in proceedings pending or prospective, before any court, commissioner, referee,
board, body, committee, or commission constituted by law or authorized to settle
controversies and there, in such representative capacity performs any act or acts for the
purpose of obtaining or defending the rights of their clients under the law. Otherwise stated,
one who, in a representative capacity, engages in the business of advising clients as to their
rights under the law, or while so engaged performs any act or acts either in court or outside
of court for that purpose, is engaged in the practice of law. (State ex. rel. Mckittrick v..C.S.
Dudley and Co., 102 S.W. 2d 895, 340 Mo. 852)
This Court in the case of Philippine Lawyers Association v.Agrava, (105 Phil. 173,176-177)
stated:
The practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases or litigation in court; it embraces the
preparation of pleadings and other papers incident to actions and special proceedings, the
management of such actions and proceedings on behalf of clients before judges and courts,
and in addition, conveying. In general, all advice to clients, and all action taken for them in
matters connected with the law incorporation services, assessment and condemnation
services contemplating an appearance before a judicial body, the foreclosure of a mortgage,
enforcement of a creditor's claim in bankruptcy and insolvency proceedings, and conducting
proceedings in attachment, and in matters of estate and guardianship have been held to
constitute law practice, as do the preparation and drafting of legal instruments, where the
work done involves the determination by the trained legal mind of the legal effect of facts
and conditions. (5 Am. Jr. p. 262, 263). (Emphasis supplied)
Practice of law under modem conditions consists in no small part of work performed outside
of any court and having no immediate relation to proceedings in court. It embraces
conveyancing, the giving of legal advice on a large variety of subjects, and the preparation
and execution of legal instruments covering an extensive field of business and trust relations
and other affairs. Although these transactions may have no direct connection with court
proceedings, they are always subject to become involved in litigation. They require in many
aspects a high degree of legal skill, a wide experience with men and affairs, and great
capacity for adaptation to difficult and complex situations. These customary functions of an
attorney or counselor at law bear an intimate relation to the administration of justice by the
courts. No valid distinction, so far as concerns the question set forth in the order, can be
drawn between that part of the work of the lawyer which involves appearance in court and
that part which involves advice and drafting of instruments in his office. It is of importance to
the welfare of the public that these manifold customary functions be performed by persons
possessed of adequate learning and skill, of sound moral character, and acting at all times
under the heavy trust obligations to clients which rests upon all attorneys. (Moran,
Comments on the Rules of Court, Vol. 3 [1953 ed.] , p. 665-666, citing In re Opinion of the
Justices [Mass.], 194 N.E. 313, quoted in Rhode Is. Bar Assoc. v. Automobile Service Assoc.
[R.I.] 179 A. 139,144). (Emphasis ours)
The University of the Philippines Law Center in conducting orientation briefing for new
lawyers (1974-1975) listed the dimensions of the practice of law in even broader terms as
advocacy, counselling and public service.
One ay be a practicing attorney in following any line of employment in the profession. If what
he does exacts knowledge of the law and is of a kind usual for attorneys engaging in the
active practice of their profession, and he follows some one or more lines of employment
such as this he is a practicing attorney at law within the meaning of the statute. (Barr v.
Cardell, 155 NW 312)
Practice of law means any activity, in or out of court, which requires the application of law,
legal procedure, knowledge, training and experience. "To engage in the practice of law is to
perform those acts which are characteristics of the profession. Generally, to practice law is to
give notice or render any kind of service, which device or service requires the use in any
degree of legal knowledge or skill." (111 ALR 23)
The following records of the 1986 Constitutional Commission show that it has adopted a
liberal interpretation of the term "practice of law."
MR. FOZ. Before we suspend the session, may I make a manifestation which I forgot to do
during our review of the provisions on the Commission on Audit. May I be allowed to make a
very brief statement?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Jamir).
The Commissioner will please proceed.
MR. FOZ. This has to do with the qualifications of the members of the Commission on Audit.
Among others, the qualifications provided for by Section I is that "They must be Members of
the Philippine Bar" — I am quoting from the provision — "who have been engaged in the
practice of law for at least ten years".
To avoid any misunderstanding which would result in excluding members of the Bar who are
now employed in the COA or Commission on Audit, we would like to make the clarification
that this provision on qualifications regarding members of the Bar does not necessarily refer
or involve actual practice of law outside the COA We have to interpret this to mean that as
long as the lawyers who are employed in the COA are using their legal knowledge or legal
talent in their respective work within COA, then they are qualified to be considered for
appointment as members or commissioners, even chairman, of the Commission on Audit.
This has been discussed by the Committee on Constitutional Commissions and Agencies and
we deem it important to take it up on the floor so that this interpretation may be made
available whenever this provision on the qualifications as regards members of the Philippine
Bar engaging in the practice of law for at least ten years is taken up.
MR. OPLE. Will Commissioner Foz yield to just one question.
MR. FOZ. Yes, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. OPLE. Is he, in effect, saying that service in the COA by a lawyer is equivalent to the
requirement of a law practice that is set forth in the Article on the Commission on Audit?
MR. FOZ. We must consider the fact that the work of COA, although it is auditing, will
necessarily involve legal work; it will involve legal work. And, therefore, lawyers who are
employed in COA now would have the necessary qualifications in accordance with the
Provision on qualifications under our provisions on the Commission on Audit. And, therefore,
the answer is yes.
MR. OPLE. Yes. So that the construction given to this is that this is equivalent to the practice
of law.
MR. FOZ. Yes, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. OPLE. Thank you.
... ( Emphasis supplied)
Section 1(1), Article IX-D of the 1987 Constitution, provides, among others, that the Chairman
and two Commissioners of the Commission on Audit (COA) should either be certified public
accountants with not less than ten years of auditing practice, or members of the Philippine
Bar who have been engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years. (emphasis supplied)
Corollary to this is the term "private practitioner" and which is in many ways synonymous
with the word "lawyer." Today, although many lawyers do not engage in private practice, it is
still a fact that the majority of lawyers are private practitioners. (Gary Munneke,
Opportunities in Law Careers [VGM Career Horizons: Illinois], [1986], p. 15).
At this point, it might be helpful to define private practice. The term, as commonly
understood, means "an individual or organization engaged in the business of delivering legal
services." (Ibid.). Lawyers who practice alone are often called "sole practitioners." Groups of
lawyers are called "firms." The firm is usually a partnership and members of the firm are the
partners. Some firms may be organized as professional corporations and the members called
shareholders. In either case, the members of the firm are the experienced attorneys. In most
firms, there are younger or more inexperienced salaried attorneyscalled "associates." (Ibid.).
The test that defines law practice by looking to traditional areas of law practice is essentially
tautologous, unhelpful defining the practice of law as that which lawyers do. (Charles W.
Wolfram, Modern Legal Ethics [West Publishing Co.: Minnesota, 1986], p. 593). The practice
of law is defined as the performance of any acts . . . in or out of court, commonly understood
to be the practice of law. (State Bar Ass'n v. Connecticut Bank & Trust Co., 145 Conn. 222,
140 A.2d 863, 870 [1958] [quoting Grievance Comm. v. Payne, 128 Conn. 325, 22 A.2d 623,
626 [1941]). Because lawyers perform almost every function known in the commercial and
governmental realm, such a definition would obviously be too global to be workable.
(Wolfram, op. cit.).
The appearance of a lawyer in litigation in behalf of a client is at once the most publicly
familiar role for lawyers as well as an uncommon role for the average lawyer. Most lawyers
spend little time in courtrooms, and a large percentage spend their entire practice without
litigating a case. (Ibid., p. 593). Nonetheless, many lawyers do continue to litigate and the
litigating lawyer's role colors much of both the public image and the self perception of the
legal profession. (Ibid.)
In this regard thus, the dominance of litigation in the public mind reflects history, not reality.
(Ibid.). Why is this so? Recall that the late Alexander SyCip, a corporate lawyer, once
articulated on the importance of a lawyer as a business counselor in this wise: "Even today,
there are still uninformed laymen whose concept of an attorney is one who principally tries
cases before the courts. The members of the bench and bar and the informed laymen such as
businessmen, know that in most developed societies today, substantially more legal work is
transacted in law offices than in the courtrooms. General practitioners of law who do both
litigation and non-litigation work also know that in most cases they find themselves spending
more time doing what [is] loosely desccribe[d] as business counseling than in trying cases.
The business lawyer has been described as the planner, the diagnostician and the trial
lawyer, the surgeon. I[t] need not [be] stress[ed] that in law, as in medicine, surgery should
be avoided where internal medicine can be effective." (Business Star, "Corporate Finance
Law," Jan. 11, 1989, p. 4).
In the course of a working day the average general practitioner wig engage in a number of
legal tasks, each involving different legal doctrines, legal skills, legal processes, legal
institutions, clients, and other interested parties. Even the increasing numbers of lawyers in
specialized practice wig usually perform at least some legal services outside their specialty.
And even within a narrow specialty such as tax practice, a lawyer will shift from one legal task
or role such as advice-giving to an importantly different one such as representing a client
before an administrative agency. (Wolfram, supra, p. 687).
By no means will most of this work involve litigation, unless the lawyer is one of the relatively
rare types — a litigator who specializes in this work to the exclusion of much else. Instead,
the work will require the lawyer to have mastered the full range of traditional lawyer skills of
client counselling, advice-giving, document drafting, and negotiation. And increasingly
lawyers find that the new skills of evaluation and mediation are both effective for many
clients and a source of employment. (Ibid.).
Most lawyers will engage in non-litigation legal work or in litigation work that is constrained
in very important ways, at least theoretically, so as to remove from it some of the salient
features of adversarial litigation. Of these special roles, the most prominent is that of
prosecutor. In some lawyers' work the constraints are imposed both by the nature of the
client and by the way in which the lawyer is organized into a social unit to perform that work.
The most common of these roles are those of corporate practice and government legal
service. (Ibid.).
In several issues of the Business Star, a business daily, herein below quoted are emerging
trends in corporate law practice, a departure from the traditional concept of practice of law.
We are experiencing today what truly may be called a revolutionary transformation in
corporate law practice. Lawyers and other professional groups, in particular those members
participating in various legal-policy decisional contexts, are finding that understanding the
major emerging trends in corporation law is indispensable to intelligent decision-making.
Constructive adjustment to major corporate problems of today requires an accurate
understanding of the nature and implications of the corporate law research function
accompanied by an accelerating rate of information accumulation. The recognition of the
need for such improved corporate legal policy formulation, particularly "model-making" and
"contingency planning," has impressed upon us the inadequacy of traditional procedures in
many decisional contexts.
In a complex legal problem the mass of information to be processed, the sorting and
weighing of significant conditional factors, the appraisal of major trends, the necessity of
estimating the consequences of given courses of action, and the need for fast decision and
response in situations of acute danger have prompted the use of sophisticated concepts of
information flow theory, operational analysis, automatic data processing, and electronic
computing equipment. Understandably, an improved decisional structure must stress the
predictive component of the policy-making process, wherein a "model", of the decisional
context or a segment thereof is developed to test projected alternative courses of action in
terms of futuristic effects flowing therefrom.
Although members of the legal profession are regularly engaged in predicting and projecting
the trends of the law, the subject of corporate finance law has received relatively little
organized and formalized attention in the philosophy of advancing corporate legal education.
Nonetheless, a cross-disciplinary approach to legal research has become a vital necessity.
Certainly, the general orientation for productive contributions by those trained primarily in
the law can be improved through an early introduction to multi-variable decisional context
and the various approaches for handling such problems. Lawyers, particularly with either a
master's or doctorate degree in business administration or management, functioning at the
legal policy level of decision-making now have some appreciation for the concepts and
analytical techniques of other professions which are currently engaged in similar types of
complex decision-making.
Truth to tell, many situations involving corporate finance problems would require the
services of an astute attorney because of the complex legal implications that arise from each
and every necessary step in securing and maintaining the business issue raised. (Business
Star, "Corporate Finance Law," Jan. 11, 1989, p. 4).
In our litigation-prone country, a corporate lawyer is assiduously referred to as the "abogado
de campanilla." He is the "big-time" lawyer, earning big money and with a clientele
composed of the tycoons and magnates of business and industry.
Despite the growing number of corporate lawyers, many people could not explain what it is
that a corporate lawyer does. For one, the number of attorneys employed by a single
corporation will vary with the size and type of the corporation. Many smaller and some large
corporations farm out all their legal problems to private law firms. Many others have in-
house counsel only for certain matters. Other corporation have a staff large enough to handle
most legal problems in-house.
A corporate lawyer, for all intents and purposes, is a lawyer who handles the legal affairs of a
corporation. His areas of concern or jurisdiction may include, inter alia: corporate legal
research, tax laws research, acting out as corporate secretary (in board meetings),
appearances in both courts and other adjudicatory agencies (including the Securities and
Exchange Commission), and in other capacities which require an ability to deal with the law.
At any rate, a corporate lawyer may assume responsibilities other than the legal affairs of the
business of the corporation he is representing. These include such matters as determining
policy and becoming involved in management. ( Emphasis supplied.)
In a big company, for example, one may have a feeling of being isolated from the action, or
not understanding how one's work actually fits into the work of the orgarnization. This can be
frustrating to someone who needs to see the results of his work first hand. In short, a
corporate lawyer is sometimes offered this fortune to be more closely involved in the running
of the business.
Moreover, a corporate lawyer's services may sometimes be engaged by a multinational
corporation (MNC). Some large MNCs provide one of the few opportunities available to
corporate lawyers to enter the international law field. After all, international law is practiced
in a relatively small number of companies and law firms. Because working in a foreign
country is perceived by many as glamorous, tills is an area coveted by corporate lawyers. In
most cases, however, the overseas jobs go to experienced attorneys while the younger
attorneys do their "international practice" in law libraries. (Business Star, "Corporate Law
Practice," May 25,1990, p. 4).
This brings us to the inevitable, i.e., the role of the lawyer in the realm of finance. To borrow
the lines of Harvard-educated lawyer Bruce Wassertein, to wit: "A bad lawyer is one who fails
to spot problems, a good lawyer is one who perceives the difficulties, and the excellent
lawyer is one who surmounts them." (Business Star, "Corporate Finance Law," Jan. 11, 1989,
p. 4).
Today, the study of corporate law practice direly needs a "shot in the arm," so to speak. No
longer are we talking of the traditional law teaching method of confining the subject study to
the Corporation Code and the Securities Code but an incursion as well into the intertwining
modern management issues.
Such corporate legal management issues deal primarily with three (3) types of learning: (1)
acquisition of insights into current advances which are of particular significance to the
corporate counsel; (2) an introduction to usable disciplinary skins applicable to a corporate
counsel's management responsibilities; and (3) a devotion to the organization and
management of the legal function itself.
These three subject areas may be thought of as intersecting circles, with a shared area linking
them. Otherwise known as "intersecting managerial jurisprudence," it forms a unifying theme
for the corporate counsel's total learning.
Some current advances in behavior and policy sciences affect the counsel's role. For that
matter, the corporate lawyer reviews the globalization process, including the resulting
strategic repositioning that the firms he provides counsel for are required to make, and the
need to think about a corporation's; strategy at multiple levels. The salience of the nation-
state is being reduced as firms deal both with global multinational entities and
simultaneously with sub-national governmental units. Firms increasingly collaborate not only
with public entities but with each other — often with those who are competitors in other
arenas.
Also, the nature of the lawyer's participation in decision-making within the corporation is
rapidly changing. The modem corporate lawyer has gained a new role as a stakeholder — in
some cases participating in the organization and operations of governance through
participation on boards and other decision-making roles. Often these new patterns develop
alongside existing legal institutions and laws are perceived as barriers. These trends are
complicated as corporations organize for global operations. ( Emphasis supplied)
The practising lawyer of today is familiar as well with governmental policies toward the
promotion and management of technology. New collaborative arrangements for promoting
specific technologies or competitiveness more generally require approaches from industry
that differ from older, more adversarial relationships and traditional forms of seeking to
influence governmental policies. And there are lessons to be learned from other countries. In
Europe, Esprit, Eureka and Race are examples of collaborative efforts between governmental
and business Japan's MITI is world famous. (Emphasis supplied)
Following the concept of boundary spanning, the office of the Corporate Counsel comprises a
distinct group within the managerial structure of all kinds of organizations. Effectiveness of
both long-term and temporary groups within organizations has been found to be related to
indentifiable factors in the group-context interaction such as the groups actively revising their
knowledge of the environment coordinating work with outsiders, promoting team
achievements within the organization. In general, such external activities are better
predictors of team performance than internal group processes.
In a crisis situation, the legal managerial capabilities of the corporate lawyer vis-a-vis the
managerial mettle of corporations are challenged. Current research is seeking ways both to
anticipate effective managerial procedures and to understand relationships of financial
liability and insurance considerations. (Emphasis supplied)
Regarding the skills to apply by the corporate counsel, three factors are apropos:
First System Dynamics. The field of systems dynamics has been found an effective tool for
new managerial thinking regarding both planning and pressing immediate problems. An
understanding of the role of feedback loops, inventory levels, and rates of flow, enable users
to simulate all sorts of systematic problems — physical, economic, managerial, social, and
psychological. New programming techniques now make the system dynamics principles more
accessible to managers — including corporate counsels. (Emphasis supplied)
Second Decision Analysis. This enables users to make better decisions involving complexity
and uncertainty. In the context of a law department, it can be used to appraise the
settlement value of litigation, aid in negotiation settlement, and minimize the cost and risk
involved in managing a portfolio of cases. (Emphasis supplied)
Third Modeling for Negotiation Management. Computer-based models can be used directly
by parties and mediators in all lands of negotiations. All integrated set of such tools provide
coherent and effective negotiation support, including hands-on on instruction in these
techniques. A simulation case of an international joint venture may be used to illustrate the
point.
[Be this as it may,] the organization and management of the legal function, concern three
pointed areas of consideration, thus:
Preventive Lawyering. Planning by lawyers requires special skills that comprise a major part
of the general counsel's responsibilities. They differ from those of remedial law. Preventive
lawyering is concerned with minimizing the risks of legal trouble and maximizing legal rights
for such legal entities at that time when transactional or similar facts are being considered
and made.
Managerial Jurisprudence. This is the framework within which are undertaken those activities
of the firm to which legal consequences attach. It needs to be directly supportive of this
nation's evolving economic and organizational fabric as firms change to stay competitive in a
global, interdependent environment. The practice and theory of "law" is not adequate today
to facilitate the relationships needed in trying to make a global economy work.
Organization and Functioning of the Corporate Counsel's Office. The general counsel has
emerged in the last decade as one of the most vibrant subsets of the legal profession. The
corporate counsel hear responsibility for key aspects of the firm's strategic issues, including
structuring its global operations, managing improved relationships with an increasingly
diversified body of employees, managing expanded liability exposure, creating new and
varied interactions with public decision-makers, coping internally with more complex make
or by decisions.
This whole exercise drives home the thesis that knowing corporate law is not enough to
make one a good general corporate counsel nor to give him a full sense of how the legal
system shapes corporate activities. And even if the corporate lawyer's aim is not the
understand all of the law's effects on corporate activities, he must, at the very least, also gain
a working knowledge of the management issues if only to be able to grasp not only the basic
legal "constitution' or makeup of the modem corporation. "Business Star", "The Corporate
Counsel," April 10, 1991, p. 4).
The challenge for lawyers (both of the bar and the bench) is to have more than a passing
knowledge of financial law affecting each aspect of their work. Yet, many would admit to
ignorance of vast tracts of the financial law territory. What transpires next is a dilemma of
professional security: Will the lawyer admit ignorance and risk opprobrium?; or will he feign
understanding and risk exposure? (Business Star, "Corporate Finance law," Jan. 11, 1989, p.
4).
Respondent Christian Monsod was nominated by President Corazon C. Aquino to the position
of Chairman of the COMELEC in a letter received by the Secretariat of the Commission on
Appointments on April 25, 1991. Petitioner opposed the nomination because allegedly
Monsod does not possess the required qualification of having been engaged in the practice
of law for at least ten years.
On June 5, 1991, the Commission on Appointments confirmed the nomination of Monsod as
Chairman of the COMELEC. On June 18, 1991, he took his oath of office. On the same day, he
assumed office as Chairman of the COMELEC.
Challenging the validity of the confirmation by the Commission on Appointments of
Monsod's nomination, petitioner as a citizen and taxpayer, filed the instant petition for
certiorari and Prohibition praying that said confirmation and the consequent appointment of
Monsod as Chairman of the Commission on Elections be declared null and void.
Atty. Christian Monsod is a member of the Philippine Bar, having passed the bar
examinations of 1960 with a grade of 86-55%. He has been a dues paying member of the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines since its inception in 1972-73. He has also been paying his
professional license fees as lawyer for more than ten years. (p. 124, Rollo)
After graduating from the College of Law (U.P.) and having hurdled the bar, Atty. Monsod
worked in the law office of his father. During his stint in the World Bank Group (1963-1970),
Monsod worked as an operations officer for about two years in Costa Rica and Panama,
which involved getting acquainted with the laws of member-countries negotiating loans and
coordinating legal, economic, and project work of the Bank. Upon returning to the Philippines
in 1970, he worked with the Meralco Group, served as chief executive officer of an
investment bank and subsequently of a business conglomerate, and since 1986, has rendered
services to various companies as a legal and economic consultant or chief executive officer.
As former Secretary-General (1986) and National Chairman (1987) of NAMFREL. Monsod's
work involved being knowledgeable in election law. He appeared for NAMFREL in its
accreditation hearings before the Comelec. In the field of advocacy, Monsod, in his personal
capacity and as former Co-Chairman of the Bishops Businessmen's Conference for Human
Development, has worked with the under privileged sectors, such as the farmer and urban
poor groups, in initiating, lobbying for and engaging in affirmative action for the agrarian
reform law and lately the urban land reform bill. Monsod also made use of his legal
knowledge as a member of the Davide Commission, a quast judicial body, which conducted
numerous hearings (1990) and as a member of the Constitutional Commission (1986-1987),
and Chairman of its Committee on Accountability of Public Officers, for which he was cited by
the President of the Commission, Justice Cecilia Muñoz-Palma for "innumerable amendments
to reconcile government functions with individual freedoms and public accountability and
the party-list system for the House of Representative. (pp. 128-129 Rollo) ( Emphasis
supplied)
Just a word about the work of a negotiating team of which Atty. Monsod used to be a
member.
In a loan agreement, for instance, a negotiating panel acts as a team, and which is adequately
constituted to meet the various contingencies that arise during a negotiation. Besides top
officials of the Borrower concerned, there are the legal officer (such as the legal counsel), the
finance manager, and an operations officer (such as an official involved in negotiating the
contracts) who comprise the members of the team. (Guillermo V. Soliven, "Loan Negotiating
Strategies for Developing Country Borrowers," Staff Paper No. 2, Central Bank of the
Philippines, Manila, 1982, p. 11). (Emphasis supplied)
After a fashion, the loan agreement is like a country's Constitution; it lays down the law as far
as the loan transaction is concerned. Thus, the meat of any Loan Agreement can be
compartmentalized into five (5) fundamental parts: (1) business terms; (2) borrower's
representation; (3) conditions of closing; (4) covenants; and (5) events of default. (Ibid., p.
13).
In the same vein, lawyers play an important role in any debt restructuring program. For aside
from performing the tasks of legislative drafting and legal advising, they score national
development policies as key factors in maintaining their countries' sovereignty. (Condensed
from the work paper, entitled "Wanted: Development Lawyers for Developing Nations,"
submitted by L. Michael Hager, regional legal adviser of the United States Agency for
International Development, during the Session on Law for the Development of Nations at the
Abidjan World Conference in Ivory Coast, sponsored by the World Peace Through Law Center
on August 26-31, 1973). ( Emphasis supplied)
Loan concessions and compromises, perhaps even more so than purely renegotiation
policies, demand expertise in the law of contracts, in legislation and agreement drafting and
in renegotiation. Necessarily, a sovereign lawyer may work with an international business
specialist or an economist in the formulation of a model loan agreement. Debt restructuring
contract agreements contain such a mixture of technical language that they should be
carefully drafted and signed only with the advise of competent counsel in conjunction with
the guidance of adequate technical support personnel. (See International Law Aspects of the
Philippine External Debts, an unpublished dissertation, U.S.T. Graduate School of Law, 1987,
p. 321). ( Emphasis supplied)
A critical aspect of sovereign debt restructuring/contract construction is the set of terms and
conditions which determines the contractual remedies for a failure to perform one or more
elements of the contract. A good agreement must not only define the responsibilities of both
parties, but must also state the recourse open to either party when the other fails to
discharge an obligation. For a compleat debt restructuring represents a devotion to that
principle which in the ultimate analysis is sine qua non for foreign loan agreements-an
adherence to the rule of law in domestic and international affairs of whose kind U.S.
Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. once said: "They carry no banners, they
beat no drums; but where they are, men learn that bustle and bush are not the equal of quiet
genius and serene mastery." (See Ricardo J. Romulo, "The Role of Lawyers in Foreign
Investments," Integrated Bar of the Philippine Journal, Vol. 15, Nos. 3 and 4, Third and Fourth
Quarters, 1977, p. 265).
Interpreted in the light of the various definitions of the term Practice of law". particularly the
modern concept of law practice, and taking into consideration the liberal construction
intended by the framers of the Constitution, Atty. Monsod's past work experiences as a
lawyer-economist, a lawyer-manager, a lawyer-entrepreneur of industry, a lawyer-negotiator
of contracts, and a lawyer-legislator of both the rich and the poor — verily more than satisfy
the constitutional requirement — that he has been engaged in the practice of law for at least
ten years.
Besides in the leading case of Luego v. Civil Service Commission, 143 SCRA 327, the Court
said:
Appointment is an essentially discretionary power and must be performed by the officer in
which it is vested according to his best lights, the only condition being that the appointee
should possess the qualifications required by law. If he does, then the appointment cannot
be faulted on the ground that there are others better qualified who should have been
preferred. This is a political question involving considerations of wisdom which only the
appointing authority can decide. (emphasis supplied)
No less emphatic was the Court in the case of (Central Bank v. Civil Service Commission, 171
SCRA 744) where it stated:
It is well-settled that when the appointee is qualified, as in this case, and all the other legal
requirements are satisfied, the Commission has no alternative but to attest to the
appointment in accordance with the Civil Service Law. The Commission has no authority to
revoke an appointment on the ground that another person is more qualified for a particular
position. It also has no authority to direct the appointment of a substitute of its choice. To do
so would be an encroachment on the discretion vested upon the appointing authority. An
appointment is essentially within the discretionary power of whomsoever it is vested, subject
to the only condition that the appointee should possess the qualifications required by law.
( Emphasis supplied)
The appointing process in a regular appointment as in the case at bar, consists of four (4)
stages: (1) nomination; (2) confirmation by the Commission on Appointments; (3) issuance of
a commission (in the Philippines, upon submission by the Commission on Appointments of its
certificate of confirmation, the President issues the permanent appointment; and (4)
acceptance e.g., oath-taking, posting of bond, etc. . . . (Lacson v. Romero, No. L-3081,
October 14, 1949; Gonzales, Law on Public Officers, p. 200)
The power of the Commission on Appointments to give its consent to the nomination of
Monsod as Chairman of the Commission on Elections is mandated by Section 1(2) Sub-Article
C, Article IX of the Constitution which provides:
The Chairman and the Commisioners shall be appointed by the President with the consent of
the Commission on Appointments for a term of seven years without reappointment. Of those
first appointed, three Members shall hold office for seven years, two Members for five years,
and the last Members for three years, without reappointment. Appointment to any vacancy
shall be only for the unexpired term of the predecessor. In no case shall any Member be
appointed or designated in a temporary or acting capacity.
Anent Justice Teodoro Padilla's separate opinion, suffice it to say that his definition of the
practice of law is the traditional or stereotyped notion of law practice, as distinguished from
the modern concept of the practice of law, which modern connotation is exactly what was
intended by the eminent framers of the 1987 Constitution. Moreover, Justice Padilla's
definition would require generally a habitual law practice, perhaps practised two or three
times a week and would outlaw say, law practice once or twice a year for ten consecutive
years. Clearly, this is far from the constitutional intent.
Upon the other hand, the separate opinion of Justice Isagani Cruz states that in my written
opinion, I made use of a definition of law practice which really means nothing because the
definition says that law practice " . . . is what people ordinarily mean by the practice of law."
True I cited the definition but only by way of sarcasm as evident from my statement that the
definition of law practice by "traditional areas of law practice is essentially tautologous" or
defining a phrase by means of the phrase itself that is being defined.
Justice Cruz goes on to say in substance that since the law covers almost all situations, most
individuals, in making use of the law, or in advising others on what the law means, are
actually practicing law. In that sense, perhaps, but we should not lose sight of the fact that
Mr. Monsod is a lawyer, a member of the Philippine Bar, who has been practising law for
over ten years. This is different from the acts of persons practising law, without first
becoming lawyers.
Justice Cruz also says that the Supreme Court can even disqualify an elected President of the
Philippines, say, on the ground that he lacks one or more qualifications. This matter, I greatly
doubt. For one thing, how can an action or petition be brought against the President? And
even assuming that he is indeed disqualified, how can the action be entertained since he is
the incumbent President?
We now proceed:
The Commission on the basis of evidence submitted doling the public hearings on Monsod's
confirmation, implicitly determined that he possessed the necessary qualifications as
required by law. The judgment rendered by the Commission in the exercise of such an
acknowledged power is beyond judicial interference except only upon a clear showing of a
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. (Art. VIII, Sec. 1
Constitution). Thus, only where such grave abuse of discretion is clearly shown shall the
Court interfere with the Commission's judgment. In the instant case, there is no occasion for
the exercise of the Court's corrective power, since no abuse, much less a grave abuse of
discretion, that would amount to lack or excess of jurisdiction and would warrant the
issuance of the writs prayed, for has been clearly shown.
Additionally, consider the following:
(1) If the Commission on Appointments rejects a nominee by the President, may the Supreme
Court reverse the Commission, and thus in effect confirm the appointment? Clearly, the
answer is in the negative.
(2) In the same vein, may the Court reject the nominee, whom the Commission has
confirmed? The answer is likewise clear.
(3) If the United States Senate (which is the confirming body in the U.S. Congress) decides to
confirm a Presidential nominee, it would be incredible that the U.S. Supreme Court would
still reverse the U.S. Senate.
Finally, one significant legal maxim is:
We must interpret not by the letter that killeth, but by the spirit that giveth life.
Take this hypothetical case of Samson and Delilah. Once, the procurator of Judea asked
Delilah (who was Samson's beloved) for help in capturing Samson. Delilah agreed on
condition that —
No blade shall touch his skin;
No blood shall flow from his veins.
When Samson (his long hair cut by Delilah) was captured, the procurator placed an iron rod
burning white-hot two or three inches away from in front of Samson's eyes. This blinded the
man. Upon hearing of what had happened to her beloved, Delilah was beside herself with
anger, and fuming with righteous fury, accused the procurator of reneging on his word. The
procurator calmly replied: "Did any blade touch his skin? Did any blood flow from his veins?"
The procurator was clearly relying on the letter, not the spirit of the agreement.
In view of the foregoing, this petition is hereby DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.
GUTIERREZ, JR., J.: When this petition was filed, there was hope that engaging in the practice
of law as a qualification for public office would be settled one way or another in fairly
definitive terms. Unfortunately, this was not the result. Of the fourteen (14) member Court, 5
are of the view that Mr. Christian Monsod engaged in the practice of law (with one of these 5
leaving his vote behind while on official leave but not expressing his clear stand on the
matter);
categorically stating that he did not practice law; 2 voting in the result because there was no
error so gross as to amount to grave abuse of discretion; one of official leave with no
instructions left behind on how he viewed the issue; and 2 not taking part in the deliberations
and the decision. There are two key factors that make our task difficult. First is our reviewing
the work of a constitutional Commission on Appointments whose duty is precisely to look
into the qualifications of persons appointed to high office. Even if the Commission errs, we
have no power to set aside error. We can look only into grave abuse of discretion or
whimsically and arbitrariness. Second is our belief that Mr. Monsod possesses superior
qualifications in terms of executive ability, proficiency in manage
ment, educational background, experience in international banking and finance, and instant
recognition by the public. His integrity and competence are not questioned by the petitioner.
What is before us is compliance with a specific requirement written into the Constitution.
Inspite of my high regard for Mr. Monsod, I cannot shirk my constitutional duty. He has never
engaged in the practice of law for even one year. He is a member of the bar but to say that
he has practiced law is stretching the term beyond rational limits. A person may have passed
the bar examinations. But if he has not dedicated his life to the law, if he has not engaged in
an activity where membership in the bar is a requirement I fail to see how he can claim to
have been engaged in the practice of law. Engaging in the practice of law is a qualification not
only for COMELEC chairman but also for appointment to the Supreme Court and all lower
courts. What kind of Judges or Justices will we have if there main occupation is selling real
estate, managing a business corporation, serving in fact-finding committee, working in media,
or operating a farm with no active involvement in the law, whether in Government or private
practice, except that in one joyful moment in the distant past, they happened to pass the bar
examinations? The Constitution uses the phrase “engaged in the practice of law for at least
ten years.” The deliberate choice of words shows that the practice envisioned is active and
regular, not isolated, occasional, accidental, intermittent, incidental, seasonal, or
extemporaneous. To be “engaged” in an activity for ten years requires committed
participation in something which is the result of one’s decisive choice. It means that one is
occupied and involved in the enterprise: one is obliged or pledged to carry it out with intent
and attention during the ten-year period. I agree with the petitioner that based on the bio-
data submitted by respondent Monsod to the Commission on Appointments, the latter has
not been engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years. In fact, if appears that Mr.
Monsod has never practiced law except for an alleged one year period after passing the bar
examinations when he worked in his father’s law firm. Even then his law practice must have
been extremely limited because he was also working for M.A. and Ph. D. degrees in
Economics at the University of Pennsylvania during that period. How could he practice law in
the United States while not a member of the Bar there? The professional life of the
respondent follows: “1.15.1 Respondent Monsod’s activities since his passing the Bar
examinations in 1961 consist of the following: 1961–1963: M.A. in Economics (Ph. D.
candidate), University of Pennsylvania 1963–1970: World Bank Group—Economist, Industry
Department; Operations, Latin American Department; Division Chief, South Asia and Middle
East, International Finance Corporation 1970–1973: Meralco Group—Executive of various
companies, i.e., Meralco Securities Corporation, Philippine Petroleum Corporation, Philippine
Electric Corporation 1973–1976: Yujuico Group—President, Fil-Capital Development
Corporation and affiliated companies 1976–1978: Finaciera Manila—Chief Executive Officer
1978–1986: Guevent Group of Companies—Chief Executive Officer 1986–1987: Philippine
Constitutional Commission— Member
1989–1991: The Fact-Finding Commission on the December 1989 Coup Attempt—Member
Presently: Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of the following companies:
ACE Container Philippines, Inc. Dataprep, Philippines Philippine SUN systems Products, Inc.
Semirara Coal Corporation CBL Timber Corporation
Member of the Board of the Following: Engineering Construction Corporation of the
Philippines First Philippine Energy Corporation First Philippine Holdings Corporation First
Philippine Industrial Corporation Graphic Atelier Manila Electric Company Philippine
Commercial Capital, Inc. Philippine Electric Corporation Tarlac Reforestation and
Environment Enterprises Tolong Aquaculture Corporation Visayan Aquaculture Corporation
Guimaras Aquaculture Corporation”
(Rollo, pp. 21–22) There is nothing in the above bio-data which even remotely indicates that
respondent Monsod has given the law enough attention or a certain degree of commitment
and participation as would support in all sincerity and candor the claim of having engaged in
its practice for at least ten years. Instead of working as a lawyer, he has lawyers working for
him. Instead of giving legal advice of legal services, he was the one receiving that advice and
those services as an executive but not as a lawyer. The deliberations before the Commission
on Appointments show an effort to equate “engaged in the practice of law’? with the use of
legal knowledge in various
fields of endeavor such as commerce, industry, civic work, blue ribbon investigations,
agrarian reform, etc. where such knowledge would be helpful. I regret that I cannot join in
playing fast and loose with a term, which even an ordinary layman accepts as having a
familiar and customary well-defined meaning. Every resident of this country who has reached
the age of discernment has to know, follow, or apply the law at various times in his life. Legal
knowledge is useful if not necessary for the business executive, legislator, mayor, barangay
captain, teacher, policeman, farmer, fisherman, market vendor, and student to name only a
few. And yet, can these people honestly assert that as such, they are engaged in the practice
of law? The Constitution requires having been “engaged in the practice of law for at least ten
years.” It is not satisfied with having been “a member of the Philippine bar for at least ten
years.” Some American courts have defined the practice of law, as follows: “The practice of
law involves not only appearance in court in connection with litigation but also services
rendered out of court, and it includes the giving of advice or the rendering of any services
requiring the use of legal skill or knowledge, such as preparing a will, contract or other
instrument, the legal effect of which, under the facts and conditions involved, must be
carefully determined. People ex rel. Chicago Bar Ass’n v. Tinkoff, 399 III. 282, 77 N.E.2d 693;
People ex rel. Illinois State Bar Ass’n v. People’s Stock Yards State Bank, 344 III. 462, 176 N.E.
901, and cases cited.
It would be difficult, if not impossible to lay down a formula or definition of what constitutes
the practice of law. ‘Practicing law’ has been defined as ‘Practicing as an attorney or
counselor at law according to the laws and customs of our courts, is the giving of advice or
rendition of any sort of service by any person, firm or corporation when the giving of such
advice or rendition of such service requires the use of any degree of legal knowledge or skill.’
Without adopting that definition, we referred to it as being substantially correct in People ex
rel. Illinois State Bar Ass’n v. People’s Stock Yards State Bank, 344 III. 462, 176 N.E. 901."
For one’s actions to come within the purview of practice of law they should not only be
activities peculiar to the work of a lawyer, they should also be performed, habitually,
frequently or customarily, to wit: xxx      xxx      xxx “Respondent’s answers to questions
propounded to him were rather evasive. He was asked whether or not he ever prepared
contracts for the parties in real-estate transactions where he was not the procuring agent. He
answered: ‘Very seldom.’ In answer to the question as to how many times he had prepared
contracts for the parties during the twenty-nine years of his business, he said: ‘I have no
idea.’ When asked if it would be more than half a dozen times his answer was I suppose.’
Asked if he did not recall making the statement to several parties that he had prepared
contracts in a large number of instances, he answered: ‘I don’t recall exactly what was said.’
When asked if he did not remember saying that he had made a practice of preparing deeds,
mortgages and contracts and charging a fee to the parties therefor in instances where he was
not the broker in the deal, he answered: ‘Well, I don’t believe so, that is not a practice/
Pressed further for an answer as to his practice in preparing contracts and deeds for parties
where he was not the broker, he finally answered: ‘I have done about everything that is on
the books as far as real estate is concerned.’ xxx      xxx      xxx Respondent takes the position
that because he is a real-estate broker he has a lawful right to do any legal work in
connection with real-estate transactions, especially in drawing of real-estate contracts,
deeds, mortgages, notes and the like. There is no doubt but that he has engaged in these
practices over the years and has charged for his services in that connection. x x x.” (People v.
Schafer, 87 N.E. 2d 773) xxx      xxx      xxx
“x x x. An attorney, in the most general sense, is a person designated or employed by
another to act in his stead; an agent; more especially, one of a class of persons authorized to
appear and act for suitors or defendants in legal proceedings. Strictly, these professional having engaged in the practice of law for at least ten (10) years for the position of COMELEC
persons are attorneys at law, and non-professional agents are properly styled ‘attorneys in Chairman has ordered that he may not be confirmed for that office. The Constitution charges
fact;’ but the single word is much used as meaning an attorney at law. A person may be an the public respondents no less than this Court to obey its mandate, I, therefore, believe that
attorney in facto for another, without being an attorney at law.’ the Commission on Appointments committed grave abuse of discretion in confirming the
nomina
Abb. Law Dict. ‘Attorney/ ‘A public attorney, or attorney at law, says Webster, ‘is an officer of
a court of law, legally qualified to prosecute and defend actions in such court on the retainer I vote to GRANT the petition. Petition dismissed. Note.—View that the court should not
of clients. The principal duties of an attorney are (1) to be true to the court and to his client; impose its view on areas within the competence of policy makers. (Garcia vs. Board of
(2) to manage the business of his client with care, skill, and integrity; (3) to keep his client lnvestments, 191 SCRA 288.) ——o0o——
informed as to the state of his business; (4) to keep his secrets confided to him as such. x x x
His rights are to be justly compensated for his services.’ Bouv. Law Dict. tit. ‘Attorney.’ The 244
transitive verb ‘practice,’ as defined by Webster, means ‘to door perform frequently, © Copyright 2018 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.
customarily, or habitually; to perform by a succession of acts, as, to practice gaming; x x x to
carry on in practice, or repeated action; to apply, as a theory, to real life; to exercise, as a
profession, trade, art. etc.; as, to practice law or medicine,’ etc. x x x.” (State v. Bryan, S.E.
522, 523; Emphasis supplied) In this jurisdiction, we have ruled that the practice of law
denotes frequency or a succession of acts. Thus, we stated in the case of People v. Villanueva
(14 SCRA 109 [1965]): “x x x Practice is more than an isolated appearance, for it consists in
frequent or customary actions, a succession of acts of the same kind. In other words, it is
frequent habitual exercise (State v. Cotner, 127, p. 1, 87 Kan. 864, 42 LRA, M.S. 768). Practice
of law to fall within the prohibition of statute has been interpreted as customarily or
habitually holding one’s self out to the public, as a lawyer and demanding payment for such
services. x x ." (at p. 1 12) It is to be noted that the Commission on Appointment itself
recognizes habituality as a a required component of the meaning of practice of law in a
Memorandum prepared and issued by it, to wit: “1. Habituality. The term ‘practice of law’
implies customarily or habitually holding one’s self out to the public as a lawyer (People v.

Supreme Court informing it of his intention to practice law in all courts in the country (People
v. De Luna, 102 Phil., 968). Practice is more than an isolated appearance, for it consists in
frequent or customary action, a succession of acts of the same kind. In other words, it is a
habitual exercise (People v. Villanueva, 14 SCRA 109 citing State v. Cotner, 127, p. 1, 87 Kan,
864)." (Rollo, p. 115) xxx      xxx      xxx While the career as a businessman of respondent
Monsod may have profited from his legal knowledge, the use of such legal knowledge is
incidental and consists of isolated activities which do not fall under the denomination of
practice of law. Admission to the practice of law was not required for membership in the
Constitutional Commission or in the Fact-Finding Commission on the 1989 Coup Attempt. Any
specific legal activities which may have been assigned to Mr. Monsod while a member may
be likened to isolated transactions of foreign corporations in the Philippines which do not
categorize the foreign corporations as doing business in the Philippines. As in the practice of
law, doing business also should be active and continuous. Isolated business transactions or
occasional, incidental and casual transactions are not within the context of doing business.
This was our ruling in the case of Antam Consolidated, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 143 SCRA 288
[1986]). Respondent Monsod, corporate executive, civic leader, and member of the
Constitutional Commission may possess the background, competence, integrity, and
dedication, to qualify for such high offices as President, Vice-President, Senator,
Congressman or Governor but the Constitution in prescribing the specific qualification of
Same; Same; Disbarment; By extorting money from his client through deceit and
misrepresentation, a lawyer has reduced the law profession to a level so base, so low and
dishonorable, and most contemptible—he has sullied the integrity of his brethren in the law
and has, indirectly, eroded the peoples’ confidence in the judicial system.—It has been said
time and again, and this we cannot overemphasize, that the law is not a trade nor a craft but
a profession (Agpalo, Legal Ethics, 1983, p. 1). Its basic ideal is to render public service and to
secure justice for those who seek its aid. [Mayer vs. State Bar, 2 Call2d 71, 39 P2d 206 (1934),
cited in Agpalo, id.] If it has to remain an honorable profession and attain its basic ideal,
those enrolled in its ranks should not only master its tenets and principles but should also, by
their lives, accord continuing fidelity to them. (Agpalo, id.) By extorting money from his client
through deceit and misrepresentation, respondent Limon has reduced the law profession to
a level so base, so low and dishonorable, and most contemptible. He has sullied the integrity
of his brethren in the law and has, indirectly, eroded the peoples’ confidence in the judicial
system. By his reprehensible conduct, which is reflective of his depraved character,
respondent has made himself unworthy to remain in the Roll of Attorneys. He should be
disbarred.
ADMINISTRATIVE MATTER in the Supreme Court. Disbarment.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court. Gallardo S. Tongohan for complainant.
PER CURIAM:
On April 15, 1982, a complaint for disbarment was filed by Cleto Docena against Atty.
Dominador Q. Limon, Sr., on grounds of malpractice, gross misconduct, and violation of
attorney’s oath.
It appears that respondent Atty. Limon was complainant’s lawyer on appeal in Civil Case No.
425 for Forcible Entry. While the appeal was pending before the then Court of First Instance
of Eastern Samar, Branch I, respondent required therein defendants-appellants Docena
spouses to post a supersedeas bond in the amount of P10,000.00 allegedly to stay the
execution of the appealed decision.
To raise the required amount, complainant Cleto Docena obtained a loan of P3,000.00 from
the Borongan, Eastern Samar Branch of the Development Bank of the Philippines; borrowed
P2,140.00 from a private individual; and applied for an agricultural loan of P4,860.00 from
the Borongan, Samar Branch of the Philippine National Bank, wherein respondent himself
acted as guarantor (tsn, Session of July 8, 1983, pp. 33-34). The amount of P4,860.00 was
produced by complainant in response to respondent’s letter dated September 2, 1979 (Exh.
“C,” tsn, p. 26, ibid.) demanding delivery of the aforesaid amount, thus:
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Docena:
I wish to remind you that today is the last day for the deposit of the balance of P4,860.00.
Atty. Batica was in court yesterday verifying whether you have deposited the said balance
and the Honorable Judge informed him that you have until today to deposit the said amount.
I wish to inform you also that the Honorable Judge will be in Sta. Fe tomorrow for rural
service.
We will be waiting for you tomorrow September 22 , 1979 , at Sta. Fe as you promised.
Very truly yours,
(Signed)
On November 14, 1980, the Court of First Instance of Eastern Samar rendered a decision on
the appealed case in favor of the Docena spouses.
After receipt of said decision, complainant went to the CFI to withdraw the supersedeas bond
of P10,000.00, but he thereupon discovered that no such bond was ever posted by
respondent.
When confronted, respondent promised to restitute the amount, but he never complied with
such undertaking despite repeated demands from the Docena spouses.
In his answer to the herein complaint, respondent claimed that the P10,000.00 was his
attorney’s fees for representing the Docena spouses in their appeal. But this self-serving
allegation is belied by the letter (quoted above) of respondent himself demanding from the
Docena spouses the balance of P4,860.00 supposedly to be deposited in court to stay the
execution of the appealed decision of the MTC. Moreover, the fact that he had promised to
return the P10,000.00 to the Docena spouses is also an admission that the money was never
his, and that it was only entrusted to him for deposit.
After due investigation and hearing, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines recommended that
respondent be suspended from the practice of law for one year and ordered to return the
amount of P8,500.00 (he had earlier paid complainant P1,500.00, but nothing more) within 1
month from notice, and should he fail to do so, he shall be suspended indefinitely.
The Court finds the recommended penalty too light. Truly, the amount involved may be
small, but the nature of the transgression calls for a heavier sanction. The Code of
Professional Responsibility mandates that:
Canon 1. x x x
Rule 1.01—A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
Canon 16. x x x
Canon 16.01—A lawyer shall account for all money or property collected or received from
the client.
Respondent infringed and breached these rules. Verily, good moral character is not only a
condition precedent toadmission to the legal profession, but it must also be possessed at all
times in order to maintain one’s good standing in that exclusive and honored fraternity
(Villanueva vs. Atty. Teresita Sta. Ana, 245 SCRA 707 [1995]).
It has been said time and again, and this we cannot overemphasize, that the law is not a
trade nor a craft but a profession (Agpalo, Legal Ethics, 1983, p. 1). Its basic ideal is to render
public service and to secure justice for those who seek its aid. [Mayer vs. State Bar, 2 Call2d
71, 39 P2d 206 (1934), cited in Agpalo, id.] If it has to remain an honorable profession and
attain its basic ideal, those enrolled in its ranks should not only master its tenets and
principles but should also, by their lives, accord continuing fidelity to them. (Agpalo, id.) By
extorting money from his client through deceit and misrepresentation, respondent Limon has
reduced the law profession to a level so base, so low and dishonorable, and most
contemptible. He has sullied the integrity of his brethren in the law and has, indirectly,
eroded the peoples’ confidence in the judicial system. By his reprehensible conduct, which is
reflective of his depraved character, respondent has made himself unworthy to remain in the
Roll of Attorneys. He should be disbarred.
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Dominador Q. Limon, Sr. is hereby DISBARRED. The Office of
the Clerk of Court is directed to strike out his name from the Roll of Attorneys. Respondent is
likewise ordered to return the amount of P8,500.00, the balance of the money entrusted to
him by complainant Docena, within one (1) month from the finality of this Decision.
SO ORDERED.
Narvasa (C.J.), Davide, Jr., Romero, Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza,
Panganiban, Martinez, Quisumbing and Purisima, JJ., concur. Regalado, J., On official leave.
Atty. Dominador Q. Limon, Sr. disbarred.
10, 1998 267
Notes .—A lawyer who holds a government office may not be disciplined as a member of the
bar for misconduct in the discharge of his duties as a government official unless that
misconduct is of such a character as to affect his qualification as a lawyer or to show moral
delinquency. (Dinsay vs. Cioco, 264 SCRA 703 [1996])
Procedural due process in disbarment or suspension proceedings require that the respondent
be given full opportunity upon reasonable notice to answer the charges against him, to
produce witnesses in his own behalf, and to be heard by himself or counsel. (Sattar vs. Lopez,
271 SCRA 290 [1997])
VOL. 322, JANUARY 20, 2000 529
Santos, Jr. vs. Llamas
Adm. Case No. 4749. January 20, 2000.*
SOLIMAN M. SANTOS, JR., complainant, vs. ATTY. FRANCISCO R. LLAMAS, respondent.
Legal Ethics; Attorneys; Integrated Bar of the Philippines; Senior Citizens; A lawyer can
engage in the practice of law only by paying his Integrated Bar of the Philippines dues, and it
does not matter that his practice is “limited”; The exemption from payment of income tax
granted to senior citizens by Republic Act No. 7432 does not include payment of membership
or association dues.—In accordance with these provisions, respondent can engage in the
practice of law only by paying his dues, and it does not matter that his practice is “limited.”
While it is true that R.A. No. 7432, §4 grants senior citizens “exemption from the payment of
individual income taxes: provided, that their annual taxable income does not exceed the
poverty level as determined by the National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA)
for that year,” the exemption does not include payment of membership or association dues.
Same; Same; Same; A lawyer, by indicating “Integrated Bar of the Philippines-Rizal 259060” in
his pleadings, thereby misrepresenting to the public and the courts that he had paid his
Integrated Bar of the Philippines due, is guilty of violating the Code of Professional
Responsibility.—By indicating “IBP-Rizal 259060” in his pleadings and thereby
misrepresenting to the public and the courts that he had paid his IBP dues to the Rizal
Chapter, respondent is guilty of violating the Code of Professional Responsibility which
provides: Rule 1.01—A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
conduct. CANON 7—A LAWYER SHALL AT ALL TIMES UPHOLD THE INTEGRITY AND DIGNITY
OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION, AND SUPPORT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE INTEGRATED BAR.
CANON 10—A LAWYER OWES CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND
GOOD FAITH TO THE COURT. Rule 10.01—A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to
the doing of any court; nor shall he mislead or allow the court to be misled by any artifice.
* SECOND DIVISION.
530
530 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Same; Same; Same; A lawyer’s failure to pay his Integrated Bar of the Philippines dues and his
misrepresentation in the pleadings he filed in court indeed merit the most severe penalty.—
Respondent’s failure to pay his IBP dues and his misrepresentation in the pleadings he filed in
court indeed merit the most severe penalty. However, in view of respondent’s advanced age,
his express willingness to pay his dues and plea for a more temperate application of the law,
we believe the penalty of one year suspension from the practice of law or until he has paid
his IBP dues, whichever is later, is appropriate.
ADMINISTRATIVE MATTER in the Supreme Court. Misrepresentation and non-payment of IBP
Membership Dues.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Soliman Santos, Jr. for and in his own behalf.
Francisco R. Llamas for and in his own behalf.
MENDOZA, J.:
This is a complaint for misrepresentation and non-payment of bar membership dues filed
against respondent Atty. Francisco R. Llamas.
In a letter-complaint to this Court dated February 8 , 1997, complainant Soliman M. Santos,
Jr., himself a member of the bar, alleged that:
On my oath as an attorney, I wish to bring to your attention and appropriate sanction the
matter of Atty. Francisco R. Llamas who, for a number of years now, has not indicated the
proper PTR and IBP O.R. Nos. and data (date & place of issuance) in his pleadings. If at all, he
only indicates “IBP Rizal 259060” but he has been using this for at least three years already,
as shown by the following attached sample pleadings in various courts in 1995, 1996 and
1997: (originals available)
Annex A—“Ex-Parte Manifestation and Submission” dated December 1,
1995 in Civil Case No. Q-95-25253, RTC, Br. 224, QC
Annex B—“Urgent Ex-Parte Manifestation Motion” dated November 13, 1996 in Sp. Proc. No.
95-030, RTC Br. 259 (not 257), Parañaque, MM
Annex C—“An Urgent and Respectful Plea for extension of Time to File Required Comment
and Opposition” dated January 17, 1997 in CAG.R. SP (not Civil Case) No. 42286, CA 6th Div.
This matter is being brought in the context of Rule 138, Section 1 which qualifies that only a
duly admitted member of the bar “who is in good and regular standing, is entitled to practice
law.” There is also Rule 139-A, Section 10 which provides that “default in the payment of
annual dues for six months shall warrant suspension of membership in the Integrated Bar,
and default in such payment for one year shall be a ground for the removal of the name of
the delinquent member from the Roll of Attorneys.”
Among others, I seek clarification (e.g. a certification) and appropriate action on the bar
standing of Atty. Francisco R. Llamas both with the Bar Confidant and with the IBP, especially
its Rizal Chapter of which Atty. Llamas purports to be a member.
Please note that while Atty. Llamas indicates “IBP Rizal 259060” sometimes, he does not
indicate any PTR for payment of professional tax.
Under the Rules, particularly Rule 138, Sections 27 and 28, suspension of an attorney may be
done not only by the Supreme Court but also by the Court of Appeals or a Regional Trial
Court (thus, we are also copy furnishing some of these courts).
Finally, it is relevant to note the track record of Atty. Francisco R. Llamas, as shown by:
1. his dismissal as Pasay City Judge per Supreme Court Admin. Matter No. 1037-CJ En
Banc Decision on October 28, 1981 (in SCRA)
2. his conviction for estafa per Decision dated June 30, 1994 in Crim. Case No. 11787,
RTC Br. 66, Makati, MM (see attached copy of the Order dated February 14, 1995 denying the
motion for reconsideration of the conviction which is purportedly on appeal in the Court of
Appeals).
Attached to the letter-complaint were the pleadings dated
December 1, 1995, November 13, 1996, and January 17 , 1997 referred to by complainant,
bearing, at the end thereof, what appears to be respondent’s signature above his name,
1 address and the receipt number “IBP Rizal 259060.” Also
2 attached was a copy of the order, dated February 14, 1995 , issued by Judge
Eriberto U. Rosario, Jr. of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 66, Makati, denying respondent’s
motion for reconsideration of his conviction, in Criminal Case No. 11787, for violation of Art.
316, par. 2 of the Revised Penal Code.
On April 18, 1997, complainant filed a certification3 dated March 18, 1997, by the then
president of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, Atty. Ida R. MacalinaoJavier, that
respondent’s “last payment of his IBP dues was in 1991. Since then he has not paid or
remitted any amount to cover his membership fees up to the present.”
On July 7, 1997, respondent was required to comment on the complaint within ten days from
receipt of notice, after which the case was referred to the IBP for investigation, report and
recommendation. In his comment-
4 5 memorandum, dated June 3, 1998, respondent alleged:
3. That with respect to the complainant’s absurd claim that for using in 1995, 1996 and 1997
the same O.R. No. 259060 of the Rizal IBP, respondent is automatically no longer a member
in good standing.
Precisely, as cited under the context of Rule 138, only an admitted member of the bar who is
in good standing is entitled to practice law.
The complainant’s basis in claiming that the undersigned was no longer in good standing,
were as above cited, the October 28, 1981 Supreme Court decision of dismissal and the
February 14, 1995 conviction for Violation of Article 316 RPC, concealment of encumbrances.
As above pointed out also, the Supreme Court dismissal decision was set aside and reversed
and respondent was even promoted from City Judge of Pasay City to Regional Trial Court
Judge of Makati, Br. 150.
Also as pointed out, the February 14, 1995 decision in Crim. Case No. 11787 was appealed to
the Court of Appeals and is still pending.
Complainant need not even file this complaint if indeed the decision of dismissal as a Judge
was never set aside and reversed, and also had the decision of conviction for a light felony,
been affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Undersigned himself would surrender his right or
privilege to practice law.
4. That complainant capitalizes on the fact that respondent had been delinquent in his dues.
Undersigned since 1992 have publicly made it clear per his Income Tax Return, up to the
present, that he had only a limited practice of law. In fact, in his Income Tax Return, his
principal occupation is a farmer of which he is. His 30 hectares orchard and pineapple farm is
located at Calauan, Laguna.
Moreover, and more than anything else, respondent being a Senior Citizen since 1992, is
legally exempt under Section 4 of Rep. Act 7432 which took effect in 1992, in the payment of
taxes, income taxes as an example. Being thus exempt, he honestly believe in view of his
detachment from a total practice of law, but only in a limited practice, the subsequent
payment by him of dues with the Integrated Bar is covered by such exemption. In fact, he
never exercised his rights as an IBP member to vote and be voted upon.
Nonetheless, if despite such honest belief of being covered by the exemption and if only to
show that he never in any manner wilfully and deliberately failed and refused compliance
with such dues, he is willing at any time to fulfill and pay all past dues even with interests,
charges and surcharges and penalties. He is ready to tender such fulfillment or payment, not
for allegedly saving his skin as again irrelevantly and frustratingly insinuated for vindictive
purposes by the complainant, but as an honest act of accepting reality if indeed it is reality
for him to pay such dues despite his candor and honest belief in all good faith, to the
contrary.
On December 4, 1998, the IBP Board of Governors passed a resolution adopting and
approving the report and recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner which found
respondent guilty, and recommended his suspension from the practice of law for three
months and until he pays his IBP dues. Respondent moved for a reconsideration of the
decision, but this was denied by the IBP in a resolution, dated April 22, 1999. Hence, pursuant
to Rule 139-B, §12(b) of the Rules of Court, this case is here for final action on the decision of
the IBP ordering respondent’s suspension for three months.
The findings of IBP Commissioner Alfredo Sanz are as follows:On the first issue, Complainant
has shown “respondent’s nonindication of the proper IBP O.R. and PTR numbers in his
pleadings (Annexes “A,” “B” and “C” of the letter complaint, more particularly his use of “IBP
Rizal 259060 for at least three years.”
The records also show a “Certification dated March 24, 1997 from IBP Rizal Chapter President
Ida R. Makahinud Javier that respondent’s last payment of his IBP dues was in 1991.”
While these allegations are neither denied nor categorically admitted by respondent, he has
invoked and cited that “being a Senior Citizen since 1992, he is legally exempt under Section
4 of Republic Act No. 7432 which took effect in 1992 in the payment of taxes, income taxes as
an example.”
....
The above cited provision of law is not applicable in the present case. In fact, respondent
admitted that he is still in the practice of law when he alleged that the “undersigned since
1992 have publicly made it clear per his Income tax Return up to the present time that he
had only a limited practice of law.” (par. 4 of Respondent’s Memorandum).
Therefore respondent is not exempt from paying his yearly dues to the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines.
On the second issue, complainant claims that respondent has misled the court about his
standing in the IBP by using the same IBP O.R. number in his pleadings of at least six years
and therefore liable for his actions. Respondent in his memorandum did not discuss this
issue.
First. Indeed, respondent admits that since 1992, he has engaged in law practice without
having paid his IBP dues. He likewise admits that, as appearing in the pleadings submitted by
complainant to this Court, he indicated “IBPRizal 259060” in the pleadings he filed in court, at
least for the years 1995, 1996, and 1997, thus misrepresenting that such was his IBP chapter
membership and receipt number for the years in which those pleadings were filed. He claims,
however, that he is only engaged in a “limited” practice and that he believes in good faith
that he is exempt from the payment of taxes, such as income tax, under R.A. No. 7432, §4 as
a senior citizen since 1992. Rule 139-A provides:
Sec. 9. Membership dues.—Every member of the Integrated Bar shall pay such annual dues
as the Board of Governors shall determine with the approval of the Supreme Court. A fixed
sum equivalent to ten percent (10%) of the collections from each Chapter shall be set aside
as a Welfare Fund for disabled members of the Chapter and the compulsory heirs of
deceased members thereof.
Sec. 10. Effect of non-payment of dues.—Subject to the provisions of Section 12 of this Rule,
default in the payment of annual dues for six months shall warrant suspension of
membership in the Integrated Bar, and default in such payment for one year shall be a
ground for the removal of the name of the delinquent member from the Roll of Attorneys.
In accordance with these provisions, respondent can engage in the practice of law only by
paying his dues, and it does not matter that his practice is “limited.” While it is true that R.A.
No. 7432, §4 grants senior citizens “exemption from the payment of individual income taxes:
provided, that their annual taxable income does not exceed the poverty level as determined
by the National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA) for that year,” the exemption
does not include payment of membership or association dues.
Second. By indicating “IBP-Rizal 259060” in his pleadings and thereby misrepresenting to the
public and the courts that he had paid his IBP dues to the Rizal Chapter, respondent is guilty
of violating the Code of Professional Responsibility which provides:
Rule 1.01—A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
CANON 7—A LAWYER SHALL AT ALL TIMES UPHOLD THE INTEGRITY AND DIGNITY OF THE
LEGAL PROFESSION, AND SUPPORT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE INTEGRATED BAR.
CANON 10—A LAWYER OWES CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND GOOD FAITH TO THE COURT.
Rule 10.01—A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any court; nor
shall he mislead or allow the court to be misled by any artifice.
Respondent’s failure to pay his IBP dues and his misrepresentation in the pleadings he filed in
court indeed merit the most severe penalty. However, in view of respondent’s advanced age,
his express willingness to pay his dues and plea for a more temperate application of the
8 and other laws applicable as well as the presentation of evidence to establish facts involved.
law, we believe the penalty of one year suspension from the practice of law or until he has
paid his IBP dues, whichever is later, is appropriate.
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Francisco R. Llamas is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for
ONE (1) YEAR, or until he has paid his IBP dues, whichever is later. Let a copy of this decision
be attached to Atty. Llamas’ personal record in the Office of the Bar Confidant and copies be
furnished to all chapters of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and to all courts in the land.
SO ORDERED.
Bellosillo (Chairman), Quisumbing, Buena and De Leon, Jr., JJ., concur.
Respondent Atty. Francisco R. Llamas, Jr. suspended for one (1) year from the practice of law,
or until he has paid his IBP dues, whichever is later.
Notes.—A lawyer deserves to be suspended for using, apparently through negligence, the IBP
official receipt number of another lawyer. (Bongalonta vs. Castillo, 240 SCRA 310 [1995])
Integrated Bar of the Philippines decisions ordering suspension or disbarment of lawyers are
merely recommendatory. (Investment and Management Services Corporation vs. Roxas, 256
SCRA 229 [1996])
A Clerk of Court is liable for Misconduct for attempting to recruit court employees in the
furtherance of the cause of a local chapter of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines— the
court employees have no involvement and should not be thrown into the controversy
concerning alleged irregularities in the designation of judges. (Re: Suspension of Clerk of
Court Rogelio R. Joboco, 294 SCRA 119 [1998])
——o0o——
[No. L-12426. February 16, 1959]
PHILIPPINE LAWYER'S ASSOCIATION, petitioner, vs. CELEDONIO AGRAVA , in his
capacity as Director of the Philippines Patent Office, respondent.
1. ATTORNEYS AT LAW; PRACTICE OF LAW; BEFORE PATENT OFFICE.—Practice of law
in the Philippines includes such appearance before the Patent Office, the representation of
applicants, oppositors, and other persons, and the prosecution of their applications for
patent, their oppositions thereto or the enforcement of their rights in patent cases.
2. ID.; ID.; ID.; WITHOUT FURTHER EXAMINATION.—A member of the bar, because of
his legal knowledge and training should be allowed to practice before the Patent Office,
without further examination or other qualification.
3. ID.; ID.; ID.; REASON.—Under the present law, members of the Philippine Bar
authorized by the Supreme Court to practice law, and in good standing, may practice their
profession before the Patent Office, for the reason that much of the business in said office
involves the interpretation and determination of the scope and application of the patent law
That part of the functions of the Patent Director are judicial or quasi-judicial, so much so that
appeals from his orders and decision are under the law taken to the Supreme Court.
ORIGINAL ACTION in the Supreme Court. Prohibition and Injunction with Preliminary
Injunction.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Arturo A. Alafriz for petitioner.
Solicitor General Ambrosio Padilla and Solicitor Pacífico P. de Castro for respondent.
MONTEMAYOR, J.:
This is a petition filed by the Philippine Lawyer's Association for prohibition and injunction
against Celedonio Agrava, in his capacity as Director of the Philippines Patent Office.
On May 27, 1957, respondent Director issued a circular announcing that he had scheduled
for June 27, 1957 an examination for the purpose of determining who are qualified to
practice as patent attorneys before the Philippines Patent Office, the said examination to
cover patent law and jurisprudence and the rules of practice before said 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. It would appear
that heretofore, respondent Director has been holding similar examinations.
It is the contention of the petitioner Philippine Lawyer's Association that one who has passed
the bar examinations and 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 consequently, the act of the respondent Director requiring members of the
Philippine Bar in good standing to take and pass an examination given by the Patent Office as
a condition precedent to their being allowed to practice before said office, such as
representing applicants in the preparation and prosecution of applications for patent, is in
excess of his jurisdiction and is in violation of the law.
In his answer, respondent Director, through the Solicitor General, maintains that 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, so much so that,
as a matter of actual practice, the prosecution of patent cases may be handled not only by
lawyers, but also by engineers and other persons with sufficient scientific and technical
training who pass the prescribed examinations as given by the Patent Office; * * * that the
Rules of Court do not prohibit the Patent Office, or any other quasi-judicial body from
requiring further condition or qualification from those who would wish to handle cases
before such bodies, as in the prosecution of patent cases before the Patent Office which, as
stated in the preceding paragraph, requires more of an application of scientific and technical
knowledge than the mere application of provisions of law; * * * that the action taken by the
respondent is in accordance with Republic Act No. 165, otherwise known as the Patent Law
of the Philippines, which is similar to the United States Patent Law, in accordance with which
the United States Patent Office has also prescribed a similar examination as that prescribed
by respondent. * * *."
Respondent further contends that just as the Patent Law of the United States of America
authorizes the Commissioner of Patents to prescribe examinations to determine as to Who
may practice before the United States Patent Office, the respondent, is similarly authorized
to do so by our Patent Law, Republic Act; No. 165. Although as already stated, the Director of
Patents, in the past, would appear to have been holding tests or examinations the passing of
which was imposed as a required qualification to practice before the Patent Office, to our
knowledge, this is the first time that the right of the Director of Patents to do so, specially as
regards members of the bar, has been questioned formally, or otherwise put in issue. And we
have given it careful thought and consideration.
The Supreme Court has the exclusive and constitutional power with respect to admission to
the practice of law in
1 the Philippines and any member of the Philippine Bar in good standing may practice law
anywhere and before any entity, whether judicial or quasi-judicial or administrative, in the
Philippines. Naturally, the question arises as to whether or not appearance before the Patent
Office and the preparation and prosecution of patent applications, etc., constitutes or is
included in the practice of law.
"The practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases or litigation in court; it embraces
the preparation of pleadings and other papers incident to actions and special proceedings,
the management of such actions and proceedings on behalf of clients before judges and
courts, and in addition, conveying. In general, all advice to clients, and all action taken for
them in matters connected with the law incorporation services, assessment and
condemnation services contemplating an appearance before a judicial body, the foreclosure
of a mortgage, enforcement of a creditor's claim in bankruptcy and insolvency proceedings,
and conducting proceedings in attachment, and in matters of estate and guardianship have
been held to constitute law practice, as do the preparation and drafting of legal instruments,
where the work done involves the determination by the trained legal mind of the legal effect
of facts and conditions." (5 Am. Jur. p. 262, 263). (Italics supplied)
"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 of Court, Vol. 3 (1953 ed.), p. 665-666, citing In re Opinion of the
Justices (Mass.), 194 N. E.
313, quoted in Rhode Is. Bar Assoc. vs. Automobile Service Assoc. (R. I.) 179 A. 139, 144).
(Italics ours)
In our opinion, 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 oppositions thereto, or the enforcement of their rights in patent
cases. In the first place, although the transaction of business in the Patent Office involves the
use and application of technical and scientific knowledge and training, still, all such business
has to be conducted and all orders and decisions of the Director of Patents have to be
rendered in accordance with the Patent Law, as well as other laws, including the Rules and
Regulations promulgated by the Patent Office in accordance with law. Not only this, but
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. For instance: Section 8 of our Patent Law provides that an
invention shall not be patentable if it is contrary to public order or morals, or to public health
or welfare. Section 9 says that an invention shall not be considered new or patentable if it
was known or used by others in the Philippines before the invention thereof by the inventor
named in the application for patent, or if it was patented or described in any printed
publication in the Philippines or any foreign country more than one year before the
application for a patent therefor, or if it had been in public use or on sale in the Philippines
for more than one year before the application for the patent therefor.
Section 10 provides that the right to the patent belongs to the true and actual inventor, his
heirs, legal representatives or assigns, and Section 12 says that an application for a patent
may be filed only by the inventor, his heirs, legal representatives or assigns. Sections 25 and
26 refer to correction of any mistake in a patent. Section 28 enumerates the grounds for
cancellation of a patent; that although any person may apply for such cancellation. under
Section 29, the Solicitor General is authorized to petition for the cancellation of a patent.
Section 30 mentions the requirements of a petition for cancellation.
Sections 31 and 32 provide for a notice of hearing of the petition f or cancellation of the
patent by the Director of Patents in case the said cancellation is warranted. Under Section 34,
at any time after the expiration of three years from the day the patent was granted, any
person may apply for the grant of a license under a particular patent on several grounds,
such as, if the patented invention is not being worked in the Philippines on a commercial
scale, or if the demand for the patented article in the Philippines is not being met to an
adequate extent and reasonable terms, or if by reason of the patentee's refusal to grant a
license on reasonable terms or by reason of the conditions attached by him to the license,
purchase, lease or use of the patented article or working of the patented process or machine
of production, the establishment of a new trade or industry in the Philippines is prevented; or
if the patent or invention relates to food or medicine or is necessary to public health or public
safety. All these things involve the application of laws, legal principles, practice and
procedure. They call for legal knowledge, training and experience for which a member of the
bar has been prepared.
In support of the proposition that much of the business and many of the acts, orders and
decisions of the Patent
Director involve questions of law or a reasonable and correct evaluation of facts, the very
Patent Law, Republic Act No. 165, Section 61, provides that:
"* * * . The applicant for a patent or for the registration of a design, any party to a
proceeding to cancel a patent or to obtain a compulsory license, and any party to any other
proceeding in the Office may appeal to the Supreme Court from any final order or decision of
the Director."
In other words, the appeal is taken to this Tribunal. If the transaction of business in the
Patent Office and the acts, orders and decisions of the Patent Director 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.
Another aspect of the question involves the consideration of the nature of the f unctions and
acts of the Head of the Patent Office.
"* * *. The Commissioner, in issuing or withholding patents, in reissues, interferences, and
extensions, exercises quasi-judicial functions. Patents are public records, and it is the duty of
the Commissioner to give authenticated copies to any person, on payment of the legal fees."
(40 Am. Jur. 537). (Italics supplied).
"* * *. The Commissioner has the only original initiatory jurisdiction that exists up to the
granting and delivering of a patent, and it is his duty to decide whether the patent is new and
whether it is the proper subject of a patent; and his action in awarding or refusing a patent is
a judicial function. In passing on an application the commissioner should decide not only
questions of law, but also questions of fact, as whether there has been a prior public use or
sale of the article invented. * * *." (60 C.J.S. 460). (Italics supplied).
The Director of Patents, exercising as he does judicial or quasi-judicial functions, it is
reasonable to hold that a member of the bar, because of his legal knowledge and training,
should be allowed to practice before the Patent Office, without further examination or other
qualification. Of course, the Director of Patents, if he deems it advisable or necessary, may
require that members of the bar practising before him enlist the assistance of technical men
and scientists in the preparation of papers and documents, such as, the drawing or technical
description of an invention or machine sought to be patented, in the same way that a lawyer
filing an application for the registration of a parcel of land on behalf of his client, is required
to submit a plan and technical description of said land, prepared by a licensed surveyor.
But respondent Director claims that he is expressly authorized by the law to require persons
desiring to practice or to do business before him to submit to an examination, even if they
are already members of the bar. He contends that our Patent Law, Republic Act No. 165, is
patterned after the United States Patent Law; and that the
U. S. Patent Office in its Rules of Practice of the United States Patent Office in Patent Cases
prescribes an examination similar to that which he (respondent) has prescribed and
scheduled. He invites our attention to the following pro visions of said Rules of Practice:
"Registration of attorneys and agents.—A register of attorneys and a register of agents are
kept in the Patent Office on which are entered the names of all persons recognized as
entitled to represent applicants before the Patent Office in the preparation and prosecution
of applications for patent. Registration in the Patent Office under the provisions of these
rules shall only entitle the person registered to practice before the Patent Office.
"(a) Attorneys at law.—Any attorney at law in good standing admitted to practice before any
United States Court or the highest court of any State or Territory of the United States who
fulfills the requirements and complied with the provisions of these rules may be admitted to
practice before the Patent Office and have his name entered on the register of attorneys.
* * * * * * *
"(c) Requirement for registration.—No person will be admitted to practice and register unless
he shall apply to the Commissioner of Patents in writing on a prescribed form supplied by the
Commissioner and furnish all requested information and material; and shall establish to the
satisfaction of the Commissioner that he is of good moral character and of good repute and
possessed of the legal and scientific and technical qualifications necessary to enable him to
render applicants for patent valuable service, and is otherwise competent to advise and
assist him in the presentation and prosecution of their application before the Patent Office.
In order that the Commissioner may determine whether a person seeking to have his name
placed upon either of the registers has the qualifications specified, satisfactory proof of good
moral character and repute, and of sufficient basic training in scientific and technical matters
must be submitted and an examination which is held from time to time must be taken and
passed. The taking of an examination may be waived in the case of any person who has
served for three years in the examining corps of the Patent Office."
Respondent states that the promulgation of the Rules of Practice of the United States Patent
Office in Patent Cases is authorized by the United States Patent Law itself, which reads as
follows:
"The Commissioner of Patents, subject to the approval of the Secretary of Commerce may
prescribe rules and regulations governing the recognition of agents, attorneys, or other
persons representing applicants or other parties before his office, and may require of such
persons, agents, or attorneys., before being recognized as representatives of applicants or
other persons, that they shall show they are of good moral character and in good repute, are
possessed of the necessary qualifications to enable them to render to applicants or other
persons valuable service, and are likewise competent to advise and assist applicants or other
persons in the presentation or prosecution of their applications or other business before the
Office. The Commissioner of Patents may, after notice and opportunity for a hearing, suspend
or exclude, either generally or in any particular case, from further practice before his office
any person, agent, or attorney shown to be incompetent or disreputable, or guilty of gross
misconduct, or who refuses to comply with the said rules and regulations, or who shall, with
intent to defraud in any manner, deceive, mislead, or threaten any applicant or prospective
applicant, or other person having immediate or prospective business before the office, by
word, circular, letter, or by advertising. The reasons for any such suspension or exclusion
shall be duly recorded. The action of the Commissioner may be reviewed upon the petition of
the person so refused recognition or so suspended or excluded by the district court of the
United States for the District of Columbia under such conditions and upon such proceedings
as the said court may by its rules determine." (Italics supplied).
Respondent Director concludes that Section 78 of Republic Act No. 165 being similar to the
provisions of law just reproduced, then he is authorized to prescribe the rules and
regulations requiring that persons desiring to practice before him should submit to and pass
an examination. We reproduce said Section 78, Republic Act No. 165, for purposes of
comparison:
"SEC. 78. Rules and regulations.—The Director subject to the approval of the Secretary of
Justice, shall promulgate the necessary rules and regulations, not inconsistent with law, for
the conduct of all business in the Patent Office."
The above provisions of Section 78 certainly and by far, are different from the provisions of
the United States Patent Law as regards authority to hold examinations to determine the
qualifications of those allowed to practice before the Patent Office. While the U. S. Patent
Law authorizes the Commissioner of Patents to require attorneys to show that they possess
the necessary qualifications and competence to render valuable service to and advise and
assist their clients in patent cases, which showing may take the form of a test or examination
to be held by the Commissioner, our Patent Law, Section 78, is silent on this important point.
Our attention has not been called to any express provision of our Patent Law, giving such
authority to determine the qualifications of persons allowed to practice before the Patent
Office.
Section 551 of the Revised Administrative Code authorizes every chief of bureau to prescribe
forms and make regulations or general orders not inconsistent with law, to secure the
harmonious and efficient administration of his branch of the service and to carry into full
effect the laws relating to matters within the jurisdiction of his bureau. Section 608 of
Republic Act 1937, known as the Tariff and Customs Code of the Philippines, provides that
the Commissioner of Customs shall, subject to the approval of the Department Head, make
all rules and regulations necessary to enforce the provisions of said code. Section 338 of the
National Internal Revenue Code, Commonwealth Act No. 466 as amended, states that the
Secretary of Finance, upon recommendation of the Collector of Internal Revenue, shall
promulgate all needful rules and regulations for the effective enforcement of the provisions
of the code. We understand that rules and regulations have been promulgated not only for
the Bureaus of Customs and Internal Revenue, but also for other bureaus of the Government,
to govern the transaction of business in and to enforce the law for said bureaus.
Were we to allow the Patent Office, in the absence of an express and clear provision of law
giving the necessary sanction, to require lawyers to submit to and pass on examination
prescribed by it before they are allowed to practice before said Patent Office, then there
would be no reason why other bureaus specially the Bureaus of Internal Revenue and
Customs, where the business in the same area are more or less complicated, such as the
presentation of books of accounts, balance sheets, etc., assessments exemptions,
depreciation, these as regards the Bureau of Internal Revenue, and the classification of
goods, imposition of customs duties, seizures, confiscation, etc., as regards the Bureau of
Customs, may not also require that any lawyer practising before them or otherwise
transacting business with them on behalf of clients, shall first pass an examination to qualify.
In conclusion, we hold that under the present law, members of the Philippine Bar authorized
by this Tribunal to practice law, and in good standing, may practice their pro fession before
the Patent Office, for the reason that much of the business in said office involves the
interpretation and determination of the scope and application of the Patent Law and other
laws applicable, as well as the presentation of evidence to establish facts involved; that part
of the functions of the Patent Director are judicial or quasijudicial, so much so that appeals
from his orders and decisions are, under the law, taken to the Supreme Court.
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for prohibition is granted and the respondent Director
is hereby prohibited from requiring members of the Philippine Bar to submit to an
examination or tests and pass the same before ore being permitted to appear and practice
before the Patent Office. No costs.
Parás, C. J., Bengzon, Padilla, Reyes, A., Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepción, Reyes, J. B. L.,
and Endencia, JJ., concur.
Petition granted.
————————
VOL. 441, OCTOBER 25, 2004 211
Cruz vs. Cabrera
Adm. Case No. 5737. October 25, 2004.*
FERDINAND A. CRUZ, complainant, vs. ATTY. STANLEY CABRERA, respondent .
Administrative Law; Attorneys; Lawyers should not be held to too strict an account for words
said in the heat of the moment, because of chagrin at losing cases, and that the big way is for
the court to condone even contemptuous language.—We hold that respondent’s outburst of
“appear ka ng appear, pumasa ka muna” does not amount to a violation of Rule 8.01 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility. Based on the facts of this case, such outburst came about
when respondent pointed out to the trial court that complainant is not a lawyer to correct
the judge’s impression of complainant’s appearance, inasmuch as the judge, in her Order of
January 14, 2002, noted that complainant is a lawyer. Such single outburst, though uncalled
for, is not of such magnitude as to warrant respondent’s suspension or reproof. It is but a
product of impulsiveness or the heat of the moment in the course of an argument between
them. It has been said that lawyers should not be held to too strict an account for words said
in the heat of the moment, because of chagrin at losing cases, and that the big way is for the
court to condone even contemptuous language.
Same; Same; A party’s right to conduct litigation personally is recognized by Section 34 of
Rule 138 of the Rules of Court.— Nonetheless, we remind respondent that complainant is not
precluded from litigating personally his cases. A party’s right to conduct litigation personally
is recognized by Section 34 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court.
Same; Same; Mandated to maintain the dignity of the legal profession, lawyers must conduct
themselves honorably and fairly; The use of intemperate language and unkind ascriptions has
no place in the dignity of judicial forum.—All lawyers should take heed that lawyers are
licensed officers of the courts who are empowered to appear, prosecute and defend; and
upon whom peculiar duties, responsibilities and liabilities are devolved by law as a
consequence. Membership in the bar imposes upon them certain obligations. Mandated to
maintain the dignity of the legal profession, they must conduct themselves honorably and
fairly. Though a lawyer’s language may be forceful and emphatic, it should always be
dignified and respectful, befitting the dignity of the legal profession. The use of intemperate
language and unkind ascriptions has no place in the dignity of judicial forum.
ADMINISTRATIVE CASE in the Supreme Court. Misconduct.
The facts are stated in the resolution of the Court.
RESOLUTION
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.:
In an administrative complaint dated July 7, 2002 , Ferdinand A. Cruz charges Atty. Stanley
Cabrera with misconduct in violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Complainant alleges that he is a fourth year law student; since the latter part of 2001, he
instituted several actions against his neighbors; he appeared for and in his behalf in his own
cases; he met respondent who acted as the counsel of his neighbors; during a hearing on
January 14, 2002, in one case before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 112, Pasay City,
presided by Judge Caridad Cuerdo, the following exchange transpired:
xxx x x x So, may we know your honor, if he is a lawyer or not?
The Court having been inhibited by the respondent from hearing the case, replied:
You are asking for my inhibition and yet you want me to rule on his appearance x x x x x x.
Thereafter, the respondent said:
Because your honor, he (pertaining to the complainant) is misrepresenting himself to be a
lawyer!
To this the complainant remarked:
“Your Honor, I’m not x x x x x x.”
Respondent, this time engulfed with anger in a raising voice said:
Appear ka ng appear, pumasa ka muna; x x x.
Respondent’s imputations were uncalled for and the latter’s act of compelling the court to
ask complainant whether he is a lawyer or not was intended to malign him before the public,
inasmuch as respondent knew that complainant is not a lawyer, having appeared for and in
his behalf as a party litigant in prior cases; respondent’s imputations of complainant’s
misrepresentation as a lawyer was patently with malice to discredit his honor, with the
intention to threaten him not to appear anymore in cases respondent was handling; the
manner, substance, tone of voice and how the words “appear ka ng appear, pumasa ka
muna!” were uttered were totally with the intention to annoy, vex and humiliate, malign,
ridicule, incriminate and discredit complainant before the public.
Complainant claims that respondent’s display of improper attitude, arrogance, misbehavior,
misconduct in the performance of his duties both as a lawyer and officer of the court, before
the public and the court, was a patent transgression of the very ethics that lawyers are sworn
to uphold in their dealings with society and corresponding appropriate penalty or sanctions
for the said administrative violations should be imposed on the respondent.
In his Comment, respondent contends that the complaint filed against him is a vicious
scheme to dissuade him from appearing as counsel for the Mina family against whom
complainant had filed several civil and criminal cases including
him to further complainant’s illegal practice of law; complainant’s complaint occurred during
a judicial proceeding wherein complainant was able to represent himself considering that he
was appearing in barong tagalog thus the presiding judge was misled when she issued an
order stating “[i]n today’s hearing both lawyers appeared;” because of which, respondent
stated: “Your honor I would like to manifest that this counsel ( referring to complainant) who
represents the plaintiff in this case is not a lawyer,” to which complainant replied: “The
counsel very well know that I am not yet a lawyer”; the reason he informed the court that
complainant is not a lawyer was because the presiding judge did not know that complainant
is not a lawyer and complainant did not inform the presiding judge that he is not a lawyer
when he stated: “for the plaintiff your honor”; he stated “pumasa ka muna” out of
indignation because of complainant’s temerity in misrepresenting himself as lawyer; it is
surprising that the City Prosecutor of Pasay City filed a complaint for oral defamation against
him considering that in a precedent case the Supreme Court stated: “It is a settled principle in
this jurisdiction that statements made in the course of judicial proceedings are absolutely
privileged (Navarrete vs. Court of Appeals, 325 SCRA 540)”; in another malicious prosecution
being perpetuated by the complainant against the Mina family pending before Judge Priscilla
Mijares of RTC Branch 108, Pasay City, they were able to prohibit the appearance of
complainant as counsel for himself as authenticated by an Order of Judge Priscilla Mijares
which allegedly stated among other; to wit:
In connection with Ferdinand A. Cruz’s motion to appear as counsel, the motion is likewise
denied, movant not having satisfied the requirements and conditions under Rule 138-A,
Sections 1 and 2.
Respondent alleges that when complainant filed an administrative case against Judge Priscilla
Mijares when said Judge stated in Tagalog in open court “Hay naku masama yung marunong
pa sa Huwes! OK?” the same was dismissed by the Honorable Court’s Third Division which
stated among
others: “That the questioned remarks of respondent were uttered more out of frustration
and in reaction to complainant’s actuations and taking into account that complainant is not
yet a lawyer but was already lecturing the court on a matter which is not even a point of
discussion was sheer arrogance on the part of the complainant.” Respondent prays that the
complaint against him be dismissed for lack of merit.
The administrative case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for
investigation, report and recommendation.
In a report, dated March 4, 2004, IBP Commissioner Lydia A. Navarro recommended
respondent’s suspension from the practice of law for a period of three months for violating
Rule 8.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility which provides:
A lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use language which is abusive, offensive or
otherwise improper.
In her report, Commissioner Navarro stated:
After going over the evidence submitted by the parties, the undersigned noted that
respondent’s averment that the utterances he made in open court is (sic) privileged
communication does not hold water for the same was (sic) not relevant to the issue of the
case in question under trial before the said court.
Respondent did not refute the fact that the same utterances he made in open court against
the complainant had been the basis for his indictment of Oral Defamation and later Unjust
Vexation under Criminal Cases Nos. 02-1031 and No. 02-2136 respectively, pending trial
before MTC Branch 45, Pasay City.
Likewise respondent did not refute complainant’s allegation that in 1979 he was held in
contempt and was not allowed to practice law for seven years by the Supreme Court in the
administrative case filed against him by Emilia E. Andres on December 14, 1979 docketed as
A.M. L-585 for his fondness in using contumacious language in his dealing with others.
From the facts obtaining, it is apparent that the utterance hurled by the respondent in the
manner, substance and tone of his voice which was not refuted by him “that appear ka ng
appear, pumasa ka muna” in whatever manner it was uttered are in itself not only abusive
but insulting specially on the part of law students who have not yet taken nor passed the bar
examination required of them.
Respondent should have been more discreet and cautious in informing the court if it was his
purpose relative to complainant’s appearance in court; although the latter appeared only in
his behalf but not for others if he had complied with the requirements of Rule 138 (Sections 1
and 3) of the Rules of Court.
Respondent should have been more temperate in making utterances in his professional
dealings so as not to offend the sensitivities of the other party as in this case.
On April 16, 2004, the IBP Board of Governors passed a Resolution to annul and set aside the
recommendation of the investigating commissioner and to approve the dismissal of the case
for lack of merit.
Prefatorily, we note that the IBP Board of Governors failed to observe the procedural
requirements of Sec. 12 of Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court on review and decision by the
Board of Governors which states:
SEC. 12. Review and decision by the Board of Governors.—(a) Every case heard by an
investigator shall be reviewed by the IBP Board of Governors upon the record and evidence
transmitted to it by the Investigator with his report. The decision of the Board upon such
review shall be in writing and shall clearly and distinctly state the facts and the reasons on
which it is based. It shall be promulgated within a period not exceeding thirty (30) days from
the next meeting of the Board following the submittal of the Investigator’s report. (Emphasis
supplied)
1
In Teodosio vs. Nava, the Court stressed the important function of the requirement that the
decision of the Board of Governors state the facts and the reasons on which it is based, which
is akin to what is required of the decisions of courts of record, thus:
For aside from informing the parties the reason for the decision to enable them to point out
to the appellate court the findings with which they are not in agreement, in case any of them
decides to appeal the decision, it is also an assurance that the judge, or the Board of
Governors in this case, reached his judgment through the process of legal reasoning.
In this case, the Board of Governors’ resolution absolving respondent of any misconduct does
not contain any findings of facts or law upon which it based its ruling. Ordinarily,
noncompliance with the rule would result in the remand of the case. Nonetheless, where the
controversy has been pending resolution for quite sometime and the issues involved could be
resolved on the basis of the records on appeal, the Court has opted to resolve the case in the
interest of justice and speedy disposition of cases. This case falls within the exception.
We hold that respondent’s outburst of “appear ka ng appear, pumasa ka muna” does not
amount to a violation of Rule 8.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Based on the facts of this case, such outburst came about when respondent pointed out to
the trial court that complainant is not a lawyer to correct the judge’s impression of
complainant’s appearance, inasmuch as the judge, in her Order of January 14, 2002, noted
that complainant is a lawyer. Such single outburst, though uncalled for, is not of such
magnitude as to warrant respondent’s suspension or reproof. It is but a product of
impulsiveness or the heat of the moment in the course of an argument between them. It has
been said that lawyers should not be held to too strict an account for words said in the heat
of the moment, because of chagrin at losingcases, and that the big way is for the court to
condone even contemptuous language.
Nonetheless, we remind respondent that complainant is not precluded from litigating
personally his cases. A party’s right to conduct litigation personally is recognized by Section
34 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court:
SEC. 34. By whom litigation conducted.—In the court of a justice of the peace a party may
conduct his litigation in person, with the aid of an agent or friend appointed by him for that
purpose, or with the aid of an attorney. In any other court, a party may conduct his litigation
personally or by aid of an attorney, and his appearance must be either personal or by a duly
authorized member of the bar.
In Maderada vs. Mediodea, this Court expounded on the foregoing provision, thus:
This provision means that in a litigation, parties may personally do everything during its
progress—from its commencement to its termination. When they, however, act as their own
attorneys, they are restricted to the same rules of evidence and procedure as those qualified
to practice law; otherwise, ignorance would be unjustifiably rewarded. Individuals have long
been permitted to manage, prosecute and defend their own actions; and when they do so,
they are not considered to be in the practice of law. “One does not practice law by acting for
himself any more than he practices medicine by rendering first aid to himself.”
The practice of law, though impossible to define exactly, involves the exercise of a profession
or vocation usually for gain, mainly as attorney by acting in a representative capacity and as
counsel by rendering legal advise to others. Private practice has been defined by this Court as
follows:
x x x. Practice is more than an isolated appearance, for it consists in frequent or customary
action, a succession of acts of the same kind. In other words, it is frequent habitual exercise.
Practice of law to fall within the prohibition of statute [refer- ring to the prohibition for
judges and other officials or employees of the superior courts or of the Office of the Solicitor
General from engaging in private practice] has been interpreted as customarily or habitually
holding one’s self out to the public, as a lawyer and demanding payment for such services. x x
x.
Clearly, in appearing for herself, complainant was not customarily or habitually holding
herself out to the public as a lawyer. Neither was she demanding payment for such services.
Hence, she cannot be said to be in the practice of law.
On the other hand, all lawyers should take heed that lawyers are licensed officers of the
courts who are empowered to appear, prosecute and defend; and upon whom peculiar
duties, responsibilities and liabilities are devolved by law as a consequence. Membership in
the bar imposes upon them certain obligations. Mandated to maintain the dignity of the legal
profession, they must
conduct themselves honorably and fairly. Though a lawyer’s language may be forceful and
emphatic, it should always be dignified and respectful, befitting the dignity of the legal
profession. The use of intemperate language and unkind ascriptions has no place in the
dignity of judicial forum.
WHEREFORE, the complaint against respondent Atty. Stanley Cabrera for misconduct in
violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility is DISMISSED for lack of merit. He is,
however, admonished to be more circumspect in the performance of his duties as an officer
of the court.
SO ORDERED.
Puno (Chairman), Callejo, Sr., Tinga and ChicoNazario, JJ., concur.
Complaint dismissed, but respondent admonished.
_______________
Note.—A lawyer shall abstain from scandalous, offensive or menacing language or behavior
before the
Bar Matter No. 553. June 17, 1993.*
MAURICIO C. ULEP, petitioner, vs. THE LEGAL CLINIC, INC., respondent.
Attorneys; Words and Phrases; Meaning of “Practice of Law.”—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. 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 contracts by which legal rights are secured, although
such matter may or may not be pending in a court.
Same; Same; Same.—When a person participates in a trial and advertises himself as a lawyer,
he is in the practice of law. 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. Giving advice for compensation regarding the legal status and rights of
another and the conduct with respect thereto constitutes a practice of law. One who renders
an opinion as to the proper interpretation of a statute, and receives pay for it, is, to that
extent, practicing law.
Same; The practice of giving out legal information constitutes practice of law.—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 providedfor 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.”
________________ * EN BANC.
379
VOL. 223, JUNE 17, 1993 379
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.
Same; Same.—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
onestop-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.
Same; Same; The services offered by respondent cannot be performed by paralegals here as
distinguished from the United States.—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. As
the concept of the “paralegal” 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. 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.
Same; Lawyers may not advertise their services or expertise.— 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. 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. 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.
Same; Exceptions.—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.
Same; Same.—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.
Same; Same.—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.
Same; Legal profession here has been under attack on its integrity.—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.
ORIGINAL PETITION in the Supreme Court. 381
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
R E S O L UT I O N

REGALADO, J.: THE 7 F Victoria Bldg. 429 UN Ave.,

Petitioner prays this Court “to order the respondent to cease and desist from issuing LEGAL Ermita, Manila nr. US Embassy
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 1
exercise of the law profession other than those allowed by law.”
CLINIC, INC. Tel. 521-7232; 521-7251; 522-2041; 521-0767
The advertisements complained of by herein petitioner are as follows:
It is the submission of petitioner that the advertisements above reproduced are
Annex A 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
SECRET MARRIAGE? legal profession, he is ashamed and offended by the said advertisements, hence the reliefs
sought in his petition as hereinbefore quoted.
P560.00 for a valid marriage.
In its answer to the petition, respondent admits the fact of publication of said advertisements
Info on DIVORCE.
at its instance, but claims that it is not engaged in the practice of law but in the rendering of
ABSENCE. “legal support services” through paralegals with the use of modern computers and electronic
machines.
ANNULMENT. VISA.
Respondent further argues that assuming that the services advertised are legal services, the
THE Please call: 521-0767, 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
LEGAL 5217232, 5222041
Arizona, reportedly decided by the United States Supreme Court on June 7, 1977.
CLINIC, INC. 8:30 am-6:00 pm
Considering the critical implications on the legal profession of the issues raised herein, we
7- Flr. Victoria Bldg., UN Ave.,
required the (1) Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), (2) Philippine Bar Association (PBA),
Mla. (3) Philippine Lawyers’ Association (PLA), (4) U.P. Women Lawyers’ Circle (WILOCI), (5)
Women Lawyers Association of the Philippines ( WLAP), and (6) Federacion Internacional de
Annex B Abogadas (FIDA) to submit their respective position papers on the controversy
GUAM DIVORCE 3 and, thereafter, their memoranda. The said bar
associations readily responded and extended their valuable services and cooperation of
DON PARKINSON
which this Court takes note with appreciation and gratitude.
an Attorney in Guam, is giving FREE BOOKS on Guam Divorce through The Legal Clinic
The main issues posed for resolution before the Court are whether or not the services
beginning Monday to Friday during office hours.
offered by respondent, The Legal Clinic, Inc., as advertised by it constitutes practice of law
Guam divorce. Annulment of Marriage. Immigration Problems, Visa Ext. Quota/Non-quota and, in either case, whether the same can properly be the subject of the advertisements
Res. & Special Retiree’s Visa. Declaration of Absence. Remarriage to Filipina Fiancees. herein complained of.
Adoption. Investment in the Phil. US/Foreign Visa for Filipina Spouse/Children. Call Marivic.
Before proceeding with an in-depth analysis of the merits of this case, we deem it proper and
382 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.

382 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 1. Integrated Bar of the Philippines:

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,
constitute practice of law? x x x
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.
xxx
A. The use of the name “The Legal Clinic, Inc.” gives the impression that respondent
corporation is being operated by lawyers and that it renders legal services.
While the respondent repeatedly denies that it offers legal services to the public, the
advertisements in question give the impression that respondent is offering legal services. The
Petition in fact simply assumes this to be so, as earlier mentioned, apparently because this
(is) the effect that the advertisements have on the reading public.
The impression created by the advertisements in question can be traced, first of all, to the
very name being used by respondent —“The Legal Clinic, Inc.” Such a name, it is respectfully
submitted connotes the rendering of legal services for legal problems, just like a medical
clinic connotes medical services for medical problems. More importantly, the term “Legal
Clinic” connotes lawyers, as the term medical clinic connotes doctors.
Furthermore, the respondent’s name, as published in the advertisements subject of the
present case, appears with (the) scale(s) of justice, which all the more reinforces the
impression that it is being operated by members of the bar and that it offers legal services. In
addition, the advertisements in question appear with a picture and name of a person being
represented as a lawyer from Guam, and this practically removes whatever doubt may still
remain as to the nature of the service or services being offered.
It thus becomes irrelevant whether respondent is merely offering “legal support services” as
claimed by it, or whether it offers legal services as any lawyer actively engaged in law practice
does. And it becomes unnecessary to make a distinction between “legal services” and “legal
support services,” as the respondent would have it. The advertisements in question leave no
room for doubt in the minds of the reading public that legal services are being offered by
lawyers, whether true or not.
B. The advertisements in question are meant to induce the performance of acts contrary to
law, morals, public order and public policy.
It may be conceded that, as the respondent claims, the advertisements in question are only
meant to inform the general public of the services being offered by it. Said advertisements,
however, emphasize a 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. x x x.
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 a special contract of permanent union between a man and a woman
entered into in accordance with law for the establishment of conjugal and family life. It is the
foundation of the family and an inviolable social institution whose nature, consequences, and
incidents are governed by law and not subject to stipulation, except that marriage
settlements may fix the property relation during the marriage within the limits provided by
this Code.
By simply reading the questioned advertisements, it is obvious that the message being
conveyed is that Filipinos can avoid the legal consequences of a marriage celebrated in
accordance with our law, by simply going to Guam for a divorce. This is not only misleading,
but encourages, or serves to induce, violation of Philippine law. At the very least, this can be
considered “the dark side” of legal practice, where certain defects in Philippine laws are
exploited for the sake of profit. At worst, this is outright malpractice.
Rule 1.02.—A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the law or at
lessening confidence in the legal system.
In addition, it may also be relevant to point out that advertisements such as that shown in
Annex “A” of the Petition, which contains a cartoon of a motor vehicle with the words “Just
Married” on its bumper and seems to address those planning a “secret marriage,” if not
suggesting a “secret marriage,” makes light of the “special contract of permanent union,” the
inviolable social institution,” which is how the Family Code describes marriage, obviously to
emphasize its sanctity and inviolability. Worse, this particular advertisement appears to
encourage marriages celebrated in secrecy, which is suggestive of immoral publication of
applications for a marriage license.
If the article “Rx for Legal Problems” is to be reviewed, it can readily be concluded that the
above impressions one may gather from the advertisements in question are accurate. The
Sharon Cuneta-Gabby Concepcion example alone confirms what the advertisements suggest.
Here it can be seen that criminal acts are being encouraged or committed (a bigamous
marriage in Hong Kong or Las Vegas) with impunity simply because the jurisdiction of
Philippine courts does not extend to the place where the crime is committed.
Even if it be assumed, arguendo, (that) the “legal support services” respondent offers do not
constitute legal services as commonly understood, the advertisements in question give the
impression that respondent corporation is being operated by lawyers and that it offers legal
services, as earlier discussed. Thus, the only logical consequence is that, in the eyes of an
ordinary newspaper reader, members of the bar themselves are encouraging or inducing the
performance of acts which are contrary to law, morals, good customs and the public good,
thereby destroying and demeaning the integrity of the Bar. x x x
It is respectfully submitted that respondent should be enjoined from causing the publication
of the advertisements in question, or any other advertisements similar thereto. It is also
submitted that respondent should be prohibited from further performing or offering some of
the services it presently offers, or, at the very least, from offering such services to the public
in general.
The IBP is aware of the fact that providing computerized legal research, electronic data
gathering, storage and retrieval, standardized legal forms, investigators for gathering of
evidence, and like services will greatly benefit the legal profession and should not be stifled
but instead encouraged. However, when the conduct of such business by non-members of
the Bar encroaches upon the practice of law, there can be no choice but to prohibit such
business.
Admittedly, many of the services involved in the case at bar can be better performed by
specialists in other fields, such as computer experts, who by reason of their having devoted
time and effort exclusively to such field cannot fulfill the exacting requirements for admission
to the Bar. To prohibit them from “encroaching” upon the legal profession will deny the
profession of the great benefits and advantages of modern technology. Indeed, a lawyer
using a computer will be doing better than a lawyer using a typewriter, even if both are
(equal) in skill.
Both the Bench and the Bar, however, should be careful not to allow or tolerate the illegal
practice of law in any form, not only for the protection of members of the Bar but also, and
more importantly, for the protection of the public. Technological development in the
profession may be encouraged without tolerating, but instead ensuring prevention of, illegal
practice.
There might be nothing objectionable if respondent is allowed to perform all of its services,
but only if such services are made available exclusively to members of the Bench and Bar.
Respondent would then be offering technical assistance, not legal services. Alternatively, the
more difficult task of carefully distinguishing between which service may be offered to the
public in general and which should be made available exclusively to members of the Bar may
be undertaken. This, however, may require further proceedings because of the factual
considerations involved.
It must be emphasized, however, that some of respondent’s services ought to be prohibited
outright, such as acts which tend to suggest or induce celebration abroad of marriages which
are bigamous or otherwise illegal and void under Philippine Law. While respondent may not
be prohibited from simply disseminating information regarding such matters, it must be
required to include, in the information given, a disclaimer that it is not authorized to practice
law, that certain course of action may be illegal under Philippine law, that it is not authorized
or capable of rendering a legal opinion, that a lawyer should be consulted before deciding on
which course of action to take, and that it cannot recommend any particular lawyer without
subjecting itself to possible sanctions for illegal practice of law.
If respondent is allowed to advertise, advertising should be directed exclusively at members
of the Bar, with a clear and unmistakable disclaimer that it is not authorized to practice law
or perform legal services.
The benefits of being assisted by paralegals cannot be ignored.
But nobody should be allowed to represent himself as a “paralegal” for profit, without such
term being clearly defined by rule or regulation, and without any adequate and effective
means of regulating his activities. Also, law practice in a corporate form may prove to be
advantageous to the legal profession, but before allowance of such practice may be
considered, the corporation’s Article of Incorporation and By-laws must conform to each and
every provision of the Code of Professional Responsibility and the
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
________________
5 Memorandum prepared by Atty. Jose A. Grapilon, Chairman, Committee on Bar Discipline,
and Atty. Kenny H. Tantuico, 1 -18, 27-29; Rollo 414-416, 425-427.
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.
9).
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. , Rule 1 8, 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
4. The Honorable Supreme Court has th power to suppre s and punish the Legal Clinic and its
corporate officers for its unauthorized practice of law and for its unethical, misleading and
immoral advertising. x x x
_______________
6 Position Paper prepared by Atty. Rafael D. Abiera, Jr., Chairman, Committee on Lawyers’
Rights and Legal Ethics, and Atty. Arturo M. del Rosario, President, 5-6; Rollo, 241-242.
Respondent posits that it is not engaged in the practice of law. It claims that it merely
renders “legal support services” to lawyers, 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 Investment Law of the Philippines and such other related laws.
Its advertised services unmistakably require the application of the aforesaid laws, 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
7 practice of law.”
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 th bar
examination . Only then, is a lawyer qualified to practice law.
While the use of a paralegal is sanctioned in many jurisdictions 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 take 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
8 services without being qualified to offer such services.”
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 The Legal Clinic, Inc.
Respondent’s allegations are further belied by the very admissions of its President and
majority stockholder, Atty.
Nogales, who gave an insight on the structur and main purpo e of Respondent corporation in
the aforementioned “Starweek” article.”
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 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 this 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 as 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 beable to do that which by our laws cannot b 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
10 justify permanent elimination from the Bar.
6. Federation International de Abogadas:
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.
“x x x Of necessity, no one xxx 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 x x x clear that (the consultant’s) knowledge of the
law, and his use of that 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 x x x.
It is not only presumed that all men know the law, but it is a fact that most men have
considerable acquaintance with the broad features of the law x x x. Our knowledge of the law
—accurate or inaccurate—moulds our conduct not only when we are acting for ourselves,
but when we are serving others. Bankers, liquor dealers and laymen generally possess rather
precise knowledge of the laws touching their particular business or profession. A good
example is the architect, who must be familiar with zoning, building and fire prevention
codes, factory and tenement house statutes, and who draws plans and specifications 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 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 matters, and without regard to legal training or lack of it. More
recently, consultants like the defendant have tendered to the smaller employers 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 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 primary 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 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 representation 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-ofway and the principal role of the negotiator is to assess the probable
outcome of the dispute and persuade the opposite party to the same opinion, then it may be
that only a lawyer can accept the assignment. Or if a controversy between an employer and
his men grows from differing interpretations of a contract, or of a statute, it is quite likely
that defendant should not handle it. But I need not reach a definite conclusion here, since
the situation is not presented by the proofs.
“Defendant also appears to represent the employer before administrative agencies of the
federal government, especially before trial examiners of the National Labor Relations Board.
An agency of the federal government, acting by virtue of an authority granted by the
Congress may regulate the representation of parties before such agency. The State of New
Jersey is without power to interfere with such determination or to forbid representation
before the agency by one whom the agency admits. The rules of the National Labor Relations
Board give to a party the right to appear ‘in person, or by counsel, or by other
representative.’ Rules and Regulations, September 11th, 1946, S. 203.31. ‘Counsel’ here
means a licensed attorney, and ‘other 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 succinctly 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-
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 information materials
may not constitute practice of law. The business is similar to that of a bookstore where the
customer buys materials 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 purports to say what the law
is amounts 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. x x x
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 the
publication and sale of the kits, such publication and sale did not constitute the unlawful
practice of law x x x. There being no legal impediment under the statute to the sale of the kit,
there was no proper basis for the injunction against defendant maintaining an office for the
purpose of selling to persons seeking a divorce, separation, annulment or separation
agreement any printed material or writings relating to matrimonial law or the prohibition in
the memorandum of modification of the judgment against defendant having an, interest in
any publishing house publishing his manuscript on divorce and against his having any
personal contact with any prospective purchaser. The record does fully support, however,
the finding that for the charge 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
counseling,” 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
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.”
A prefatory discussion on the meaning of the phrase “practice of law” becomes exigent for a
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
12 legal knowledge or skill.
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 contracts by which legal rights are
secured, although such matter may or may not be pending
13 in a court.
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
14 proper interpretation and enforcement of law.
When a person participates in a trial and advertises
15 himself as a lawyer, he is in the practice of law. One who confers with clients,
advises them as to their legal rights and then takes the business to an attorney and asks the
16 latter to look after the case in court, is also practicing law. Giving advice for
compensation regarding the legal status and rights of another and the conduct with respect
thereto
17 constitutes a practice of law. One who renders an opinion as to the proper
interpretation of a statute, and receives
18 pay for it, is, to that extent, practicing law.
19
In the recent case of Cayetano vs. Monsod, 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 in court. (Land Title Abstract and
Trust Co. v. Dworken, 129 Ohio St. 23, 193 N.E. 650). A person is also considered to be in the
practice of law when he:
“x x x for valuable consideration engages in the business of advising persons, firms,
associations or corporations as to their rights under the law, or appears in a representative
capacity as an advocate in proceedings, pending or prospective, before any court,
commissioner, referee, board, body, committee, or commission constituted by law or
authorized to settle controversies and there, in such representative capacity, performs any
act or acts for the purpose of obtaining or defending the rights of their clients under the law.
Otherwise stated, one who, in a representative capacity, engages in the business of advising
clients as to their rights under the law, or while so engaged performs any act or acts either in
court or outside of court for that purpose, is engaged in the practice of law. (State ex. rel.
Mckittrick v. C.S. Dudley and Co., 102 S.W. 2d 895, 340 Mo. 852).”
This Court, in the case of Philippine Lawyers Association v. Agrava (105 Phil. 173, 176-177),
stated:
“The practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases or litigation in court; it embraces
the preparation of pleadings and other papers incident to actions and special proceedings,
the management of such actions and proceedings on behalf of clients before judges and
courts, and in addition, conveying. In general, all advice to clients, and all action taken for
them in matters connected with the law incorporation services, assessment and
condemnation services contemplating an appearance before a judicial body, the foreclosure
of a mortgage, enforcement of a creditor’s claim in bankruptcy and insolvency proceedings,
and conducting proceedings in attachment, and in matters of estate and guardianship have
been held to constitute law practice, as do the preparation and drafting of legal instruments,
where the work done involves the determination by the trained legal mind of the legal effect
of facts and conditions. (5 Am. Jr. p. 262, 263).
“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 of 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.] 179
A. 139, 144).”
The practice of law, therefore, covers a wide range of activities in and out of court. Applying
the aforementioned criteria to the case at bar, we agree with the perceptive findings and
observations of the aforestated bar associations that the activities of respondent, as
advertised, constitute “practice of law.”
The contention of respondent that it merely offers legal support services can neither be
seriously considered nor sustained. Said proposition is belied by respondent’s own
description of the services it has been offering, to wit:
“Legal support services basically consist 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 of
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 that 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
20 dispensing or administering legal services.
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 nondiagnostic 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.
The aforesaid conclusion is further strengthened by an article published in the January 13,
1991 issue of the Starweek/The Sunday Magazine of the Philippine 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 CunetaConcepcion 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 specialists are backed up by a battery of
paralegals, counsellors and attorneys.
Atty. Nogales set up The Legal Clinic in 1984. Inspired by the trend in the medical field toward
specialization, it caters to clients who cannot afford the services of the big law firms.
The Legal Clinic has regular and walk-in clients. “When they come, we start by analyzing the
problem. That’s what doctors do also. They ask you how you contracted what’s bothering
you, they take your temperature, they observe you for the symptoms, and so on. That’s how
we operate, too. And once the problem has been categorized, then it’s referred to one of our
specialists.”
There are cases which do not, in medical terms, require surgery or follow-up treatment.
These The Legal Clinic disposes of in a matter of minutes. “Things like preparing a simple
deed of sale or an affidavit of loss can be taken care of by our staff or, if this were a hospital,
the residents or the interns. We can take care of these matters on a while you wait basis.
Again, kung baga sa ospital, out-patient, hindi kailangang ma-confine. It’s just like a common
cold or diarrhea,” explains Atty. Nogales.
Those cases which require 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 that problem. Now, if there were other heirs contesting your rich
relative’s 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 onestop-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
22 functions of lawyers engaged in the practice of law.
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
23 entitled to practice law.
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
24 subject to the disciplinary control of the court.
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
25 specifically so provide. 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
26 construction, interpretation, operation and effect of law. 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
27 judicial department can exercise little control.
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
28
Philippines. As the concept of the “paralegal” 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.
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 Illustrations: (a) A law student who has successfully completed his third year of the
regular four-year prescribed law curriculum and is enrolled in a recognized law school’s
clinical legal education program approved by the Supreme Court (Rule 138-A, Rules of Court);
(b) An official or other person appointed or designated in accordance with law to
appear for the Government of the Philippines in a case in which the government has an
interest (Sec. 33, Rule 138, id.);
(c) An agent or friend who aids a party-litigant in a municipal court for the purpose of
conducting the litigation (Sec. 34, Rule 138, id.);
(d) A person, resident of the province and of good repute for probity and ability, who is
appointed counsel de oficio to defend the accused in localities where members of the bar are
not available (Sec. 4, Rule 116, id.);
(e) Persons registered or specially recognized to practice in the Philippine Patent Office
(now known as the Bureau of Patents, Trademarks and Technology Transfer) in trademark,
service mark and trade name cases (Rule 23, Rules of Practice in Trademark Cases);
(f) A non-lawyer who may appear before the National Labor Relations Commission or
any Labor Arbiter only if (1) he represents himself as a party to the case; (2) he represents an
organization or its members, provided that he shall be made to present written proof that he
is properly authorized; or (3) he is a duly-accredited member of any legal aid office duly
recognized by
405
VOL. 223, JUNE 17, 1993 405
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 oflaw. 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.
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. 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. 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.
The standards of the legal profession codemn 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. Thus, in the case of The Director of
Religious Affairs vs. Estanislao R. Bayot an advertisement, similar to those of respondent
which are involved in the present proceeding, was held to constitute improper advertising or
solicitation.
The pertinent part of the decision therein reads:
It is undeniable that the advertisement in question was a flagrant violation by the respondent
of the ethics of his profession. It being a brazen solicitation of business from the public.
Section 25 of Rule 127 expressly provides among other things that “the practice of soliciting
cases at law for the purpose of gain, either personally or thru paid agents or brokers,
constitutes malpractice.” It is highly unethical for an attorney to advertise his talents or skill
as a merchant advertises his wares. Law is a profession and not a trade. The lawyer degrades
himself and his profession who stoops to and adopts the practices of mercantilism by
advertising his services or offering them to the public. As a member of the bar, he defiles the
temple of justice with mercenary activities as the 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 the character and conduct.”
(Canon 27, Code of Ethics.)
The advertisement in said case was as follows: “Marriage license promptly secured thru our
assistance & the annoyance of delay or publicity avoided if desired, and marriage arranged to
wishes of parties. Consultation on any matter free for the poor. Everything confidential.
We repeat, 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 to magnify his success. He
easily sees the difference between a normal by-product of able service and the unwholesome
result of propaganda.
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.
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.”
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.
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
44 not under a designation of special branch of law.
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 abovementioned exceptions.
The ruling in the case of Bates, et al. vs. State Bar of Arizona, which is repeatedly invoked and
constitutes the justification relied upon by respondent, is obviously not applicable to the case
at bar. Foremost is the fact that the disciplinary rule involved in said case explicitly allows a
lawyer, as an exception to the prohibition against advertisements by lawyers, to publish a
statement of legal fees for an initial consultation or the availability upon request of a written
schedule of fees or an estimate of the
fee to be charged for the specific services. No such exception is provided for, expressly or
impliedly whether in our former Canons of Professional Ethics or the present Code of
Professional Responsibility. Besides, even the disciplinary rule in the Bates case contains a
proviso that the exceptions stated therein are “not applicable in any state unless and until it
is implemented by such authority in that state.” 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
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 or to aid a layman in the
unauthorized practice of law. 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,
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.

Narvasa (C.J.), Cruz, Feliciano, Padilla, Bidin, Griño-Aquino, Davide, Jr., Romero, Nocon,
Bellosillo, Melo and Quiason, JJ., concur.

Respondent restrained and enjoined from issuing or causing the publication of the
questioned advertisement.

Notes.—Lawyers may not engage in forum-shopping by splitting actions or appeals (Tan vs.
Court of Appeals, 199 SCRA 212).

Reason for award of attorney’s fees must be stated in the court’s decision (Policarpio vs.
Court of Appeals, 194 SCRA 729).

——o0o——

© Copyright 2018 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.