2 oe Jaen. slo. 218, May 10,)4%5 fa Ss BAKER G MCKENZIE, Respondent _ “FACTS: sos ey Adnamo E- D sought fo €ujorn , ov prokubst Sreragh A qudteinl oder an 6. Collas “ and eel other laps from. patheing lam) under te name of | Raker > Magkewgie a lus fon ongeut ged lee Tiluens: ISCAS i ee ag ee whether or not Phulippine Lawyers can prekia law under an alien law fim. HELD * — paker B Mackenrie being om alin law firm. cannot protic law in the lads opines (see. 1, Rule |36, Poids of Court) Reesponchewsts aside fom being members of the Philippine. | bor, ‘packing under “she fin name of Guerrero & Torres are ere or aseosiates of Raker Bi mockenie. i A poinkd ont by ee Sclintry Genova vrespencheude” use se_of a “the firm NAM baker &, Mackenzie, omsttutes a represerdorinn that being assouakd with the ee they emt Sender Jeqal Stevieos BF the t fo multinachouw business vibes avd thor engaged. te (ey tade and inveshnet” This Is unethical because faker ttackennic it pot auton’ +o prachie law) heve. ( Ruben E. Agpalo Legal Bis, 1183 NS — Wherefre, the respondeuds care eajined prow prachaing | laws vindtor “the, cm. neue poker & thackenyie